What is the deal with Radiohead?

Igottago

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.

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.

digster

Igottago wrote:

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.

The Long Road

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.

ramblinpony

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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.

catefrances

ramblinpony wrote:

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?

1STmammal2wearPants

ramblinpony wrote:

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.

digster

ramblinpony wrote:

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.

pdalowsky

i think you've just put my thoughts into a little nutshell

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.

harmless_little_f***

The Long Road wrote:

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.

pdalowsky

what about paranoid android??

Pauk

The Long Road wrote:

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.

People aren't allowed to say The Bends is the best album?! I guess I have to stop calling myself a fan then :rolleyes: God forbid I think Hail To The Thief and In Rainbows are better than OK Computer.

ramblinpony

catefrances wrote:

really? EVERY radiohead fan? are you sure about that?

Everyone that I have talked to directly about the band. Sorry for not being more specific.

ramblinpony

digster wrote:

Moreover, if I liked bands based on how much I liked the fanbase, the list of bands I liked would be mercilessly short.

Good point on that. What I am trying to figure out is why they have such a hardcore following. It seems with Radiohead that the division is very clearly set. You either really dig them or absolutely hate em. I know a few people straddle the fence, but with PJ it seems there are a lot more people in the middle. I know very very few people who absolutely hate PJ. Yet I know a lot of hardcore Radio head fans and I equally know as many people who think the music is Shite. In my experiences most bands with that loyal of a following have alot more people who don't feel one way or the other. Not so with Radiohead.

The Long Road

fowls wrote:

People aren't allowed to say The Bends is the best album?! I guess I have to stop calling myself a fan then :rolleyes: God forbid I think Hail To The Thief and In Rainbows are better than OK Computer.

In my experience, people who say "The Bends" is the best album are people who want me to know that they think they know Radiohead better than anyone else. You can take 4 songs out of OK C and it's STILL better than The Bends. With that, I must say that I think Yorke is starting to get real screechy and whiney to me. It was cool for the 1st few albums but now it's just flat out annoying. In Rainbows (with the exception of a few songs) is really not that good at all. I may have contradicted myself in an earlier post, but IMO, OK C is by far Radiohead's best work.

clark_kent

Igottago wrote:

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.

they were often right about pearl jam. and pearl jam were embarrassed by the success of ten, but i dont recall them ever disowning any of their material. alive, even flow, black... all of those songs always have been in the setlist. they managed to grow without having to insult anyone who enjoyed their early work.

im not saying pablo is a great album, it isnt. it's just the attitude thom and the band take towards their first 2 albums and to all of musc that isnt radiohead post ok computer.

clark_kent

digster wrote:

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.

dylan always had at least a sense of humor about it.

ramblinpony

clark_kent wrote:

they were often right about pearl jam. and pearl jam were embarrassed by the success of ten, but i dont recall them ever disowning any of their material. alive, even flow, black... all of those songs always have been in the setlist. they managed to grow without having to insult anyone who enjoyed their early work.

im not saying pablo is a great album, it isnt. it's just the attitude thom and the band take towards their first 2 albums and to all of musc that isnt radiohead post ok computer.

Pearl Jam matured enough to know that it is OK to be successful, and they learned how to manage fame. They also respect their fans enough that sometimes they make personal sacrifices to please them. Very noble. It seems some bands forget that no matter what they do, they aren't shit without the fans that write the paychecks.

Having said that, I do think it is cool that Pearl Jam makes every album for themselves though, and if anyone happens to like it, then it is a bonus. Probably why they put out quality music that is somewhat different repeatedly.

ramblinpony

Igottago wrote:

and eventually making albums like No Code.

Great album

Strangest Tribe

so what, you don't get it....big deal

go on listen to what you like, but starting threads like this is just trying to pick arguments... it's all subjective.

I don't get Toby Keith, but I'm not going out of my way to argue what a piece of shit I think his music is...I just don't listen to it..that's what an open mind is all about...freedom and all that shit...

Jeremy1012

digster wrote:

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.

uh....