All Things Reconsidered

It Starts with an Earthquake: R.E.M.‘s Monster

[26 February 2009]

I have spent half my life being an R.E.M. fan, and I’ve consumed just about every album in their catalogue. So, at this point, I feel confident saying that Monster is unfairly maligned, and truly stands as one of their best.

By Ben Schumer

Whether you’re a “first generation” (IRS years) or “second generation” (Warner Bros. years) R.E.M. fan, you likely have a strong opinion of Monster, and that opinion is more than likely a negative one.  In fact, it seems the negative feelings toward Monster have only multiplied and intensified in the 14 years since its release.  Monster’s constant presence in used CD bins across the nation is all the proof you’ll need that the album has become a bit of a punch line.

Yet from the moment I first heard it in 1994, I’ve had nothing but unrepentant love for Monster.  I fully admit that there is a nostalgic element to this.  I still remember the first time I saw the video for “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?”—Michael Stipe poised awkwardly in front of his mic stand wearing his iconic star t-shirt while the lights flickered in and out (which wonderfully mimicked Peter Buck’s tremolo-guitar). I also sang along to “Strange Currencies” in the back of my mom’s car an embarrassing number of times. 

cover art

R.E.M.

Monster

(Warner Bros.; US: 27 Sep 1994; UK: 26 Sep 1994)

 Amazon
 Lala

Monster was not my first exposure to R.E.M.—that distinction goes to “Losing My Religion”, a song for which my feelings are still relatively indifferent. Due to a combination of my young age (13) and musical preferences at that time in my life (Nirvana, Weezer, Smashing Pumpkins), the star t-shirted Stipe struck a cord with me in a way that shiny, happy, lost-his-religion Stipe never could.  Nevertheless, I have spent half my life being an R.E.M. fan, and I’ve consumed just about every album in their catalogue.  So, at this point, I feel confident saying that Monster is unfairly maligned, and truly stands as one of their best. 

When R.E.M. began recording Monster in late 1993, they were superstars.  The double whammy of Out of Time (1991) and Automatic for the People (1992) had made them flush with commercial, critical, and financial success.  Those two albums were largely acoustic affairs, and the band hadn’t toured since 1989.  Therefore, the group consensus was to be a raucous band again.  While speaking with Time magazine before the album’s release, Mike Mills laid it out: “When you’re in a band long enough, you want to try different things. On past albums we had been exploring acoustic instruments, trying to use the piano and mandolin, and we did it about all we wanted to do it. And you come back to the fact that playing loud electric-guitar music is about as fun as music can be.”  R.E.M. had spent the early to mid ‘80s essentially being an ace garage-rock band, so reclaiming the stature of being a formidable live band was a no-brainer.  To slip back into the groove, they even went so far as to record Monster “live.”  Producer Scott Litt explained his approach to Rolling Stone: “I thought since they hadn’t toured in a while, it would be good for them to get into that mind-set—you know, monitors, PA, standing up.”  Despite the myriad guitar tones and effects employed on the record, overdubs were kept to a minimum.

The common refrain of Monster’s nay-sayers is that it was a crass attempt at capturing the alt-rock zeitgeist.  I still fail to see how this argument holds much water, barring extreme cynicism, which has, truth be told, reached epidemic levels in rock criticism.  In its review of In Time: The Best of R.E.M. 1988-2003, Pitchfork casually dismisses the album: “Monster is, wisely, all but erased from the band’s discography—only “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?” made the cut (although sadly not the live Letterman version with vocals by Dan Rather).”  It’s not as if loud rock songs were an unprecedented move for R.E.M.  Just listen to “Begin the Begin”, “Orange Crush”, “Finest Worksong”, “Ignoreland”, and dozens of other songs they recorded prior to 1994.  All Music Guide’s review of Monster (2 1/2 out of 5 stars) claims that “Instead of R.E.M.‘s trademark anthemic bashers, Monster offers a set of murky sludge.”  It is true that R.E.M. distorted their guitars more on Monster and tried on a few new bells and whistles, but I see this more as a joyous reaction to the relatively sombre ruminations of their two previous albums than as a callous stab at fitting in.  Let’s not forget that these guys counted Wire, Television, Patti Smith and the Velvet Underground as formative influences. 

Naturally, the net quality of Monster’s songs has been brought into question by critics and fans.  Now, of course, you either like a song or you don’t, but I believe that a good handful of Monster’s tracks belong in the R.E.M. canon.  From the T. Rex strut of “Crush with Eyeliner” to the lapping, shoegaze-y waves of “Let Me In” (a tribute to Kurt Cobain), there is hardly a sub-par tune on the record, though I must admit I’ve never been partial to the flaccid dirge of “Bang and Blame” or the discotheque-isms of “King of Comedy”.  But I hope we can all agree that “Strange Currencies” and “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?” are not just R.E.M. classics, but modern-rock classics by any measure.  Even after all this time, I still get little kicks to my heart hearing Michael sing “I don’t know why you’re mean to me / When I call on the telephone / And I don’t know what you mean to me” on “Strange Currencies”. 

The track most uncharacteristic of Monster is also one of its strongest: “Tongue” is a gentle sigh of a song that rolls along on little more than wheezy church-organ, some supple bass, and Stipe’s falsetto.  “I Don’t Sleep, I Dream” is another tender tune with Southern-soul leanings.  The hat trick of “I Don’t Sleep, I Dream”, “Strange Currencies”, and “Tongue” effectively make up the beating heart of Monster and provide a strong case against critics accusing the album of being shallow or empty. 

“I Took Your Name” and “Circus Envy” are a pair of side-two rockers that still shine in all their muscular glory and, as a side note, both sounded revelatory when performed on this year’s tour.  “Let Me In” is a deep-cut I’ve always been particularly fond of, and see it as a precursor to New Adventures in Hi-Fi standout “Leave”.  On that note, “Tongue” most definitely begot “Electrolite”.  I should probably divulge that New Adventures in Hi-Fi is my favorite R.E.M. album, and I like to think of Monster as a bit of a “transitional” album.  By the time New Adventures in Hi-Fi was released in 1996, R.E.M. had full command of their swaggering rock jones, and their big rock songs now felt completely natural and without artifice.  However, I would argue that R.E.M. needed to make Monster to get to that point—like they had to get something out of their system.  In fact, this is exactly how NME assessed the situation: “Monster sounds like the album they ‘had’ to make, to clear out their system…”

Earlier last year, the release of R.E.M.’s 14th album, Accelerate, was met with uniformly positive reviews.  In many aspects, the fanfare accompanying Accelerate mirrored that of Monster: Both were stark reactions to the albums that preceded them, and both were billed as returns to the band’s “rock roots”.  Incidentally, Accelerate mostly sounds like a retread of the terrain covered on Monster—a tired retread at times, but vital and inspired at others.  Over the course of their tour this year, R.E.M. played about half the songs on Monster, while “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?” and “Let Me In” were played every single night.  “Let Me In” was given a haunting rearrangement that replaced the original’s electric drone with an acoustic one.  Each night, Peter Buck sat at the piano while Mike Mills, Scott McCaughey and Johnny Marr encircled him with acoustic guitars, and Stipe wailed his heart out. 

Not only was it a knockout performance, it also proved the elasticity and longevity of the song, and the unfairness of dismissing R.E.M.‘s material from Monster as unworthy of the band.  There is a coarsely endearing habit of audiences to applaud quickly, but rapturously, when they hear the opening chord(s) of a beloved song.  So it was obvious when the band began “Let Me In” that most in attendance didn’t have it high on their list of “songs I’m dying to hear tonight”. But after it was over, the 20,000-strong crowd responded like they had just heard “Man on the Moon”.

R.E.M. - What's the Frequency, Kenneth?
 
Bookmark and Share

Tagged as: monster | r.e.m.
Comments

As a longtime R.E.M. fan, thanks so much for this. I know I’m in the minority here, but Monster ranks second right behind Up as far as my personal favourites go.

Comment by Ian Mathers from Canada — February 27, 2009 @ 9:19 am

how can i take this seriously when the author admits “I have spent half my life being an R.E.M. fan, and I’ve consumed just about every album in their catalogue.”

Get back to me when you’ve consumed them all.

And by the way, this goes for all us as music fans, if you really want to understand the effect a band had, not only listen to all their catalog, but try to understand what the times were like - understand where music scene was at. Understand what REM’s first few albums meant culturally, then come back and tell me Monster is still one of their best. I might respect your opinion more.

Comment by Ed Moore from USA — February 27, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

I think one of the biggest cop-outs in rock criticism is this notion of “listenability.” Hence, because Monster is sonically sleazy, people can dismiss it as a muddy tossaway. And what a convenient term to use; it makes for such good armor against any counterpoint: “This is not appealing to the ears, so any attempt to salvage it is sheer fanboyism.” And yet, when you consider the album from a thematic or, dare I say, artistic standpoint, the message of the songs demands a thick, unforgiving, sloppy sound. Broken relationships, mourning, sex, confusion, jealousy, etc. I mean, should these songs be written to mandolin? That would be nothing short of pandering. And let’s face it; whether you like Up or not, R.E.M. didn’t start pandering until this century.

Comment by James Wood from Canada — February 27, 2009 @ 12:41 pm

Ed,

The only REM album I do not own is Around The Sun. I’m not saying Monster is better than Murmur, Chronic Town or Reckoning.  I’m simply saying it is one of their best.

Also, putting REM aside for a moment, understanding a band’s “cultural impact” does not make their albums/songs sound any better than they do at face value.

Comment by Ben Schumer from USA — February 27, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

To use the author’s terminology, I’m a “first generation” R.E.M. fan.  Having had my mind blown by Chronic Town sometime in the mid-eighties and then following the group closely for another fifteen years or so, I have to say that Monster marks the precise album with which I stopped caring about R.E.M.  There’s just nothing that will ever convince me that Monster is one of the most half-baked albums in the band’s catalog.  I trudged on for several more albums, and while Monster is better than the likes of Reveal, just to name one even weaker R.E.M. work, it doesn’t warrant any more of time.

Comment by Tommy Atkins from Chicago — February 27, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

Is Monster really that maligned? A couple Pitchfork references aside, I haven’t seen the disses. When Blender ran through the REM discography a year or so back, they gave Monster a full five stars, alongside Murmur and Automatic. Yes, that’s Blender, but again, that means its probably a pretty accurate representation of “conventional wisdom”. It’s not my favorite REM album, but it has some of my favorite songs on it - I’d probably give it a four out of five stars if I had to review it, or an 8/10 on this site’s scale. Basically, if it weren’t the album after Automatic, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Next to Automatic, just about anything might seem pale.

Comment by Tim O'Neil — February 27, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

One small correction:  it was Bill Rieflin, R.E.M.‘s drummer of the past several years, who joined in the acoustic Let Me In during last year’s tour, along with Mike Mills, and Scott McCaughey.  Perhaps Johnny Marr sat in for a show?

I count myself a Jurassic R.E.M. fan, having swooned in 1983 upon hearing Murmur.  I have followed them ever since; they remain my favorite band.  Monster does not number among my top picks, but their shows on the Monster tour sounded great.  I heard Peter Buck turn in a phenomenal take on Let Me In at the Kansas City show, maybe the most scorching wall of sound and distortion I have ever heard.  Maybe it was the influence of Sonic Youth, who opened the evening.

Comment by Jim Shaw from Omaha, NE — February 27, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

Yeah, I think Monster is easily one of their best. I love listening to Let Me In, i’ll never get tired of that song. This is album is up there with the likes of Document, another superb REM album. On Monster, it hasnt many flaws, the amps are turned up, and the songwriting is sublime. I love King of Comedy, Crush with Eyeliner, Strange Currencies, Bang and Blame, I Took Your Name - so many classic flawless songs. I bought Monster about 5 years ago for £3, the best £3 i ever spent! :)

Comment by Zach from England — February 27, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

The brevity and tightness of Accelerate’s songs make it a bit more appealing to me as compared to Monster; I agree it’s of the same REM rock vein.  I’m glad you’ve pointed out “Let Me In” as done during that last tour.  That performance was a highlight and made me reconsider my dismissal of Monster.  Still, when it’s time to reach for some REM - I’m taking Reckoning or Murmur - and if I want the more rock driven REM - it’s Lifes Rich Pagent or even Document or Accelerate.  That’s why Monster may be overlooked since theres at least 5 or 6 better REM records.  If Monster was a new bands debut given that era, it’d likely been viewed as a quality rock record with Frequency and Star 69 and Strange Currencies (maybe) as popular singles - impressive for a hypothetical “new band”. At face-value it is a good rock record; but since REM made such a huge impact on American music earlier - it’ll continue to be viewed as merely good or even poor in comparison to it’s predecessors.

Comment by Les Hectic — February 27, 2009 @ 6:00 pm

I have always been made to feel like I should apologize for loving Monster (which is absurd, I realize).  Frankly, of the three “big hits” records of the early 90’s, I think Monster has aged MUCH better than Out of Time, which sounds almost corny about half the time.  I remember the excitement of hearing “Frequency?” for the first few times and being so excited because my band was back again.  The last two records, good as they were, were pretty easy-listening and it was really great to hear them rock out again.  It is also the first record where they (Stipe) sang about sex and identity and celebrity and I think the debut of those themes in R.E.M.‘s recordings deserves a lot more praise than it did or has in the past.  I think Let Me In is as good as anything they’ve ever done and Frequency, Crush and three or four others all hold up as well or better than they did then. 
I’m just relieved I can come out of the closet about this record.  It’s been hard this last decade and a half.  Whew.

Comment by mike from Stratford, ON — February 27, 2009 @ 7:11 pm

I do have all of R.E.M.‘s albums and I, too, have been listening to them for almost half of my life, starting back not long after the initial release of ‘Murmur’. And I have always loved ‘Monster’. I listen to it with much more frequency than I do ‘Out of Time’ or the first three post-Bill albums, maybe even ‘Automatic’ because of the way radio overplays some songs on that album. It holds up very well as a whole, and the songs have held up very well. It is easily in my Top Five favorite R.E.M. albums.

Comment by David from Colorado — February 27, 2009 @ 11:34 pm

I had a copy of Monster in my hands ten days before it was released to radio stations/the public, etc - I fell in love with it, and attended three shows on that tour!  “Let Me In”, live, was stunning.  “Bang and Blame” is still one of my favorites.  It’s a kickass album.

Do people really take music critics seriously?  I guess they do, but frankly I have always admired & respected my own ability to decide what I like. 

Thanks for this article.

Comment by Greg Allen from Charlottesville VA — February 28, 2009 @ 8:45 am

Monster (along with Hifi) is REM’s most underrated record but I’d also hail it as one of their best. Actually I perfer it to Accelerate. ‘Crush with Eyeliner’ is just fantasic and WTFK? beats the guts out of any of the last records rockers.

Comment by Adrian Garvey from Ireland — February 28, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

Great article! :)

Comment by David Sason — February 28, 2009 @ 9:55 pm

Good call Adrian on New Adventures in Hi Fi - to me that probably warrants the most underated REM record - though probably didn’t receive as much negativity from critics as Monster - defintely overlooked.

Comment by Les Hectic — February 28, 2009 @ 11:27 pm

I own every REM album, have been to countless shows, and have had the honor of meeting Michael, Peter, and Mike.  Monster was one of my favorites from the first listen and continues to be to this day. 

And I agree, HiFi is underrated.

Comment by James from Los Angeles, CA — March 1, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

I am an REM youngin (I discovered them when they put out “In Time: The Best of REM”) However I have explored their catalog since and agree with many people about how HiFi is underrated. I would have loved to have heard “So Fast so Numb” or “Bittersweet Me” this past tour. I like Monster alot for the pure grittiness also.  I find the lyrics on the album to be rather funny and ironic.

Comment by Emily from Pennsylvania — March 3, 2009 @ 11:32 am

Not long after “Monster” was released, I told a friend that I thought REM was at their best when they led rather than followed and that “Monster” felt like it was just trying to keep up with the Grunges. 

My friend said think of it more as a response to the movement rather than a keeping up with.

To this day I don’t understand his comment completely, but it has stuck with me all these years, which suggests that there’s something there.  If nothing else, the sentiment has enabled me to see “Monster” as being less derivative than I had initially thought.

I continue to return to “Murmur”, “New Adventures in Hi-Fi”, and “Up” with more frequency (Kenneth), but there’s certainly no shame in counting “Monster” among one’s favorite REM records, especially if you are young enough that you’ve not yet heard them all.

If it’s a perpetual bargain-binner, it’s only because it sold so many copies.

Comment by Kirby from NYC — March 3, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

Go back to REM’s performance at the MTV VMA’s just months before Monster’s release…a typical sterling version of ‘Everybody Hurts’ (complete with french horn?) which morphs into a sexed-up, funked-out take on ‘Drive’. Michael transforms from, as Bono once described him, ‘the best country crooner to never rcord a coutry album’ into a hopped-up punky leprechaun. The band that strummed and mused it’s way through two glorious albums, Out Of Time and AFTP, blasted its way back into rock before our very eyes.
I never understood how Monster was allegedly trying to be informed by grunge. I think they wanted a record they could tour behind, and something to pacify Bill, who had soldiered through two records that didn’t rock for a rock drummer.
‘Crush With Eyeliner’ was my early favorite, but now I find ‘You’ to be the track that I still love the most.  I have always dug how Michael’s voice alone portrays multiple characterizations throughout, with the only disappointment being the absence of Mike Mills’ sunny tenor fleshing things out a little more.
And BTW, this record got four or five stars everywhere you read, except for the almighty Pitchfork, obviously. I’ll continue to wear it out.

Comment by MosesMurphy from Houston, TX — March 5, 2009 @ 12:18 am

I can’t agree with this article enough.  I always felt Monster was unjustly maligned, partly out of nostalgia (it was the first R.E.M. record I got to buy when it was originally released) but mostly because it was nothing like what was going on at the time.  It really was a throwback to their love of proto and post punk, and any critic unable to comprehend that simply operates under willful ignorance.  Everything about the record, from the lyrics to the sleeve, gelled into this perfect experience.  I think it’s probably just as strong thematically, just as cohesive, as Automatic for the People.

Of course, New Adventures is probably my favorite, simply for showing off the totality of the band’s abilities.  The IRS years have their merit, to be sure, but this article is a long overdue revelation.  Kudos!

Comment by Justin Crouse from Charlotte, NC — March 5, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

Thanks so much for this article, it mirrors many of my personal feelings towards the album (Ed Moore - if cultural relevance is the yardstick by which you measure an album’s worth then Monster should rate very highly, it is undoubtably of it’s time & was certainly more relevant in the mid 90’s than a retread of any previous REM ground could possibly have been).
Your point about Monster being necessary for the band to break the mould after two studio-based albums and a five-year hiatus from touring is right on the money. It shook things up for the band and was the stepping stone to New Adventures (personally my favourite REM album) whilst simultaneously allowing the band to explore new themes through the somewhat dysfunctional lyrics and raw soundscapes of the songs. It was a brave if not fully realised move and should be praised for that if nothing else.
My feeling since the Dublin rehearsals has been that Accelerate was a similarly deliberate move to re-energise the band, and I am fully expecting the next record to blend the urgency and vibrancy of Accerelate with more considered and assured songcraft in a way that will mirror the creative excellence of New Adventures.

Comment by Matt Ambrose from Nottingham, England — March 8, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

I couldn’t agree more.

I was 14 when Monster came out, so admittedly most of my exposure to REM had been their poppy hits from a few years prior. I became a superfan later, discovering their subtler ‘80s efforts on by one, but I still always thought Monster rocked.

I hadn’t seen the snarky reviews until recently, but they can be easily discounted as nostalgia and elitism. Monster is a great album among many great REM albums, but for different reasons.

Comment by Skipjack from Toronto — March 9, 2009 @ 7:22 am

I heard M. Stipe saying Monster was a “sonic experiment” for the band. I could not agree more. It ranks as one of my favorite albums of theirs, but maybe that’s because I am 2nd generation fan (although in my mind: 1st generation=IRS; 2nd=WARNER w/ B. Berry; 3rd=WARNER w/o B. Berry).

I took it as much as a reaction to their previous albums as to the musical scene back then. It was not grunge, but it was all electric, distorted guitars. (And Sonic Youth most have influenced them; I know Thurston Moore is credited on “Crush With Eyeliner”.)

It definitely paved the way for NAiHF, which for me represents what REM can do best in all genres. This album has been utterly underrated, but it’s up there with AFTP in my opinion.

Now, the 3rd generation REM outputs… Well, I find it “hit and miss”. I certainly don’t go back to “Reveal”, although I do found ATS pleasant (I know I must be part of a minority on this one). I am hoping the very good “Accelerate” will have the same effect as “Monster”, in that it will pave the way to an album as great as NAiHF.
(Indeed, I read recently on his Pitchfork’s interview P. Buck saying he would like the next record to be more diverse - which in my mind = NAiHF = high hopes!)

Comment by FB — July 2, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

FB - I saw that interview with Peter & thought exactly the same thing, maybe our hopes for a return to the level of NAIHF are finally being realised! & I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have happened without Accelerate shaking things up again.

Comment by Matt Ambrose from Nottingham, England — July 5, 2009 @ 6:22 am

— PopMatters sponsor —

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?