Talk:R.E.M. discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singles section needs looked at[edit]

I believe the single section should only include those 49 tracks that were released as actually singles, and possibly the air play chart should be seperated from that.

Edited by Breydel : The single Drive is also missing from the singles discography, it was the lead single from Automatic For The People. I have no account here or don't want to mess with the table format so just saying it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.178.226 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol 15 years ago still not fixed! Change this fucking shit format wiki! 73.70.241.100 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: "Drive" is 100% listed as the lead single from that album. Please have your facts before you whine. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath (song)[edit]

Go to the Aftermath (song) page and get it moved. The song is an instrumental off of an album by Phish. The disambig page only mentions the R.E.M. song and this was the link.

Drive had to be moved even though Drive (song) had not been used, so same should go on for aftermath! Bsd987 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Easy to do with the move button at the top of the page. --badlydrawnjeff 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-singles that are notable[edit]

Which songs are notable that were not singles? I think "Country Feedback" is notable since it is Stipe's proclaimed favorite and thus the favorite of many R.E.M. fans. "Texarkana" is notable since it charted on the mainstream rock charts based on airplay. "Monty Got a Raw Deal" and "Let Me In" are notable since the first is a tribute to actor Montgomery Clift and the latter is in memory of Kurt Cobain. "All the Right Friends" already has an article and is notable since it appeared in a movie and on a "best of" collection. But if this is the case, then "Romance" should get an article too....

What other non-singles are notable enough to deserve an article? Bsd987 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official and unofficial compilations[edit]

Rather unhelpfully, BGC included his reasons for the separation in the three unofficial compilation articles: "Because it is an unauthorized release, this album is generally not considered to be part of R.E.M.'s official discography." I'd have to agree, not least because no chart placements are given for any of the three.

Also, I deleted the Not Bad for No Tour live EP since it still hasn't had an article started. - Dudesleeper 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial? The albums aren't unofficial, if that means bootlegs; they were released by I.R.S. legally, regardless of whether or not the band had any involvement. Not Bad for No Tour wasn't a compilation anyway, so I made a new section for it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have a copy of "Not Bad for No Tour," so it'll be easy for me to finish an article for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article's done. If someone can fill in its proper place in the discography for the infobox, that'd be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the source. I realise that its being a flash-powered site kills the link. It's not too hard to go there manually, I hope. Can we focus on other things now? No, thought not. - Dudesleeper 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary The distinction between "official" and "unofficial" albums is meaningless and arbitrary. The band doesn't need to authorize to release material to which they do not own the publishing rights. If a band disowns an album, that's all fine and well, but it doesn't stop existing or become some secondary class of album; it's still just as real as it was before. Creating capricious divisions of albums just encourages others to come along and decide what they think is the true R.E.M. catalogue. This isn't some quite colloquialism like "fifth Beatle", it's a matter of simple factual accuracy. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I refuse to buy these, but they are still official releases, regardless of whether the band had any influence in the albums. They should both be under compilation albums. No other site divides them up. R.E.M. fan sites, such as remrock.com, put them all together. All other bands with unautorized compilations have those listed with the band's normal compilations. This is a silly argument and should be reverted with all listed together; this is just a waste of my time really. Bsd987 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote proposal[edit]

In an attempt to resolve the matter, I suggest we put the matter to a vote. I'm more than happy to dissolve the current "official" and "unofficial" separation should the consensus - rather than one person's issue with the matter - be so. So this doesn't drag on much longer than it already has, I propose a closing date of tomorrow (Monday) night, 11:59 PM UTC. Please change this if you think it should be extended.

For the separation (2): Dudesleeper, BGC
Against the separation (1): Bsd987
Poll closed. Thanks for the huge turnout! - Dudesleeper 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the vote is in progress, I'm going to edit the band template so that it correlates with the current discography. It can be changed/left as is according to the result of the vote. - Dudesleeper 15:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the issues: 1) Voting is evil. 2) If you're "voting" against the separation, you're voting against accuracy. There are official albums, and there are unofficial albums. There are not "official" and "unofficial" compilations, but rather ones compiled by different companies with rights to do so. That's how it is, and no actual consensus can change that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And your alternative to settle the accuracy dispute tag (other than hoping those against suddenly see your point) would be? Constructive dialogue would work in the majority of cases, but when one childish user who, it seems, doubles as the owner of all of R.E.M.'s Wikipedia articles, can't grasp the concept of official even when you dumb it down to his level, it renders the process somewhat pointless. If we group all of the compilations together, it will lead new readers into thinking that they are all released by the band. I'd rather this article be a trend-setter than one that is "like all the others", which seems to be the root of the problem. As I've stated, if R.E.M.'s own website doesn't list the three unofficial compilations, it makes little to no sense for an encyclopedia to defy it. - Dudesleeper 07:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about combining the compilations under one heading but with the following change:
Compilations
† Not sanctioned by R.E.M.
I mean, I guess it's worth noting that they're not sanctioned by the band, but it doesn't make them "unofficial" compilations. We're not here to be a "trend setter," ot decalre things that we believe to be true. They're "official" compilations in the sense that they were released by record companies they were under contract with, end statement. An "unofficial" release would be, for instance, a bootleg CD of the Unplugged show or Storytellers. Combining the four Monster singles into a Greenpeace show live album would be "unofficial." To separate anything officially released borders on original research. It's pretty clear cut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IRS compilations in question were all released after the band had left the label, so they didn't have any control over their release, hence why I'm happy to leave out the "unofficial" tag in favour of "not sanctioned". - Dudesleeper 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posted at Talk:R.E.M. discography and User talk:Dudesleeper It's not cute or clever to pick fights with people and then ignore what they have to say when you call them on it (per 3RR complaints below.) A "poll" that lasts for a couple of days with three votes (not including the person who clearly had the dispute in the first place) is neither a legitimate poll, nor is it one with a "huge turnout." Again, I have to ask if this is some kind of a joke.
I'll direct you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, too, since you've either never seen this before, or think it doesn't apply to you. The article talk namespace is intended for discussion about the template itself, not your personal opinions about or psychoanalysis of me. If you want to complain about me, that's why Wikipedia has the user talk namespace.
Let me "dumb this down" to "your level:" R.E.M. don't release albums. They are signed to record labels that release albums (e.g. IRS Records.) R.E.M. record music that is put on albums and then the record labels release them, with the band and the label making some money. This process is true in the case of all the compilations listed in the article; they're all official, because the band authorized the record label to release this material when they signed their names to a contract IRS Records (and consequently EMI) are appointed or authorized to act in a designated capacity. Does this make sense to you, because I'm still not seeing how this arbitrary division of "official" and "unofficial" is helpful to the reader, an actual division that exists somewhere other than your imagination, or meaningful toward editing this article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still bleating on? In my eyes you lost all credibility when you - yes, here's that word again - lied to an admin about me. As for the personal attacks, yet again, as with the 3RR, your hypocrisy comes to the fore. To quote your line to BGC from the R.E.M. template talk page[1], "Cute If you want to be a sarcastic jerk, feel free to go somewhere else." If you want to complain about him, that's why Wikipedia has the user talk namespace. - Dudesleeper 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy? You just ignore the legitimate claims I make and use some bait-and-switch tactic to trick me into forgetting the ridiculous things you write. I said it before and I'll say it again: the example you show below does not break the 3RR. Here is how the rule reads:
"Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism."
I reverted it three times; the fourth time was to counteract your vandalism, namely removing the disputed tag. If you still don't understand this, you may want to ask an admin for explanation, or leave a question at the help desk. If you're ready to discuss this like a mature adult, feel free to respond to what I wrote above like a rational human being. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guys take the sniping to your talk page and leave this to discussion on the article, please? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, he's all over the place, including user talk pages. I'll let him keep digging his holes. I'm putting the matter to bed. - Dudesleeper 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of R.E.M.(IRS) release was released in more countrys than just the UK.

Apparent dispute[edit]

It seems Koavf has reported me for breaking the three-revert rule (even though he has reverted the same article four times today). In order to make the admin's life a little easier, below is the evidence against his claims. First of all, here's Koavf's report:

===User: Dudesleeper reported by User:Koavf (Result:)===
Three revert rule violation on R.E.M. discography.
R.E.M._discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dudesleeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments This user has refused to discuss on the talk page of the article or user talk. The last thing I did was post a {{disputeabout}} tag (without reverting the disputed content of the article), and put a comment on talk. He reverted with the edit summary "(Given up explaining now, will just keep reverting)" which is odd, considering he never did explain nor offer any sources. Please intervene. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: For the admin's consideration. - Dudesleeper 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments You'll notice Dudesleeper's belligerent, bad faith attitude at the above link to R.E.M. discography's talk, and evidence of vandalism. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my offerings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R.E.M._discography&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BGC#Edit_summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koavf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dudesleeper#R.E.M._discography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R.E.M._discography#Official_and_unofficial_compilations

- Dudesleeper 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent difference I've reverted three times today (including one the second the day began), and you've reverted four times today, including one that took out a disputed tag with the bull-headed edit summary I gave above. I wanted to talk about it, you didn't. Needless to say, BGC never bothered to justify his actions. You'll also notice that you were vandalizing the article (emphasis added):
Improper use of dispute tags
Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.
So, don't pretend like we're both in the wrong to the same extent or in the same way; it's intellectually dishonest and petty. If you want to talk about the dispute, let's. If not, then stop editing this page. The one thing you definitely shouldn't do is keep on reverting and give some condescending edit summary. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to read the tome above since I'm heading out the door, but I'm hoping you explained your reasons for your blatant lies to an admin. - Dudesleeper 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the accuracy dispute page it states:
If you come across an article with an accuracy warning, please do the following:
* don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it.
* visit the talk page to see what the issues are.
* correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources.
For clarification, in your eyes, which of those was I in breach of? And please confirm your claim that I haven't cited a source, if indeed you still believe that.
Also, you weren't been truthful with your number of reverts yesterday either:
  1. (cur) (last) 19:57, 15 September 2006 Koavf (Talk | contribs) m (Rv. commented posted on Admin board, re: tag removal.)
  2. (cur) (last) 17:27, 15 September 2006 Dudesleeper (Talk | contribs) (Given up explaining now, will just keep reverting)
  3. (cur) (last) 17:21, 15 September 2006 Koavf (Talk | contribs) m (tag)
  4. (cur) (last) 16:59, 15 September 2006 Dudesleeper (Talk | contribs) (Rv #3,431)
  5. (cur) (last) 16:35, 15 September 2006 Koavf (Talk | contribs) m (There are no such things as "unofficial compilations" What does that even mean? These aren't bootlegs or pirates; they're completely legitimate.)
  6. (cur) (last) 16:24, 15 September 2006 Dudesleeper (Talk | contribs) m (→Internet-only releases - Formatting)
  7. (cur) (last) 16:23, 15 September 2006 Dudesleeper (Talk | contribs) (Reverting (but including internet-only releases) per http://www.remhq.com/flash/discography/discography.html)
  8. (cur) (last) 15:37, 15 September 2006 Koavf (Talk | contribs) m (Rv. These aren't "unofficial" in any way; that implies they're bootlegs, and you offered no source, furthermore.)
  9. (cur) (last) 09:54, 15 September 2006 Dudesleeper (Talk | contribs) (Reverting back to BGC's version (see this article's talk page))
  10. (cur) (last) 04:00, 15 September 2006 Koavf (Talk | contribs) m (Rv. unexplained deletions.)
Again, for clarification, are you still claiming you reverted only three times? - Dudesleeper 09:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? The last revert was to a version of the page I did not approve of; I only reverted to reinsert the tag. Is this a joke of some kind? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be - your reasoning is amusing enough. - Dudesleeper 12:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"End of the World" article[edit]

The article for the "End of the World" single is lacking the track listing. If anyone's up to adding it, it'd be appreciated. - Dudesleeper 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Sales[edit]

Does anyone think they can find the ww sales? In the old main page article we had them. I remeber AFTP had 18,000,000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David11112222 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Internet-only releases section[edit]

Both items listed in this section have been printed on cd.

The Automatic Box[edit]

This seems to be unlisted. It's a box of 4 EPs from 1993. Any opionions on which section it should be listed in?--Nickpheas 19:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Automatic Box is quite rare, and I myself have only recently heard of it(, and ordered myself a copy). It could be listed under Singles, however I think it is best to list it under boxsets, and throw Singleactiongreen under the new label aswell. --24.229.120.27 00:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan club singles[edit]

Why? Looking through the featured list discographies, several have self-released material:

I see no reason why R.E.M. should be an exception. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Official bootlegs are allowed by MOS:DISCOG. I removed Xmas fan-club singles from the Pearl Jam article too. (They are listed on the article talk-page). indopug (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether the band released the items on their own labels, but that they were released very specifically (only to the fan-club) and the releases are not notable by themselves. indopug (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bootlegs Most of those are not bootleg recordings. Again, it seems that self-released material is on these discographies and this is also self-released material - this is exactly the article to include this information. I honestly don't know what you mean by the specificity of the release and I don't see how any degree of specificity should disqualify it from being mentioned in an article about their releases. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing is that they more often than not are not critiqued by independent third-party websites (WP:RS, WP:V), putting their notability itself as a doubt. On the other hand, most of the releases you have listed above have their own articles and have been reviewed by Allmusic/Rolling Stone etc. Personally, I don't see how a list of X-mas fan-club singles can be considered encyclopedic or scholarly; it is simply of no interest for the general reader. indopug (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Critiques? I don't know what you're talking about with third-party web sites - any book on R.E.M. will include these in the discography; e.g. Talk About the Passion. It's scholarly in terms of R.E.M.'s discography. Discographies of rock bands are generally not the fare of academia, so within the terms of studying the releases of R.E.M., these are certainly scholarly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Books on R.E.M. will have detailed accounts of the band; they are meant for the enthusiast. Wikipedia is for the general reader. indopug (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarship Anything scholarly, by definition, is not mass market; if you're asking for scholarship, then a book about R.E.M. would constitute R.E.M. discography scholarship. I think this is really no less arcane than reference to promo-only "The Wake-Up Bomb" singles or the highest charting on Austria's national record sales. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Videos section[edit]

Appears to have been vandalized; the Out of Time videos are not there. Lambertman (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks There was a video for every track; I'll try to fix it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd Looking through the history, I don't think they were ever listed - it must have been an oversight... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Craziness! Good work, though. Lambertman (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason they weren't added is because I was working on a temp version of the Music videos section and I hadn't added the Out of Time videos yet because it's very confusing given that video were made especially for a home video release. And then that temp version got pasted here. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but where's video for "Animal" and weren't there videos for "Electron Blue" and "Wanderlust"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.203.218 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtracks[edit]

Comments welcome I get the impression that the "Soundtracks" field is for films scored by the artist, rather than any appearance on a soundtrack. (The latter is more appropriate for a list of various artist compilations.) If the former is the case, the number for R.E.M. is one - Man on the Moon - if the latter is the case, there are dozens. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roky Erickson tribute[edit]

Their appearance on the Roky Erickson tribute Where the Pyramid Meets the Eye seems to be missing here. JöG (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best of REM?[edit]

I've just come across this album [2], on various sites including Amazon. I had never seen it before, and it's not listed here either. Can anyone shed some light on this? Should it be included in the discography? Koppenlady (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a pirate It's pirated (a bootleg recording with copyright violation) and does not belong here. Thanks for posting, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response! I thought it smelt fishy, but to see it on Amazon.com made me wonder. The poor spelling ("loosing" my religion) should have been the give-away, I suppose. Thanks again, Koppenlady (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Songs For A Green World[edit]

The 1989 live album Songs For A Green World is not listed here. -David7581 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA-CERTIFICATION vandalism on and on[edit]

There is a guy who makes here vandalism about RIAA CERTIFICATION

somebody writes permanently for example 2xPLATINUM on DOCUMENT by rem or NEW ADVENTURES ON HIFI

however those 2 named albums are certified PLATINUM by the RIAA and each has sold 1,300,000 and 970,000+ respectively

and there is no chance that one of those albums will get 2xPLATINUM anytime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.7.50.47 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on R.E.M. discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on R.E.M. discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions[edit]

"List of studio albums, with selected chart positions and certifications"

How are the countries selected? Not only are major markets missing (Frands, Italy), there seems to one quite a bias towards Europe and English-speaking countries. There is more than enough data to introduce a column for something like Japan. Any volunteers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.170.78 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R.E.M._discography&oldid=1224223599"