Talk:R.E.M./Archive 4

MOre space
I don't' know why, but the templates have more space then necessary between them, or around them, maybe specifically the R.E.M. template. Please fix it (here, at the receptive template pages, or bug report at Bugzilla).68.148.164.166 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity
R.E.M. was viewed as a pioneer of the genre and released its two most commercially successful albums, Out of Time (1991) and Automatic for the People (1992), which veered from the band's established sound. It wasn't clear to me if Automatic for the People veered from the established sound or the earlier album did, or both. (It seems a bit ambiguous to state that both veered, it being unclear whether both are different from the previous albums (including AftP veering from OoT). From a glance at the album articles, I suggest: [...] and Automatic for the People (1992), the earlier album veering from the band's established sound.  If no one objects I'll make this change.  Blackworm (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are considered departures from standard R.E.M. (jangly college rock where Stipe mumbles about stuff that doesn't make immediate sense). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that isn't clear to me reading the sentence. How about, ...(1992), the two albums veering from the band's established...? Blackworm (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish
Shouldn't we include how their latest album is doing well? It's gotten widespread acclaime...You look at any other band with a long intro such as REM's and you'll see that they talk about their latest album. YAYYOYAY (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't and shouldn't mention every single R.E.M. album in the lead section. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Sentence of Article
"R.E.M. was one of the first popular alternative rock bands, and gained early attention due to Buck's ringing, arpeggiated guitar style and Stipe's unclear vocals."

I don't understand why the band would gain attention because of Stipe's unclear vocals. Doesn't this statement need to be clarified/reworded? Brancron (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)brancron


 * I agree. "unclear" carries the connotation that Stipe's diction is muddled or hard to hear, which is certainly not the case.  Since the intent is probably to convey that his lyrics are difficult to analyze for their meaning, I suggest that "unclear" be changed to "inscrutable", in the following sense: 2. not easily understood; mysterious; unfathomable: an inscrutable smile. 67.180.59.18 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Early on it ws the case. Quite a few books have been written about how it is hard to discern what Stipe is enunciating on the early records. Even he doesn't quite know anymore; Stipe has said he sometimes just makes sounds to approximate what he thought he was originally saying when performing earlier songs in concert (an example of this is the chorus to "Sitting Still"). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This looked so odd to me, I assumed it was minor vandalism that had gone unnoticed. In fact WesleyDodds changed it from cryptic to unclear on 31 December 2007. I must admit, I prefer "cryptic". However, the original stub of this article in 2002 mentions that Stipe's "...early habit of mumbled (and non-reproduced in print) lyrics and reticent public image helped build an aura of mystique". Curious. Phil Smith (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If I knew anything about R.E.M. I would edit it myself, but someone needs to change that sentence. Brancron (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)brancron


 * "Cryptic" sounded too POV and esoteric. "Unclear" was the msot neutral thing I coud think of, but hopefully someone can think of something better. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Will change "unclear vocals" to "indecipherable lyrics", which seems to match the account of Stipe's vocals given here. Certainly, 'unclear vocals' could simply mean, for example, that the vocal track is set too low in the mix, which doesn't seem to be the intention. (For interest, compare this with case with that for the Cocteau Twins.) Pololei (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

intro cites no sources
the first two paragraphs contains zero references or cited sources. the articles flow clearly meets the featured status criteria, but article flow does not compensate for lack of refs.

any naysayers? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Article lead sections don't need inline citations, since everything discussed in the lead is referenced in the body of the article. It's a summary of the rest of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ah, didn't know that. thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More information at Lead section if you're interested. It's basically optional. —Giggy 05:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

East European band?
One of the perennial examples given for including the name of the nation of the subject is the possible confusion between the US State of Georgia and the East European country of Georgia... I am even fairly convinced I have previously edited in the name of the country, but this FA article does include it or refer to it in the opening paragraph. Please note that this is the international English language Wikipedia, and if it is considered necessary to indicate what country the capital cities of continental Europe are in (mainly, I suggest, for the benefit of parochial Americans) then it would be nice if contributors would follow the MoS and note the nation for US related subjects.(/rant) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it might have been removed because it's redundant with the phrase "American rock band" in the same sentence, rather than Americentrism. CloudNine (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's exactly why I removed it. Otherwise it essentially says, "They're an American band, from America!"WesleyDodds (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy mother of god, I thought they were British
Are there sources supporting the reason why his accent is mysteriously British in singing? --Leladax (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can I assure that these are quite definitely an American group  - they come from the United States state of Georgia. Now when you say "his", do you mean the voice of Michael Stipe? I do not think he does sound British - bear in mind that as this group come from south-east United States, they would have accents that come from the United States' Deep South. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ian Copeland
I seem to recall that in his autobiography Ian Copeland relates how he encountered the band while he was working for the Paragon Agency. Surely he had a role in their early establishment? Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC) don't be daft, does tom jones sound welsh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.39.157 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

R.E.M. singles
I was just wondering, is it possible if I (or someone else) make a Template:R.E.M. singles or Template:R.E.M. songs? I really enjoy browsering through an artist's singles, but R.E.M. currently doesn't have their singles listed in Template:R.E.M., but even if we list all of their single into that template, obviously it would make it too big. Plus, there is also a template for singles for Madonna. Just a suggestion.

A Smashed Pumpkin (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GREEN
R.E.M. recorded GREEN in Memphis, TN at Ardent Studios. Not in Nashville, TN

How they got their name.
The article mentions that Michael Stipe chose the band's name at random from a dictionary. I watched a YouTube video of REM performing on Letterman in October 1983. Before they performed "So. Central Rain," Letterman talked briefly with Peter Buck. Letterman asked if REM meant "rapid eye movement" or something else. Buck said that it can mean "anything you want it to, we found it in the dictionary, and it was short and concise and didn't particularly mean anything to us." Capdatazz (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EwxDEdyrYM


 * Is there a contradiction I'm not seeing, or are you just sharing the video? - Dudesleeper / Talk  18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Under Legacy: Radiohead?
R.E.M. have been a pretty damn big influence on Radiohead. Shouldn't this be mentioned? It's more than just a general one because R.E.M.-are-oh-so-wonderful, it's a genuinely personal thing. Pechark (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I can totally agree on that one... If I'm right, I recall a conversation between Michael Stipe and Thom Yorke, I believe it was in Israël in the early nineties. At that point Radiohead was about to travel along REM as a support-act. Yorke asked Stipe if they (Radiohead) were good enough to open the show for REM, to which Stipe responded if Thom thought REM was good enough to headline after them. (I'm sure I read it in 'From A Great Height', some Radiohead-biography I (unfortunately) gave my (now) ex-girlfriend as a gift...) Also, I got a music-file containing Stipe singing 'Lucky' along with Radiohead at (I guess) the Glastonbury festival, somewhere in the late nineties. And indeed, Radiohead members have been claiming REM multiple times as being great influences. 85.159.97.5 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The influence of Big Star
R.E.M. cite Big Star as a major influence on their music. The article didn't mention this so I've added a bit about it. It got taken out by an editor but I think the influence can't be understated so I've put it back and suggest discussing here if necessary. Obviously feel free to move or tweak the wording of what I've added to suit the article style etc. PL290 (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The part about R.E.M. fans seeking out Big Star's music definitely has to go. It's just Jovanovic's misguided opinion. I don't think any of it is worthy of inclusion, though. - Dudesleeper / Talk  09:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken out that part but feel the rest should stay as it makes clear that Big Star were a very significant influence, which the article otherwise omits to say. There may well be a better quote though, which could be used instead somewhere in the article. PL290 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Holt record store ownership
Do you have proof that Jefferson Holt owned the record store? I visited that record store for 7 years, and even sat behind the counter during college, and I don't think Jefferson was even considered a manager, let alone being an owner. Dcell59 (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof? Because was can only rely on information published by reputable third-party sources. This does not include Wiki editors. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Buckley book cited at the end of that statement says Jefferson was the owner of the store? I wonder if the Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce could help us out with the actual records. Dcell59 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the page cited and changed it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Automatic for the People and Nirvana's lead singer Kurt Cobain
I think its important to at least mention that a copy of 'Automatic for the People' was found at the murder scene of Kurt Cobain. The album meant a lot to him and you can her its echo and influence throughout the Mtv Unplugged album (though I fully understand that the extent of the album's influence is debatable).
 * See the "Legacy" section. Also, Cobain liked all R.E.M.'s material; Automatic for the People is important only due to conjecture stated by Cobain biographer Charles Cross that it was the last album he listened to before he died. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

not bad for no tour
Not bad for no tour is listed as a EP here, this disc was not available for sale to the general public, and like most other R.E.M. "The Alternative Radio Sampler" "music between tours" & "Should We Talk About The Weather" should be listed elsewhere.

Also i think Chronic town should be the only EP listed, the others like Vancouver rehearsal tapes etc were internet only downloads, ie Itunes stuff, this should be seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

R.E.M. is / R.E.M. are
I couldn't find it in the archives although I imagine it's been discussed before: "R.E.M. are" is the grammatically correct way to mention the band at the start of the article; U2's page (arguably a similar band name) use "are". "Are" isn't just restricted to bands beginning with "The" (The Beatles, The Who) since Oasis and Keane use are/were instead of is/was. Thoughts or reasons why "is" is used for R.E.M.? It's the first thing that glared me in the face when I began reading the article: the second word. 86.161.254.197 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Varieties of English I personally prefer and use "R.E.M. are", but "R.E.M. is" is correct in American English, while "U2 are" is correct in Hiberno- and British English. See WP:ENGVAR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see this for any other possible "issues" regarding this confusing mattter. Just sayin' :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does explain it a bit further since they are an American band and my examples were all British; The Beatles' page is written in British English. We'll just leave it then, despite personal preferences. 86.161.254.197 (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.135.19 (talk)

First television appearance needs to be fixed
The article incorrectly indicates that REM's first television performance on David Letterman was of "a new, unnamed song". A video of the performance is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA57Pafq_NU Letterman introduces them by saying: "we're happy to have them making their national television debut with us tonight" The song they play is Radio Free Europe.

I hope this helps! -Michael 71.178.154.135 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They played two songs. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Collapse into Now
So... Now that more details such as song titles, special guests and a description of what it will sound like have been revealed, can we now restore the article for Collapse Into Now? We have enough info to justify the restoration of the article in my opinion. I'd be willing to link some sites which provide such information. 178.98.221.35 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I swear these guys played at my high school in 81 or 82
I am just beside myself trying to find some clue that I remember this correctly :) I remember them playing the song "stand" and I remember the name of the group as "the sneakers" === I would love to find out if I'm just hallucinating or if any part of this can be true..... maybe there was another band that played the same song or something?

would love to hear back from anyone who might know...or one of the band members themselves. thank you!!! Bev Jorgensen spfld, Oregon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevdjj (talk • contribs) 05:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion page is reserved for discussion of the article itself. I don't say this as a reprimand, but to suggest to you that you might have better luck finding out what you're interested in at music discussion boards or at REM's website at http://remhq.com/index.php or somewhere like Yahoo Answers or the like(people aren't here to talk about the band in general, but rather, this article about the band, and may not be inclined to answer your questions)204.65.34.145 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Tag as this band is going to be in the news
On the "What the papers say" section of the "Today" programme on Radio Four on September 21, I heard that REM are going to be splitting up. This is the first time I had heard this news. Well, as this means they are going to be in the news, do we need a tag to head this article telling us as such? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not Current can be applied if necessary and it can even be (and is) protected. Unless the editing gets crazy, neither is really necessary, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Formation date
1978/1980 I noticed that someone changed the formation date to 1979 from 1980; there are sources that support this. What basically happened is that Berry and Mills were in a few combos already as a rhythm section and Buck and Stipe got to know one another through a record store and decided to jam. The two duos met up and skipped out on meetings several times before actively forming a group, so their literal first meeting quite possibly took place in 1979, but they didn't make any sustained effort to be a band until the weeks leading up to their first gig on April 5, 1980. Anyway, all of this can be easily sourced and explained, but it seems most appropriate to me to consider 1980 the year of their formation. As always, if anyone else has feedback to add, please do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To add to that, Stipe and Buck didn't meet one another until 1980 at the earliest, and it was only after they met and were jamming with Mills and Berry that they all decided to form a group together, per the sources cited. WesleyDodds (talk)

Bill Berry listed first amongst members
I understand that the infobox has members listed alphabetically, and I realise that this does not contradict with Wikipedia's guidelines (see: Template:Infobox musical artist) as all of REM's former members were founding members, and therefore joined the band at the same time. However, could it not be deemed appropriate to list Berry's name last seeing as the other three members were constant throughout the band's entire history, whereas Berry is the exception in that he left the band 14 years prior to the breakup. There is nothing in the guidelines to support or refute this concept, so if the status quo is deemed as the best way for the members section then that is not an issue. Burbridge92 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency I'm entirely in favor of being consistent and using alphabetical order--deciding some arbitrary hierarchy seems like a bad idea to me (although I understand your reasoning in this instance.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical is fine by me. If a band is active I might lean towards singer/guitarist/bass/drums listing. But either way, the band is broken up now, so it's a moot point really. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe. That's how they credited themselves. They wanted it alphabetically, and that's at least how the songwriting credits go. Doc   talk  03:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how they credited themselves until Bill Berry left the band in 1997, at which point he was never credited again, whilst the others were constant members of the band from formation to dissolution. That's my point. In any case this is one of the minority of scenarios where the guidelines can't be contradicted with any ordering of band members, so the status quo is fine. Burbridge92 (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With Bill out of the band it didn't matter, since he would be shuffled off to the "Former members" field all by his lonesome. Now that the band is over as a unit, they're all former members, so alphabetical order works in that instance. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is only true of this type of scenario where all members were founders, but as they were, you are correct. Burbridge92 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Murmur's peak chart position
Murmur's peak Billboard chart position is given as 36, with Buckley given as a source. I noticed that in Johnny Black's Reveal: The Story of R.E.M., that chart position is also given. However, here on Billboard's website, it says "This Album has never charted." . Allmusic also doesn't treat it at though it had a chart position, here and here. Stephen Thomas Erlewine's Allmusic biography of the band says it broke into the Top 40. . Now, my old 100 Best Albums of the 80s issue of Rolling Stone says it peaked at 136, i.e. 100 spots down from what some other people are saying. I have no idea which one is right, but just noting that there are some discrepancies there between different sources. Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Source for the "Newsnight" interview
I see that some one deleted my entry about Mick Mills and Michael Stipe appearing on Newsnight, with the tag "If a reliable source can be found, please add it". Well, can I point out that if one clicks on this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9630497.stm

it should take one directly to Gavin Esler interviewing Stipe and Mills. If any one can format this as a reference, the section on their appearance on Newsnight could go back in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Better sources This source is definitely verifiable and fine, but there's not a lot of content here. Their interview with Simon Mayo is much better&mdash;that source has much more content and doesn't simply repeat what we already know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but at least it is a source for my assertion that Michael Stipe and Mick Mills both appeared on Newsnight. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox News “cease and desist” using “Losing My Religion” during the Democratic National Convention
"The American rock band R.E.M. on Thursday demanded that Fox News “cease and desist” using their song “Losing My Religion” during its coverage of the Democratic National Convention. "
 * R.E.M. orders Fox News to stop playing ‘Losing My Religion’ during DNC. 87.164.114.245 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Trivia This is a very small story in the band's career and constitutes trivial information. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Koavf. It's a very recent event. For all we know it'll just be a blip in the group's history, and we want to avoid recentism. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Discography heading
Since I was reverted: Having a single heading of any level is generally considered poor document design; headings (such as "Studio albums") should be used only when there is a case for 2 or more and delineation is needed. , do you disagree? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that for semantic reasons, using HTML headers (via the wikitext mark-up with "="s) is a bad idea. But using the pseudo-header with bold text is useful and good idea. It makes it clear that the list that follows is only full-length studio albums. Imagine a table with a bold header, for instance. Or a list in the middle of text (which is what this is). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

New draft of page for Good Article status
As part of the 500 project I have made a brand new draft of the Document album page in the hope to elevate it to GA (Good Article) status. Please find the draft here It is obviously a work in progress and I would appreciate any and all feedback. Many thanks.Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see some small MoS issues like Capitalizing Section Titles and using track listing when there is already an established style in the article but nothing major immediately pops out at me. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate you taking a look. I have fixed the headers now. I was hoping I could use track listing as I added a whole host of bonus tracks and I wanted to collapse them; I think it looks neater but of course if that's unacceptable then it can go back to plain text. Thanks also for the temporary fix on the categories.Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that track listing is inappropriate or frowned upon: there are just two different styles, so if one has been used for awhile, we can't have edit-warring back and forth over a preferred style (disclosure: my preference is definitely a plain text list). The same goes for (e.g.) regional variations of English, date formats, styles for citations, etc. I'm glad that you're working to make the page better! I fear that you won't get much feedback, though in spite of your hard work. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"R.E.M. gained early attention due to ... Stipe's unclear vocals"
This is how Stipe's vocals are summarized in the lead? You've got to be fucking kidding me! "I love how unclear Stipe's vocals are!" There has to be a better way to sum up his singing style. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as off, as well. I'm sure there is a better way here.  A big problem is that I don't see this point discussed much in the body, at least in the sense that this quality helped the band become somewhat famous early on.  This description probably came from sources like this one, by the way:  In R.E.M. the contrast between Stipe's mumbled early vocals and obscure lyrics was offset by Michael Mills' higher-pitched vocal.  I see a description like this in a few other places too: .  .  But again, no description that this made R.E.M. more popular.  Anyway, one approach we could go with here is to lose this sentence altogether and focus on their early success due to the popularity of "Radio Free Europe."  What do you think? I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but there ideally should be a description of the band's style (elsewhere in the lead?). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see we've now gone for "Stipe's particular vocal quality" which I also don't like as it is too vague? If I was unfamiliar with the band and read that sentence I would be thinking what "particular" vocal quality?' City' Feedback   talk  09:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WHAT DOES R.E.M.  MEAN  ?
Bill Gauslow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.111.51 (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox picture
The only think I've never liked about this article is the image of the band in the infobox because Stipe is the only clear one in the picture (Mills has his back to the camera and Buck is chopped in half). Would it be absurd to suggest replacing it with a collage of the four, similar in vein to the Beatles' main picture?

Here's something I've mocked up (on the left), using images from the Commons. It would need tidying up, levelling and some cropping changed so that their heads are similar in size, but it's a rough idea of what I'm talking about. City Feedback  talk  15:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't two weeks ago that I was trawling through Flickr looking for a better replacement as a matter of fact. The best I could come up with was this, which still has a back turned and doesn't have the four principal members of the band. :/ This, this, and this have just Buck, Mills, and Stipe (the latter Rieflen as well) but are blurry. This is small and NC. Ditto this. The closest I can find is this which is NC. I don't really like the collage approach (especially since it recycles images we see later) but it may be the best bet. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Of your suggestions, I think only this and this are usable, but as you point out, they are NC, and not the best quality. There are okay individual pictures of Buck, Mills and Stipe from the same gig on the Commons which could be combined in a collage and avoids repeating images in the same article. Then again, the only pictures that have been repeated from my collage are the ones of Berry and Mills so these could always be replaced/removed from wherever else they appear? It's a trouble there's only one picture of Berry!

The reason I've not just been bold changing the image is because the current infobox picture has been there almost as long as the article has! City Feedback  talk  16:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have requested some relicensing on Flickr, for what it's worth. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on R.E.M.. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101195123/http://members.iinet.net.au/~darryl74/1985.html to http://members.iinet.net.au/~darryl74/1985.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101195123/http://members.iinet.net.au/~darryl74/1985.html to http://members.iinet.net.au/~darryl74/1985.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314160417/http://www.drummagazine.com/features/post/bill-rieflin-steering-r.e.m.-into-harder-waters to http://www.drummagazine.com/features/post/bill-rieflin-steering-r.e.m.-into-harder-waters/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on R.E.M.. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712171106/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-500-greatest-songs-of-all-time-20110407/r-e-m-radio-free-europe-19691231 to https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-500-greatest-songs-of-all-time-20110407/r-e-m-radio-free-europe-19691231

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Acronym in lead
The lead currently begins: R.E.M. (an acronym for Rapid Eye Movement) was an American rock band ... This garishly gives too much focus on what R.E.M. stands for. Even toning it down to R.E.M. (an acronym for rapid eye movement) ... places too much emphasis on it—"R.E.M." was "simply a name plucked at random" which "means nothing". Readers who want to know what it stands for can get through the first paragraph of the body. The parenthetical is unnecessary and distracting. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 17:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I quite agree. Removed. --John (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how this is supposed to work. You can't just jump in to a just-begun argument and immediately declare the complaint correct and "fix" it.
 * That being said, if it doesn't mean anything according to the band members, then maybe removing it is an okay first step. I do think, however, that if we don't have something there, that the readers will not pursue the information outside of the lead. The lead's goal is to be informative, but not overkill. I hold the opinion specifying this is not overkill. Perhaps we should have a note (not a hidden note) saying something like although it often means rapid eye movement, the band didn't give it a meaning.  danny music editor  oops 18:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The circumstances that the sources demonstrate that this is a more complicated matter than is possible to reasonably explain in a note. The sources do a better job showing me how weird the situation is with their context.  danny music editor  oops 19:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I particularly like David Buckley's comment that the "paradoxical sleep" sense of rapid eye movement "appears deep but is characterised by increased brain activity and eye movement so isn't strictly so. ... [R.E.M.] would produce music just like this – music which appeared deep but was, in fact, just pop, or music which appeared superficial and light but which was also enduring and weighty." Perhaps this mustn't be included in the Wikipedia article, but it's an interesting interpretation of the band name. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough.  Lazz _R  23:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Lyrical content.
Michael's vitriol towards biblical figures is one REM's overarching themes; he even seems to believe he is in the Bible if the lyrics to Living Well is the Best Revenge are anything to go by. It's relevant. Lyrically speaking, and in that respect they stand out a mile. Is probably worth including a section on the lyrics. 80.189.194.130 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense but either way, you have to have sources. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Members
I understand that some editors believe it's right to list Jefferson Holt and Bertis Downs as members of the band, but I (at least right now) disagree. The "several publications" that this article currently allude to are 1) not cited and 2) in my view not entirely accurate, since often the two are not listed that way. You can see Automatic for the People for an instance in which they're credited as members, sort of, since there is still a distinction on that record between the musicians and Holt and Downs. Perhaps it would be appropriate to mention their partial members in the "Members" section, but including them in the infobox without the explanation that they don't play the music feels misleading. Also: perhaps there should be citations for touring members? Not sure where to find a comprehensive listing, though. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Issue one is resolved with citations, which are fairly easy to find but issue two is really us deciding who were a member of a band instead of that band. Why do we have some veto of who they said was a member of R.E.M.? Touring members should certainly be sourced but it's not necessary to do in the infobox or lead: that's what the body made up of running text is for. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is R.E.M. are the only band on Wikipedia I'm aware of that list "non-musical members" in the infobox, which I think asks more questions than it answers. It's not that we're deciding who was and wasn't in the band, it's a matter of consistency across the encyclopaedia. Equally, just because R.E.M. say these non-musical members were in the band, that goes against the general definition of a band. Koavf, your explanation when reverting my edit with "this should do" wasn't very informative. Having "(see members section for others)" like on the page for The Beatles is equally as correct and less confusing for the casual reader. I don't think the article should list them because you personally prefer it that way; although neither ways are incorrect, redirecting to the Members section favours consistency and clarity. City Feedback   talk  12:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Cf. Grateful Dead (multiple non-performing members there) or Depeche Mode. "just because R.E.M. say these non-musical members were in the band, that goes against the general definition of a band" that's their prerogative. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * R.E.M.'s official website and R.E.M.'s official Facebook page list just the four musicians and they are active, maintained sources. Why then list Downs and Holt in the infobox and not all the other touring members as well? It's surely got to be all or nothing. It's not like I'm suggest to remove the information completely because Downs and Holt's roles are mentioned in the Members section of the page; should an infobox not be as succinct and clear as possible? City Feedback   talk  21:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , But WP:V doesn't say that if reliable sources *don't* happen to say something, it *can't* be included, just that if reliable sources say, "[x]", then we can say "[x]" and cite it. Also, that R.E.M. HQ page links to this article! To be sure, lots of reliable sources omit Downs and Holt but no reliable sources include Nathan December as a member of R.E.M., certainly not the band themselves. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't disagree that Downs and Holt were "members" of the band. R.E.M. themselves say they were, so they were. The point I'm trying to make is that they don't need to be included in the infobox as the Members section of the article lists the four musicians as "Main members". Downs and Holt therefore aren't "main members" causing the article to semi-contradict itself; what are the Wikipedia rules on who we list and who we don't list in infoboxes? It's also irrelevant their official website has a link to this page as it's essentially linking to a source it trusts, yet ultimately can be written by anyone; Holt and Downs have not been listed in the infobox for most of the page's existence. If you can explain to me why having them listed in the infobox is more beneficial and clearer for the casual reader than saying "see members section for others", I would rest my case. I know of someone first hand to have been confused by what "non-musical members" means and struggled to find an immediate explanation on the article. City Feedback   talk  00:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , That and the template instructions make a good argument for not arbitrarily saying "classic line-up" or "additional members" etc. Template:Infobox_musical_artist. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look through the liner notes to the albums and not even R.E.M. are consistent with how they list their band members. The four/three musicians are always separate to Downs and Holt, or anyone else, and more often that not Downs was listed as "advisor". Holt was dismissed after Monster. We then have "engineers", "producers", etc. By your logic, should Scott Litt not be listed as a band member in the infobox? I could only find Green – Monster where Downs and Holt are listed without "job titles" although separately from the musicians. I feel the longer this debate is going on, the more questions you're leaving me and readers of Wikipedia unanswered. The fact this debate has come up time again is surely evidence in itself the infobox is problematic. City Feedback   talk  01:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. If you could find sources for all the touring musicians as well that would be great. And thanks for taking the time in co-operating in this discussion that appear to be having with myself. I'll leave it there for now; I forgot you own the R.E.M. page. City Feedback   talk  10:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that working together is better but that last comment seems pretty pointed: I don't own this page, I just edit it. Both of us are trying to make it better. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)