Ok, I love radiohead and read all of the posts here, was not going to reply but thought I just had to weigh in...
Their best is Kid A...hands down
Followed by Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac, In Rainbows, The Bends, Ok Computer and finally Pablo Honey.
I feel I am in the minority when I say this, but Ok Computer is good but far from their best and IMO is not a better album than The Bends.
Amnesiac gets far too much hate from everywhere...but listen to it again people it really is not that far behind Kid A! Pyramid Song and I might be Wrong challenge just about anything off Kid A and IMO are superior to most off Ok Computer.
Hail to the Thief is underrated too, In Rainbows is a good album but clearly I need to listen a little more before making a final judgement.
No, you can't presume that. Such an assumption would be arrogance. I first listened to, and for some reason enjoyed, in spite of my age, OK Computer when it came out so I would have been 9 or so. I thought it was the most sophisticated music I'd ever heard. It's still a fantastic album.
I don't understand you point at all about the ability for them to progress as a guitar band. sure they had the potential but what the hell does that mean? it's their choice. Music is music. I judge it on its own merits, not whether or not it fits into what I previously liked from the band. If PJ came out with a synth album and I hated it then I'd be disappointed but I'd still enjoy the music I do like from them and wouldn't go about moaning about where they went wrong on messageboards. It's their choice. As for hooks and strong melodies, In Rainbows is their most accessible album since The Bends and has better hooks and melodies. I hardly see what the fuss is about. You want a return to hooks and melodies? you got it. if it's really all about the guitar issue now, maybe you should branch out with your listening a bit.
Wow, aggression issues dude, that aint cool. I'm only debating with you here. I'm not moaning, merely expressing my point of view just like you are. And cool you must have been a super advanced 9 year old to appreciate something as epic as OK Computer, I'm impressed you even understood the concept of sophistication at such a tender age.
PS, The new album isn't as accessible as OK Computer.
Wow, aggression issues dude, that aint cool. I'm only debating with you here. I'm not moaning, merely expressing my point of view just like you are. And cool you must have been a super advanced 9 year old to appreciate something as epic as OK Computer, I'm impressed you even understood the concept of sophistication at such a tender age.
PS, The new album isn't as accessible as OK Computer.
Where was I aggressive? I just take exception with being lumped in with people just for liking a particular album. I don't understand what is so inaccessible about In Rainbows. Amnesiac, sure. Kid A, I guess. In Rainbows has some of the prettiest melodies and epic moments of any Radiohead album. I fail to see how a person that professes to like the band could listen to songs like Nude, All I Need, Reckoner and House of Cards and find it hard to get it into.
And with regards to OK Computer, I obviously didn't appreciate the album in the way I do now at the age of 9. I've had 10 years to learn more about music and understand the album a lot more but it certainly stood out at the time. I remember seeing the video for Karma Police on TV and it seemed so alien and foreign that it fascinated me. I cannot say the same for The Bends and certainly not for Pablo Honey. As such, I feel that the band's best work has been OK Computer and onwards.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I think I might have said this once before in another thread...but as much as I love Radiohead, what they have done over the years really is not that impressive, experimentally.
Despite what the majority of critics think, i think Radiohead have made it easier for themselves to write songs and albums after moving into a more electronic direction.
Take Pearl jam for example, 8 guitar, bass and drum based records and they have managed to push boundaries along the way within that framework. Not easy to do. Especially when you consider the difficulty in making even the slightest attempts to be original and experimental within that framework. There is not a hell of alot that you can do that has not been done before.
Radiohead on the other hand have basically "downed tools" and picked up another set to work with, giving them much more room to "sound different", which, to the untrained ear, appears groundbreaking and hugely experimentally.
When in fact, the majority of their songs post OK Computer are very simple compositions that are, on the whole, less complex musically than alot of their earlier work. That said, it does not mean that this music is not brilliant or intelligent, just not really that complex or experimental when viewed as music. In other words, Radiohead's music post Ok Computer, when played within the traditional drum, guitar and bass format is not really anything new or different musically, it's just played within a different format.
Long story short, it is lot more difficult IMO to write 8 albums within the traditional format and push boundaries and make subtle changes to the artform in the process than it would be to totally reininvent yourself and make music within a different format.
All Radiohead have done is create for themselves more room to move...Have they really been challenging themselves musically or making things easier for themselves...
*****no time to be void or save up on life,
you got to spend it all...*****
I think I might have said this once before in another thread...but as much as I love Radiohead, what they have done over the years really is not that impressive, experimentally.
Despite what the majority of critics think, i think Radiohead have made it easier for themselves to write songs and albums after moving into a more electronic direction.
Take Pearl jam for example, 8 guitar, bass and drum based records and they have managed to push boundaries along the way within that framework. Not easy to do. Especially when you consider the difficulty in making even the slightest attempts to be original and experimental within that framework. There is not a hell of alot that you can do that has not been done before.
Radiohead on the other hand have basically "downed tools" and picked up another set to work with, giving them much more room to "sound different", which, to the untrained ear, appears groundbreaking and hugely experimentally.
When in fact, the majority of their songs post OK Computer are very simple compositions that are, on the whole, less complex musically than alot of their earlier work. That said, it does not mean that this music is not brilliant or intelligent, just not really that complex or experimental when viewed as music. In other words, Radiohead's music post Ok Computer, when played within the traditional drum, guitar and bass format is really anything new or different musically, it's just played within a different format.
Long story short, it is lot more difficult IMO to write 8 albums within the traditional format and push boundaries and make subtle changes to the artform in the process than it would be to totally reininvent yourself and make music within a different format.
All Radiohead have done is create for themselves more room to move...Have they really been challenging themselves musically or making things easier for themselves...
I can only speak for myself but I don't think anything post-OK Computer is particularly challenging or experimental. I certainly listen to a lot of stuff that is much more challenging. I still prefer the "new" Radiohead to anything pre-OK computer and it's nothing to do with preferring electronic music to guitar music. I like tons of guitar music. I just think that when they took they're new direction, the music and songwriting got better. going back to The Bends after OK computer would have been a regression and attempting to make another album that was challenging like OK computer but the same style would inevitably have generated negative comparisons. An album with an impact like that only comes along once for a band, if at all. I think their change of direction was absolutely necessary in order for that they might not stagnate.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Oh and Re: Thom's voice, his vocals are nowhere near as clear as they used to be, at times you can barely understand what he's singing at all. I don't think the ghostly moaning he does on half the songs is in any way comparable to something as beautiful as Street Spirit.
i haven't understood a lyric thom yorke has sung since ok computer, that's for damn sure.
No, you can't presume that. Such an assumption would be arrogance. I first listened to, and for some reason enjoyed, in spite of my age, OK Computer when it came out so I would have been 9 or so. I thought it was the most sophisticated music I'd ever heard. It's still a fantastic album.
I don't understand you point at all about the ability for them to progress as a guitar band. sure they had the potential but what the hell does that mean? it's their choice. Music is music. I judge it on its own merits, not whether or not it fits into what I previously liked from the band. If PJ came out with a synth album and I hated it then I'd be disappointed but I'd still enjoy the music I do like from them and wouldn't go about moaning about where they went wrong on messageboards. It's their choice. As for hooks and strong melodies, In Rainbows is their most accessible album since The Bends and has better hooks and melodies. I hardly see what the fuss is about. You want a return to hooks and melodies? you got it. if it's really all about the guitar issue now, maybe you should branch out with your listening a bit.
it's also his choice to say what he thinks of the new material and recent direction. just becos johnny wants to write it doesn't mean he has to like it or pretend to enjoy it. i agree with the guy 100%. they were onto something nobody had really approached before. but then they veered off. there was nothing new or original about kid a. that kind of music had been done by electronic artist for years before radiohead got there. it wasnt a boundary pushing opus, it was just a change of genre. the only reason it got billed as the former is becos nobody listened to that kind of music and rock fans outright hated it before radiohead tried to pull it off.
it's also his choice to say what he thinks of the new material and recent direction. just becos johnny wants to write it doesn't mean he has to like it or pretend to enjoy it. i agree with the guy 100%. they were onto something nobody had really approached before. but then they veered off. there was nothing new or original about kid a. that kind of music had been done by electronic artist for years before radiohead got there. it wasnt a boundary pushing opus, it was just a change of genre. the only reason it got billed as the former is becos nobody listened to that kind of music and rock fans outright hated it before radiohead tried to pull it off.
I didn't say Facepollution had to enjoy the newer music, I said it's not his right to expect what he wants from the band. If they choose to change then he should deal with it. Plenty of people do like it. The fact is, if Radiohead had continued down the OK computer road they would have been pulled up by fans and critics alike for not living up to expectations because it's hard to top an album like that. by changing direction they subverted that, made a load of new fans, lost some old ones and kept some of the ones that weren't so stuck in their ways.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
it's also his choice to say what he thinks of the new material and recent direction. just becos johnny wants to write it doesn't mean he has to like it or pretend to enjoy it. i agree with the guy 100%. they were onto something nobody had really approached before. but then they veered off. there was nothing new or original about kid a. that kind of music had been done by electronic artist for years before radiohead got there. it wasnt a boundary pushing opus, it was just a change of genre. the only reason it got billed as the former is becos nobody listened to that kind of music and rock fans outright hated it before radiohead tried to pull it off.
I think the only persons claiming kid a/amnesiac are groundbreaking are people who listen to 2-3 bands only. It's clear that kid a was nothing new in terms of music but it is nonetheless a great album. And a bold move by radiohead considering the feelings of rock fans towards that music - I think it's this part that most people aknowledge.
I remember reading on a forum once that music, since the last 60 years goes like this : band A records a groundbreaking album which does not sell well at all and band A stays in relative anonymity. Band B, heavily influenced by band A, records a very very popular album which crystallises the new genre. Bands C, D, E... influenced by band B won't add anything new.
I didn't say Facepollution had to enjoy the newer music, I said it's not his right to expect what he wants from the band. If they choose to change then he should deal with it. Plenty of people do like it. The fact is, if Radiohead had continued down the OK computer road they would have been pulled up by fans and critics alike for not living up to expectations because it's hard to top an album like that. by changing direction they subverted that, made a load of new fans, lost some old ones and kept some of the ones that weren't so stuck in their ways.
i think it IS his right to expect or want whatever he damn well pleases from radiohead. doesn't mean they have to deliver it. it's also radiohead's right to tell him to go fuck himself and listen to someone else if he doesn't like the new stuff.
i agree that the change probably saved them a lot of heat. hell, it worked for u2 when they went synth pop for achtung baby and so on. it's easy to forget just how mind-blowing that was at the time. but eventually people tired of the gimmicks (zooropa, pop) and eventually the band did all they could do there and went back. i expect one day radiohead will do the same. they will realize no one cares about how well they twiddle dials and they will tire themselves of twiddling dials and yearn for the good old days in their garage with a shit ton of guitar and attitude and release their big comeback album. i see it. i cant wait to hear it
I think the only persons claiming kid a/amnesiac are groundbreaking are people who listen to 2-3 bands only. It's clear that kid a was nothing new in terms of music but it is nonetheless a great album. And a bold move by radiohead considering the feelings of rock fans towards that music - I think it's this part that most people aknowledge.
I remember reading on a forum once that music, since the last 60 years goes like this : band A records a groundbreaking album which does not sell well at all and band A stays in relative anonymity. Band B, heavily influenced by band A, records a very very popular album which crystallises the new genre. Bands C, D, E... influenced by band B won't add anything new.
i agree. radiohead didn't do anything new, they just brought that music to the masses. kinda like nirvana never did anything the pixies hadn't already done, but they broke it through to the rock world at large. it happens often. it's always funny to see where on the divide people fall. i know radiohead fans who call cobain a hack and think thom yorke is the most innovative genius ever to grace this earth. i know nirvana fans who think radiohead are dial-twiddling jerkoffs and cobain was the highest poet of rock. fanaticism is always fun to watch. neither group was especially original, they were both just influential for having handed other people's innovations to the masses.
they will realize no one cares about how well they twiddle dials and they will tire themselves of twiddling dials and yearn for the good old days in their garage with a shit ton of guitar and attitude and release their big comeback album. i see it. i cant wait to hear it
I agreed with everything you said up to this point plenty of people DO care. what pisses me off about YOUR type of radiohead fan (;)) is that you think those of us who like the later stuff are pretending or something. I dont think it's cool to like it, it's not like it's groundbreaking avant-garde stuff. I have plenty of stuff I listen to for that I happen to enjoy the later stuff a damn sight more than I ever enjoyed the bends. so I honestly hope to fuck they never decide to go back and pander to the masses.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I agreed with everything you said up to this point plenty of people DO care. what pisses me off about YOUR type of radiohead fan (;)) is that you think those of us who like the later stuff are pretending or something. I dont think it's cool to like it, it's not like it's groundbreaking avant-garde stuff. I have plenty of stuff I listen to for that I happen to enjoy the later stuff a damn sight more than I ever enjoyed the bends. so I honestly hope to fuck they never decide to go back and pander to the masses.
no, i dont doubt you honestly enjoy the albums. i like 2 of them myself. just like people honestly liked it when u2 did it. but at the same time, the output has been uneven. kid a was good, and in rainbows is (imho) what they've been trying to do since kid a and havent nailed until now. but the middle period seemed to be them struggling to reconcile the two sides of their music.
ill compare to u2, cos im a big u2 fan. achtung baby: groundbreaking and brilliant and pretty inarguably a courageous masterpiece, like kid a. zooropa and pop... similar to hail to the thief and amnesiac. solid albums, if you like the band. i love zooropa and pop. but most of the world doesn't give a fuck about either of them and a lot say they are downright awful. but becos i'm a fan, ill give them the chance to appeal to me. i might even say zooropa is a favorite, but i'd never try to say it's their best, and most people would say nothing on those 2 albums really did anything new that wasn't on achtung. radiohead is the same way. httt and amnesiac didn't really produce anything new that wasn't covered on kid a. to most people, there's no reason to listen to them and a lot would say they're outright boring and terrible albums. but if you like radiohead and care enough to wait for it, you're going to genuinely like the album.
im not saying you're all faking it. im just saying you're a bit biased and generous, like im biased and generous to u2 or pearl jam. i'll cut them slack for making music that others might find boring, repetitive, or uninspired, becos i like what the band is doing. and there's nothing wrong with that. but im also not going to tell you that pearl has produced a masterpiece lately, and neither has u2. i don't think radiohead has either, though ill admit in rainbows comes closer than either of those other 2 bands have lately. cos they finally seem to have come close to blending their influences into a cohesive album that truly bends genres instead of just adopting new ones.
no, i dont doubt you honestly enjoy the albums. i like 2 of them myself. just like people honestly liked it when u2 did it. but at the same time, the output has been uneven. kid a was good, and in rainbows is (imho) what they've been trying to do since kid a and havent nailed until now. but the middle period seemed to be them struggling to reconcile the two sides of their music.
ill compare to u2, cos im a big u2 fan. achtung baby: groundbreaking and brilliant and pretty inarguably a courageous masterpiece, like kid a. zooropa and pop... similar to hail to the thief and amnesiac. solid albums, if you like the band. i love zooropa and pop. but most of the world doesn't give a fuck about either of them and a lot say they are downright awful. but becos i'm a fan, ill give them the chance to appeal to me. i might even say zooropa is a favorite, but i'd never try to say it's their best, and most people would say nothing on those 2 albums really did anything new that wasn't on achtung. radiohead is the same way. httt and amnesiac didn't really produce anything new that wasn't covered on kid a. to most people, there's no reason to listen to them and a lot would say they're outright boring and terrible albums. but if you like radiohead and care enough to wait for it, you're going to genuinely like the album.
im not saying you're all faking it. im just saying you're a bit biased and generous, like im biased and generous to u2 or pearl jam. i'll cut them slack for making music that others might find boring, repetitive, or uninspired, becos i like what the band is doing. and there's nothing wrong with that. but im also not going to tell you that pearl has produced a masterpiece lately, and neither has u2. i don't think radiohead has either, though ill admit in rainbows comes closer than either of those other 2 bands have lately. cos they finally seem to have come close to blending their influences into a cohesive album that truly bends genres instead of just adopting new ones.
I hear ya
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
while their new album is definitely beautiful, it does not sound as vital as their previous 5 releases (excluding pablo honey)
I strongly disagree.
In a world full of NME arse-licking shit like Jet/Hoosiers/Babyshambles and emo bollocks its finally nice to hear a band deliver a unique and moving album.
'The more I studied religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.' - Sir Richard Francis Burton
I didn't say Facepollution had to enjoy the newer music, I said it's not his right to expect what he wants from the band. If they choose to change then he should deal with it. Plenty of people do like it. The fact is, if Radiohead had continued down the OK computer road they would have been pulled up by fans and critics alike for not living up to expectations because it's hard to top an album like that. by changing direction they subverted that, made a load of new fans, lost some old ones and kept some of the ones that weren't so stuck in their ways.
See that last sentence about being stuck in my ways really fucks me off. There were limitless opportunities for Radiohead to evolve as a band, they could have gone off in any direction they wanted, but the heart and soul of the band has totally gone; you wouldn't even have your precious Kid A or In Rainbows if the band hadn't made it big with The Bends. I'll take the guts and emotion of Fake Plastic Trees or Lucky over the cold, clinical and most of the time damn right boring stuff they're making now, any day.
The point I was making before, about the time you got into the band, wasn't me being arrogant, but pointing out that those early records were what made Radiohead who they are - without them they would not exist. And since you weren't around, or at least capable at the time of appreciating how groundbreaking they were for their time, I think you totally miss what people like myself see in the earlier records.
The reason I've always stuck with Pearl Jam despite all the music changes they've made, is that more than anything there's always been a big beating heart in the middle of it, the passion is a constant. As soon as a band starts to pay more attention to sounding different than actually crafting good music, I think they totally lose their edge. That was what absolutely blew me away when OK Computer came out, the progression was immense, just as it was from Pablo Honey to The Bends. Kid A was just a total cop out. Like someone else said, rather than pushing themselves to grow even more as the band they were, they decided to become a completely new band instead.
I'm never going to completely give up on Radiohead, you understand, I know they are incredible musicians, so I'll always give a new album a fair go. But nothing they've done in recent years has moved me, and until it does I'm always going to feel slightly disappointed by them.
To me the songs on In Rainbows are much more memorable to those on The Bends. The bends, to me personally has a lot of filler.
A lot of filler? Like what? I think the album has a lot of character, cohesion and variation. I'm not sure when you first heard the album, but having bought it when it first came out, I really can't stress enough how unique Radiohead were back then. I think a lot of people dismiss the earlier stuff because a lot of bands have copied that sound since so it doesn't sound so revolutionary now, but back then songs like My Iron Lung were just mind-blowing.
I'll take the guts and emotion of Fake Plastic Trees or Lucky over the cold, clinical and most of the time damn right boring stuff they're making now, any day.
.
This is what i never understand, how their new stuff is called stuff like 'cold' etc.
IN Rainbows is one of the warmest albums i've heard.
I LOVE Fake Plastic Trees and Lucky, both are up there with my all time favourite songs by anyone. However, All I Need, Reckoner and Videotape off the new record are just as stunning, just less guitar based.
The Bends is a solid guitar album, but OK Computer, Kid A and In Rainbows blow it out the water for me.
'The more I studied religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.' - Sir Richard Francis Burton
A lot of filler? Like what? I think the album has a lot of character, cohesion and variation. I'm not sure when you first heard the album, but having bought it when it first came out, I really can't stress enough how unique Radiohead were back then. I think a lot of people dismiss the earlier stuff because a lot of bands have copied that sound since so it doesn't sound so revolutionary now, but back then songs like My Iron Lung were just mind-blowing.
Maybe thats it. I came to Radiohead via OK Computer, then Kid A, Amnesiac, HTTF and THEN bought The Bends. Twisted order I know.
But I think maybe you're right as to why The Bends doesnt appeal to me so much, because it has been copied lots, it doesn't sound anything but a solid guitar record to me. I love the slower stuff, Street Spirit, Fake Plastci Trees etc but songs like Bones, My Iron Lung just bore me because they sound so normal.
'The more I studied religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.' - Sir Richard Francis Burton
See that last sentence about being stuck in my ways really fucks me off. There were limitless opportunities for Radiohead to evolve as a band, they could have gone off in any direction they wanted, but the heart and soul of the band has totally gone; you wouldn't even have your precious Kid A or In Rainbows if the band hadn't made it big with The Bends. I'll take the guts and emotion of Fake Plastic Trees or Lucky over the cold, clinical and most of the time damn right boring stuff they're making now, any day.
The point I was making before, about the time you got into the band, wasn't me being arrogant, but pointing out that those early records were what made Radiohead who they are - without them they would not exist. And since you weren't around, or at least capable at the time of appreciating how groundbreaking they were for their time, I think you totally miss what people like myself see in the earlier records.
The reason I've always stuck with Pearl Jam despite all the music changes they've made, is that more than anything there's always been a big beating heart in the middle of it, the passion is a constant. As soon as a band starts to pay more attention to sounding different than actually crafting good music, I think they totally lose their edge. That was what absolutely blew me away when OK Computer came out, the progression was immense, just as it was from Pablo Honey to The Bends. Kid A was just a total cop out. Like someone else said, rather than pushing themselves to grow even more as the band they were, they decided to become a completely new band instead.
I'm never going to completely give up on Radiohead, you understand, I know they are incredible musicians, so I'll always give a new album a fair go. But nothing they've done in recent years has moved me, and until it does I'm always going to feel slightly disappointed by them.
We are never going to agree. and your point about when you heard it is a nice way to lend an ok album some sense of grandeur but it's ultimately bullshit. I didn't hear the bends in 1995 and I didn't hear Kid A in 2000. I heard them relatively close together. In fact, I probably didn't know any of the songs from The Bends until after 2000. My appreciation of either album is not based on cultural context in any way whatsoever, purely on the music contained within and I find The Bends to be everything you describe Kid A as. Apparently though, the fact that I wasn't around to witness The Bends grab the cultural zeitgeist like yourself means my opinion counts for shit. I never realised you needed to be born in a specific time to be allowed an opinion on music.
On the other hand, I am appreciating the songs for themselves and not what they 'meant' at the time and to these ears (belonging to, I assure you, an intelligent person who likes a great deal of music that has 'guts and emotion', I hear more emotion in songs like All I Need and How to Disappear Completely than in anything off The Bends, Fake Plastic Trees excepted.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, everyone is. It's not my job to make you like their newer work. It just sincerely bugs me that people like myself get treated like we are 1) not real fans because oooh we must have gotten into the band after OK computer to like this bleepy shit and 2) idiots sucked in by some pseudo-intellectual fake avant-garde bullshit.
some of us just prefer the music. I'm sure the band are happy with that.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
We are never going to agree. and your point about when you heard it is a nice way to lend an ok album some sense of grandeur but it's ultimately bullshit. I didn't hear the bends in 1995 and I didn't hear Kid A in 2000. I heard them relatively close together. In fact, I probably didn't know any of the songs from The Bends until after 2000. My appreciation of either album is not based on cultural context in any way whatsoever, purely on the music contained within and I find The Bends to be everything you describe Kid A as. Apparently though, the fact that I wasn't around to witness The Bends grab the cultural zeitgeist like yourself means my opinion counts for shit. I never realised you needed to be born in a specific time to be allowed an opinion on music.
On the other hand, I am appreciating the songs for themselves and not what they 'meant' at the time and to these ears (belonging to, I assure you, an intelligent person who likes a great deal of music that has 'guts and emotion', I hear more emotion in songs like All I Need and How to Disappear Completely than in anything off The Bends, Fake Plastic Trees excepted.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, everyone is. It's not my job to make you like their newer work. It just sincerely bugs me that people like myself get treated like we are 1) not real fans because oooh we must have gotten into the band after OK computer to like this bleepy shit and 2) idiots sucked in by some pseudo-intellectual fake avant-garde bullshit.
some of us just prefer the music. I'm sure the band are happy with that.
Man, you depress me. You haven't an ounce of respect or idea of what I'm saying. It's kind of like my issue with The Beatles, they do nothing for me, but at least I can respect that they pushed music forward. As sedate and boring as you may find The Bends, at the time it really was pushing boundaries, but hey, why would you take that from me, what do I know...........
What is more weird for me, is that you were so impressed by OK Computer at the age of 9, yet Kid A passed you by, despite the impression the previous album made on you. It almost makes me laugh how critics and fans were bowled over by Kid A, the previous album was such a revelation that anything past it MUST be good. Are you impervious to the influence of culture? I think not. Whether you like it or not, you were slap bang in the middle of the shittest music scene for a long time. Late 90's alternative music blew fucking hard, and then there's Radiohead who came good with OK Computer, then reinvented themselves in the most extreme way as possible, only his voice links the two incarnations. But by that point Radiohead were so highly revered because of OK Computer, that Thom York could have farted down a mic and still sold a million records. That kudos made an indelible mark that remains even now. The band are so unpredictable, they could come out with ANYTHING and people's automatic response would be positive, purely because they wouldn't know any other reaction.
They are not pretentiuos IMO.They play what they want to play and thankfully,notall obviously,but the majority of it ,across their entire back catalogue is PURE QUALITY compared to most other rock bands in existence.
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
My parting shot, in you opinion, what attributes did they carry over from the early (Pablo Honey/The Bends/OK Computer) days into their new incarnation?
I think I might have said this once before in another thread...but as much as I love Radiohead, what they have done over the years really is not that impressive, experimentally.
Despite what the majority of critics think, i think Radiohead have made it easier for themselves to write songs and albums after moving into a more electronic direction.
Take Pearl jam for example, 8 guitar, bass and drum based records and they have managed to push boundaries along the way within that framework. Not easy to do. Especially when you consider the difficulty in making even the slightest attempts to be original and experimental within that framework. There is not a hell of alot that you can do that has not been done before.
Radiohead on the other hand have basically "downed tools" and picked up another set to work with, giving them much more room to "sound different", which, to the untrained ear, appears groundbreaking and hugely experimentally.
When in fact, the majority of their songs post OK Computer are very simple compositions that are, on the whole, less complex musically than alot of their earlier work. That said, it does not mean that this music is not brilliant or intelligent, just not really that complex or experimental when viewed as music. In other words, Radiohead's music post Ok Computer, when played within the traditional drum, guitar and bass format is not really anything new or different musically, it's just played within a different format.
Long story short, it is lot more difficult IMO to write 8 albums within the traditional format and push boundaries and make subtle changes to the artform in the process than it would be to totally reininvent yourself and make music within a different format.
All Radiohead have done is create for themselves more room to move...Have they really been challenging themselves musically or making things easier for themselves...
This is a really interesting idea and quite frankly I had never really thought of it this way...perhaps they were 'out of ideas' as you imply and needed to change due to the risk of, well it could have been fear of failure...perhaps I am reading too much into it myself, but Kid A was a little bit of a shock.
i expect one day radiohead will do the same. they will realize no one cares about how well they twiddle dials and they will tire themselves of twiddling dials and yearn for the good old days in their garage with a shit ton of guitar and attitude and release their big comeback album. i see it. i cant wait to hear it
how does a band make a comeback when they are still one of the largest bands in the world?
Comments
Their best is Kid A...hands down
Followed by Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac, In Rainbows, The Bends, Ok Computer and finally Pablo Honey.
I feel I am in the minority when I say this, but Ok Computer is good but far from their best and IMO is not a better album than The Bends.
Amnesiac gets far too much hate from everywhere...but listen to it again people it really is not that far behind Kid A! Pyramid Song and I might be Wrong challenge just about anything off Kid A and IMO are superior to most off Ok Computer.
Hail to the Thief is underrated too, In Rainbows is a good album but clearly I need to listen a little more before making a final judgement.
Wow, aggression issues dude, that aint cool. I'm only debating with you here. I'm not moaning, merely expressing my point of view just like you are. And cool you must have been a super advanced 9 year old to appreciate something as epic as OK Computer, I'm impressed you even understood the concept of sophistication at such a tender age.
PS, The new album isn't as accessible as OK Computer.
And with regards to OK Computer, I obviously didn't appreciate the album in the way I do now at the age of 9. I've had 10 years to learn more about music and understand the album a lot more but it certainly stood out at the time. I remember seeing the video for Karma Police on TV and it seemed so alien and foreign that it fascinated me. I cannot say the same for The Bends and certainly not for Pablo Honey. As such, I feel that the band's best work has been OK Computer and onwards.
Despite what the majority of critics think, i think Radiohead have made it easier for themselves to write songs and albums after moving into a more electronic direction.
Take Pearl jam for example, 8 guitar, bass and drum based records and they have managed to push boundaries along the way within that framework. Not easy to do. Especially when you consider the difficulty in making even the slightest attempts to be original and experimental within that framework. There is not a hell of alot that you can do that has not been done before.
Radiohead on the other hand have basically "downed tools" and picked up another set to work with, giving them much more room to "sound different", which, to the untrained ear, appears groundbreaking and hugely experimentally.
When in fact, the majority of their songs post OK Computer are very simple compositions that are, on the whole, less complex musically than alot of their earlier work. That said, it does not mean that this music is not brilliant or intelligent, just not really that complex or experimental when viewed as music. In other words, Radiohead's music post Ok Computer, when played within the traditional drum, guitar and bass format is not really anything new or different musically, it's just played within a different format.
Long story short, it is lot more difficult IMO to write 8 albums within the traditional format and push boundaries and make subtle changes to the artform in the process than it would be to totally reininvent yourself and make music within a different format.
All Radiohead have done is create for themselves more room to move...Have they really been challenging themselves musically or making things easier for themselves...
you got to spend it all...*****
i haven't understood a lyric thom yorke has sung since ok computer, that's for damn sure.
it's also his choice to say what he thinks of the new material and recent direction. just becos johnny wants to write it doesn't mean he has to like it or pretend to enjoy it. i agree with the guy 100%. they were onto something nobody had really approached before. but then they veered off. there was nothing new or original about kid a. that kind of music had been done by electronic artist for years before radiohead got there. it wasnt a boundary pushing opus, it was just a change of genre. the only reason it got billed as the former is becos nobody listened to that kind of music and rock fans outright hated it before radiohead tried to pull it off.
I think the only persons claiming kid a/amnesiac are groundbreaking are people who listen to 2-3 bands only. It's clear that kid a was nothing new in terms of music but it is nonetheless a great album. And a bold move by radiohead considering the feelings of rock fans towards that music - I think it's this part that most people aknowledge.
I remember reading on a forum once that music, since the last 60 years goes like this : band A records a groundbreaking album which does not sell well at all and band A stays in relative anonymity. Band B, heavily influenced by band A, records a very very popular album which crystallises the new genre. Bands C, D, E... influenced by band B won't add anything new.
i think it IS his right to expect or want whatever he damn well pleases from radiohead. doesn't mean they have to deliver it. it's also radiohead's right to tell him to go fuck himself and listen to someone else if he doesn't like the new stuff.
i agree that the change probably saved them a lot of heat. hell, it worked for u2 when they went synth pop for achtung baby and so on. it's easy to forget just how mind-blowing that was at the time. but eventually people tired of the gimmicks (zooropa, pop) and eventually the band did all they could do there and went back. i expect one day radiohead will do the same. they will realize no one cares about how well they twiddle dials and they will tire themselves of twiddling dials and yearn for the good old days in their garage with a shit ton of guitar and attitude and release their big comeback album. i see it. i cant wait to hear it
i agree. radiohead didn't do anything new, they just brought that music to the masses. kinda like nirvana never did anything the pixies hadn't already done, but they broke it through to the rock world at large. it happens often. it's always funny to see where on the divide people fall. i know radiohead fans who call cobain a hack and think thom yorke is the most innovative genius ever to grace this earth. i know nirvana fans who think radiohead are dial-twiddling jerkoffs and cobain was the highest poet of rock. fanaticism is always fun to watch. neither group was especially original, they were both just influential for having handed other people's innovations to the masses.
I'm with you. Haven't really listened to the new one yet, though.
I don't know how much "a damn sight" is, but I think I agree with you.
I like the bends...but I only like it. I don't love it. It's pretty boring, I think.
no, i dont doubt you honestly enjoy the albums. i like 2 of them myself. just like people honestly liked it when u2 did it. but at the same time, the output has been uneven. kid a was good, and in rainbows is (imho) what they've been trying to do since kid a and havent nailed until now. but the middle period seemed to be them struggling to reconcile the two sides of their music.
ill compare to u2, cos im a big u2 fan. achtung baby: groundbreaking and brilliant and pretty inarguably a courageous masterpiece, like kid a. zooropa and pop... similar to hail to the thief and amnesiac. solid albums, if you like the band. i love zooropa and pop. but most of the world doesn't give a fuck about either of them and a lot say they are downright awful. but becos i'm a fan, ill give them the chance to appeal to me. i might even say zooropa is a favorite, but i'd never try to say it's their best, and most people would say nothing on those 2 albums really did anything new that wasn't on achtung. radiohead is the same way. httt and amnesiac didn't really produce anything new that wasn't covered on kid a. to most people, there's no reason to listen to them and a lot would say they're outright boring and terrible albums. but if you like radiohead and care enough to wait for it, you're going to genuinely like the album.
im not saying you're all faking it. im just saying you're a bit biased and generous, like im biased and generous to u2 or pearl jam. i'll cut them slack for making music that others might find boring, repetitive, or uninspired, becos i like what the band is doing. and there's nothing wrong with that. but im also not going to tell you that pearl has produced a masterpiece lately, and neither has u2. i don't think radiohead has either, though ill admit in rainbows comes closer than either of those other 2 bands have lately. cos they finally seem to have come close to blending their influences into a cohesive album that truly bends genres instead of just adopting new ones.
I strongly disagree.
In a world full of NME arse-licking shit like Jet/Hoosiers/Babyshambles and emo bollocks its finally nice to hear a band deliver a unique and moving album.
In Rainbows has that.
To me the songs on In Rainbows are much more memorable to those on The Bends. The bends, to me personally has a lot of filler.
See that last sentence about being stuck in my ways really fucks me off. There were limitless opportunities for Radiohead to evolve as a band, they could have gone off in any direction they wanted, but the heart and soul of the band has totally gone; you wouldn't even have your precious Kid A or In Rainbows if the band hadn't made it big with The Bends. I'll take the guts and emotion of Fake Plastic Trees or Lucky over the cold, clinical and most of the time damn right boring stuff they're making now, any day.
The point I was making before, about the time you got into the band, wasn't me being arrogant, but pointing out that those early records were what made Radiohead who they are - without them they would not exist. And since you weren't around, or at least capable at the time of appreciating how groundbreaking they were for their time, I think you totally miss what people like myself see in the earlier records.
The reason I've always stuck with Pearl Jam despite all the music changes they've made, is that more than anything there's always been a big beating heart in the middle of it, the passion is a constant. As soon as a band starts to pay more attention to sounding different than actually crafting good music, I think they totally lose their edge. That was what absolutely blew me away when OK Computer came out, the progression was immense, just as it was from Pablo Honey to The Bends. Kid A was just a total cop out. Like someone else said, rather than pushing themselves to grow even more as the band they were, they decided to become a completely new band instead.
I'm never going to completely give up on Radiohead, you understand, I know they are incredible musicians, so I'll always give a new album a fair go. But nothing they've done in recent years has moved me, and until it does I'm always going to feel slightly disappointed by them.
I disagree.
A lot of filler? Like what? I think the album has a lot of character, cohesion and variation. I'm not sure when you first heard the album, but having bought it when it first came out, I really can't stress enough how unique Radiohead were back then. I think a lot of people dismiss the earlier stuff because a lot of bands have copied that sound since so it doesn't sound so revolutionary now, but back then songs like My Iron Lung were just mind-blowing.
This is what i never understand, how their new stuff is called stuff like 'cold' etc.
IN Rainbows is one of the warmest albums i've heard.
I LOVE Fake Plastic Trees and Lucky, both are up there with my all time favourite songs by anyone. However, All I Need, Reckoner and Videotape off the new record are just as stunning, just less guitar based.
The Bends is a solid guitar album, but OK Computer, Kid A and In Rainbows blow it out the water for me.
Maybe thats it. I came to Radiohead via OK Computer, then Kid A, Amnesiac, HTTF and THEN bought The Bends. Twisted order I know.
But I think maybe you're right as to why The Bends doesnt appeal to me so much, because it has been copied lots, it doesn't sound anything but a solid guitar record to me. I love the slower stuff, Street Spirit, Fake Plastci Trees etc but songs like Bones, My Iron Lung just bore me because they sound so normal.
On the other hand, I am appreciating the songs for themselves and not what they 'meant' at the time and to these ears (belonging to, I assure you, an intelligent person who likes a great deal of music that has 'guts and emotion', I hear more emotion in songs like All I Need and How to Disappear Completely than in anything off The Bends, Fake Plastic Trees excepted.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, everyone is. It's not my job to make you like their newer work. It just sincerely bugs me that people like myself get treated like we are 1) not real fans because oooh we must have gotten into the band after OK computer to like this bleepy shit and 2) idiots sucked in by some pseudo-intellectual fake avant-garde bullshit.
some of us just prefer the music. I'm sure the band are happy with that.
Man, you depress me. You haven't an ounce of respect or idea of what I'm saying. It's kind of like my issue with The Beatles, they do nothing for me, but at least I can respect that they pushed music forward. As sedate and boring as you may find The Bends, at the time it really was pushing boundaries, but hey, why would you take that from me, what do I know...........
What is more weird for me, is that you were so impressed by OK Computer at the age of 9, yet Kid A passed you by, despite the impression the previous album made on you. It almost makes me laugh how critics and fans were bowled over by Kid A, the previous album was such a revelation that anything past it MUST be good. Are you impervious to the influence of culture? I think not. Whether you like it or not, you were slap bang in the middle of the shittest music scene for a long time. Late 90's alternative music blew fucking hard, and then there's Radiohead who came good with OK Computer, then reinvented themselves in the most extreme way as possible, only his voice links the two incarnations. But by that point Radiohead were so highly revered because of OK Computer, that Thom York could have farted down a mic and still sold a million records. That kudos made an indelible mark that remains even now. The band are so unpredictable, they could come out with ANYTHING and people's automatic response would be positive, purely because they wouldn't know any other reaction.
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
This is a really interesting idea and quite frankly I had never really thought of it this way...perhaps they were 'out of ideas' as you imply and needed to change due to the risk of, well it could have been fear of failure...perhaps I am reading too much into it myself, but Kid A was a little bit of a shock.