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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
2009 - Manchester. 2010 - Dublin, Belfast, London, Berlin, Arras, Werchter. 2011 - PJ20 i & ii, Montreal, Toronto i & ii, Ottawa, Hamilton. 2012 - Manchester i & ii, Berlin i & ii, Stockholm. 2014 - Amsterdam i & ii, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Leeds, Milton Keynes. 2016 - Boston Fenway i & ii, 2018 - Amsterdam i & ii, Pinkpop, London i & ii, Padova, Krakow, Barcelona, Seattle i & ii.
Radiohead is my favorite band, but I'm not sure what to make of this. I can say one thing in certainty: Radiohead fans are not assholes. Sure, you get the holier-than-thou intellectuals, but you get that with just about every band. Even Pearl Jam's fans have an elitist contingent. I post on a Radiohead message board and a lot of the people who post there seem nice. Don't generalize.
Now you can argue that Radiohead are overrated blah blah blah (they very well might be, but the band members themselves are very humble, so don't blame them for people claiming that they're the second coming or anything; fans always get defensive and obsessive like that), but they're in a very enviable position: they can go in just about any direction they want and their hardcore fanbase will stick with them. They went through the whole trial by fire with Kid A, and ultimately, that album was considered one of the better records of the decade, so they earned their ability to do this. Think about it: if Pearl Jam went electronic, chances are their fanbase wouldn't respond as well as they did with Radiohead. Pearl Jam can't just do whatever they want and expect people to lap it up: so, my point is that Radiohead is what every band wants to be in an artistic sense. I'm not claiming that they're the best band, because that's just personal opinion, but not every band has the freedom and trust from their fanbase that Radiohead does.
Radiohead is my favorite band, but I'm not sure what to make of this. I can say one thing in certainty: Radiohead fans are not assholes. Sure, you get the holier-than-thou intellectuals, but you get that with just about every band. Even Pearl Jam's fans have an elitist contingent. I post on a Radiohead message board and a lot of the people who post there seem nice. Don't generalize.
Now you can argue that Radiohead are overrated blah blah blah (they very well might be, but the band members themselves are very humble, so don't blame them for people claiming that they're the second coming or anything; fans always get defensive and obsessive like that), but they're in a very enviable position: they can go in just about any direction they want and their hardcore fanbase will stick with them. They went through the whole trial by fire with Kid A, and ultimately, that album was considered one of the better records of the decade, so they earned their ability to do this. Think about it: if Pearl Jam went electronic, chances are their fanbase wouldn't respond as well as they did with Radiohead. Pearl Jam can't just do whatever they want and expect people to lap it up: so, my point is that Radiohead is what every band wants to be in an artistic sense. I'm not claiming that they're the best band, because that's just personal opinion, but not every band has the freedom and trust from their fanbase that Radiohead does.
Radiohead is my favorite band, but I'm not sure what to make of this. I can say one thing in certainty: Radiohead fans are not assholes. Sure, you get the holier-than-thou intellectuals, but you get that with just about every band. Even Pearl Jam's fans have an elitist contingent. I post on a Radiohead message board and a lot of the people who post there seem nice. Don't generalize.
Now you can argue that Radiohead are overrated blah blah blah (they very well might be, but the band members themselves are very humble, so don't blame them for people claiming that they're the second coming or anything; fans always get defensive and obsessive like that), but they're in a very enviable position: they can go in just about any direction they want and their hardcore fanbase will stick with them. They went through the whole trial by fire with Kid A, and ultimately, that album was considered one of the better records of the decade, so they earned their ability to do this. Think about it: if Pearl Jam went electronic, chances are their fanbase wouldn't respond as well as they did with Radiohead. Pearl Jam can't just do whatever they want and expect people to lap it up: so, my point is that Radiohead is what every band wants to be in an artistic sense. I'm not claiming that they're the best band, because that's just personal opinion, but not every band has the freedom and trust from their fanbase that Radiohead does.
this.
additionally, its the trust that the band has for its fans and the respect for its fans that is also the point. hearing Creep again and again, in different song form, same formula for the past 15 years would have been the track most bands in modern rock go in. And thats fine for that group of fans or that scene. To me, the fact they trusted their fans and trusted themselves enough to go in radically experimental ways, is a tribute to the band and its band members. Creeps a perfect song. It captures that Gen X point of view perfectly. The cynicism, the irony. But I doubt the last 15 years would have been as rewarding musically if, radiohead, hadnt gone the "out there" route and just did whatever they felt like doing, damn the critics, fans, and any expectations.
The fact is: they took leaps and jumps, where alot of bands the past decade and past 15 years took steps. I dont respond much to dumbed down, top 40 music, although that has its place, pop music, is popular for a reason, its catchy and well written. That said, its another thing entirely, to create the albums radiohead has, and have the mainstream, and their rabid fanbase follow along. Thats the pushing boundaries part. Thats the experimentation part. Thats the pushing the art form. A "normal" music listener, picked up Kid A, and Amnesiac and heard some extremely odd and genre/boundary pushing songs. That does something to the listener. It as I said earlier, makes the listener question what a song is
how many bands put out complete crap this past decade? Product that is merely that...mass produced product that is intended solely to shift units and to generate money for artist and label. Product devoid of any meaning, or overall point.
Then, you look at a band like Radiohead, who creates art. Art that makes listeners think, act, engage, and contemplate. Art that is sonically rich and complex. multi layered.
All bands ultimately want to be paid money for their art, all artists do, but I have a hard time thinking that Thom and the guys created Kid A, as a means to line their bank accounts and to buy Thom a new Lamborghini.
Extrapolating that, what then was the reason for these albums? If money, is a secondary issue, or even third, or fourth, what is the main reason they created these albums?
Radiohead is my favorite band, but I'm not sure what to make of this. I can say one thing in certainty: Radiohead fans are not assholes. Sure, you get the holier-than-thou intellectuals, but you get that with just about every band. Even Pearl Jam's fans have an elitist contingent. I post on a Radiohead message board and a lot of the people who post there seem nice. Don't generalize.
Now you can argue that Radiohead are overrated blah blah blah (they very well might be, but the band members themselves are very humble, so don't blame them for people claiming that they're the second coming or anything; fans always get defensive and obsessive like that), but they're in a very enviable position: they can go in just about any direction they want and their hardcore fanbase will stick with them. They went through the whole trial by fire with Kid A, and ultimately, that album was considered one of the better records of the decade, so they earned their ability to do this. Think about it: if Pearl Jam went electronic, chances are their fanbase wouldn't respond as well as they did with Radiohead. Pearl Jam can't just do whatever they want and expect people to lap it up: so, my point is that Radiohead is what every band wants to be in an artistic sense. I'm not claiming that they're the best band, because that's just personal opinion, but not every band has the freedom and trust from their fanbase that Radiohead does.
Good post and i agree :thumbup:
Very well written post
2009 - Manchester. 2010 - Dublin, Belfast, London, Berlin, Arras, Werchter. 2011 - PJ20 i & ii, Montreal, Toronto i & ii, Ottawa, Hamilton. 2012 - Manchester i & ii, Berlin i & ii, Stockholm. 2014 - Amsterdam i & ii, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Leeds, Milton Keynes. 2016 - Boston Fenway i & ii, 2018 - Amsterdam i & ii, Pinkpop, London i & ii, Padova, Krakow, Barcelona, Seattle i & ii.
0
goldrush
everybody knows this is nowhere Posts: 7,630
I always struggle to come up with a definite opinion on Radiohead. I manage to love them and hate them in pretty equal measure! I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing though.
I saw them support James in Newport in December 93 and I hated them. They sounded like just another wannabe 'grunge' band with nothing original to offer - even today I still hate Pablo Honey. The Bends however, is one of the great guitar albums of the 90s and Street Spirit is one of the most beautiful songs of the last 20 years. Everything since OK Computer though, with the possible exception of some of Hail To The Thief, is of very little interest to me, it's just not music that I like.
I really like the 'rock' side of them and I have friends that really love the experimental side of them and can't stand The Bends etc. I think that's what makes them important. There will always be some fans that worship their every sound just like there will always be people that really hate them but at least different people can like different sides of their personality.
On a completely random note and without wanting to derail the topic, "Solved" by Unbelievable Truth has just started playing on my Ipod. They were Thom Yorke's brother's band and I always thought he had a better voice than Thom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=losVx1ywGMs
“Do not postpone happiness”
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
I always struggle to come up with a definite opinion on Radiohead. I manage to love them and hate them in pretty equal measure! I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing though.
I saw them support James in Newport in December 93 and I hated them. They sounded like just another wannabe 'grunge' band with nothing original to offer - even today I still hate Pablo Honey. The Bends however, is one of the great guitar albums of the 90s and Street Spirit is one of the most beautiful songs of the last 20 years. Everything since OK Computer though, with the possible exception of some of Hail To The Thief, is of very little interest to me, it's just not music that I like.
I really like the 'rock' side of them and I have friends that really love the experimental side of them and can't stand The Bends etc. I think that's what makes them important. There will always be some fans that worship their every sound just like there will always be people that really hate them but at least different people can like different sides of their personality.
On a completely random note and without wanting to derail the topic, "Solved" by Unbelievable Truth has just started playing on my Ipod. They were Thom Yorke's brother's band and I always thought he had a better voice than Thom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=losVx1ywGMs
This is exactly my problem with Radiohead now. For me, had they stuck to producing albums in the style of The Bends, Ok Computer and Kid A they'd be phenomenal. Hail To The Thief was too experimental and In Rainbows is dull and lifeless. But, horses for courses - some love these albums so they certainly cater for all tastes with their back catalog.
I love reading through these sort of posts. The original statement has it's merits, but as others say you know you leave yourself wide open when making such claims. That's the beauty though of music on a wider scale, and what turns people on and off. I personally think that they are victims of their own success. Pablo Honey came from nowhere to be a critical hit. The Bends was monumental, they then managed to follow that up with OK Computer. Not many bands have met such critical acclaim and fan adulation with such an opening trio if releases. That to me is where it possibly started to go wrong and the band created the debate that rages here.
Does anyone else think that opinion on the band is as divided as it's every been since Hail To The Thief and In Rainbows were released?
To return to the original point of the thread, I would strongly disagree that bands do want to be like Radiohead. They are in danger of becoming engulfed by the one thing they seem intent on doing - pushing themselves to create a unique sound and style. If they were to shrug this off for once and, for want of a better description, produce an "OK Computer 2" they would blow us all away again.
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.
i did say they've made great artistic statements...
its just that they've veered from the art of song into the art of sound.
i wish culture/critics/people would start making this distinction.
I get the point made by the OP and I agree. Not everyone wants to sound like Radiohead per se, but wish they were able to reinvent themselves and still be great the way Radiohead has. I'll argue though that U2 has done the same, just not as consistently. The jump from Rattle and Hum to Achtung Baby was just as magnificent as the jump from OK Computer to Kid A, IMO.
But I like OK Computer much more than Kid A, and I like Achtung Baby a lot more than Rattle and Hum.
I would argue that Radiohead has created the most challenging and experimental and musically rich and textured music of any bands in the current scene.
quote]
if music is really your life, wouldn't you want to spend more of your free time exploring music you haven't heard, and less time gushing over mainstream indie acts on a message board? the statement above shows how narrow your view of the "current scene" actually is. radiohead is a great band, but that was already established when "the bends" came out 15 years ago.
also...to say that every other band wants to be radiohead is ridiculous. i don't think a band like pearl jam is really worrying about what radiohead is doing in studio, and how they can emulate their sound. i'm pretty sure bands like nickelback who have been selling millions of albums worth of shit the past ten years, don't really give two shits about being more like radiohead either.
i would just like to point out one thing. not necessarily about radiohead but more about the current state of the music business and BIG radio. a little off topic i know but maybe this correlates in some form.
i live in dallas, tx, where there are a couple mainstream rock stations. i don't listen to them because they do nothing for me. but when i am at work some of the guys do have them on. when they play radiohead they play "creep". not "pyramid song", not "paranoid android", and certainly not "pulk pull". they play "creep" and only "creep".
this example to me makes me come to the conclusion that BIG radio is in a way still living in the past. they have not evolved with the times. and the times have changed. to only play "creep", a song that was put out over 15 years ago, and to ignore the evolution of a band like radiohead is HUGE and says a lot about the inept structure of current mainstream rock radio.
luckily we also have another station, 91.7 kxt, which plays everything from neko case to ella fitzgerald to local music to arcade fire. it is commercial free radio supported by its listeners. this to me is the future of radio. when they play pearl jam they do not play "evenflow". when they play new pearl jam music they do not play "the fixer". they play deep cuts which is so refreshing to hear.
"creep"? really? after all this time? again, sorry to be a bit off topic..
i would just like to point out one thing. not necessarily about radiohead but more about the current state of the music business and BIG radio. a little off topic i know but maybe this correlates in some form.
i live in dallas, tx, where there are a couple mainstream rock stations. i don't listen to them because they do nothing for me. but when i am at work some of the guys do have them on. when they play radiohead they play "creep". not "pyramid song", not "paranoid android", and certainly not "pulk pull". they play "creep" and only "creep".
this example to me makes me come to the conclusion that BIG radio is in a way still living in the past. they have not evolved with the times. and the times have changed. to only play "creep", a song that was put out over 15 years ago, and to ignore the evolution of a band like radiohead is HUGE and says a lot about the inept structure of current mainstream rock radio.
luckily we also have another station, 91.7 kxt, which plays everything from neko case to ella fitzgerald to local music to arcade fire. it is commercial free radio supported by its listeners. this to me is the future of radio. when they play pearl jam they do not play "evenflow". when they play new pearl jam music they do not play "the fixer". they play deep cuts which is so refreshing to hear.
"creep"? really? after all this time? again, sorry to be a bit off topic..
there was a station like that where i used to live, they didn't play radiohead but when they played pearl jam it was either daughter or dissident
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
i too am on a love/hate relationship with the band..at times they're music is extremely cool and experimental and other times downright boring and a little self-indulgent. i respect the shit out of them, i will say that. They've taken chances as artists, musicians, and businessmen and that's what i like a lot abou them. One thing that gets me (which is not their fault at all) is how many pretentious fucks listen to them...not all of them by any means...again not all of their fans...but i've encountered too many people that think they are the best band in the past 30 years...like earlier in this thread it boggles my mind how they can be referred to as the best psychadelic band ever, better than floy? really? I will not say i hate or love them, but i don't think they're the band every other band wants to be.
See, I think what the OP means is that Radiohead are in a very enviable position, with the trust from their label and fans to do whatever the hell they want. Obviously not every band wants to sound like them. I don't think that's what the person who created this thread is implying.
So, I go back and forth on the Radiohead/Pearl Jam comparison. I'd say right now I'd go with Pearl Jam. I certainly appreciate the way the Radiohead experiments with electronica and the like, and I am a HUGE fan of Kid A. That said, I still prefer music made with plain old instruments. You know - rock and roll. So that swings me back to the more organic sound of Pearl Jam.
(I understand these aren't the only two bands in the world - but I think it's an interesting comparison - please don't shoot me!)
Another thing about Radiohead - besides In Rainbows, which was enormously hyped, and perhaps a little bit disappointing (I mean, it's a little bit soft, honestly), Radiohead have basically disappeared for the past 7 years or so. There's been one big tour, one album, a few b-sides here and there, a couple Thom Yorke albums (one is iffy at best, and the other is impossible to find). I just don't know what these guys have been doing. It's hard to argue that they're really all that relevant anymore. And believe me, I am a really big fan of Radiohead.
Sorry for the run-on sentences.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
So, I go back and forth on the Radiohead/Pearl Jam comparison. I'd say right now I'd go with Pearl Jam. I certainly appreciate the way the Radiohead experiments with electronica and the like, and I am a HUGE fan of Kid A. That said, I still prefer music made with plain old instruments. You know - rock and roll. So that swings me back to the more organic sound of Pearl Jam.
(I understand these aren't the only two bands in the world - but I think it's an interesting comparison - please don't shoot me!)
Another thing about Radiohead - besides In Rainbows, which was enormously hyped, and perhaps a little bit disappointing (I mean, it's a little bit soft, honestly), Radiohead have basically disappeared for the past 7 years or so. There's been one big tour, one album, a few b-sides here and there, a couple Thom Yorke albums (one is iffy at best, and the other is impossible to find). I just don't know what these guys have been doing. It's hard to argue that they're really all that relevant anymore. And believe me, I am a really big fan of Radiohead.
Sorry for the run-on sentences.
I disagree that they have disappeared. Anytime new Radiohead news leaks out, people are like dogs at dinner time. Its madness. Just look at the madness that was last night Haiti benefit in la. And whenever LP8 comes out, people will be going absolutely mad for it. And the In Rainbows comment, is ridiculous. The album wasnt what i expected, but its yet another example of the genius of radiohead. What did most people expect In Rainbows to sound like? Most people expected it to be a bunch of, as has been alluded to earlier, bleeps and bloops and blips ala Thoms solo record and of course based on their increasingly experiemental progression. So to release an accessible, fairly straight forward album full of love songs, that again was bucking the trends and the expectations. Absolutely brilliant.
And yes, I dont think all bands want to sound like radiohead. I think most bands view radiohead as one of the most innovative and important bands of our generation, thus any move the band makes, people, fans, other bands look at it and watch and listen intently. Ultimately the position radiohead is in, to be able to do, whatever the hell they want, and still have fans love it, is the dream of every musician. They have complete and utter control of every facet of their music and even how its distributed. The fact that the band is made up of people who are normal and non extravagent human beings only adds to their charm.
I kind of alluded to this in the tarantino thread. I love his flicks because he is a film lovers, filmmaker. You can see his absolute love of movies, of the art form, in any interview. It radiates from him. Radiohead seem the same way. They love music. They dont create music to buy huge mansions. They make music because they love music, and they seem to want to push the boundaries of music and the scene.
Comments
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
This is the kind of stuff that turns people off, that's all I'm saying.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
2012 - Manchester i & ii, Berlin i & ii, Stockholm. 2014 - Amsterdam i & ii, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Leeds, Milton Keynes.
2016 - Boston Fenway i & ii, 2018 - Amsterdam i & ii, Pinkpop, London i & ii, Padova, Krakow, Barcelona, Seattle i & ii.
Now you can argue that Radiohead are overrated blah blah blah (they very well might be, but the band members themselves are very humble, so don't blame them for people claiming that they're the second coming or anything; fans always get defensive and obsessive like that), but they're in a very enviable position: they can go in just about any direction they want and their hardcore fanbase will stick with them. They went through the whole trial by fire with Kid A, and ultimately, that album was considered one of the better records of the decade, so they earned their ability to do this. Think about it: if Pearl Jam went electronic, chances are their fanbase wouldn't respond as well as they did with Radiohead. Pearl Jam can't just do whatever they want and expect people to lap it up: so, my point is that Radiohead is what every band wants to be in an artistic sense. I'm not claiming that they're the best band, because that's just personal opinion, but not every band has the freedom and trust from their fanbase that Radiohead does.
Good post and i agree :thumbup:
this.
additionally, its the trust that the band has for its fans and the respect for its fans that is also the point. hearing Creep again and again, in different song form, same formula for the past 15 years would have been the track most bands in modern rock go in. And thats fine for that group of fans or that scene. To me, the fact they trusted their fans and trusted themselves enough to go in radically experimental ways, is a tribute to the band and its band members. Creeps a perfect song. It captures that Gen X point of view perfectly. The cynicism, the irony. But I doubt the last 15 years would have been as rewarding musically if, radiohead, hadnt gone the "out there" route and just did whatever they felt like doing, damn the critics, fans, and any expectations.
The fact is: they took leaps and jumps, where alot of bands the past decade and past 15 years took steps. I dont respond much to dumbed down, top 40 music, although that has its place, pop music, is popular for a reason, its catchy and well written. That said, its another thing entirely, to create the albums radiohead has, and have the mainstream, and their rabid fanbase follow along. Thats the pushing boundaries part. Thats the experimentation part. Thats the pushing the art form. A "normal" music listener, picked up Kid A, and Amnesiac and heard some extremely odd and genre/boundary pushing songs. That does something to the listener. It as I said earlier, makes the listener question what a song is
Then, you look at a band like Radiohead, who creates art. Art that makes listeners think, act, engage, and contemplate. Art that is sonically rich and complex. multi layered.
All bands ultimately want to be paid money for their art, all artists do, but I have a hard time thinking that Thom and the guys created Kid A, as a means to line their bank accounts and to buy Thom a new Lamborghini.
Extrapolating that, what then was the reason for these albums? If money, is a secondary issue, or even third, or fourth, what is the main reason they created these albums?
Yet another reason why they deserve much respect
Very well written post
2012 - Manchester i & ii, Berlin i & ii, Stockholm. 2014 - Amsterdam i & ii, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Leeds, Milton Keynes.
2016 - Boston Fenway i & ii, 2018 - Amsterdam i & ii, Pinkpop, London i & ii, Padova, Krakow, Barcelona, Seattle i & ii.
I saw them support James in Newport in December 93 and I hated them. They sounded like just another wannabe 'grunge' band with nothing original to offer - even today I still hate Pablo Honey. The Bends however, is one of the great guitar albums of the 90s and Street Spirit is one of the most beautiful songs of the last 20 years. Everything since OK Computer though, with the possible exception of some of Hail To The Thief, is of very little interest to me, it's just not music that I like.
I really like the 'rock' side of them and I have friends that really love the experimental side of them and can't stand The Bends etc. I think that's what makes them important. There will always be some fans that worship their every sound just like there will always be people that really hate them but at least different people can like different sides of their personality.
On a completely random note and without wanting to derail the topic, "Solved" by Unbelievable Truth has just started playing on my Ipod. They were Thom Yorke's brother's band and I always thought he had a better voice than Thom!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=losVx1ywGMs
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
This is exactly my problem with Radiohead now. For me, had they stuck to producing albums in the style of The Bends, Ok Computer and Kid A they'd be phenomenal. Hail To The Thief was too experimental and In Rainbows is dull and lifeless. But, horses for courses - some love these albums so they certainly cater for all tastes with their back catalog.
To return to the original point of the thread, I would strongly disagree that bands do want to be like Radiohead. They are in danger of becoming engulfed by the one thing they seem intent on doing - pushing themselves to create a unique sound and style. If they were to shrug this off for once and, for want of a better description, produce an "OK Computer 2" they would blow us all away again.
its just that they've veered from the art of song into the art of sound.
i wish culture/critics/people would start making this distinction.
But I like OK Computer much more than Kid A, and I like Achtung Baby a lot more than Rattle and Hum.
but, the electronic sounds along with Yorkes soprano can be downright annoying-its not for everyone
I loved in rainbows and cannot wait to see what they do next.
IMHO, Id rather emulate Pearl Jam, Wilco or MMJ if I was a musician
i live in dallas, tx, where there are a couple mainstream rock stations. i don't listen to them because they do nothing for me. but when i am at work some of the guys do have them on. when they play radiohead they play "creep". not "pyramid song", not "paranoid android", and certainly not "pulk pull". they play "creep" and only "creep".
this example to me makes me come to the conclusion that BIG radio is in a way still living in the past. they have not evolved with the times. and the times have changed. to only play "creep", a song that was put out over 15 years ago, and to ignore the evolution of a band like radiohead is HUGE and says a lot about the inept structure of current mainstream rock radio.
luckily we also have another station, 91.7 kxt, which plays everything from neko case to ella fitzgerald to local music to arcade fire. it is commercial free radio supported by its listeners. this to me is the future of radio. when they play pearl jam they do not play "evenflow". when they play new pearl jam music they do not play "the fixer". they play deep cuts which is so refreshing to hear.
"creep"? really? after all this time? again, sorry to be a bit off topic..
there was a station like that where i used to live, they didn't play radiohead but when they played pearl jam it was either daughter or dissident
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
They say every sin is deadly but I believe they may be wrong...I'm guilty of all seven and I don't feel too bad at all
(I understand these aren't the only two bands in the world - but I think it's an interesting comparison - please don't shoot me!)
Another thing about Radiohead - besides In Rainbows, which was enormously hyped, and perhaps a little bit disappointing (I mean, it's a little bit soft, honestly), Radiohead have basically disappeared for the past 7 years or so. There's been one big tour, one album, a few b-sides here and there, a couple Thom Yorke albums (one is iffy at best, and the other is impossible to find). I just don't know what these guys have been doing. It's hard to argue that they're really all that relevant anymore. And believe me, I am a really big fan of Radiohead.
Sorry for the run-on sentences.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
I disagree that they have disappeared. Anytime new Radiohead news leaks out, people are like dogs at dinner time. Its madness. Just look at the madness that was last night Haiti benefit in la. And whenever LP8 comes out, people will be going absolutely mad for it. And the In Rainbows comment, is ridiculous. The album wasnt what i expected, but its yet another example of the genius of radiohead. What did most people expect In Rainbows to sound like? Most people expected it to be a bunch of, as has been alluded to earlier, bleeps and bloops and blips ala Thoms solo record and of course based on their increasingly experiemental progression. So to release an accessible, fairly straight forward album full of love songs, that again was bucking the trends and the expectations. Absolutely brilliant.
And yes, I dont think all bands want to sound like radiohead. I think most bands view radiohead as one of the most innovative and important bands of our generation, thus any move the band makes, people, fans, other bands look at it and watch and listen intently. Ultimately the position radiohead is in, to be able to do, whatever the hell they want, and still have fans love it, is the dream of every musician. They have complete and utter control of every facet of their music and even how its distributed. The fact that the band is made up of people who are normal and non extravagent human beings only adds to their charm.
I kind of alluded to this in the tarantino thread. I love his flicks because he is a film lovers, filmmaker. You can see his absolute love of movies, of the art form, in any interview. It radiates from him. Radiohead seem the same way. They love music. They dont create music to buy huge mansions. They make music because they love music, and they seem to want to push the boundaries of music and the scene.