Radiohead is the band every other band wants to be

Digital Twilight

musicismylife78 wrote:

lets face it, most people would like the bands they are into to be as acclaimed and as revered as radiohead is. This rears its head often on this board when nirvana and kurt are discussed. Obviously, nirvana and kurt in the great history book of music, for whatever its worth, are the most important band of the 1990's, with kurt being the voice of his generation, and most likely the most important musician of his generation. Thus anyone, who likes a band, or musician not named nirvana or kurt, its understandable to be angry whenever people bring up those names.

1st - no they wouldn't and 2nd if it wasnt Kurt it would have been someone else. More people don't care about Nirvana then people who do and the same goes for any band, movie or pieces of art. If Nirvana didn't take the 'popular' music scene away from Guns n Roses ect then someone else would have done.

I'm not really sure where your post is supposed to be heading but the sun doesn't shine out of Radiohead's arse and the majority of music listeners prob don't care about them. Music is far too vast for one band no matter how popular they are.

Pepe Silvia

i love radiohead and they are 1 of my favorite bands ever but 3 things:

-i wouldn't really call their music psychedelic

-what psychedelic-ish songs they do have there is no way they are better than pink floyd, i wouldn't even put radiohead in the top 5 for this type of music

-while i love hail to the thief and in rainbows and all the layers i think the flaming lips have been a little bit better their last couple albums.

on a side note to the last 1 i think the flaming lips and radiohead influence each other a lot

Wilds

asgoodasitgets wrote:

Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.

Wolf At Bay

Evacuation Rules wrote:

If you weren't moved the first time you heard OK Computer, then you have no right to voice an opinion about what Radiohead means or what good music is, because it's hopelessly over your head.

that album is great, but i still side with those who consider radiohead wildly overrated. they release music that spans from amazing to absurdly awful and they get worshiped as if they were infallible. furthermore, they depend way too much on effects/production so that actual songwriting takes a back seat. fucking write a song before you start messing with the beeps and whistles. thom yorke's brother is a better singer, by the way.
so, yes, radiohead has made some great artistic statements, but, in general, they are part of the overall trend leading to the death of rock.

rhcpjam1029

Wolf At Bay wrote:

Evacuation Rules wrote:

If you weren't moved the first time you heard OK Computer, then you have no right to voice an opinion about what Radiohead means or what good music is, because it's hopelessly over your head.

that album is great, but i still side with those who consider radiohead wildly overrated. they release music that spans from amazing to absurdly awful and they get worshiped as if they were infallible. furthermore, they depend way too much on effects/production so that actual songwriting takes a back seat. fucking write a song before you start messing with the beeps and whistles. thom yorke's brother is a better singer, by the way.
so, yes, radiohead has made some great artistic statements, but, in general, they are part of the overall trend leading to the death of rock.

+1.

and to evacuation rules...you are one of the reasons why i will never affiliated myself with being a radiohead fan because all the hardcore radiohead fans out there are pricks and believe that radiohead is the only band that has ever done anything near revolutionary in the field of music and is the only band that matters for the salvation of music.

scottstappsucks

meveret wrote:

If only they'd write a single song that was enjoyable to listen. I already know what music I like, rock, and Radiohead ain't it. In my opnion they are creative and innovative musicians, yet at the same time they (and the hordes of bands today influenced by them) are responsible for the death of rock music as we knew it and that is a shame. Radiohead may indeed be the music of the future, or the present in fact. At the same time I will mourn the death of rock as indie/electronica/rap and r+b dance trash dance on its grave.

This perfectly sums up my view.

mr.pink

Pepe Silvia wrote:

-i wouldn't really call their music psychedelic

-what psychedelic-ish songs they do have there is no way they are better than pink floyd, i wouldn't even put radiohead in the top 5 for this type of music

That was me calling them psychedelic. I guess I was referring to the sound of their music. Possibly atmospheric is a better word. And the lyrics are as far from clear as possible, which adds to the psychedelic/ atmospheric quailty of the music. A more normal pop song is a break in radiohead albums. In this way, they are very similar to Pink Floyd, but are better at it IMO. We might have different ideas of psychedelia in minds.

About the "overrated" "prick fans" things. I know there are a lot of RH fans out there. And a lot of people who are convinced they are the best band around. I've never been around many RH fans, they're certainly not mainstream like some of the other bands people compared them to here, so I have no idea about "prick" fans. But I can totally see how people consider them the best band ever. I only listen to them when I'm in that certain "mood", and when I'm in that mood... absolutely I believe they are the best. Hell, once I read that David Bowie felt the same way about them.

Then again, when I'm in a PJ or SG mood, which is more common for me, I'm convinced that they are the best ever. I think its very possible that I'm right on all accounts.

mr.pink

oops, double post.

musicismylife78

Wolf At Bay wrote:

Evacuation Rules wrote:

If you weren't moved the first time you heard OK Computer, then you have no right to voice an opinion about what Radiohead means or what good music is, because it's hopelessly over your head.

that album is great, but i still side with those who consider radiohead wildly overrated. they release music that spans from amazing to absurdly awful and they get worshiped as if they were infallible. furthermore, they depend way too much on effects/production so that actual songwriting takes a back seat. fucking write a song before you start messing with the beeps and whistles. thom yorke's brother is a better singer, by the way.
so, yes, radiohead has made some great artistic statements, but, in general, they are part of the overall trend leading to the death of rock.

you are barking mad if your sitting here and telling me thom yorke isnt one of the premier songwriters of our generation.

The beeps and whistles are a genius part of the band. The band is one of the most anticapitalist/anticivilization/antitechnoligical bands that has ever existed, and whats brilliant is they do this, they speak those sentiments through the use of technological inhanced music, or music that in many ways, especially in the case of The Eraser, is made on Protools.

BinFrog

musicismylife78 wrote:

you are barking mad if your sitting here and telling me thom yorke isnt one of the premier songwriters of our generation.

Or it could be that Radiohead doesn't move some people the same way they do you. I respect the hell out of Radiohead, but I cannot listen to an album of theirs in its entirety. It just doesn't capture me. I sometimes feel like I should "get" them more than I do, but at this point I've just come to terms with the fact that they are not the band for me. I know they are great songwriters and have a great sense of creativity (innovation not being the right word), and I certainly enjoy a few songs here and there, but they're not in my top tier, or even the next tier.

People who think Radiohead are vastly innovative need to look back at the bands that influenced them. Radiohead may combine rock/electronica/ambient/etc styles very effectively, but they stand on a very large foundation of their influences. I don't hear much "new" stuff coming from them.

musicismylife78: You're a very opinionated guy, which I respect, but you need to lighten up a bit when you get into (or start) threads like this.

musicismylife78

it baffles the mind how anyone could direguard radioheads importance in music, even allowing some people dont like the music.

This is a band who is the epitome of integrity. They dont dumb down their music, and they dont take their audience for fools. They could have spent the last 15 years remaking Creep. They could have put out mediocre alt rock radio hits. And they would have been huge. Instead they took a HUGE chance. They created challenging, experimental, out there music, that surely pissed off their label. They took a huge chance, by creating non commercial, challenging, and intellectually intense records. And what happened? Each consecutive album got more and more praise and love. The complaint is offen suggested that the public is dumb. That Britney and American Idol is we want. Radiohead prove this is not the case.

Thats what I am talking about when I talk about pushing the boundaries of the art form. Pulk/Pull Revolving doors-this is not your typical rock song. Its wildly experimental.

Take Thoms lyrics out of the equation. Focus solely on the music itself, and the just the sounds Thoms voice makes. Take a song like Kid A. How can you not see this song as art in its purest form. The piano/bell beeping, thoms alien voice sounded muffled and itshard to understand even what he is saying. Its out there music. Somehow its melodious and harmonius as well. The song is gorgeous. Thats art folks.

Or something like Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors.

To make music like that, is sort of like jumping off a cliff with a blindfold on. You could land on anything. You most likely will die, but there is that small chance, you will land in a pool of water, or will somehow land unscathed and alive. To create albums like OK, Kid A, Amnesiac, Hail, and In Rainbows, its absolute madness. Your label is most likely thinking you are insane. Your fanbase who loved creep, will most likely turn on you. The massive success you gained with that song, will most likely be squandered.

I will take bands who do things this way, over the formulaic/same album after same album,way of life anyday. I am not a dumb person. And I hate when bands and labels treat me or anyone else as one. To be treated as an equal, as someone deserving of music that takes years to digest and pour over, that to me is something truely special and remarkable

Digital Twilight

You don't get out much do you ? :roll:

musicismylife78

BinFrog wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

you are barking mad if your sitting here and telling me thom yorke isnt one of the premier songwriters of our generation.

Or it could be that Radiohead doesn't move some people the same way they do you. I respect the hell out of Radiohead, but I cannot listen to an album of theirs in its entirety. It just doesn't capture me. I sometimes feel like I shold "get" them more than I do, but at this point I've just come to terms with the fact that they are not the band for me. I know they are great songwriters and have a great sense of creativity (innovation not being the right word), and I certainly enjoy a few songs here and there, but they're not in my top tier, or even the next tier.

People who think Radiohead are vastly innovative need to look back at the bands that influenced them. Radiohead may combine rock/electronica/ambient/etc styles very effectively, but they stand on a very large foundation of their influences. I don't hear much "new" stuff coming from them.

musicismylife78: You're a very opinionated guy, which I respect, but you need to lighten up a bit when you get into (or start) threads like this.

are the other people on this thread opinionated? Cause it aint just me who has a forceful and strong opinion on thistopic. The antiradiohead crowd certainly has come out in full force. Calling radiohead fans names and stuff. I respect that not everyone loves every band in my playlist, thats common and thats okay. What I dont respect is people acting like people are uptight snobs or something for liking radiohead. Further, there are millions of radiohead fans in the world. People on this thread talk about these fans as monolithic, as if we all think the same way, and have the same feelings and opinions. This is of course wildly untrue. Even the most basic stuff like whats your favorite RH album can differ widely.

I love radiohead. Why is this such a negative thing?

What I was getting at before, was this notion that people are jealous. Any band would love to have the kind of praise and adoration Radiohead has. Thats just fact. They are respected within the industry and among fans, and critics as well.

musicismylife78

Digital Twilight wrote:

You don't get out much do you ? :roll:

yep, case in point friend, case in point. No problem debating issues with people. Problem, is, people always seem to bring these stupid, snarky and asinine statements to these threads. Dont like radiohead, or the thread. Good on ya. See ya. Theres the escape hatch. leave. Otherwise, post intelligent debate.

Why do you disagree that Radiohead is the band every other band wants to be?

What other bands have pushed the musical boundaries more or in similar ways?

What of this jealousy argument? Is it fair to say, many fans and many bands are jealous of the almost biblical importance of any new radiohead release? If Radiohead isnt important, why then do these bands worship Radiohead?

What constitues an important band? Is it forumlaic, by the book albums? Is it songwriting? Musicianship? Awards? Critical success? Fanbase rabidness? Experimental tendencies? Challenging the listeners and audience?

musicismylife78

post script- why do bands that are the biggest bands in the world, or are hugely important, always get hammered? Why do some feel to always make fun of said bands? Obviously some of what is "big" or "of the moment" is crap. Some of it is extraordinary. Why, is it a time honored tradition to knock down or thrown rocks at bands who have huge followings?

mr.pink

Musicismylife78: Everybody is different. I certainly love the shit out of RH, and obviously many many others do as well. We could point to all kinds of evidence of their greatness, but like everything else, it doens't mean shit to many others.

For instance, I saw this "Reader's Poll" (which are always better than the panel's lists) in RollingStone that listed the best albums of all time. There were some very solid choices: Beatles' Revolver, Led Zeppelin 4, Dark Side of the Moon, Ok Computer (possilby Ten, can't remember).... in fact, RH had more than one album near the top. RollingStone readers cover a wide range and there was a lot of love for RH!!! But then there was this other band in the top 10: Weezer. I like Weezer, don't get me wrong, but I don't think any of their albums are anywhere near the top AT ALL! In fact, I find them to be a radio band that makes perfect singles, but boring as hell albums.

And this is a PJ site, so I'm not surprised they don't get that much love here. Think about it: PJ has a very earthy, organic straight up classic rock sound. That a world away from RH, even if they did come out about the same time with similar influences, like Neil.

musicismylife78

further, merely on the basis of being renegades and rebels in terms of marketing or even making challenging and experimental music, being stubborn enough to want to do things like release a song like Pulk Pull even when most likely everyone is saying "no dont do it". What other bands are doing this? Putting challenging experimental, non dumbed down music out for consumption? If we can identify those bands, maybe we can see who else is pushing the art form far, or farther. So who are these bands?

mr.pink

musicismylife78 wrote:

post script- why do bands that are the biggest bands in the world, or are hugely important, always get hammered? Why do some feel to always make fun of said bands? Obviously some of what is "big" or "of the moment" is crap. Some of it is extraordinary. Why, is it a time honored tradition to knock down or thrown rocks at bands who have huge followings?

I guess that's how it goes. PJ experienced it at one time. Nickleback is huge and get hammered, but deservedly so. That has got to be the dumbest lyricist in the history of rock, and his voice sounds like shit too. I have no idea why they are so popular. I will continue to throw rocks at that shit shit shit band.

Hey man, when we don't all see eye to eye, at least we can all love on PJ and hate on Nickleback together

BinFrog

musicismylife78 wrote:

I love radiohead. Why is this such a negative thing?

It's not a bad thing in the slightest bit. Good for you for being a huge fan...that's what makes music so great. One man's favorite band is another man's throwaway. The Beatles may be the greatest thing ever to one obsessed fan, and they may be overrated slop to someone else.

musicismylife78 wrote:

you are barking mad if your sitting here and telling me thom yorke isnt one of the premier songwriters of our generation."

This is the kind of stuff that turns people off, that's all I'm saying.

dottles

I saw Radiohead in 1995 on The Bends tour, in Truro City Hall, which held I don't know, 1000 people. They were great, loved it, loved the album, not loved subsequent albums as much, but the band every other band wants to be, no I don't think so, and nor would Thom Yorke want that either.