Talk:In Time: The Best of R.E.M. 1988–2003

Shiny Happy People

The article currently states "A notable omission from the album is the song "Shiny Happy People" which was deliberately left out by the band despite it being one of their biggest hits." The statement is vague at best. There are other hits that didn't make it despite being expected inclusions. What makes this one different? I presume that its exclusion was explained or pointed out by a band member in an interview or something. What was the source? What was their reasoning? Slow Graffiti 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember the band mentioning this in an interview, so I dug around and found this transcript. It seems to be a publicity interview made just before the release of In Time. The most relevant section is a quote from Michael Stipe, as follows:

"Well, we have all these songs that were big hit singles that were basically our bubblegum echelon, is what I've referred to it as. Each of us taking those very kind of, very Monkees, Banana Splits, Josey and the Pussycats moments that we had growing up as kids. Me, without an older brother or sister to turn me on to the Who or the Kinks or the Rolling Stones or the Beatles. That was my reference point. And so, with a handful of songs, we kind of - we moved into our bubblegum echelon. And in those are The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonite, which did make the best of. Under pressure we capitulated to the international company, because they really wanted it on there. Shiny Happy People didn't, because it just kind of doesn't fit. Stand did, because it kind of does."

There's nothing in the album sleeve notes about the omission, incidentally. Hassocks5489 14:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the revert wars!

Hey! Between the two of you, you have edited over 10,000 pages; I have edited over 3500. As a disinterested observer, I am citing the unofficial "way too much time on our hands" doctrine: Let's compromise!
a) Dudesleeper is correct on the dating. The reason for this is very simple: for many years now release dates have standardized on Tuesdays in America and Mondays in other places. The difference of a single day is not worth this craziness.

• Proposed: We can use (as as has been the case elsewhere) one date with the UK release date and the second with the US one. You can even use cute little flag icons for them. (b) There are no explicit guidelines on how to incorporate an album article in a discography.
  
• Proposed: We add a second discography using this format, with the albums discography taking top spot, the chronological one the second:

| Misc         = {{Extra chronology 2
  | Artist     = 
  | Type       = 
  | Last album = 
  | This album = 
  | Next album = 
  }}

Discuss, please. -- Fantailfan (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Disc B.

My copy has Disc A as per the single CD version & then has a Disc B, as follows :- Radio Song ; Low ; Near Wild Heaven ; Endgame ; Shiny Happy People ; Belong ; Half A World Away ; Texarkana ; Country Feedback ; Me In Honey ; I'll Take The Rain ; I've Been High ; She Just Wants To Be ; Saturn Return ; Imitation Of Life ; Beat A Drum ; You Are The Everything ; I Remember California.

It is a 24bit HDCD produced for/in Japan. It's not bad. Gwladys24 (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Name of the album/article

Since the name of the album as visible on the album cover (also shown on wikipedia) is clearly "The Best Of R.E.M. In Time 1988-2003" and NOT "In Time:...", I am puzzled why the album and hence the article is misnamed...anybody care to explain? - Joe King

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In Time: The Best of R.E.M. 1988–2003. 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/20070426132458/http://www.kgsr.com/Interviews/Index_rem.aspx to http://kgsr.com/Interviews/Index_rem.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)