What is the deal with Radiohead?

Evacuation Rules

emperor penguin wrote:

their music sucks. there is nothing even resembling a human emotion in any album since ok computer.

Lay off the crack.

Igottago

clark_kent wrote:

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.

rockpants

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.

clark_kent

Igottago wrote:

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.

Grasshopper

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.

Strangest Tribe

clark_kent wrote:

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....

everything else is filler:D

clark_kent

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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.

Bangers_n_mash

clark_kent wrote:

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.

Listen to Pearl Jam albums much?

Strangest Tribe

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?

clark_kent

Bangers'n'mash wrote:

Listen to Pearl Jam albums much?

lot of filler lately. but at least it's not pretentious. just generic.

clark_kent

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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.

Bangers_n_mash

clark_kent wrote:

lot of filler lately. but at least it's not pretentious. just generic.

What? That makes no sense on many different levels...

clark_kent

Bangers'n'mash wrote:

What? That makes no sense on many different levels...

then perhaps i didnt understand your pearl jam comment.

catefrances

clark_kent wrote:

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.

Igottago

clark_kent wrote:

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.

Jeremy1012

clark_kent wrote:

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.

Evacuation Rules

It's like saying the Beatles White Album sucks because of a few filler tracks. An asinine rationalization.

clark_kent

Igottago wrote:

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.

slightofjeff

ramblinpony wrote:

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.

catefrances

clark_kent wrote:

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.