An REM thread for r.e.m. stuff

Does anyone know why REM bootleg of year 89 sounds much better than those of year 95?

Bootlegs are taped by fans the most diverse ways you could imagine. So it depends on who recorded it and how (location according to the stage and speakers, your equipment, the band's sound, the crowd and so on). You could go to a show today and tape it terribly on a cheap phone, put it up on DIME and that could be the only existing recording of that.
 
There is no possibility this is a different recording than the Reveal outtake.

According to this site: https://parade.com/922112/laurawhit...h-release-of-the-triumphant-song-fascinating/

"“Fascinating” first appeared on the original master of 2001’s Reveal before being cut last minute, and, in fact, was singer Michael Stipe’s favorite song from the Reveal sessions (according to guitarist Peter Buck’s recollection, as chronicled in David Buckley’s R.E.M. biography, Fiction). “It’s really beautiful,” bassist/keyboardist Mike Mills told Buckley. “It has a flute, oboe arrangement, but it made the record too long… and something had to go.” R.E.M. rerecorded the track in Nassau for 2004’s Around the Sun (co-produced by Pat McCarthy and R.E.M, and engineered by Jamie Candiloro), but the lush ballad ultimately didn’t jibe with that spare, atmospheric album."​

Is that false? The possibility would lie there. The R.E.M. Timeline doesn't show any rerecording. I haven't had time to compare yet, but are they really the same?
 
I compared the waveforms of the version already out there and the new one: they are identical, so it's definitely the same recording.
Still, the band could have re-recorded it in 2004 - the R.E.M. timeline, however great and useful it is, is just a collection of available data, not a complete history of everything
 
I compared the waveforms of the version already out there and the new one: they are identical, so it's definitely the same recording.
Still, the band could have re-recorded it in 2004 - the R.E.M. timeline, however great and useful it is, is just a collection of available data, not a complete history of everything

Thank you for this information. It would be interesting to hear a 2004 re-recording of this track, although I don't think it could improve upon the orginal (which is probably why the band chose to release this version- if two versions do actually exist).
 
243fcc4875e0647c792b7e4fed226153.jpg

Don't know if anyone posted this picture yet, but I thought I would post it on here. Michael Stipe would write letters to Morrissey quite a bit and Morrissey would never respond back. I read that in a article a long time ago.
 
Since I'm sure someone (or lots of someones) here has it, would one of you be able to post the audio from the 2008 and 2011 fan club DVDs?
 
They played Losing my religion on swedish radio yesterday and it made me realise the song is about the muslim takeover.

The hint of the century.
 
I'm totally cool with it not sounding like REM, but I want Stipe to showcase his amazing VOICE, not coming up with weird swirly music and droning along with it. Especially that falcetto-y voice... Ugh...

SING man! SING!

I'll give it 2 or so more listens...
 
Last edited:
Monster is 25 years old and it still captivates me as it did upon release. The fragility of the lyrics, in a crescendo of noise. One continues to be moved intensely.....
 
Here you can listen to the new mix of "Let me in":



To be honest, I love the cleaner guitar, as I can hardly follow the rhythm in the original version with all that (great) noise, but I'd prefer the cleaner guitar with the old everything else. Why remove the organ part and the percussion, ffs??
 
Tags
r.e.m. rem
Back
Top Bottom