a large portion of radiohead's fanbase, myself not-included, probably would not be interested in "the king of limbs" if it weren't made by radiohead.
But it WAS made by Radiohead, so that doesn't matter.
Yeah, I don't understand that argument either.
By the looks of it, this might be tough for some of you to comprehend, but maybe, just maybe, people like it because it's good?
It's a valid point, because it counters the argument that if it sells well it must be good. The fact is that a good proportion of their fans don't listen to anything else even remotely this experimental. This might be tough for some of you to comprehend, but maybe, just maybe, some people will just buy it because they know it's cool to pretend that you get Radiohead - I've met loads of people like that over the years.
It's a valid point, because it counters the argument that if it sells well it must be good. The fact is that a good proportion of their fans don't listen to anything else even remotely this experimental. This might be tough for some of you to comprehend, but maybe, just maybe, some people will just buy it because they know it's cool to pretend that you get Radiohead - I've met loads of people like that over the years.
That's just sad. I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt that the people on here praising TKoL are not like that. Ten Clubbers must be better than that, right?
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
Also, it's probably not good for an argument when its "validity" centers on some random dude on the Internet who may have met people who feel that way.
Where the hell do you hang out that you meet all of these posers anyway?
Also, it's probably not good for an argument when its "validity" centers on some random dude on the Internet who may have met people who feel that way.
Where the hell do you hang out that you meet all of these posers anyway?
i know someone just mentioned that people listen to this just cause it's cool to like radiohead....but i think you're missing the point. i wouldn't suggest that people will listen to this, not like it, and then pretend to enjoy it because it's radiohead. that would be silly, although i'm sure there are people like that. but....the same poster also said something else that i think is true.....he said something along the lines of, a large portion of radiohead's fanbase doesn't listen to anything remotely this experimental. that's the point i was trying to bring up that i thought was interesting. people will actually give this album a chance, and they may actually end up liking it, because it's radiohead...while if a band like animal collective (not trying to compare the two in any way other than they are experimental) made the same album, a lot of the same people probably wouldn't be the least bit interested.
...also, this is not an argument. you can't really prove it one way or the other, although i believe it to be true. it's simply a personal observation that i made to add to the discussion. who really cares if it's right or wrong?
by the way, love your picture. one of the greatest albums ever. fact. haha.
why are we throwing around terms like "experimental" in regards to this album?? whats experimental about this by RH standards? i know i had high praise initially, but a couple weeks later and i'm already bored with it
call "in rainbows" safe all you want... at least those songs toured well and were fun outside the context of the album
Also, it's probably not good for an argument when its "validity" centers on some random dude on the Internet who may have met people who feel that way.
Where the hell do you hang out that you meet all of these posers anyway?
i know someone just mentioned that people listen to this just cause it's cool to like radiohead....but i think you're missing the point. i wouldn't suggest that people will listen to this, not like it, and then pretend to enjoy it because it's radiohead. that would be silly, although i'm sure there are people like that. but....the same poster also said something else that i think is true.....he said something along the lines of, a large portion of radiohead's fanbase doesn't listen to anything remotely this experimental. that's the point i was trying to bring up that i thought was interesting. people will actually give this album a chance, and they may actually end up liking it, because it's radiohead...while if a band like animal collective (not trying to compare the two in any way other than they are experimental) made the same album, a lot of the same people probably wouldn't be the least bit interested.
...also, this is not an argument. you can't really prove it one way or the other, although i believe it to be true. it's simply a personal observation that i made to add to the discussion. who really cares if it's right or wrong?
by the way, love your picture. one of the greatest albums ever. fact. haha.
Fair enough, I guess I can't argue with that. I'd say though that Radiohead fans, in general, would most likely be more receptive to "experimental" music (kind of hard to actually say what that is when you think about it) than some other fanbases, as a result of them being lumped in with other "experimental" bands by indie sites such as Pitchfork.
Of course, I could still be missing your point, but it's probably a pointless exchange we're having anyway. And yeah, Highway 61 Revisited is my favorite album ever!
Also, it's probably not good for an argument when its "validity" centers on some random dude on the Internet who may have met people who feel that way.
Where the hell do you hang out that you meet all of these posers anyway?
A little creative thinking please. Name me one other band as inaccessible as Radiohead have been in recent times who have had a number one record in the last ten years.
I said over the years. Kid A came out while I was at University, and there were LOADS of poseurs there who adopted Radiohead as the band name to drop to show their eclectic taste in music.
It's a valid point, because it counters the argument that if it sells well it must be good. The fact is that a good proportion of their fans don't listen to anything else even remotely this experimental. This might be tough for some of you to comprehend, but maybe, just maybe, some people will just buy it because they know it's cool to pretend that you get Radiohead - I've met loads of people like that over the years.[/quote]
this is absurd. i frequent Atease, the radiohead version of this place, the forum, and on their other music board they are very much more into new/hipper music than people on this board are.
right now for example on the other music part of atease, there are threads on dubstep, james blake, sean lennon, joanna newson, elbow, odd future, rem, of montreal, washed out.
in all honesty if im looking to check out new exciting bands, and want to see discussions on them, i hate to say it, but the pearl jam forum is the last place to look. Radiohead fans are extremely open minded.
to suggest they arent open to experimental music only shows your own ignorance
the other music forum im posting on now, right here, is an odd place. not one thread on sufjan's ep in october and his new album in November. thats just one example.
Also, it's probably not good for an argument when its "validity" centers on some random dude on the Internet who may have met people who feel that way.
Where the hell do you hang out that you meet all of these posers anyway?
A little creative thinking please. Name me one other band as inaccessible as Radiohead have been in recent times who have had a number one record in the last ten years.
I said over the years. Kid A came out while I was at University, and there were LOADS of poseurs there who adopted Radiohead as the band name to drop to show their eclectic taste in music.
its more than that. radiohead are considered the vanguard of cutting edge music for a reason. they took chances and risks that deserve to be praised from here until eternity. they could have rested on their laurels and redone creep over and over and over again. instead they released Kid A, with songs like Idioteque and Kid A the song. Or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Ive said it before, and ill say it again, radiohead push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like and we need those types of bands.
they constantly surprise and challenge their fans. thats another thing they deserve heaps of praise for. i went into In Rainbows thinking it would sound like Kid A or Amnesiac, experimental, odd electronic music. Instead In Rainbows was their most accessible album ever.
Radiohead are one of those special bands. there is a reason they appeared at number 1 or number 2 of basically EVERY SINGLE best of decade list in 2009, when people were looking back at 2000-2009.
It's a valid point, because it counters the argument that if it sells well it must be good. The fact is that a good proportion of their fans don't listen to anything else even remotely this experimental. This might be tough for some of you to comprehend, but maybe, just maybe, some people will just buy it because they know it's cool to pretend that you get Radiohead - I've met loads of people like that over the years.[/quote]
this is absurd. i frequent Atease, the radiohead version of this place, the forum, and on their other music board they are very much more into new/hipper music than people on this board are.
right now for example on the other music part of atease, there are threads on dubstep, james blake, sean lennon, joanna newson, elbow, odd future, rem, of montreal, washed out.
in all honesty if im looking to check out new exciting bands, and want to see discussions on them, i hate to say it, but the pearl jam forum is the last place to look. Radiohead fans are extremely open minded.
to suggest they arent open to experimental music only shows your own ignorance
the other music forum im posting on now, right here, is an odd place. not one thread on sufjan's ep in october and his new album in November. thats just one example.[/quote]
it's not absurd. you trying to use a radiohead message board to validate your view point is a bit absurd. no one is even talking about pearl jam. not sure what the other music forum here has to do with this discussion, but typically people that frequent music message boards are probably more open to experimental music to begin with, because they are probably music lovers. the majority of radiohead's fan base never even goes on the message board you are talking about, and even less of them are on that "other music" section you speak of. that goes for this message board as well.
i would assume that most fans of experimental/indie music probably appreciate radiohead, because they are great at what they do. this would explain the discussions you are seeing on your message board. but radiohead has so many more fans than any other band that makes music like they do...which leads me to believe that a large portion of their fanbase would typically not be interested in hearing something like "kings of limbs" if it weren't a new radiohead album.........they probably aren't even listening anymore anyway which makes this discussion kind of pointless to begin with.
it's not absurd. you trying to use a radiohead message board to validate your view point is a bit absurd. no one is even talking about pearl jam. not sure what the other music forum here has to do with this discussion, but typically people that frequent music message boards are probably more open to experimental music to begin with, because they are probably music lovers. the majority of radiohead's fan base never even goes on the message board you are talking about, and even less of them are on that "other music" section you speak of. that goes for this message board as well.
i would assume that most fans of experimental/indie music probably appreciate radiohead, because they are great at what they do. this would explain the discussions you are seeing on your message board. but radiohead has so many more fans than any other band that makes music like they do...which leads me to believe that a large portion of their fanbase would typically not be interested in hearing something like "kings of limbs" if it weren't a new radiohead album.........they probably aren't even listening anymore anyway which makes this discussion kind of pointless to begin with.[/quote]
i dont get your point. we, me and you share similar musical taste. but you are just plain wrong in your assertion. The Atease forum is well known, one of the most well known band message forums in the world. not just to radiohead fans but to the world. NME even did an article on the fervor on the board in the days after TKOL was released. A message board, especially that one, i'd argue is representative of the bands fan base as a whole, for good or bad. The thread on atease prior to the release of Animal Collective's masterpiece Maerriweather, reached something like 300 pages. people on PJ's forum cant really understand that, no thread would ever reach that on this board, on PJ's forum. When was the last time, another a thread in Other music, here, reached 100 pages? 50 pages? 36 pages like this one? It doesnt happen. Atease isnt some small forum. And I have my own problems with it, but to suggest its some sort of fringe or whatnot is insane.
I dont really get the "if another band other than radiohead, put out TKOL album, Radiohead fans wouldnt listen to it" argument. Thats absurd to me. What are you basing this on? How could you possibly know this? What band or album does TKOL sound like?
smallmindedness is a tough thing to discuss. but, why arent people here raving about James Blakes album? Its one of the most lauded and acclaimed records of the year, have you seen one thread on here about it? How about the Odd Future hip hop crew? One of the first hip hop acts in about a decade to actually be scary and new and fresh and exciting.
I'd argue a radiohead fan is gonna listen to more experimental music than people here would any day.
Seeger, Seether, Soundgarden etc... i mean i'd say Soundgarden's a great band, but come on, im interested in more music than the endless parade of reunited bands that pop up every single day...
Also, it's probably not good for an argument when its "validity" centers on some random dude on the Internet who may have met people who feel that way.
Where the hell do you hang out that you meet all of these posers anyway?
A little creative thinking please. Name me one other band as inaccessible as Radiohead have been in recent times who have had a number one record in the last ten years.
I said over the years. Kid A came out while I was at University, and there were LOADS of poseurs there who adopted Radiohead as the band name to drop to show their eclectic taste in music.
its more than that. radiohead are considered the vanguard of cutting edge music for a reason. they took chances and risks that deserve to be praised from here until eternity. they could have rested on their laurels and redone creep over and over and over again. instead they released Kid A, with songs like Idioteque and Kid A the song. Or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Ive said it before, and ill say it again, radiohead push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like and we need those types of bands.
they constantly surprise and challenge their fans. thats another thing they deserve heaps of praise for. i went into In Rainbows thinking it would sound like Kid A or Amnesiac, experimental, odd electronic music. Instead In Rainbows was their most accessible album ever.
Radiohead are one of those special bands. there is a reason they appeared at number 1 or number 2 of basically EVERY SINGLE best of decade list in 2009, when people were looking back at 2000-2009.
this is the kind of talk that i find extremely annoying. i love radiohead, they are one of my favorite bands, but this gushing over what they do as if they are the second coming of the beatles is ridiculous. what do you mean "they push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like"? there are loads of other bands pushing the boundaries much further and they don't get nearly this much credit.
i also think it's funny when i hear people praising the way they released their last two albums (great idea), claiming that this is the future and this is how bands should be releasing their music.....ridiculous.
the only reason radiohead can get away with this is because they are fucking radiohead and the only promotion they need is an announcement. if someone like the antlers tried to release an album like that, no one would ever know that it even came out. it's just not a practical way to market unless you already have an established fanbase. and if you do, then it's a perfect strategy, but not really a genius idea.
i threw that last paragraph in there, because i'm specifically referring to something i read here posted by you on how other bands should be following their lead.
so how do you release albums in 2011? You do the crappy thing that PJ did, which was do interviews with dead and dying media outlets like rolling stone and spin and alt rock radio stations that play PJ every day once a day as part of their "1990's at noon" special? Like it or not, the way Radiohead release albums was and is revolutionary. either bands get out of the way and follow their lead, or get run over. simple as that. thom and the guys, as well as trent reznor release music the way music will be released in the future.
As far as the antlers not being on the same level in terms of popularity as Radiohead and if they tried to release albums this way it would never work...
well Bloc Party, Raconteurs and most recently Girl Talk all released albums similarly and all were successes. Gril Talk released his new record, for free, online November i think. It crashed the internet. Yet he's nowhere near the popularity of RH.
As far as im concerned, you focus on making quality music, on putting on a fresh, fun, exciting live show, you put time and energy into creating great merch, t shirts, stickers all that. And you also liscence music to tv shows and movies.
thats how you succeed in 2011. again, either you adapt or you die.
additionally, the non strategy they employed this time around is even more revolutionary. they just up and announce on valentines day," oh hey, our new album is out in 6 days". Then they post the album for download a day early. They have done no press at all for this record, there have been no interviews, no talk show appearances, there hasnt even been a tracklist announced. they havent been seen or heard from at all this album cycle.
the whole bands couldnt do what radiohead did because those bands are small and tiny is stupid. how many bands in the last few years have launched and hit it big as a result of people posting their songs for free on their myspace profile? Tons and tons. its the great equalizer. I'd rather give the power to the people who truly deserve it, the artists who write and create music that does more to enhance our lives than anything else, than give the power, or have the power rest in the hands of some greedy, fat cat executive.
additionally, the non strategy they employed this time around is even more revolutionary. they just up and announce on valentines day," oh hey, our new album is out in 6 days". Then they post the album for download a day early. They have done no press at all for this record, there have been no interviews, no talk show appearances, there hasnt even been a tracklist announced. they havent been seen or heard from at all this album cycle.
yeah this is what i'm talking about. this would not work for a band that doesn't have the established fan base that radiohead has. i don't know why you keep mentioning pearl jam. i realize we are on a pearl jam message board, but i don't know what they have to do with this. if we're talking about them, then yeah, i think pearl jam should do exactly what radiohead does. it would work for them. but for most bands, they need to do the press, or not enough people will hear about it.
as for the other part of the discussion...the most fans wouldn't listen to "king of limbs" if it weren't radiohead part...let me put it this way- if radiohead's albums consisted of kid a, amnesiac and king of limbs, they would probably be left with a third of their fanbase at best. would you agree with that?
by the way. i think you are forgetting about record contracts. to crack it big, most likely you are going to need some management, or a record label of some sort which involves contracts. that is of course if you want your product to be marketed. so for a lot of bands, they probably wouldn't even have the choice to do what radiohead does until whatever initial contract they were under runs out. like i said, it's a great idea for established artists.
additionally, the non strategy they employed this time around is even more revolutionary. they just up and announce on valentines day," oh hey, our new album is out in 6 days". Then they post the album for download a day early. They have done no press at all for this record, there have been no interviews, no talk show appearances, there hasnt even been a tracklist announced. they havent been seen or heard from at all this album cycle.
yeah this is what i'm talking about. this would not work for a band that doesn't have the established fan base that radiohead has. i don't know why you keep mentioning pearl jam. i realize we are on a pearl jam message board, but i don't know what they have to do with this. if we're talking about them, then yeah, i think pearl jam should do exactly what radiohead does. it would work for them. but for most bands, they need to do the press, or not enough people will hear about it.
as for the other part of the discussion...the most fans wouldn't listen to "king of limbs" if it weren't radiohead part...let me put it this way- if radiohead's albums consisted of kid a, amnesiac and king of limbs, they would probably be left with a third of their fanbase at best. would you agree with that?
i think radiohead lost a ton of fans when they released kid a. where were the guitar? Where was any sense of a rock band at all? I think the days of the audience being composed of people who love The Bends and Pablo Honey is long gone, was long gone decades ago. What Radiohead did when they created Kid A was extreme. I dont get the sense that the fan base of Radiohead, are fans of the band for being a conventional, grunge following band ala Pablo Honey and The Bends. The reason Radiohead is so huge and so revered is because they put out albums like Kid A, and Amnesiac. Thats why i think they are so important. Radio and record labels in general seem to fear the different and unique and experimental. They want immediate hits, and verse chorus verse music. What radiohead prove is that bands can be experimental and avantgarde and still be wildly successful and important.
radiohead as a live band rarely play anything pre OK computer, and I think its fair to say many people consider OK Computer to be their first record.
I love Hail to the Thief, but that album wasnt loved by the bands fanbase, and from what i gather is looked at like Pablo and The Bends, as being the rare Radiohead album that is not loved and not quality. I disagree, but Hail to the Thief was a return to rock album. Yet its a hated album among the fans. Coincidence.
And again, how big are Bloc Party, the Raconteurs, and Girl Talk. All released albums the same way as Radiohead did, ala the pay what you want strategy, and all of those albums were successful. Those are 3 examples of bands who are not as well known as PJ or Radiohead but still put out free albums. How big is Girl Talk? Again, his new album he gave away for free in November and it crashed the internet.
its more than giving away music for free though. just the whole 10 days announcement for In Rainbows, and the 6 days advance notice for TKOL. The lack of press. You dont have to give music away for free, but at least do something new and exciting and more interesting than selling a physical cd for 18 bucks at the local cd store. i mean jesus...
record contracts are the elephant in the room. they are a fact and reality but i think we need to start thinking about a new kind of artist relationship with their labels, one that doesnt involve explotiation by the labels.
its more than that. radiohead are considered the vanguard of cutting edge music for a reason. they took chances and risks that deserve to be praised from here until eternity. they could have rested on their laurels and redone creep over and over and over again. instead they released Kid A, with songs like Idioteque and Kid A the song. Or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Ive said it before, and ill say it again, radiohead push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like and we need those types of bands.
they constantly surprise and challenge their fans. thats another thing they deserve heaps of praise for. i went into In Rainbows thinking it would sound like Kid A or Amnesiac, experimental, odd electronic music. Instead In Rainbows was their most accessible album ever.
Radiohead are one of those special bands. there is a reason they appeared at number 1 or number 2 of basically EVERY SINGLE best of decade list in 2009, when people were looking back at 2000-2009.
this is the kind of talk that i find extremely annoying. i love radiohead, they are one of my favorite bands, but this gushing over what they do as if they are the second coming of the beatles is ridiculous. what do you mean "they push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like"? there are loads of other bands pushing the boundaries much further and they don't get nearly this much credit.
i also think it's funny when i hear people praising the way they released their last two albums (great idea), claiming that this is the future and this is how bands should be releasing their music.....ridiculous.
the only reason radiohead can get away with this is because they are fucking radiohead and the only promotion they need is an announcement. if someone like the antlers tried to release an album like that, no one would ever know that it even came out. it's just not a practical way to market unless you already have an established fanbase. and if you do, then it's a perfect strategy, but not really a genius idea.
i threw that last paragraph in there, because i'm specifically referring to something i read here posted by you on how other bands should be following their lead.
I agree with Tiki here - Radiohead are not pushing any boundaries by any means with their music. Plenty of smaller bands, groups and individulas who are making more experimental music then anything they have put out, by far. Radiohead have done well to constantly change their style and release different sounding albums each time. Great band that deserve a lot of respect but i'm a 'call a spade a spade' kind of guy, lets not over state them. Their huge fan base and success has allowed them to do what they do and keep constantly changing but it's all within the 'popular music' frame work.
As for their business model and how they release their material - I think it is great and I like how they do it but to say thats how all bands should do it is just silly. It works for them and they have the resources to do such things but most bands won't.
so how do you release albums in 2011? You do the crappy thing that PJ did, which was do interviews with dead and dying media outlets like rolling stone and spin and alt rock radio stations that play PJ every day once a day as part of their "1990's at noon" special?
and of course, you arent going to be the next radiohead by releasing an album for free online, if you are a small band. that isnt the issue. the issue is, can a band survive financially that way. and the fact is, bands no longer receive much revenue from physical cd sales. thats the same if you are radiohead, one of the biggest bands in the world, or if you are the new band on a small indie label in your local town.
I think you confuse the desire of intent here. you just arent going to end up making money ANYWAYS even if you sell your record for 18 bucks at the local cd store. Its a non issue. Even established artists like Bruce get a buck thirty at most PER CD when you buy the cd at the store. thats a paltry and sickening sum of money.
when you realize this, that buying a cd from the store, or stealing it, is a question of a buck thirty, the conclusion one must come to is that artists need to find other sources of income.
Like maybe putting on amazing live shows, or putting out great t shirts, selling a ton of merch,etc... is the answer?
You are a new tiny band, what makes more sense? To put energy and waste time in creating a physical cd, and try to get ink in RS and Spin, and do an interview with your local alt rock station? Or...does it make more sense to leak your album to blogs like stereogum and brooklyn vegan, and to try and get press in P4k, and to do interviews with KEXP and KCRW, 2 of the most important radio stations in the world, and to try and get Greys Anatomy to play your song over some emotional scene, and to put on this amazing live show that people are hyped about, and to create artistic and stunning merch? Is their even a debate?
im all for bands getting as much money as they want and can. but i just live in the real world. Any band, small or large, doing press with RS, SPin, and selling their albums at a store, thats the least successful and wise way to sell music and make cash. Thats all im saying.
No one is saying the small tiny local band could put out their album for free tonight and become the newest P4k darlings. the argument never was that. the point is, maximizing profit and gaining as many fans as one can.
a tiny indie band releasing music for free will get press. maybe not in p4k, but i would be local news would cover it.
playing a ton of shows that are transcendent and life changing. thats gonna win some new listeners and get your a ton of press.
making compelling music period, thats gonna win some fans and get some press.
creating unique and creative merch, that draws peoples attention to the bands name on the shirt, or is just visually stunning thats gonna win new fans, make some cash, and could cause people on the street, to ask. "what a cool shirt, what does it say, what band is that". that will win new fans and gain press.
the idea of a band promoting an album via talk show performances and doing the cover story for RS, and putting out a physical cd in stores, seems so incredibly boring to me and i know im not the only person. its boring for a reason, and it isnt working for a reason.
You are a new tiny band, what makes more sense? To put energy and waste time in creating a physical cd, and try to get ink in RS and Spin, and do an interview with your local alt rock station? Or...does it make more sense to leak your album to blogs like stereogum and brooklyn vegan, and to try and get press in P4k, and to do interviews with KEXP and KCRW, 2 of the most important radio stations in the world, and to try and get Greys Anatomy to play your song over some emotional scene, and to put on this amazing live show that people are hyped about, and to create artistic and stunning merch? Is their even a debate?
Well yeah. Give the album away? What album? It costs money to produce a top quality production. Sure these days the can put an album together fairly cheaply but it won't be of the highest quality. The issue is not just how much you make from individual sales from a cd but having the financial backing from a company to help you promote your material and the vast connections that comes with it.
Free music is not a viable model for the music industry, I wish it was but it's not.
I agree with Tiki here - Radiohead are not pushing any boundaries by any means with their music. Plenty of smaller bands, groups and individulas who are making more experimental music then anything they have put out, by far. Radiohead have done well to constantly change their style and release different sounding albums each time. Great band that deserve a lot of respect but i'm a 'call a spade a spade' kind of guy, lets not over state them. Their huge fan base and success has allowed them to do what they do and keep constantly changing but it's all within the 'popular music' frame work.
As for their business model and how they release their material - I think it is great and I like how they do it but to say thats how all bands should do it is just silly. It works for them and they have the resources to do such things but most bands won't.[/quote]
while the popular music is apt as radiohead are no doubt popular as any band could be, the idea they release music inside that box or inside that vacuum is absurd to me. Kid A wasnt nor is it a pop album, or a popular music album. The song Kid A, the song, that to me, doesnt sound like it falls within the popular music frame work. Nor are Pulk Pull or Packt like Sardines, or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Those may have been released by the popular band Radiohead, but they are not in the popular music framework at all. those are challenging songs, experimental by any definition, beautiful and gorgeous yes, but not the song a typically popular band releases.
to assert that radiohead have been influential is not overstating the case. it can only be understated. again, there was a reason radiohead appeared at either 1 or 2 on nearly every single end of decade best albums of the decade list.
and i said it before, how many bands or musicians have launched in the past few years, because they posted their songs, for free on their myspace profile?
its more than that. radiohead are considered the vanguard of cutting edge music for a reason. they took chances and risks that deserve to be praised from here until eternity. they could have rested on their laurels and redone creep over and over and over again. instead they released Kid A, with songs like Idioteque and Kid A the song. Or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Ive said it before, and ill say it again, radiohead push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like and we need those types of bands.
they constantly surprise and challenge their fans. thats another thing they deserve heaps of praise for. i went into In Rainbows thinking it would sound like Kid A or Amnesiac, experimental, odd electronic music. Instead In Rainbows was their most accessible album ever.
Radiohead are one of those special bands. there is a reason they appeared at number 1 or number 2 of basically EVERY SINGLE best of decade list in 2009, when people were looking back at 2000-2009.
this is the kind of talk that i find extremely annoying. i love radiohead, they are one of my favorite bands, but this gushing over what they do as if they are the second coming of the beatles is ridiculous. what do you mean "they push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like"? there are loads of other bands pushing the boundaries much further and they don't get nearly this much credit.
i also think it's funny when i hear people praising the way they released their last two albums (great idea), claiming that this is the future and this is how bands should be releasing their music.....ridiculous.
the only reason radiohead can get away with this is because they are fucking radiohead and the only promotion they need is an announcement. if someone like the antlers tried to release an album like that, no one would ever know that it even came out. it's just not a practical way to market unless you already have an established fanbase. and if you do, then it's a perfect strategy, but not really a genius idea.
i threw that last paragraph in there, because i'm specifically referring to something i read here posted by you on how other bands should be following their lead.
I agree with Tiki here - Radiohead are not pushing any boundaries by any means with their music. Plenty of smaller bands, groups and individulas who are making more experimental music then anything they have put out, by far. Radiohead have done well to constantly change their style and release different sounding albums each time. Great band that deserve a lot of respect but i'm a 'call a spade a spade' kind of guy, lets not over state them. Their huge fan base and success has allowed them to do what they do and keep constantly changing but it's all within the 'popular music' frame work.
As for their business model and how they release their material - I think it is great and I like how they do it but to say thats how all bands should do it is just silly. It works for them and they have the resources to do such things but most bands won't.
i think you were better at articulating my point than i was. thank you. this should end the discussion right here.....
and i said it before, how many bands or musicians have launched in the past few years, because they posted their songs, for free on their myspace profile?
Well yeah. Give the album away? What album? It costs money to produce a top quality production. Sure these days the can put an album together fairly cheaply but it won't be of the highest quality. The issue is not just how much you make from individual sales from a cd but having the financial backing from a company to help you promote your material and the vast connections that comes with it.
Free music is not a viable model for the music industry, I wish it was but it's not.[/quote]
you heard of bon iver, or How to Dress well? Bon Iver put out one of the best albums of the decade, recorded it on bedroom tapes, leaked it to blogs and is a huge musician now. You read that right, he leaked it to a few blogs and his album is a modern day classic. How to Dress well, is extremely lo fi, bedroom sounding vocals, and appeared on a ton of best of 2010 lists. you heard of lo fi, and chillwave? p4k even went as far as suggesting the album would cause kids to emulate the style. Both are about making music that is not high quality in terms of sound quality, but quality in terms of tunes.
free music isnt a viable option for the music industry? What music industry? Selling 12 songs on a physical cd for 15 bucks isnt a viable model either. So what else are you suggesting then?
even without an album to give away, you do what ive said time and time again. great live shows, quality merch, interacting with fans via twitter/facebook/myspace, doing press with the tastemakers.
Comments
It's a valid point, because it counters the argument that if it sells well it must be good. The fact is that a good proportion of their fans don't listen to anything else even remotely this experimental. This might be tough for some of you to comprehend, but maybe, just maybe, some people will just buy it because they know it's cool to pretend that you get Radiohead - I've met loads of people like that over the years.
That's just sad. I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt that the people on here praising TKoL are not like that. Ten Clubbers must be better than that, right?
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
Where the hell do you hang out that you meet all of these posers anyway?
i know someone just mentioned that people listen to this just cause it's cool to like radiohead....but i think you're missing the point. i wouldn't suggest that people will listen to this, not like it, and then pretend to enjoy it because it's radiohead. that would be silly, although i'm sure there are people like that. but....the same poster also said something else that i think is true.....he said something along the lines of, a large portion of radiohead's fanbase doesn't listen to anything remotely this experimental. that's the point i was trying to bring up that i thought was interesting. people will actually give this album a chance, and they may actually end up liking it, because it's radiohead...while if a band like animal collective (not trying to compare the two in any way other than they are experimental) made the same album, a lot of the same people probably wouldn't be the least bit interested.
...also, this is not an argument. you can't really prove it one way or the other, although i believe it to be true. it's simply a personal observation that i made to add to the discussion. who really cares if it's right or wrong?
by the way, love your picture. one of the greatest albums ever. fact. haha.
call "in rainbows" safe all you want... at least those songs toured well and were fun outside the context of the album
http://seanbriceart.com/
Of course, I could still be missing your point, but it's probably a pointless exchange we're having anyway. And yeah, Highway 61 Revisited is my favorite album ever!
A little creative thinking please. Name me one other band as inaccessible as Radiohead have been in recent times who have had a number one record in the last ten years.
I said over the years. Kid A came out while I was at University, and there were LOADS of poseurs there who adopted Radiohead as the band name to drop to show their eclectic taste in music.
if you haven't, i recommend it.
It's a valid point, because it counters the argument that if it sells well it must be good. The fact is that a good proportion of their fans don't listen to anything else even remotely this experimental. This might be tough for some of you to comprehend, but maybe, just maybe, some people will just buy it because they know it's cool to pretend that you get Radiohead - I've met loads of people like that over the years.[/quote]
this is absurd. i frequent Atease, the radiohead version of this place, the forum, and on their other music board they are very much more into new/hipper music than people on this board are.
right now for example on the other music part of atease, there are threads on dubstep, james blake, sean lennon, joanna newson, elbow, odd future, rem, of montreal, washed out.
in all honesty if im looking to check out new exciting bands, and want to see discussions on them, i hate to say it, but the pearl jam forum is the last place to look. Radiohead fans are extremely open minded.
to suggest they arent open to experimental music only shows your own ignorance
the other music forum im posting on now, right here, is an odd place. not one thread on sufjan's ep in october and his new album in November. thats just one example.
its more than that. radiohead are considered the vanguard of cutting edge music for a reason. they took chances and risks that deserve to be praised from here until eternity. they could have rested on their laurels and redone creep over and over and over again. instead they released Kid A, with songs like Idioteque and Kid A the song. Or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Ive said it before, and ill say it again, radiohead push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like and we need those types of bands.
they constantly surprise and challenge their fans. thats another thing they deserve heaps of praise for. i went into In Rainbows thinking it would sound like Kid A or Amnesiac, experimental, odd electronic music. Instead In Rainbows was their most accessible album ever.
Radiohead are one of those special bands. there is a reason they appeared at number 1 or number 2 of basically EVERY SINGLE best of decade list in 2009, when people were looking back at 2000-2009.
It's a valid point, because it counters the argument that if it sells well it must be good. The fact is that a good proportion of their fans don't listen to anything else even remotely this experimental. This might be tough for some of you to comprehend, but maybe, just maybe, some people will just buy it because they know it's cool to pretend that you get Radiohead - I've met loads of people like that over the years.[/quote]
this is absurd. i frequent Atease, the radiohead version of this place, the forum, and on their other music board they are very much more into new/hipper music than people on this board are.
right now for example on the other music part of atease, there are threads on dubstep, james blake, sean lennon, joanna newson, elbow, odd future, rem, of montreal, washed out.
in all honesty if im looking to check out new exciting bands, and want to see discussions on them, i hate to say it, but the pearl jam forum is the last place to look. Radiohead fans are extremely open minded.
to suggest they arent open to experimental music only shows your own ignorance
the other music forum im posting on now, right here, is an odd place. not one thread on sufjan's ep in october and his new album in November. thats just one example.[/quote]
it's not absurd. you trying to use a radiohead message board to validate your view point is a bit absurd. no one is even talking about pearl jam. not sure what the other music forum here has to do with this discussion, but typically people that frequent music message boards are probably more open to experimental music to begin with, because they are probably music lovers. the majority of radiohead's fan base never even goes on the message board you are talking about, and even less of them are on that "other music" section you speak of. that goes for this message board as well.
i would assume that most fans of experimental/indie music probably appreciate radiohead, because they are great at what they do. this would explain the discussions you are seeing on your message board. but radiohead has so many more fans than any other band that makes music like they do...which leads me to believe that a large portion of their fanbase would typically not be interested in hearing something like "kings of limbs" if it weren't a new radiohead album.........they probably aren't even listening anymore anyway which makes this discussion kind of pointless to begin with.
it's not absurd. you trying to use a radiohead message board to validate your view point is a bit absurd. no one is even talking about pearl jam. not sure what the other music forum here has to do with this discussion, but typically people that frequent music message boards are probably more open to experimental music to begin with, because they are probably music lovers. the majority of radiohead's fan base never even goes on the message board you are talking about, and even less of them are on that "other music" section you speak of. that goes for this message board as well.
i would assume that most fans of experimental/indie music probably appreciate radiohead, because they are great at what they do. this would explain the discussions you are seeing on your message board. but radiohead has so many more fans than any other band that makes music like they do...which leads me to believe that a large portion of their fanbase would typically not be interested in hearing something like "kings of limbs" if it weren't a new radiohead album.........they probably aren't even listening anymore anyway which makes this discussion kind of pointless to begin with.[/quote]
i dont get your point. we, me and you share similar musical taste. but you are just plain wrong in your assertion. The Atease forum is well known, one of the most well known band message forums in the world. not just to radiohead fans but to the world. NME even did an article on the fervor on the board in the days after TKOL was released. A message board, especially that one, i'd argue is representative of the bands fan base as a whole, for good or bad. The thread on atease prior to the release of Animal Collective's masterpiece Maerriweather, reached something like 300 pages. people on PJ's forum cant really understand that, no thread would ever reach that on this board, on PJ's forum. When was the last time, another a thread in Other music, here, reached 100 pages? 50 pages? 36 pages like this one? It doesnt happen. Atease isnt some small forum. And I have my own problems with it, but to suggest its some sort of fringe or whatnot is insane.
I dont really get the "if another band other than radiohead, put out TKOL album, Radiohead fans wouldnt listen to it" argument. Thats absurd to me. What are you basing this on? How could you possibly know this? What band or album does TKOL sound like?
I'd argue a radiohead fan is gonna listen to more experimental music than people here would any day.
Seeger, Seether, Soundgarden etc... i mean i'd say Soundgarden's a great band, but come on, im interested in more music than the endless parade of reunited bands that pop up every single day...
this is the kind of talk that i find extremely annoying. i love radiohead, they are one of my favorite bands, but this gushing over what they do as if they are the second coming of the beatles is ridiculous. what do you mean "they push the boundaries of what modern music is and what it sounds like"? there are loads of other bands pushing the boundaries much further and they don't get nearly this much credit.
i also think it's funny when i hear people praising the way they released their last two albums (great idea), claiming that this is the future and this is how bands should be releasing their music.....ridiculous.
the only reason radiohead can get away with this is because they are fucking radiohead and the only promotion they need is an announcement. if someone like the antlers tried to release an album like that, no one would ever know that it even came out. it's just not a practical way to market unless you already have an established fanbase. and if you do, then it's a perfect strategy, but not really a genius idea.
i threw that last paragraph in there, because i'm specifically referring to something i read here posted by you on how other bands should be following their lead.
As far as the antlers not being on the same level in terms of popularity as Radiohead and if they tried to release albums this way it would never work...
well Bloc Party, Raconteurs and most recently Girl Talk all released albums similarly and all were successes. Gril Talk released his new record, for free, online November i think. It crashed the internet. Yet he's nowhere near the popularity of RH.
As far as im concerned, you focus on making quality music, on putting on a fresh, fun, exciting live show, you put time and energy into creating great merch, t shirts, stickers all that. And you also liscence music to tv shows and movies.
thats how you succeed in 2011. again, either you adapt or you die.
yeah this is what i'm talking about. this would not work for a band that doesn't have the established fan base that radiohead has. i don't know why you keep mentioning pearl jam. i realize we are on a pearl jam message board, but i don't know what they have to do with this. if we're talking about them, then yeah, i think pearl jam should do exactly what radiohead does. it would work for them. but for most bands, they need to do the press, or not enough people will hear about it.
as for the other part of the discussion...the most fans wouldn't listen to "king of limbs" if it weren't radiohead part...let me put it this way- if radiohead's albums consisted of kid a, amnesiac and king of limbs, they would probably be left with a third of their fanbase at best. would you agree with that?
i think radiohead lost a ton of fans when they released kid a. where were the guitar? Where was any sense of a rock band at all? I think the days of the audience being composed of people who love The Bends and Pablo Honey is long gone, was long gone decades ago. What Radiohead did when they created Kid A was extreme. I dont get the sense that the fan base of Radiohead, are fans of the band for being a conventional, grunge following band ala Pablo Honey and The Bends. The reason Radiohead is so huge and so revered is because they put out albums like Kid A, and Amnesiac. Thats why i think they are so important. Radio and record labels in general seem to fear the different and unique and experimental. They want immediate hits, and verse chorus verse music. What radiohead prove is that bands can be experimental and avantgarde and still be wildly successful and important.
radiohead as a live band rarely play anything pre OK computer, and I think its fair to say many people consider OK Computer to be their first record.
I love Hail to the Thief, but that album wasnt loved by the bands fanbase, and from what i gather is looked at like Pablo and The Bends, as being the rare Radiohead album that is not loved and not quality. I disagree, but Hail to the Thief was a return to rock album. Yet its a hated album among the fans. Coincidence.
And again, how big are Bloc Party, the Raconteurs, and Girl Talk. All released albums the same way as Radiohead did, ala the pay what you want strategy, and all of those albums were successful. Those are 3 examples of bands who are not as well known as PJ or Radiohead but still put out free albums. How big is Girl Talk? Again, his new album he gave away for free in November and it crashed the internet.
record contracts are the elephant in the room. they are a fact and reality but i think we need to start thinking about a new kind of artist relationship with their labels, one that doesnt involve explotiation by the labels.
I agree with Tiki here - Radiohead are not pushing any boundaries by any means with their music. Plenty of smaller bands, groups and individulas who are making more experimental music then anything they have put out, by far. Radiohead have done well to constantly change their style and release different sounding albums each time. Great band that deserve a lot of respect but i'm a 'call a spade a spade' kind of guy, lets not over state them. Their huge fan base and success has allowed them to do what they do and keep constantly changing but it's all within the 'popular music' frame work.
As for their business model and how they release their material - I think it is great and I like how they do it but to say thats how all bands should do it is just silly. It works for them and they have the resources to do such things but most bands won't.
PJ went to numnber 1 didn't it?
My internet was fine all throughout Novemeber
The only thing small and tiny and stupid here is this comment :?
I think you confuse the desire of intent here. you just arent going to end up making money ANYWAYS even if you sell your record for 18 bucks at the local cd store. Its a non issue. Even established artists like Bruce get a buck thirty at most PER CD when you buy the cd at the store. thats a paltry and sickening sum of money.
when you realize this, that buying a cd from the store, or stealing it, is a question of a buck thirty, the conclusion one must come to is that artists need to find other sources of income.
Like maybe putting on amazing live shows, or putting out great t shirts, selling a ton of merch,etc... is the answer?
You are a new tiny band, what makes more sense? To put energy and waste time in creating a physical cd, and try to get ink in RS and Spin, and do an interview with your local alt rock station? Or...does it make more sense to leak your album to blogs like stereogum and brooklyn vegan, and to try and get press in P4k, and to do interviews with KEXP and KCRW, 2 of the most important radio stations in the world, and to try and get Greys Anatomy to play your song over some emotional scene, and to put on this amazing live show that people are hyped about, and to create artistic and stunning merch? Is their even a debate?
No one is saying the small tiny local band could put out their album for free tonight and become the newest P4k darlings. the argument never was that. the point is, maximizing profit and gaining as many fans as one can.
a tiny indie band releasing music for free will get press. maybe not in p4k, but i would be local news would cover it.
playing a ton of shows that are transcendent and life changing. thats gonna win some new listeners and get your a ton of press.
making compelling music period, thats gonna win some fans and get some press.
creating unique and creative merch, that draws peoples attention to the bands name on the shirt, or is just visually stunning thats gonna win new fans, make some cash, and could cause people on the street, to ask. "what a cool shirt, what does it say, what band is that". that will win new fans and gain press.
the idea of a band promoting an album via talk show performances and doing the cover story for RS, and putting out a physical cd in stores, seems so incredibly boring to me and i know im not the only person. its boring for a reason, and it isnt working for a reason.
Well yeah. Give the album away? What album? It costs money to produce a top quality production. Sure these days the can put an album together fairly cheaply but it won't be of the highest quality. The issue is not just how much you make from individual sales from a cd but having the financial backing from a company to help you promote your material and the vast connections that comes with it.
Free music is not a viable model for the music industry, I wish it was but it's not.
I agree with Tiki here - Radiohead are not pushing any boundaries by any means with their music. Plenty of smaller bands, groups and individulas who are making more experimental music then anything they have put out, by far. Radiohead have done well to constantly change their style and release different sounding albums each time. Great band that deserve a lot of respect but i'm a 'call a spade a spade' kind of guy, lets not over state them. Their huge fan base and success has allowed them to do what they do and keep constantly changing but it's all within the 'popular music' frame work.
As for their business model and how they release their material - I think it is great and I like how they do it but to say thats how all bands should do it is just silly. It works for them and they have the resources to do such things but most bands won't.[/quote]
while the popular music is apt as radiohead are no doubt popular as any band could be, the idea they release music inside that box or inside that vacuum is absurd to me. Kid A wasnt nor is it a pop album, or a popular music album. The song Kid A, the song, that to me, doesnt sound like it falls within the popular music frame work. Nor are Pulk Pull or Packt like Sardines, or Like Spinning Plates off Amnesiac. Those may have been released by the popular band Radiohead, but they are not in the popular music framework at all. those are challenging songs, experimental by any definition, beautiful and gorgeous yes, but not the song a typically popular band releases.
to assert that radiohead have been influential is not overstating the case. it can only be understated. again, there was a reason radiohead appeared at either 1 or 2 on nearly every single end of decade best albums of the decade list.
and i said it before, how many bands or musicians have launched in the past few years, because they posted their songs, for free on their myspace profile?
i think you were better at articulating my point than i was. thank you. this should end the discussion right here.....
7?
Free music is not a viable model for the music industry, I wish it was but it's not.[/quote]
you heard of bon iver, or How to Dress well? Bon Iver put out one of the best albums of the decade, recorded it on bedroom tapes, leaked it to blogs and is a huge musician now. You read that right, he leaked it to a few blogs and his album is a modern day classic. How to Dress well, is extremely lo fi, bedroom sounding vocals, and appeared on a ton of best of 2010 lists. you heard of lo fi, and chillwave? p4k even went as far as suggesting the album would cause kids to emulate the style. Both are about making music that is not high quality in terms of sound quality, but quality in terms of tunes.
free music isnt a viable option for the music industry? What music industry? Selling 12 songs on a physical cd for 15 bucks isnt a viable model either. So what else are you suggesting then?
even without an album to give away, you do what ive said time and time again. great live shows, quality merch, interacting with fans via twitter/facebook/myspace, doing press with the tastemakers.