no, they need to be more spontaneous and human and less robotic and lifeless.
They are already exceedingly more spontaneous and less robotic and lifeless than pretty much any other band on the planet. Honestly, if you can't see that you may be the one who needs to check their pulse.
I can barely listen to the The Bends nowadays. Compared to what the band is producing now, it's terribly dated and lacking in creativity. That said, The Bends still kicks ass.
They are already exceedingly more spontaneous and less robotic and lifeless than pretty much any other band on the planet. Honestly, if you can't see that you may be the one who needs to check their pulse.
sorry, but anytime i say their post-ok computer work is mediocre, people tell me to see them live. if it's so good live, why don't they put it on the album in such a kick ass format?
it's not even just the style. i can dig them trying to do something different. but kid a and amnesiac had one great album's worth of material between them. then maybe an interesting b-sides collection, like the verve's 'no come down.' instead, they made two albums with a lot of filler. hail to the thief is ok, but it's the same song played 14 times: start slow, whisper meaningless but cool sounding words, then build the song to a coda with thom screaming one lyrics a few times, end. repeat. their new one is excellent though, i'll grant.
part of the problem is thom yorke no longer sings. he mumbles incomprehensible gibberish. his lyrics are like bush lyrics... cryptic, ominous, and meaningless. even though i love the new album... weird fishes? come on. he used to be able to give me chills. now he sounds like he's trying so hard to be so profound, and it's just boring. i do agree with whoever described the bends though... it is kind of generic in retrospect. the band, ok computer/in rainbows aside, has simply never been able to truly capitalize on all their strengths consistently for a full album. which is why their albums are disappointing and their best of is all i need for most of their career.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
I was a casual radiohead fan until I DVR'd live from the basement. While there are bands that put on more exiting shows.....they sound near perfect live. Almost like listening to the cd.
This guy wouldn't know magesty if it bit him in the face- Strong bad
sorry, but anytime i say their post-ok computer work is mediocre, people tell me to see them live. if it's so good live, why don't they put it on the album in such a kick ass format?
it's not even just the style. i can dig them trying to do something different. but kid a and amnesiac had one great album's worth of material between them. then maybe an interesting b-sides collection, like the verve's 'no come down.' instead, they made two albums with a lot of filler. hail to the thief is ok, but it's the same song played 14 times: start slow, whisper meaningless but cool sounding words, then build the song to a coda with thom screaming one lyrics a few times, end. repeat. their new one is excellent though, i'll grant.
part of the problem is thom yorke no longer sings. he mumbles incomprehensible gibberish. his lyrics are like bush lyrics... cryptic, ominous, and meaningless. even though i love the new album... weird fishes? come on. he used to be able to give me chills. now he sounds like he's trying so hard to be so profound, and it's just boring. i do agree with whoever described the bends though... it is kind of generic in retrospect. the band, ok computer/in rainbows aside, has simply never been able to truly capitalize on all their strengths consistently for a full album. which is why their albums are disappointing and their best of is all i need for most of their career.
Hi, I'm Clark Kent......
....a song isn't good until I've heard it on the radio....
....a song isn't good until I've heard it on the radio....
everything else is filler:D
if it was simple as that, my fav song of theirs would be creep. it's not. treefingers... that is filler. literally, it is 2 minutes of noise. nothing else. that is not a song. that is not music. that is pretentious bullshit.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
if it was simple as that, my fav song of theirs would be creep. it's not. treefingers... that is filler. literally, it is 2 minutes of noise. nothing else. that is not a song. that is not music. that is pretentious bullshit.
it's clearly a subjective argument, so it really doesn't matter.
one man's filler is another man's treasure......
what is a Jazz album I should ask? Filler? Noise? Abstract feelings?
im by no means an expert, but last time i listened to some jazz, there were instruments being played. which i believe requires more talent than it took radiohead to turn a dial, record it for 2 minutes, give it a pretentious title, and slap it on their album and try to tell us it's art.
ive listened to some ambient-ish stuff and i can dig it. fact is, radiohead's just not very good at it. they were good becos you could feel the emotion in their music. you couldnt from kid a- hailt to the thief. they bought into their own hypoe and their music suffered. in rainbows sounds like they've finally figured out how to make the music they've been wanting to make for years.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
im by no means an expert, but last time i listened to some jazz, there were instruments being played. which i believe requires more talent than it took radiohead to turn a dial, record it for 2 minutes, give it a pretentious title, and slap it on their album and try to tell us it's art.
ive listened to some ambient-ish stuff and i can dig it. fact is, radiohead's just not very good at it. they were good becos you could feel the emotion in their music. you couldnt from kid a- hailt to the thief. they bought into their own hypoe and their music suffered. in rainbows sounds like they've finally figured out how to make the music they've been wanting to make for years.
i was basically unaware of radiohead in the 90s. i started paying attention ironically when hail to the thief came out. ironic cause its turned out to be my least favourite radiohead album. anyhoo i found out they sang creep and to me that was a revelation. i thought, radiohead play creep? how could i not have known that. up to the end of last year my love for radiohead was growing at a rapid rate. i was truly loving this band. then in rainbows was released and i was besotted. my appreciation though already high, went into the stratosphere. i absolutely love this album. it thrills me. this is the music i go to now when i need to centre myself.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if it was simple as that, my fav song of theirs would be creep. it's not. treefingers... that is filler. literally, it is 2 minutes of noise. nothing else. that is not a song. that is not music. that is pretentious bullshit.
treefingers is not a song in the sense that you would put it on as a standalone piece of music that you would hear on the radio...but its not meant to be a song like that..its a sound that is meant to create atmosphere, mood, and work as an integrated part of an entire album.
Kind of like the "useless pretentious noise" at the beginning and end of Ten. Or all the useless pretentious tracks on Pink Floyd albums. Or countless other "useless pretentious noise" pieces that exist in other classic albums to serve the same purpose.
The funny thing I find is that anti-Radiohead types always point to Radiohead as being pretentious. Why? Because they are a pretty clever, very creative, and talented band? Does that intimidate you or something? Should they dumb it down or something? Maybe do a rap/rock song?
I agree that Radiohead fans can be prententious, but I don't let that stop me listening to a great fuckin' band.
if it was simple as that, my fav song of theirs would be creep. it's not. treefingers... that is filler. literally, it is 2 minutes of noise. nothing else. that is not a song. that is not music. that is pretentious bullshit.
Noise is unpleasant and unwanted sound. If you think Treefingers is noise, go check out Whitehouse, Merzbow or Kevin Drumm. Treefingers isn't supposed to be a song, it's a musical interlude and it fits perfectly.
ONCE AGAIN GUYS, Radiohead didn't make Kid A to satisfy you, they made it because it's the album they wanted to make. No one is forcing you to listen to it. If you don't like it, fine, just don't go about trying to make the rest of us feel like we are kidding ourselves.
"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"
The funny thing I find is that anti-Radiohead types always point to Radiohead as being pretentious. Why? Because they are a pretty clever, very creative, and talented band? Does that intimidate you or something? Should they dumb it down or something? Maybe do a rap/rock song?
I agree that Radiohead fans can be prententious, but I don't let that stop me listening to a great fuckin' band.
no, they are pretentious becos if you listen to thom yorke in an interview he's a prick. he acts like he's carrying the weight of the entire future of music on his shoulders and his band is the only one worth listening to becos everyone else is "fridge buzz." he refuses to even acknowledge that the band had a first album and acts like anyone who liked it is too stupid to be a real fan of his. he takes himself and his messiah complex so seriously that the grunge bands of the early 90s look like motley crue. i've never heard him say a word about enjoying other music, enjoying making music, or anything else. it's just an endless whiny tirade about how hard it is to be so cool in a pop music scene that is obviously far too dumb for his glorious thinking man's music.
at least pearl jam has the grace to admit that their first album helped get them where they are and to have fun playing it. there is no joy in radiohead's music. they're like a college professor clinging to the believe that his research on beowful somehow is REALLY important to the work and can't ever have a sense of humor about it.
have you ever seen their dvd? meeting people is easy? the worst dvd i've ever seen. it's such a self-indulgent piece of shit. it's so hard being the genius that is radiohead, look how sad we all are to be multi-millionaires with a few songs that people love and relate to.
"You've never been out of college, you don't know what it's like out there. I've worked in the private sector... they expect results." -Ray
I don't get it. I respect Radiohead as musicians and as innovators and anything else their fans always say, but I just don't see how they are that good. I like some of their shit, and I think they have a unique sound (Kinda). However, being different and good are not mutually exclusive.
Discuss.
*After reading some of the responses, I want to point out that saying "They are Experimental" is just a horrible thing to say. Rehashing what I said when i started the post, Experimentation and Good are not mutually exclusive. If Pearl Jam put out an album of them farting into a microphone (not making comparisons, just using as an example) it would be damn experimental. I would buy it too...It says Pearl Jam on the cover, but I doubt anyone (most people) would ever consider it good.:)*
Wow. I have this exact same discussion with people I know before.
It's like, I realize Radiohead is fucking genius, and they are super talented, and I understand they are *supposed* to be awesome.
But I don't get it.
The thing is, I kind of figure it's MY problem. You know, like maybe I'm just a musical idiot and they just go right over my head.
All I know is, at the end of the day, I'm just not that into them.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
no, they are pretentious becos if you listen to thom yorke in an interview he's a prick. he acts like he's carrying the weight of the entire future of music on his shoulders and his band is the only one worth listening to becos everyone else is "fridge buzz." he refuses to even acknowledge that the band had a first album and acts like anyone who liked it is too stupid to be a real fan of his. he takes himself and his messiah complex so seriously that the grunge bands of the early 90s look like motley crue. i've never heard him say a word about enjoying other music, enjoying making music, or anything else. it's just an endless whiny tirade about how hard it is to be so cool in a pop music scene that is obviously far too dumb for his glorious thinking man's music.
at least pearl jam has the grace to admit that their first album helped get them where they are and to have fun playing it. there is no joy in radiohead's music. they're like a college professor clinging to the believe that his research on beowful somehow is REALLY important to the work and can't ever have a sense of humor about it.
have you ever seen their dvd? meeting people is easy? the worst dvd i've ever seen. it's such a self-indulgent piece of shit. it's so hard being the genius that is radiohead, look how sad we all are to be multi-millionaires with a few songs that people love and relate to.
well in the radiohead scheme of things pablo honey isnt up to par with any of the subsequent albums music wise. so i can understand the denial. it is very much a product of its time. its disjointed and seems to have an identity crisis. but as we have all seen, well at least those of us who rate radiohead, the band found their feet and are taking their music in the direction they want and were all just along for the ride.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no, they are pretentious becos if you listen to thom yorke in an interview he's a prick. he acts like he's carrying the weight of the entire future of music on his shoulders and his band is the only one worth listening to becos everyone else is "fridge buzz." he refuses to even acknowledge that the band had a first album and acts like anyone who liked it is too stupid to be a real fan of his. he takes himself and his messiah complex so seriously that the grunge bands of the early 90s look like motley crue. i've never heard him say a word about enjoying other music, enjoying making music, or anything else. it's just an endless whiny tirade about how hard it is to be so cool in a pop music scene that is obviously far too dumb for his glorious thinking man's music.
at least pearl jam has the grace to admit that their first album helped get them where they are and to have fun playing it. there is no joy in radiohead's music. they're like a college professor clinging to the believe that his research on beowful somehow is REALLY important to the work and can't ever have a sense of humor about it.
have you ever seen their dvd? meeting people is easy? the worst dvd i've ever seen. it's such a self-indulgent piece of shit. it's so hard being the genius that is radiohead, look how sad we all are to be multi-millionaires with a few songs that people love and relate to.
Isnt this the exact same thing that people used to say about Eddie and Pearl Jam for years? They took themselves too seriously, they should make videos, why can't they make albums like TEN again, why can't Eddie just enjoy his success, why was he such an asshole when accepting a grammy, etc...Look how much flack Pearl Jam took for trying to distance themselves from the early success of TEN, and eventually making albums like No Code.
Really, only in recent years has Pearl Jam finally seemed to embrace their early history, for years they seemed embarrassed by it.
The truth is these are artists who thrive on innovation and creativity. They want to be taken seriously as artists, their longevity and career depends upon that.
I'm sure Radiohead will eventually become more like Pearl Jam and have a bit more openness towards their early music, but the fact is, Radiohead is still making classic albums and Pearl Jam isn't. So there's a bit of a trade off...chill out a bit and maybe lose a bit of an artistic edge, or try as hard as you can to keep that artistic edge and still be seen as taking yourself too seriously.
Isnt this the exact same thing that people used to say about Eddie and Pearl Jam for years? They took themselves too seriously, they should make videos, why can't they make albums like TEN again, why can't Eddie just enjoy his success, why was he such an asshole when accepting a grammy, etc...Look how much flack Pearl Jam took for trying to distance themselves from the early success of TEN, and eventually making albums like No Code.
Really, only in recent years has Pearl Jam finally seemed to embrace their early history, for years they seemed embarrassed by it.
The truth is these are artists who thrive on innovation and creativity. They want to be taken seriously as artists, their longevity and career depends upon that.
I'm sure Radiohead will eventually become more like Pearl Jam and have a bit more openness towards their early music, but the fact is, Radiohead is still making classic albums and Pearl Jam isn't. So there's a bit of a trade off...chill out a bit and maybe lose a bit of an artistic edge, or try as hard as you can to keep that artistic edge and still be seen as taking yourself too seriously.
Hear hear. I don't understand why the former poster is requiring that these guys be happy happy joy joy, or why it's such a problem that they take their craft seriously. I mean, the list of artists I enjoy and love who are likely also egotistical assholes is long, including people such as Dylan, John Lennon and yes, even Thom Yorke. Even Mr. Vedder has acted in some very unfriendly and dour ways in his time as a popular musician. This may be a problem if I was best friends with all of them, but luckily I'm not. As a devoted fan and supporter of their music, I ask not for them to be nice guys, but to make incredible music that lifts my spirits or helps me to understand the darker parts of my life. And they do so in spades, Radiohead better than most. Who cares if they are pretentious if they make incredible music?
My other point is about all this noise/electronic complaints; show me a song besides Treefingers and Hunting Bears or Fitter Happier (i.e. the songs that are obviously not songs but act as bridges between different parts of an album) that is just meaningless noise. What makes Radiohead so great are their abilities as songwriters, and the way they bring together instrumentation, melodies and lyricism is incredible. That's why I also don't understand the criticism that Radiohead are making mediocre 'electronic' music; this criticism isn't valid because they're not making electronic music at all. What made Kid A so great was that they incorporated their inspirations which included electronic music into something that sounded fresh.
P.S. to clark_kent, if you want pretentious DVDs, try Don't Look Back. It's about another talent-less egotistical hack who cries about his fame all the time.
First I want to say that I think Pearl Jam is the best band ever. Now, with that in mind, I have to say that Radiohead's OK Computer is quite possibly one of the best albums ever made by anybody in the history of music. I also can't stand these phony Radiohead fans who say that The Bends was their best work ever. It's not even close. Take Fake Plastic Trees out of The Bends and you're left with a mediocre album that doesn't come close to OK C. Type "top 100 albums of all time" in your search bar right now. OK Computer is listed in the top 1/4 on every site. You won't even see a PJ album until much later than that (not that I take what these critics think too seriously), but if most if not all are listing OK C in the top 1/4, something tells me I'm right.
"All the rusted signs we ignore throughout our lives"--Ed
I will Discuss that you don't get it and others do and that doesn't make you or them any better or worse for it.
Personally, I believe that Radiohead (and namely Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood) are fucking artistic and musical geniuses but I'm not going to support your passion for a fucking argument if that's what you are after.
You know, this is the exact same response I get from EVERY Radiohead fan, which might be one reason I cant get into them. Now I understand that sometimes it can be hard to put emotions down in words, but I interpreted your response as defensive, I ask why and Radiohead fans all respond with anger. Never once have I said anything disrespectful towards this band, I just am trying to figure out what makes them so fantastic. Easy there Noel Gallagher.
You know, this is the exact same response I get from EVERY Radiohead fan, which might be one reason I cant get into them. Now I understand that sometimes it can be hard to put emotions down in words, but I interpreted your response as defensive, I ask why and Radiohead fans all respond with anger. Never once have I said anything disrespectful towards this band, I just am trying to figure out what makes them so fantastic. Easy there Noel Gallagher.
really? EVERY radiohead fan? are you sure about that?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I just am trying to figure out what makes them so fantastic. Easy there Noel Gallagher.
if ya can't figure it out, there's nothing to figure out -- other than figuring out for yourself that you don't like the band.
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
You know, this is the exact same response I get from EVERY Radiohead fan, which might be one reason I cant get into them. Now I understand that sometimes it can be hard to put emotions down in words, but I interpreted your response as defensive, I ask why and Radiohead fans all respond with anger. Never once have I said anything disrespectful towards this band, I just am trying to figure out what makes them so fantastic. Easy there Noel Gallagher.
I don't get it...what did he say that was so appalling? He basically said that some people will get Radiohead i.e. think they're awesome, and some people won't i.e. think they suck, and that neither opinion is invalid. I do think there are many uptight Radiohead fans, but personally you may have been jumping the gun just a bit there.
Moreover, if I liked bands based on how much I liked the fanbase, the list of bands I liked would be mercilessly short.
sorry, but anytime i say their post-ok computer work is mediocre, people tell me to see them live. if it's so good live, why don't they put it on the album in such a kick ass format?
it's not even just the style. i can dig them trying to do something different. but kid a and amnesiac had one great album's worth of material between them. then maybe an interesting b-sides collection, like the verve's 'no come down.' instead, they made two albums with a lot of filler. hail to the thief is ok, but it's the same song played 14 times: start slow, whisper meaningless but cool sounding words, then build the song to a coda with thom screaming one lyrics a few times, end. repeat. their new one is excellent though, i'll grant.
part of the problem is thom yorke no longer sings. he mumbles incomprehensible gibberish. his lyrics are like bush lyrics... cryptic, ominous, and meaningless. even though i love the new album... weird fishes? come on. he used to be able to give me chills. now he sounds like he's trying so hard to be so profound, and it's just boring. i do agree with whoever described the bends though... it is kind of generic in retrospect. the band, ok computer/in rainbows aside, has simply never been able to truly capitalize on all their strengths consistently for a full album. which is why their albums are disappointing and their best of is all i need for most of their career.
First I want to say that I think Pearl Jam is the best band ever. Now, with that in mind, I have to say that Radiohead's OK Computer is quite possibly one of the best albums ever made by anybody in the history of music. I also can't stand these phony Radiohead fans who say that The Bends was their best work ever. It's not even close. Take Fake Plastic Trees out of The Bends and you're left with a mediocre album that doesn't come close to OK C. Type "top 100 albums of all time" in your search bar right now. OK Computer is listed in the top 1/4 on every site. You won't even see a PJ album until much later than that (not that I take what these critics think too seriously), but if most if not all are listing OK C in the top 1/4, something tells me I'm right.
You've totally contradicted yourself... PJ are almost always at the bottom of these poles, you don't listen to the critics anyway, but 'something tells you you're right' about OK Computer being better than the Bends because it tops the polls?
I'm going to counter your argument. There are many, many good songs on the Bends. Did you forget about Street Spirit, High and Dry, Just etc. etc. etc.?
I'd say take No Surprises and Karma Police out of OK Computer and you've got a mediocre album. See, I can play that game too.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Comments
Lay off the crack.
They are already exceedingly more spontaneous and less robotic and lifeless than pretty much any other band on the planet. Honestly, if you can't see that you may be the one who needs to check their pulse.
sorry, but anytime i say their post-ok computer work is mediocre, people tell me to see them live. if it's so good live, why don't they put it on the album in such a kick ass format?
it's not even just the style. i can dig them trying to do something different. but kid a and amnesiac had one great album's worth of material between them. then maybe an interesting b-sides collection, like the verve's 'no come down.' instead, they made two albums with a lot of filler. hail to the thief is ok, but it's the same song played 14 times: start slow, whisper meaningless but cool sounding words, then build the song to a coda with thom screaming one lyrics a few times, end. repeat. their new one is excellent though, i'll grant.
part of the problem is thom yorke no longer sings. he mumbles incomprehensible gibberish. his lyrics are like bush lyrics... cryptic, ominous, and meaningless. even though i love the new album... weird fishes? come on. he used to be able to give me chills. now he sounds like he's trying so hard to be so profound, and it's just boring. i do agree with whoever described the bends though... it is kind of generic in retrospect. the band, ok computer/in rainbows aside, has simply never been able to truly capitalize on all their strengths consistently for a full album. which is why their albums are disappointing and their best of is all i need for most of their career.
Denny Crane!
www.myspace.com/lastgeneration56
Hi, I'm Clark Kent......
....a song isn't good until I've heard it on the radio....
everything else is filler:D
if it was simple as that, my fav song of theirs would be creep. it's not. treefingers... that is filler. literally, it is 2 minutes of noise. nothing else. that is not a song. that is not music. that is pretentious bullshit.
Denny Crane!
one man's filler is another man's treasure......
what is a Jazz album I should ask? Filler? Noise? Abstract feelings?
lot of filler lately. but at least it's not pretentious. just generic.
Denny Crane!
im by no means an expert, but last time i listened to some jazz, there were instruments being played. which i believe requires more talent than it took radiohead to turn a dial, record it for 2 minutes, give it a pretentious title, and slap it on their album and try to tell us it's art.
ive listened to some ambient-ish stuff and i can dig it. fact is, radiohead's just not very good at it. they were good becos you could feel the emotion in their music. you couldnt from kid a- hailt to the thief. they bought into their own hypoe and their music suffered. in rainbows sounds like they've finally figured out how to make the music they've been wanting to make for years.
Denny Crane!
then perhaps i didnt understand your pearl jam comment.
Denny Crane!
i was basically unaware of radiohead in the 90s. i started paying attention ironically when hail to the thief came out. ironic cause its turned out to be my least favourite radiohead album. anyhoo i found out they sang creep and to me that was a revelation. i thought, radiohead play creep? how could i not have known that. up to the end of last year my love for radiohead was growing at a rapid rate. i was truly loving this band. then in rainbows was released and i was besotted. my appreciation though already high, went into the stratosphere. i absolutely love this album. it thrills me. this is the music i go to now when i need to centre myself.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
treefingers is not a song in the sense that you would put it on as a standalone piece of music that you would hear on the radio...but its not meant to be a song like that..its a sound that is meant to create atmosphere, mood, and work as an integrated part of an entire album.
Kind of like the "useless pretentious noise" at the beginning and end of Ten. Or all the useless pretentious tracks on Pink Floyd albums. Or countless other "useless pretentious noise" pieces that exist in other classic albums to serve the same purpose.
The funny thing I find is that anti-Radiohead types always point to Radiohead as being pretentious. Why? Because they are a pretty clever, very creative, and talented band? Does that intimidate you or something? Should they dumb it down or something? Maybe do a rap/rock song?
I agree that Radiohead fans can be prententious, but I don't let that stop me listening to a great fuckin' band.
ONCE AGAIN GUYS, Radiohead didn't make Kid A to satisfy you, they made it because it's the album they wanted to make. No one is forcing you to listen to it. If you don't like it, fine, just don't go about trying to make the rest of us feel like we are kidding ourselves.
no, they are pretentious becos if you listen to thom yorke in an interview he's a prick. he acts like he's carrying the weight of the entire future of music on his shoulders and his band is the only one worth listening to becos everyone else is "fridge buzz." he refuses to even acknowledge that the band had a first album and acts like anyone who liked it is too stupid to be a real fan of his. he takes himself and his messiah complex so seriously that the grunge bands of the early 90s look like motley crue. i've never heard him say a word about enjoying other music, enjoying making music, or anything else. it's just an endless whiny tirade about how hard it is to be so cool in a pop music scene that is obviously far too dumb for his glorious thinking man's music.
at least pearl jam has the grace to admit that their first album helped get them where they are and to have fun playing it. there is no joy in radiohead's music. they're like a college professor clinging to the believe that his research on beowful somehow is REALLY important to the work and can't ever have a sense of humor about it.
have you ever seen their dvd? meeting people is easy? the worst dvd i've ever seen. it's such a self-indulgent piece of shit. it's so hard being the genius that is radiohead, look how sad we all are to be multi-millionaires with a few songs that people love and relate to.
Denny Crane!
Wow. I have this exact same discussion with people I know before.
It's like, I realize Radiohead is fucking genius, and they are super talented, and I understand they are *supposed* to be awesome.
But I don't get it.
The thing is, I kind of figure it's MY problem. You know, like maybe I'm just a musical idiot and they just go right over my head.
All I know is, at the end of the day, I'm just not that into them.
for the least they could possibly do
well in the radiohead scheme of things pablo honey isnt up to par with any of the subsequent albums music wise. so i can understand the denial. it is very much a product of its time. its disjointed and seems to have an identity crisis. but as we have all seen, well at least those of us who rate radiohead, the band found their feet and are taking their music in the direction they want and were all just along for the ride.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Isnt this the exact same thing that people used to say about Eddie and Pearl Jam for years? They took themselves too seriously, they should make videos, why can't they make albums like TEN again, why can't Eddie just enjoy his success, why was he such an asshole when accepting a grammy, etc...Look how much flack Pearl Jam took for trying to distance themselves from the early success of TEN, and eventually making albums like No Code.
Really, only in recent years has Pearl Jam finally seemed to embrace their early history, for years they seemed embarrassed by it.
The truth is these are artists who thrive on innovation and creativity. They want to be taken seriously as artists, their longevity and career depends upon that.
I'm sure Radiohead will eventually become more like Pearl Jam and have a bit more openness towards their early music, but the fact is, Radiohead is still making classic albums and Pearl Jam isn't. So there's a bit of a trade off...chill out a bit and maybe lose a bit of an artistic edge, or try as hard as you can to keep that artistic edge and still be seen as taking yourself too seriously.
Hear hear. I don't understand why the former poster is requiring that these guys be happy happy joy joy, or why it's such a problem that they take their craft seriously. I mean, the list of artists I enjoy and love who are likely also egotistical assholes is long, including people such as Dylan, John Lennon and yes, even Thom Yorke. Even Mr. Vedder has acted in some very unfriendly and dour ways in his time as a popular musician. This may be a problem if I was best friends with all of them, but luckily I'm not. As a devoted fan and supporter of their music, I ask not for them to be nice guys, but to make incredible music that lifts my spirits or helps me to understand the darker parts of my life. And they do so in spades, Radiohead better than most. Who cares if they are pretentious if they make incredible music?
My other point is about all this noise/electronic complaints; show me a song besides Treefingers and Hunting Bears or Fitter Happier (i.e. the songs that are obviously not songs but act as bridges between different parts of an album) that is just meaningless noise. What makes Radiohead so great are their abilities as songwriters, and the way they bring together instrumentation, melodies and lyricism is incredible. That's why I also don't understand the criticism that Radiohead are making mediocre 'electronic' music; this criticism isn't valid because they're not making electronic music at all. What made Kid A so great was that they incorporated their inspirations which included electronic music into something that sounded fresh.
P.S. to clark_kent, if you want pretentious DVDs, try Don't Look Back. It's about another talent-less egotistical hack who cries about his fame all the time.
You know, this is the exact same response I get from EVERY Radiohead fan, which might be one reason I cant get into them. Now I understand that sometimes it can be hard to put emotions down in words, but I interpreted your response as defensive, I ask why and Radiohead fans all respond with anger. Never once have I said anything disrespectful towards this band, I just am trying to figure out what makes them so fantastic. Easy there Noel Gallagher.
really? EVERY radiohead fan? are you sure about that?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
if ya can't figure it out, there's nothing to figure out -- other than figuring out for yourself that you don't like the band.
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
I don't get it...what did he say that was so appalling? He basically said that some people will get Radiohead i.e. think they're awesome, and some people won't i.e. think they suck, and that neither opinion is invalid. I do think there are many uptight Radiohead fans, but personally you may have been jumping the gun just a bit there.
Moreover, if I liked bands based on how much I liked the fanbase, the list of bands I liked would be mercilessly short.
You've totally contradicted yourself... PJ are almost always at the bottom of these poles, you don't listen to the critics anyway, but 'something tells you you're right' about OK Computer being better than the Bends because it tops the polls?
I'm going to counter your argument. There are many, many good songs on the Bends. Did you forget about Street Spirit, High and Dry, Just etc. etc. etc.?
I'd say take No Surprises and Karma Police out of OK Computer and you've got a mediocre album. See, I can play that game too.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison