I say they suck and you all make it seem like it's impossible for anyone to hate them. Seriously, I have all their albums. I'm not talking about The Bends I'm talking about them as a band. "Kid A" and "Ok Computer" are not masterpieces. I'm tired of people acting like they are gods gift to the earth.
I cannot see how someone can put in Kid A (worst album ever created) and actually enjoy the disgusting crap that Thom calls a song. Just because he's rebellious against the mainstream music industry does not make him a genius, and it doesn't make the music good. And I am dead serious when I say Kid A is the worst and most overrated record ever created. It's just plain awful.
Okay now THAT was ignorant. But in my opinion they are terrible. That's possible you know, for someone to disagree.
That's all a matter of opinion bud. I like their albums because I like their albums, it has nothing to do with anything else.
I don't necessarily rate their albums highly but they are definantly some of my favorites.
Just because he's rebellious against the mainstream music industry does not make him a genius, and it doesn't make the music good. And I am dead serious when I say Kid A is the worst and most overrated record ever created. It's just plain awful.
.
I think National Anthem, Optimistic, and In Limbo are great songs. and like anyone fucking cares if you're "dead serious" when you say Kid A sucks. Like I said earlier in this thread, you're user name is DAVE MATTHEWS. If this was a John Mayer or Dashboard Confessional coversation, your opinion would be valued. but not in a Radiohead discussion.
I say they suck and you all make it seem like it's impossible for anyone to hate them. Seriously, I have all their albums. I'm not talking about The Bends I'm talking about them as a band. "Kid A" and "Ok Computer" are not masterpieces. I'm tired of people acting like they are gods gift to the earth.
I cannot see how someone can put in Kid A (worst album ever created) and actually enjoy the disgusting crap that Thom calls a song. Just because he's rebellious against the mainstream music industry does not make him a genius, and it doesn't make the music good. And I am dead serious when I say Kid A is the worst and most overrated record ever created. It's just plain awful.
Okay now THAT was ignorant. But in my opinion they are terrible. That's possible you know, for someone to disagree.
well, this thread is about the bends and you come in with this comment:
funny, i was just thinking about the bends. bought it on vinyl for my bro for christmas.
both are great albums, both different types of rock, so it's like comparing apples to oranges. to whomever knocked ok computer......it's one of the best rock albums of the decade....you should re-listen to it.
2003 Mansfield III 2004 Boston I 2006 Boston I 2008 Bonnaroo, Hartford, Mansfield I 2010 Hartford 2013 Worcester I, Worcester II, Hartford 2016 Bonnaroo, Fenway I, Fenway II 2018 Fenway I, Fenway II 2021 Sea.Hear.Now 2022 Camden 2024 MSG I, Fenway I, Fenway II
Quite alot actually. For one, Foxy Mop isn't really much of a song at all.
how is foxy mop less of a song? have you ever even listened to the whole thing? the way the bass and drums kick into a great groove towards the end and the guitars crank out weirder noises than johnny greenwood. yeah, ed's not singing, but neither is thom on a lot of latter day radiohead... he's moaning.
plus, radiohead takes themselves so godamn seriously... they've bought into everything the music press ever said about them and it's made thom a self-righteous prick. he's got more ego than bono. can you see radiohead departing from their sound to play a song like bugs? no. cos yeah, radiohead changed directions after ok computer. then what? they made 3 albums that sound identical and break no new ground. they changed it up for kid s... to make electronica music. it wasnt new. it was done better by other electronic artist. but radiohead acts like they invented it becos they were a big rock band and a bunch of people heard it for once. then after kid a, they made amnesiac, which is kid a 2. then they made hail to the thief, which is kid a with enough ok computer to sell records again. they're no messiahs, they're no rock and roll saviors. they departed to play with electronic music and have been doing ti ever since. if you're going to say pearl jam hasnt change with any album since no code, neither has radiohead since kid a. it was no more dramatic a departure than pearl jam took when they decided after vitalogy (or maybe even vs) they werent gonna every jock's favorite karaoke band and decided to make no code... a turn to a very downbeat, folksy sound that hadnt been heard in the mainstream for ages. radiohead did the same thing, they just opted for something "cooler" than folk for their change of direction.
pearl jam learned to integrate influences with their music. they're not afraid to throw oddball tunes onto an album. things like bugs or im open or foxy mop. radiohead doesn't do this. they're too pretentious and too narrow-minded. al they did was switch genre from rock to electronic.
"What’s Orphans? I don’t know. Orphans is a dead end kid driving a coffin with big tires across the Ohio River wearing welding goggles and a wife beater with a lit firecracker in his ear." - Tom Waits
how is foxy mop less of a song? have you ever even listened to the whole thing? the way the bass and drums kick into a great groove towards the end and the guitars crank out weirder noises than johnny greenwood. yeah, ed's not singing, but neither is thom on a lot of latter day radiohead... he's moaning.
plus, radiohead takes themselves so godamn seriously... they've bought into everything the music press ever said about them and it's made thom a self-righteous prick. he's got more ego than bono. can you see radiohead departing from their sound to play a song like bugs? no. cos yeah, radiohead changed directions after ok computer. then what? they made 3 albums that sound identical and break no new ground. they changed it up for kid s... to make electronica music. it wasnt new. it was done better by other electronic artist. but radiohead acts like they invented it becos they were a big rock band and a bunch of people heard it for once. then after kid a, they made amnesiac, which is kid a 2. then they made hail to the thief, which is kid a with enough ok computer to sell records again. they're no messiahs, they're no rock and roll saviors. they departed to play with electronic music and have been doing ti ever since. if you're going to say pearl jam hasnt change with any album since no code, neither has radiohead since kid a. it was no more dramatic a departure than pearl jam took when they decided after vitalogy (or maybe even vs) they werent gonna every jock's favorite karaoke band and decided to make no code... a turn to a very downbeat, folksy sound that hadnt been heard in the mainstream for ages. radiohead did the same thing, they just opted for something "cooler" than folk for their change of direction.
pearl jam learned to integrate influences with their music. they're not afraid to throw oddball tunes onto an album. things like bugs or im open or foxy mop. radiohead doesn't do this. they're too pretentious and too narrow-minded. al they did was switch genre from rock to electronic.
Finally proof that you haven't actually listened to later Radiohead with any kind of sincerity. Hail To The Theif couldn't sound more different than Kid A. Anybody with ears can tell you that no matter how much they hate Radiohead.
Also, HTTT was way more of a rock record than electronic. With the exception of "The Gloaming" and a couple piano led songs that album is completely dominated by guitars.
Finally proof that you haven't actually listened to later Radiohead with any kind of sincerity. Hail To The Theif couldn't sound more different than Kid A. Anybody with ears can tell you that no matter how much they hate Radiohead.
Also, HTTT was way more of a rock record than electronic. With the exception of "The Gloaming" and a couple piano led songs that album is completely dominated by guitars.
anybody with ears could tell you you're wrong no matter how much time you spend kissing thom yorke's ass. hail to the thief is a slight departure from kid a, but even so, it is more a return to ok computer than anything. by no means is it some revolutionary leap forward. radiohead is not doing anything mind-blowingly original. that's ok. they're still good. but im so fucking sick of the mindless radiohead disciples who act like thom yorke and co can do no wrong and they are the most innovative band in music. they're not. they made 2 electronic albums (amnesiac was kid a's b-sides and even the band didnt try to deny that), then stepped back a bit towards the formula that earned them genius status. so dont feed me that "radiohead does something new and dramatically different with every album" line. it hasnt been true since they released kid a. httt might have been a little different from kid a, but by no means was it a remarkable departure to a new sound like the band's mindless drones would have us all think. it was kid a with more guitars and enough song structure to remind people of ok computer. ive listened to it. several times. there's nothing ground-breaking on it, nor anything particularly exciting. even kid a was a more interesting listen.
how is foxy mop less of a song? have you ever even listened to the whole thing? the way the bass and drums kick into a great groove towards the end and the guitars crank out weirder noises than johnny greenwood. yeah, ed's not singing, but neither is thom on a lot of latter day radiohead... he's moaning.
plus, radiohead takes themselves so godamn seriously... they've bought into everything the music press ever said about them and it's made thom a self-righteous prick. he's got more ego than bono. can you see radiohead departing from their sound to play a song like bugs? no. cos yeah, radiohead changed directions after ok computer. then what? they made 3 albums that sound identical and break no new ground. they changed it up for kid s... to make electronica music. it wasnt new. it was done better by other electronic artist. but radiohead acts like they invented it becos they were a big rock band and a bunch of people heard it for once. then after kid a, they made amnesiac, which is kid a 2. then they made hail to the thief, which is kid a with enough ok computer to sell records again. they're no messiahs, they're no rock and roll saviors. they departed to play with electronic music and have been doing ti ever since. if you're going to say pearl jam hasnt change with any album since no code, neither has radiohead since kid a. it was no more dramatic a departure than pearl jam took when they decided after vitalogy (or maybe even vs) they werent gonna every jock's favorite karaoke band and decided to make no code... a turn to a very downbeat, folksy sound that hadnt been heard in the mainstream for ages. radiohead did the same thing, they just opted for something "cooler" than folk for their change of direction.
pearl jam learned to integrate influences with their music. they're not afraid to throw oddball tunes onto an album. things like bugs or im open or foxy mop. radiohead doesn't do this. they're too pretentious and too narrow-minded. al they did was switch genre from rock to electronic.
There's alot about this post that I don't think makes any sense, so I guess I'll just go one by one. First of all, Foxy Mop is closer to a sound collage; I don't think it's meant to be considered a song in the same way Corduroy is for example. You say Radiohead doesn't make songs, and that it is just Thom moaning...um, take their last album for example. What track on that album is 'not' a song? Hell, the only album that works for is Amnesiac, which was basically a 'lost dogs' collection for Kid A in the first place.
OK, as for all the other stuff...whether Thom has an ego or not, I don't really know or care. I more worry about the quality of his work, which is incredible. And let's not kid ourselves here; there was nothing even remotely commercial about Kid A. There was no single, it was a ridiculous change in sound from their previous work. It's like if you even suggest that PJ might not be the best at everything and anything, you're inviting criticism. Pearl Jam is great, but even they would be the first to tell you that they have not tried anything in the studio like OK Computer and Kid A...pretty much all of their albums (other than touches on Yield and PJ) are live in the studio. So yeah, you've been very good at dissecting Radiohead, but you haven't talked about Pearl Jam...how is the sound of No Code a "complete departure" as you put in from Vitalogy? Both have their rockers, their ballads, their short 'experimental' tracks...Pearl Jam just hasn't exploited the studio in that way. Maybe they will someday, but maybe they won't; some bands just don't work that way. Compare the Beatles to the Rolling Stones; the Beatles were all about the studio, laboring months at a time to unearth the right sound...the Stones' best studio recordings were usually one of the first few takes. (This comparison doesn't work so well since Radiohead is great live as well).
So yeah, long story short, IMO you're pretty wrong with every point you made. But you're welcome to have them.
There's alot about this post that I don't think makes any sense, so I guess I'll just go one by one. First of all, Foxy Mop is closer to a sound collage; I don't think it's meant to be considered a song in the same way Corduroy is for example. You say Radiohead doesn't make songs, and that it is just Thom moaning...um, take their last album for example. What track on that album is 'not' a song? Hell, the only album that works for is Amnesiac, which was basically a 'lost dogs' collection for Kid A in the first place.
OK, as for all the other stuff...whether Thom has an ego or not, I don't really know or care. I more worry about the quality of his work, which is incredible. And let's not kid ourselves here; there was nothing even remotely commercial about Kid A. There was no single, it was a ridiculous change in sound from their previous work. It's like if you even suggest that PJ might not be the best at everything and anything, you're inviting criticism. Pearl Jam is great, but even they would be the first to tell you that they have not tried anything in the studio like OK Computer and Kid A...pretty much all of their albums (other than touches on Yield and PJ) are live in the studio. So yeah, you've been very good at dissecting Radiohead, but you haven't talked about Pearl Jam...how is the sound of No Code a "complete departure" as you put in from Vitalogy? Both have their rockers, their ballads, their short 'experimental' tracks...Pearl Jam just hasn't exploited the studio in that way. Maybe they will someday, but maybe they won't; some bands just don't work that way. Compare the Beatles to the Rolling Stones; the Beatles were all about the studio, laboring months at a time to unearth the right sound...the Stones' best studio recordings were usually one of the first few takes. (This comparison doesn't work so well since Radiohead is great live as well).
So yeah, long story short, IMO you're pretty wrong with every point you made. But you're welcome to have them.
No Code pretty much has a folky/tribal sound throughout the whole album. Even the rockers on this record sound nothing like the earlier stuff.
Vitalogy has a raw almost punk edge to it. It was different in itself from Ten/Vs but still quite anthemic as an album.
They are completely different records in mood, tone and sound. Heck, listen to Who You Are, Off he Goes, Around the Bend, Smile, I'm Open and even Red Mosquito and Present Tense...They put out something that WAS completely different to their other stuff.
And the only reason this has not been explored in greater detail by critics is because No Code was so unlike Pearl Jam that most people wrote it off as an album not worth listening to. Hence the sales and the general expectation that Pearl Jam SHOULD put out records like Ten, Vs and Vitalogy.
As I mentioned in a post previously, just because Radiohead go electronic it does'nt make them instant geniuses. I like them but I don't buy into that whole 'wow they went electronic, then that makes them brilliant'
For me all they have shown is great versatility...yeh they put out electronica after putting out some pretty decent rock records...but in both areas there are bands out there that do it better.
And I usually don't consider Foxy Mop a song in the traditional sense but it is as much a song as Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors from Amnesiac...and a whole bunch more from Radiohead which to me don't seem to resemble songs at all.
but im so fucking sick of the mindless radiohead disciples who act like thom yorke and co can do no wrong and they are the most innovative band in music. they're not. .
same attitude could be applied to your hatred of them. I'd say the way you despise the post OK Computer work is "mindless".
And just to settle this, both Pj and Radiohead have done their fair share of experimenting. That word has little or no significance in the big scheme of things, just to the band itself. Both of them sound COMPLETELY different now than they did 10 or 15 years ago.
Pearl Jam's major 'experimentation' is in how the albums feel, which, as is the case with Radiohead, has created an entirely unique mood and experience with every record they make.
As for that 'mindless' affection you were talking about,...
Take Thom's 'solo' record that came out earlier this year. You probably look at it and say "wow they're even hailing that shit as 'amazing' ", but the case would be that people have made really intense connections to the music he puts out,.. even noodlings he did with a computer and a keyboard (literal noodlings, self proclaimed shit he did when he was bored) have something to offer if you've made a connection.
Same deal with Pearl Jam and just about every other band worth a damn in history.
I've been listening to Kid A and Amnesiac a lot lately and I think they're great albums. I also listen to the bends too. I think that's also a great album, but it is by no means a masterpiece. It didn't exactly blow my mind. On the other hand, Amnesiac and Kid A were a couple of really unique listening experiences.
There's alot about this post that I don't think makes any sense, so I guess I'll just go one by one. First of all, Foxy Mop is closer to a sound collage; I don't think it's meant to be considered a song in the same way Corduroy is for example. You say Radiohead doesn't make songs, and that it is just Thom moaning...um, take their last album for example. What track on that album is 'not' a song? Hell, the only album that works for is Amnesiac, which was basically a 'lost dogs' collection for Kid A in the first place.
OK, as for all the other stuff...whether Thom has an ego or not, I don't really know or care. I more worry about the quality of his work, which is incredible. And let's not kid ourselves here; there was nothing even remotely commercial about Kid A. There was no single, it was a ridiculous change in sound from their previous work. It's like if you even suggest that PJ might not be the best at everything and anything, you're inviting criticism. Pearl Jam is great, but even they would be the first to tell you that they have not tried anything in the studio like OK Computer and Kid A...pretty much all of their albums (other than touches on Yield and PJ) are live in the studio. So yeah, you've been very good at dissecting Radiohead, but you haven't talked about Pearl Jam...how is the sound of No Code a "complete departure" as you put in from Vitalogy? Both have their rockers, their ballads, their short 'experimental' tracks...Pearl Jam just hasn't exploited the studio in that way. Maybe they will someday, but maybe they won't; some bands just don't work that way. Compare the Beatles to the Rolling Stones; the Beatles were all about the studio, laboring months at a time to unearth the right sound...the Stones' best studio recordings were usually one of the first few takes. (This comparison doesn't work so well since Radiohead is great live as well).
So yeah, long story short, IMO you're pretty wrong with every point you made. But you're welcome to have them.
im not suggesting pearl jam is the best at everything, im just saying neither is radiohead. yeah, radiohead made a major sound departure with kid a, but then they stuck to that sound. it's not like they've constantly revamped their sound. neither has pearl jam. im just saying that one major curveball that takes a band out of the mainstream does not a genius make. kid a was good. there were no singles, but it was a very interesting album (minus treefingers, a total waste... if you dislike foxy mop you have to dislike this). but then amnesiac and hail to the thief didn't really break any new ground. hail to the thief, if anything, was radiohead rretreating a bit back to their roots. kinda like avacado was the album pearl jam fans have wanted since vs. radiohead are not gods just becos kid a doesn't have a single. im interested to hear their new album. but to say they do something totally different with every album and pearl jam doesn't is a lie. they both came to a fork and opted to take a more interesting road, and then got stuck on that path for a while. the last 3 radiohead albums are not vastly different from each other. neither are the last several pearl jam albums.
but as to your critique of pearl jam... look at anthems. jeremy. alive. even flow. not for you. corduroy. immortality. what's the closest thing to a big arena-stomping rock anthem on no code? maybe present tense? such songs were totally dropped from that album while they opted for a more folksy, bluesy sound... smile, off he goes, red mosquito. it wasn't as dramatic as ok to kid a, but it was there. there arent really any great singles on no code either. maybe hail, hail but that didnt do so well when released. it's why it's my fav album, but when i try to make a mix, i cant really figure out what no code song i want. prior to that, vitalogy had tons of experimentation, it really threw the masses off. to me, that's gutsier than what radiohead did. they sit their strongest songs alongside their weirdest experiments (immortality -> foxy mop, corduroy -> bugs). radiohead just made a series of mood records. and i can tell you right now, if you pick a given electronic track from kid a or amnesiac and put it on the bends somewhere, we all would be describing it the same way we talk about foxy mop... the weird experimental track tossed onto the genius album.
same attitude could be applied to your hatred of them. I'd say the way you despise the post OK Computer work is "mindless".
i dont hate radiohead. i like them. and i like kid a. i like hail to the thief. but it wasnt like the world stopped spinning when they were released and they certainly weren't mind-blowingly unique. they might have been the only ROCK band to sound like that, but 100 ambient and electronic groups had been doing kid a for years and somehow radiohead does it and they are gods. im not buying it.
And just to settle this, both Pj and Radiohead have done their fair share of experimenting. That word has little or no significance in the big scheme of things, just to the band itself. Both of them sound COMPLETELY different now than they did 10 or 15 years ago.
Pearl Jam's major 'experimentation' is in how the albums feel, which, as is the case with Radiohead, has created an entirely unique mood and experience with every record they make.
see, i feel you've got that kinda backwards. pearl creates a different mood and feel on each album. but radiohead does not. the last 3 have the same mood... id maybe even extend it to ok computer. they did make an entirely unique sonic shift, but their albums since have been very consistently of similar tone and feel.
As for that 'mindless' affection you were talking about,...
Take Thom's 'solo' record that came out earlier this year. You probably look at it and say "wow they're even hailing that shit as 'amazing' ", but the case would be that people have made really intense connections to the music he puts out,.. even noodlings he did with a computer and a keyboard (literal noodlings, self proclaimed shit he did when he was bored) have something to offer if you've made a connection.
Same deal with Pearl Jam and just about every other band worth a damn in history.
this is a case in point. wow... thom is noodling on a keyboard in the studio... AMAZING!!! he's the best!! he's a genius!! no he isnt. he could take a shit on a mic and you people would tell me it's gold and as good as anything the beatles ever released. bullshit. that is not music, it's practice and it's oh so vain and egotistical to try and pass it off as music. yeah, pearl jam fucks around (like bugs), but they dont pretend they're doing anything but fucking around and dont try to pass it off as anything more than them fucking around... it's like comic relief on a very serious album. thom yorke is so painfully deep all the time and he's managed to convince his worshippers than even if he's just fucking around in the studio at 3am hitting random keys... it's still so deep and meaningful and brilliant. so yeah, if you truly think like that, then i do think you're a mindless devotee. at least pearl jam hsa the good sense to not take themselves to damned seriously all the time. i wish the same could be said of some of their fans.
^ What Pearl Jam did was absolutely gutsier than Radiohead's shift. Especially considering that they were the biggest band in the world a year before Vitalogy came out. Took some major balls.
i dont hate radiohead. i like them. and i like kid a. i like hail to the thief. but it wasnt like the world stopped spinning when they were released and they certainly weren't mind-blowingly unique. they might have been the only ROCK band to sound like that, but 100 ambient and electronic groups had been doing kid a for years and somehow radiohead does it and they are gods. im not buying it.
I like it because it's good, not because it's groundbreaking.
see, i feel you've got that kinda backwards. pearl creates a different mood and feel on each album. but radiohead does not. the last 3 have the same mood... id maybe even extend it to ok computer. they did make an entirely unique sonic shift, but their albums since have been very consistently of similar tone and feel.
I reallllllllllly disagree with you on this. Yes, Kid A and HTTT were both depressing, but they had completely different moods to them. Damn man have you listened to HTTT?
this is a case in point. wow... thom is noodling on a keyboard in the studio... AMAZING!!! he's the best!! he's a genius!! no he isnt. he could take a shit on a mic and you people would tell me it's gold and as good as anything the beatles ever released. bullshit. that is not music, it's practice and it's oh so vain and egotistical to try and pass it off as music. yeah, pearl jam fucks around (like bugs), but they dont pretend they're doing anything but fucking around and dont try to pass it off as anything more than them fucking around... it's like comic relief on a very serious album. thom yorke is so painfully deep all the time and he's managed to convince his worshippers than even if he's just fucking around in the studio at 3am hitting random keys... it's still so deep and meaningful and brilliant. so yeah, if you truly think like that, then i do think you're a mindless devotee. at least pearl jam hsa the good sense to not take themselves to damned seriously all the time. i wish the same could be said of some of their fans.
See that's what it appears to be for you, and as far as the media goes that's probably true. I'm one of those people who've made the connection I was talking about with the music.. I "clicked" with it. you see farting on a keyboard I see some very stripped down electronic songs, a few of which were fucking terrific. It would be the same way if Eddie came out with a bunch of simple acoustic/ukelele songs.
I reallllllllllly disagree with you on this. Yes, Kid A and HTTT were both depressing, but they had completely different moods to them. Damn man have you listened to HTTT?
See that's what it appears to be for you, and as far as the media goes that's probably true. I'm one of those people who've made the connection I was talking about with the music.. I "clicked" with it. you see farting on a keyboard I see some very stripped down electronic songs, a few of which were fucking terrific. It would be the same way if Eddie came out with a bunch of simple acoustic/ukelele songs.
i have listened to hail to the thief. it is different, but not strikingly so. if we're sticking with the comparisons... the difference between httt and kid a is less dramatic than yield to binaural or riot act to avacado i think.
you say songs... i dont consider farting on a keyboard a song. you mentioned thom noodling in the studio, just fucking around. to me that isn't really a song so much. and it might be interesting. but to say it's an intense and awe-inspiring song tells me you're either referring to the few brilliant songs you mentioned, or down-playing what he actually released. pry to seems to be the band just messing around and it's enjoyable and interesting but i dont think anyone would claim it's their finest hour. this is what i dont like about radiohead (more so their fans i guess)... they will try to tell me such little off the cuff experiments are all GENIUS and rank with the BEST music of all time. that's so bogus. now if you were trying to tell me optimistic or knives out or everything in its right place is some of the best stuff released recently, i might be able to see eye to eye with you there. they're interesting, complex, and off the wall songs. i like it. but when radiohead fans try to tell me treefingers is the peer of everything the beatles, or pearl jam, or whoever... that's when i draw the line and tell you to pass the lsd my way
i have listened to hail to the thief. it is different, but not strikingly so. if we're sticking with the comparisons... the difference between httt and kid a is less dramatic than yield to binaural or riot act to avacado i think.
Definetly.
song tells me you're either referring to the few brilliant songs you mentioned, or down-playing what he actually released.
Radiohead are probably the only band around today with any kind of notoriety that has a severe limited array of memorable songs. I mean that in the best possible way.
Ah...Creep, High and Dry, Street Spirit, Karma police...not many more. And I would only say that Karma Police is the pick of everything that they have done.
That said I quite like them. But their songs just blend into one another these days.
IT MIGHT BE YOUR GUILE, IT COULD BE YOUR MIND...IT MIGHT BE THE WAY YOU TAKE YOUR TIME....OH, YOU, YOU, YOU
i have listened to hail to the thief. it is different, but not strikingly so. if we're sticking with the comparisons... the difference between httt and kid a is less dramatic than yield to binaural or riot act to avacado i think.
you say songs... i dont consider farting on a keyboard a song. you mentioned thom noodling in the studio, just fucking around. to me that isn't really a song so much. and it might be interesting. but to say it's an intense and awe-inspiring song tells me you're either referring to the few brilliant songs you mentioned, or down-playing what he actually released. pry to seems to be the band just messing around and it's enjoyable and interesting but i dont think anyone would claim it's their finest hour. this is what i dont like about radiohead (more so their fans i guess)... they will try to tell me such little off the cuff experiments are all GENIUS and rank with the BEST music of all time. that's so bogus. now if you were trying to tell me optimistic or knives out or everything in its right place is some of the best stuff released recently, i might be able to see eye to eye with you there. they're interesting, complex, and off the wall songs. i like it. but when radiohead fans try to tell me treefingers is the peer of everything the beatles, or pearl jam, or whoever... that's when i draw the line and tell you to pass the lsd my way
your first sentence I think is way off. I mean, taking away Pearl Jam's strengths for a second, is there honestly that much of a difference between Binaural and Riot Act? I mean, from Save You to God's Dice, Thin Air to Thumbing My Way...we're not talking a gigantic leap here. I think on both of those albums, the songs are incredible. Insignificance is one of PJ's finest. They're just undeniably cut from the same cloth, which is fine to a degree. A band that never changes is questionable, but a complete musical makeover in the sense that David Bowie or Neil Young excelled has never been what they do. Experimentation with no quality won't go far, but Radiohead certainly has both in spades.
Second, I'd really like to see where these masses of Radiohead fans are proclaiming Treefingers as the best thing since sliced bread. Is it better than Foxy Mop? Sure; for one, it's about thirteen minutes shorter, accomplishes what it's doing better in the context of the album. But you're correct in that two of Radiohead's many high points come before and after Treefingers.
So where exactly in those many high points we've talked about (such as Optimistic, How to Disappear Completely, Everything in it's Right Place, National Anthem, Motion Picture Soundtrack, In Limbo, Morning Bell, Idioteque, which is practically all of Kid A anyway) is Thom "farting into a keyboard"? I guess I think there's alot of potential in a studio as opposed to just setting up an amp and miking it? It's one way of doing things; it's certainly not the only way. And if that's as you put it farting into a keyboard, then it's the way to go.
Second, I'd really like to see where these masses of Radiohead fans are proclaiming Treefingers as the best thing since sliced bread. Is it better than Foxy Mop? Sure; for one, it's about thirteen minutes shorter, accomplishes what it's doing better in the context of the album.
So what, treefingers is a bunch of nothing and keyboard gargling, it's a nice transition at least. Stupid Mop isn't really anything... I like it.. I think it's a strange but really cool way to end the album,... but Treefingers serves its purpose flawlessly. Vitalogy would still be Vitalogy without Stupid Mop.
Comments
That's all a matter of opinion bud. I like their albums because I like their albums, it has nothing to do with anything else.
I don't necessarily rate their albums highly but they are definantly some of my favorites.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What he said!
I think National Anthem, Optimistic, and In Limbo are great songs. and like anyone fucking cares if you're "dead serious" when you say Kid A sucks. Like I said earlier in this thread, you're user name is DAVE MATTHEWS. If this was a John Mayer or Dashboard Confessional coversation, your opinion would be valued. but not in a Radiohead discussion.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
well, this thread is about the bends and you come in with this comment:
so tell me where are all the "weird noises" you are hearing on the bends?
and you are saying they are "talented yes" and then say "they are terrible". which is it?
Brave to try to gamble at times
both are great albums, both different types of rock, so it's like comparing apples to oranges. to whomever knocked ok computer......it's one of the best rock albums of the decade....you should re-listen to it.
2004 Boston I
2006 Boston I
2008 Bonnaroo, Hartford, Mansfield I
2010 Hartford
2013 Worcester I, Worcester II, Hartford
2016 Bonnaroo, Fenway I, Fenway II
2018 Fenway I, Fenway II
2021 Sea.Hear.Now
2022 Camden
2024 MSG I, Fenway I, Fenway II
DaveMatthewsBand that SUCKS!!!!!!!
23 nov. Santiago
25 nov. Buenos Aires
26 nov. Buenos Aires
http://www.myspace.com/delonelyman
Mihi cura futuri.
The elements they speak to me.
http://espn.go.com/espnradiostations/NewYork1050/gallery/35218855.html
so cute they are
how is foxy mop less of a song? have you ever even listened to the whole thing? the way the bass and drums kick into a great groove towards the end and the guitars crank out weirder noises than johnny greenwood. yeah, ed's not singing, but neither is thom on a lot of latter day radiohead... he's moaning.
plus, radiohead takes themselves so godamn seriously... they've bought into everything the music press ever said about them and it's made thom a self-righteous prick. he's got more ego than bono. can you see radiohead departing from their sound to play a song like bugs? no. cos yeah, radiohead changed directions after ok computer. then what? they made 3 albums that sound identical and break no new ground. they changed it up for kid s... to make electronica music. it wasnt new. it was done better by other electronic artist. but radiohead acts like they invented it becos they were a big rock band and a bunch of people heard it for once. then after kid a, they made amnesiac, which is kid a 2. then they made hail to the thief, which is kid a with enough ok computer to sell records again. they're no messiahs, they're no rock and roll saviors. they departed to play with electronic music and have been doing ti ever since. if you're going to say pearl jam hasnt change with any album since no code, neither has radiohead since kid a. it was no more dramatic a departure than pearl jam took when they decided after vitalogy (or maybe even vs) they werent gonna every jock's favorite karaoke band and decided to make no code... a turn to a very downbeat, folksy sound that hadnt been heard in the mainstream for ages. radiohead did the same thing, they just opted for something "cooler" than folk for their change of direction.
pearl jam learned to integrate influences with their music. they're not afraid to throw oddball tunes onto an album. things like bugs or im open or foxy mop. radiohead doesn't do this. they're too pretentious and too narrow-minded. al they did was switch genre from rock to electronic.
ehhhh im going to give vitalogy a slight edge.
"i am the first man to shit my pants ya whew!"
its no crime to escape..theres still time to escape...theres still time so escape...
"yellow ledbetter is like the smoke after a 3 hour fuckfest" - 62strat
st.louis 04, chicago 06, and counting...
Finally proof that you haven't actually listened to later Radiohead with any kind of sincerity. Hail To The Theif couldn't sound more different than Kid A. Anybody with ears can tell you that no matter how much they hate Radiohead.
Also, HTTT was way more of a rock record than electronic. With the exception of "The Gloaming" and a couple piano led songs that album is completely dominated by guitars.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
anybody with ears could tell you you're wrong no matter how much time you spend kissing thom yorke's ass. hail to the thief is a slight departure from kid a, but even so, it is more a return to ok computer than anything. by no means is it some revolutionary leap forward. radiohead is not doing anything mind-blowingly original. that's ok. they're still good. but im so fucking sick of the mindless radiohead disciples who act like thom yorke and co can do no wrong and they are the most innovative band in music. they're not. they made 2 electronic albums (amnesiac was kid a's b-sides and even the band didnt try to deny that), then stepped back a bit towards the formula that earned them genius status. so dont feed me that "radiohead does something new and dramatically different with every album" line. it hasnt been true since they released kid a. httt might have been a little different from kid a, but by no means was it a remarkable departure to a new sound like the band's mindless drones would have us all think. it was kid a with more guitars and enough song structure to remind people of ok computer. ive listened to it. several times. there's nothing ground-breaking on it, nor anything particularly exciting. even kid a was a more interesting listen.
There's alot about this post that I don't think makes any sense, so I guess I'll just go one by one. First of all, Foxy Mop is closer to a sound collage; I don't think it's meant to be considered a song in the same way Corduroy is for example. You say Radiohead doesn't make songs, and that it is just Thom moaning...um, take their last album for example. What track on that album is 'not' a song? Hell, the only album that works for is Amnesiac, which was basically a 'lost dogs' collection for Kid A in the first place.
OK, as for all the other stuff...whether Thom has an ego or not, I don't really know or care. I more worry about the quality of his work, which is incredible. And let's not kid ourselves here; there was nothing even remotely commercial about Kid A. There was no single, it was a ridiculous change in sound from their previous work. It's like if you even suggest that PJ might not be the best at everything and anything, you're inviting criticism. Pearl Jam is great, but even they would be the first to tell you that they have not tried anything in the studio like OK Computer and Kid A...pretty much all of their albums (other than touches on Yield and PJ) are live in the studio. So yeah, you've been very good at dissecting Radiohead, but you haven't talked about Pearl Jam...how is the sound of No Code a "complete departure" as you put in from Vitalogy? Both have their rockers, their ballads, their short 'experimental' tracks...Pearl Jam just hasn't exploited the studio in that way. Maybe they will someday, but maybe they won't; some bands just don't work that way. Compare the Beatles to the Rolling Stones; the Beatles were all about the studio, laboring months at a time to unearth the right sound...the Stones' best studio recordings were usually one of the first few takes. (This comparison doesn't work so well since Radiohead is great live as well).
So yeah, long story short, IMO you're pretty wrong with every point you made. But you're welcome to have them.
No Code pretty much has a folky/tribal sound throughout the whole album. Even the rockers on this record sound nothing like the earlier stuff.
Vitalogy has a raw almost punk edge to it. It was different in itself from Ten/Vs but still quite anthemic as an album.
They are completely different records in mood, tone and sound. Heck, listen to Who You Are, Off he Goes, Around the Bend, Smile, I'm Open and even Red Mosquito and Present Tense...They put out something that WAS completely different to their other stuff.
And the only reason this has not been explored in greater detail by critics is because No Code was so unlike Pearl Jam that most people wrote it off as an album not worth listening to. Hence the sales and the general expectation that Pearl Jam SHOULD put out records like Ten, Vs and Vitalogy.
As I mentioned in a post previously, just because Radiohead go electronic it does'nt make them instant geniuses. I like them but I don't buy into that whole 'wow they went electronic, then that makes them brilliant'
For me all they have shown is great versatility...yeh they put out electronica after putting out some pretty decent rock records...but in both areas there are bands out there that do it better.
And I usually don't consider Foxy Mop a song in the traditional sense but it is as much a song as Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors from Amnesiac...and a whole bunch more from Radiohead which to me don't seem to resemble songs at all.
And just to settle this, both Pj and Radiohead have done their fair share of experimenting. That word has little or no significance in the big scheme of things, just to the band itself. Both of them sound COMPLETELY different now than they did 10 or 15 years ago.
Pearl Jam's major 'experimentation' is in how the albums feel, which, as is the case with Radiohead, has created an entirely unique mood and experience with every record they make.
As for that 'mindless' affection you were talking about,...
Take Thom's 'solo' record that came out earlier this year. You probably look at it and say "wow they're even hailing that shit as 'amazing' ", but the case would be that people have made really intense connections to the music he puts out,.. even noodlings he did with a computer and a keyboard (literal noodlings, self proclaimed shit he did when he was bored) have something to offer if you've made a connection.
Same deal with Pearl Jam and just about every other band worth a damn in history.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
im not suggesting pearl jam is the best at everything, im just saying neither is radiohead. yeah, radiohead made a major sound departure with kid a, but then they stuck to that sound. it's not like they've constantly revamped their sound. neither has pearl jam. im just saying that one major curveball that takes a band out of the mainstream does not a genius make. kid a was good. there were no singles, but it was a very interesting album (minus treefingers, a total waste... if you dislike foxy mop you have to dislike this). but then amnesiac and hail to the thief didn't really break any new ground. hail to the thief, if anything, was radiohead rretreating a bit back to their roots. kinda like avacado was the album pearl jam fans have wanted since vs. radiohead are not gods just becos kid a doesn't have a single. im interested to hear their new album. but to say they do something totally different with every album and pearl jam doesn't is a lie. they both came to a fork and opted to take a more interesting road, and then got stuck on that path for a while. the last 3 radiohead albums are not vastly different from each other. neither are the last several pearl jam albums.
but as to your critique of pearl jam... look at anthems. jeremy. alive. even flow. not for you. corduroy. immortality. what's the closest thing to a big arena-stomping rock anthem on no code? maybe present tense? such songs were totally dropped from that album while they opted for a more folksy, bluesy sound... smile, off he goes, red mosquito. it wasn't as dramatic as ok to kid a, but it was there. there arent really any great singles on no code either. maybe hail, hail but that didnt do so well when released. it's why it's my fav album, but when i try to make a mix, i cant really figure out what no code song i want. prior to that, vitalogy had tons of experimentation, it really threw the masses off. to me, that's gutsier than what radiohead did. they sit their strongest songs alongside their weirdest experiments (immortality -> foxy mop, corduroy -> bugs). radiohead just made a series of mood records. and i can tell you right now, if you pick a given electronic track from kid a or amnesiac and put it on the bends somewhere, we all would be describing it the same way we talk about foxy mop... the weird experimental track tossed onto the genius album.
i dont hate radiohead. i like them. and i like kid a. i like hail to the thief. but it wasnt like the world stopped spinning when they were released and they certainly weren't mind-blowingly unique. they might have been the only ROCK band to sound like that, but 100 ambient and electronic groups had been doing kid a for years and somehow radiohead does it and they are gods. im not buying it.
see, i feel you've got that kinda backwards. pearl creates a different mood and feel on each album. but radiohead does not. the last 3 have the same mood... id maybe even extend it to ok computer. they did make an entirely unique sonic shift, but their albums since have been very consistently of similar tone and feel.
this is a case in point. wow... thom is noodling on a keyboard in the studio... AMAZING!!! he's the best!! he's a genius!! no he isnt. he could take a shit on a mic and you people would tell me it's gold and as good as anything the beatles ever released. bullshit. that is not music, it's practice and it's oh so vain and egotistical to try and pass it off as music. yeah, pearl jam fucks around (like bugs), but they dont pretend they're doing anything but fucking around and dont try to pass it off as anything more than them fucking around... it's like comic relief on a very serious album. thom yorke is so painfully deep all the time and he's managed to convince his worshippers than even if he's just fucking around in the studio at 3am hitting random keys... it's still so deep and meaningful and brilliant. so yeah, if you truly think like that, then i do think you're a mindless devotee. at least pearl jam hsa the good sense to not take themselves to damned seriously all the time. i wish the same could be said of some of their fans.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
I reallllllllllly disagree with you on this. Yes, Kid A and HTTT were both depressing, but they had completely different moods to them. Damn man have you listened to HTTT?
See that's what it appears to be for you, and as far as the media goes that's probably true. I'm one of those people who've made the connection I was talking about with the music.. I "clicked" with it. you see farting on a keyboard I see some very stripped down electronic songs, a few of which were fucking terrific. It would be the same way if Eddie came out with a bunch of simple acoustic/ukelele songs.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
i have listened to hail to the thief. it is different, but not strikingly so. if we're sticking with the comparisons... the difference between httt and kid a is less dramatic than yield to binaural or riot act to avacado i think.
you say songs... i dont consider farting on a keyboard a song. you mentioned thom noodling in the studio, just fucking around. to me that isn't really a song so much. and it might be interesting. but to say it's an intense and awe-inspiring song tells me you're either referring to the few brilliant songs you mentioned, or down-playing what he actually released. pry to seems to be the band just messing around and it's enjoyable and interesting but i dont think anyone would claim it's their finest hour. this is what i dont like about radiohead (more so their fans i guess)... they will try to tell me such little off the cuff experiments are all GENIUS and rank with the BEST music of all time. that's so bogus. now if you were trying to tell me optimistic or knives out or everything in its right place is some of the best stuff released recently, i might be able to see eye to eye with you there. they're interesting, complex, and off the wall songs. i like it. but when radiohead fans try to tell me treefingers is the peer of everything the beatles, or pearl jam, or whoever... that's when i draw the line and tell you to pass the lsd my way
I was doing both
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
my mom used electioneering...
exactly! or chicken wings / pizza
Ah...Creep, High and Dry, Street Spirit, Karma police...not many more. And I would only say that Karma Police is the pick of everything that they have done.
That said I quite like them. But their songs just blend into one another these days.
your first sentence I think is way off. I mean, taking away Pearl Jam's strengths for a second, is there honestly that much of a difference between Binaural and Riot Act? I mean, from Save You to God's Dice, Thin Air to Thumbing My Way...we're not talking a gigantic leap here. I think on both of those albums, the songs are incredible. Insignificance is one of PJ's finest. They're just undeniably cut from the same cloth, which is fine to a degree. A band that never changes is questionable, but a complete musical makeover in the sense that David Bowie or Neil Young excelled has never been what they do. Experimentation with no quality won't go far, but Radiohead certainly has both in spades.
Second, I'd really like to see where these masses of Radiohead fans are proclaiming Treefingers as the best thing since sliced bread. Is it better than Foxy Mop? Sure; for one, it's about thirteen minutes shorter, accomplishes what it's doing better in the context of the album. But you're correct in that two of Radiohead's many high points come before and after Treefingers.
So where exactly in those many high points we've talked about (such as Optimistic, How to Disappear Completely, Everything in it's Right Place, National Anthem, Motion Picture Soundtrack, In Limbo, Morning Bell, Idioteque, which is practically all of Kid A anyway) is Thom "farting into a keyboard"? I guess I think there's alot of potential in a studio as opposed to just setting up an amp and miking it? It's one way of doing things; it's certainly not the only way. And if that's as you put it farting into a keyboard, then it's the way to go.
Wrong!
So what, treefingers is a bunch of nothing and keyboard gargling, it's a nice transition at least. Stupid Mop isn't really anything... I like it.. I think it's a strange but really cool way to end the album,... but Treefingers serves its purpose flawlessly. Vitalogy would still be Vitalogy without Stupid Mop.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"