Monster

by

R.E.M.

Edit

I was walking through the used-record shop and was disgusted to find several copies of Monster. Why did so many people give this tantalizing rock record away? Perhaps because it doesn't offer the mainstream chamber-folk that hooked them on Automatic, or the jangle-pop that 80's purists want still more of. Monster is NOT the shallow, failed attempt at grunge that many of these crazy reviewers would have you believe. It's still got more musical scope than Automatic and its songs range from wild rockouts to fuzzy ballads. The beautiful, shimerring "Strange Currencies" is what the plodding "Everybody Hurts" should've been. "Circus Envy", "Star 69", and "What's the Freq.." are also standout cuts. A few of the more experimental tracks seem half-formed, but none are annoying. Awash in feedback and pulsing with creativity, Monster is as unique as any REM album. Delete your "What's the Frequency, Kenneth" mp3 and buy the whole album, 'cause it's far more than the slip-up, sellout record these fools would have you believe.

Wow. Who thought that a single record could be a sell-out, monotonous, a masterpiece, both the band's worst and best record, and blasphemous? But those are your exact words... Since we all seem to have an opinion about the actual music (some of us have too much of an opinion, believing it as fact), why don't we discuss the record completely objectively?

Point #1. The album is unique for REM. They may have flirted with the idea of stoner rock, glam rock, grunge rock, or whatever else you wanna call this record, but they had never released a full album of it.

Point #2. The album is risky. After salvaging their career by having good "pop" songs on "Document," REM find themselves in an identical situation; trying to keep old fans while they try something new.

Point #3. The album heralded (at least) 5 singles and had millions of buyers, many of whom had not listened to the band previously. (So goes the "No Hits" theory so many reviewers have referred to. REM obviously thinks differently.)

Point #4. REM picked up a few new fresh-faced fans, while losing a considerable amount of hard-cores. People have a very hard time stretching themselves, experiencing new things, facing the unknown. Many vintage fans would be happy if REM kept producing and selling the same album over and over (referring to the similar song structure and sounds on the first four albums.) As soon as a new element is introduced to a familiar equation, the subject ceases to be comfortable, and the listener feels "cheated."

Opinion: I find this to be neither REM's best nor their worst album. But I find it to be the band's most important record, because they stray so far off from their patented sound. They explore. They test. And it angers many old fans, while it could be helping them to learn to broaden their horizons, so to speak. It happened in 1987 when REM tried to release something that was different from their first four albums. It has happened to Radiohead, Metallica, Tori Amos, and several other rock-icon bands. People hate change. I find it invigorating and essential to our minds. I believe in the philosophy that we should "never stop moving." Always be looking for a new way to see things. Besides, "Kenneth," "Crush With Eyeliner," and "I Took Your Name" are in my opinion some of their best work. Anyhow, how effective or bad the album is should be stated as a matter of opinion. But I love REM, and I suggest that any new fan (granted they have not heard "Monster") listen to the album with open ears. Overall: 6 out of 10.