So, I stumbled upon this article on Slate today and it brings up the age-old question: Which band was the best of the ’80′s—R.E.M., or U2? It’s an interesting question because it goes against the revisionist train of thought that’s prevalent right now and that is: whatever is popular now must have always been popular. Don’t believe me, look at how Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, and Jessica Simpson’s careers all intersected with the Mickey Mouse Club—because they all tried out (and made it, with the exception of Simpson) they must have been fated to be mega-stars. Nevermind the fact for every Timberlake there are 500,000 kids who sing in some public manner and never make it at all.
But I digress. If you’re of a certain age, you would be inclined to believe that U2 is clearly the more influential band and the greatest band because of their superior marketing and the fact that their last few albums have been better than R.E.M.’s. Just looking at this question strictly from the perspective of the ’80′s, R.E.M was clearly the better and more influential band albeit in a more low-key and minimalist way. As the article correctly points out (and quotes), U2 has always been about music that resides on a much larger and more mainstream level: Irish band singing about Martin Luther King, Jr., Bono having the loudest and most memorable lyric in “Do They Know It’s Christmas,” even their songs and early videos were seemingly crafted with mainstream aspirations. R.E.M., on the other hand, are the Founding Fathers of College Rock; by nature, they were obscure and meant to be discovered.
For guys, discovering bands first is like an older version of trading baseball cards and R.E.M. was the epitome of this. Being the first one to own Reckoning or the first one to claim to have deciphered the lyrics to “Can’t Get There From Here” is a small (but albeit a retarded) victory. U2 seem more and more like the guys who came from old wealth and privilege; their songs are more direct, their image is larger-than-life, and they’re everywhere. No one can brag about being the first to own The Joshua Tree because everyone had it (it’s this generation’s Frampton Comes Alive or The Dark Side of the Moon). But, if you were the first to realize that “The One I Love” wasn’t a love song… that was somehow cool. Cooler than being on the cover of Time magazine with Bill Gates.
To look at it another way, if you liked R.E.M. in the ’80′s you probably identified with art students or the band kids; if you liked U2 you probably thought that the art and band kids were snotty, know-it-all assholes. I guess this is why the question is so interesting: music, probably more than anything else, is a projection device that people use to broadcast to others that they’re more interesting and cooler than the average person. Under this notion, R.E.M. would represent the Bohemian outlook and U2 would be the bourgeoisie outlook. So, which one is better? Which band do you identify with more—the Bohemians, or the bourgeoisie?