Taking Sides: Smiths vs. REM

I mean, REM have some very good songs but overall their sound is just not very interesting. Whereas every canonical album by the Smiths is better than every album by every other band.

Ah, but in the grand scheme of things, who wasn't?

"who the hell are the smiths?"

This is a toughie...going by which meant more to me back in the day, I'd go with REM. I'd rather listen to the Smiths now, though, and that's more important. So the Smiths it is.

A great "taking sides" question, because they were like the UK and USA sides of the "college rock" coin when I started school.

That depends on where in America you mean. I grew up in Southern California where Morrissey was practically worshipped as a God. Ditto Portland, Oregon when I lived there. It was an American band, too, who penned the immortal smoulder-up-to-the-chorus lines: "And I sure hate those people who like the Smiths/but I sure as fuck don't trust nobody who don't." Cockney Rebel, now, for sure, that'll raise twenty shrugs to every faint glimmer of recognition. Anyhow, I'm from America, and while I think the point about the Smiths having broken up and thereby ensured their immortality is a good one, the end it's not even close. It's the Smiths. Lyrics, music, overall aesthetic. Yes. The widely bootlegged practice tape of Marr & Mozz doing acoustic renditions of BOC's "True Confessions" gives them the final nod, if any further support were needed.

Look at Morrissey's solo career. There's your answer.

You forget I'm a hyperfan who has everything down to the singles.

(Lingering shame over ill-advised 13-year-old Morrissey obsession prevents me from actively buying recent singles, so I'm not much good on the A+B-side half of the question.)

(Note: the above is the same reason I have nothing of substance to contribute to the main question of this thread. For maybe three years of my young life, REM and the Smiths were the absolute core of my listening.)

*ILL-ADVISED?* *beats Nitsuh down*

Um, anyway, violence aside. Single...*ponders duly in musty corners of brain* John's choice is a good one, franks to that great "Moon River" rendition. Were gun held to head, though, and allowing for the B-sides -- "November Spawned A Monster" (due to "Girl Least Likely To"), "Roy's Keen" (for "Lost" and "The Edges Are No Longer Parallel"), or the _At KROQ_ EP for the phone-in snippets at the end. "THEM AND THEIR SHINY BLACK LEATHER SHOES!" Answers subject to change.

Best *song*? Jesus, John, you're a cruel man, I can't narrow that down. "Nobody Loves Us" = v. nice. "The Edges Are No Longer Parallel" -- particularly great. "Disappointed," "Everyday Is Like Sunday," the cover of "That's Entertainment," "The Loop," the live version and the studio version of "Jack the Ripper," "Hairdresser on Fire," "Speedway," "Billy Budd," "The Teachers Are Afraid of the Pupils," "Reader Meets Author," "A Swallow on My Neck," "The Boyracer," "Driving Your Girlfriend Home," "There is a Place in Hell For Me and My Friends," "The Last of the Famous International Playboys," "Girl Least Likely To," the live cover of "Cosmic Dancer," the cover of "Skin Storm," "I Know Very Well How I Got My Name," "Will Never Marry"...um, stop me if this gets a bit obsessive...

Oh, I prefer the Smiths. They're just better all round-- the music, the lyrics, the fashion sense. And their overall strangeness (as discussed in that Pinefox thread last month) is still compelling. Also, Michael Stipe has never made me laugh. Morrissey-what a riot! "Reggae is vile"-ha ha ha! I can't believe that comment caused such a ruckus, it's so silly.

Not to my knowledge, but I gather he was the one who helped them get the American deal for Shouting Quietly (them being Bradford, the song's originators, who did the Smiths-wannabe thing way better than the bastards in Gene).

Uh? This Charming Man, Panic, How Soon is Now and Shoplifters of the World Unite - one *style* or several?

Smiths vs REM. I was very disappointed when I first heard REM - I found them unfocussed lyrically and too conventionally rock in their song-structures. They were just another bunch of paisley underground janglers to my ears. (It wasn't until I heard 'Murmur' a few years later that I changed my mind - and I still think that is their only truly marvellous record). Somebody bought me 'Lifes Rich Pageant' for my birthday, and I took it back to Woolies to exchange for the Pet Shop Boys' 'Please'. An urgent and key moment in my youth.

What Nitsuh said. I know better than to think I can really look at his work objectively, even though I know he's written bucketloads of terrible songs. Though I'm fond of the earlier REM material and have a certain nostalgia for them always, since they were my first concert, there's no way that they could even come close to the influence the Smiths had on me (for better or worse).

And might I note that I am glad I didn't have to cope with a Morrissey obsession on top of my troublesome years of burgeoning pubescence. Seeing Morrissey "perform" a couple of years ago banged the nail in that coffin snugly. I was hoping to catch a glimpse of Moz chowing on a PB & banana sandwich while "Thus Spake Zarathustra" cascaded down on the crowd - no such luck, though.

What's better - Johnny Marr teaming w/ Bernard Sumner, or Peter Buck teaming w/ Mark Eitzel? The Buck/Eitzel combo (on Eitzel's West album) calls to mind "Fresh Screwdriver" (which is currently annoying me to the far ends of my tether).

80's music education: REM/The Smiths

Is that how you see it then?

Then, along comes three of their best ever albums.

There are 16 tracks on Hi-Fi, yes.

All of this is personal opinion, and I don't mean to say that this should be true for everybody.

?

I loved The Smiths, but they're a hard band to carry on loving in the same way after a certain age.

I pick... Throwing Muses!

REM and the smiths are my two favorite bands; but the smiths are happy music for me now, while REM still invokes emotional responses in me.

and up is in my top three REM albums. took me seven years to get into it, but now it's a must.

I have no stats to back this up. It is entirely a feeling of mine, but it seems to me that when it comes to today's overall cultural relevance, the balance tips so much in favor of The Smiths.

erm duhhh

I think we were talking in another thread about how REM has fallen out of favor, based on the fact that their records can mostly be had for cheap and don't seem to be sought out by younger people.

Kinda hard to compare, though, since REM put out almost four times as many studio albums. Imagine if they'd split up after Lifes Rich Pageant.

Not good bands

True. Theyre great bands

Love both but I'm going for REM.

Surprised darragh doesnt like REM actually

I like both, but I'll take any '80s R.E.M. album over any Smiths album.

Idk I feel like the sublime introspection REM was lauded for only surfaces in fleeting glimpses in their actual recorded output

Idk I feel like the sublime introspection REM was lauded for only surfaces in fleeting glimpses in their actual recorded output
--i;m the worst poster e9er (Drugs A. Money)

I don't recall introspection being a particularly prominent critical touchstone for R.E.M. It's probably not the biggest thing someone would look for in Michael Stipe's lyrics.

Yeah, I think REM is famous for creating hard-to-articulate feelings and mood, not for sublime introspection!

^this

As much as I love Rourke's playing, I think that Berry/Mills were easily the superior rhythm section, and R.E.M. made quite a lot of records which I still enjoy listening to in full. The only Smiths album that I honestly think works from start to finish is The Queen Is Dead, although I've come to appreciate Meat Is Murder a lot more recently.

REM bores me to tears these days, Smiths still vital, funny, evocative, surprising, detailed.

I'd guess that REM will, over time, be more influential on a subtle musical level and The Smiths will be more influential on a conceptual level. The latter is what tends to get written about. Personally I prefer Smiths.

their actual recorded output
you know this brings up an interesting point more broadly, which is that I wonder how much of the initial R.E.M. impact is due to what a phenomenal live band they were early in their career? Also makes me wonder about other bands whose live shows exceeded their recording impact.