What is the deal with Radiohead?

lalalalaaaaaaaa · July 2008

JWBusher wrote:

I think they're filling a void that was left open when Pink Floyd disbanded.

hmm, I don't think I see that. When I think of Pink Floyd, I think of 2 things:

1. Music that completely overpowers you and puts you in a completely freaky state.

2. BIG, epic live shows.

Radiohead doesn't really apply to either of these for me. They can be trippy, but it's never gets deep inside enough to the point of frightening me like Floyd does you know?

I dunno...I still say the closest thing this generation has to Pink Floyd is Tool. They have the power, the mystery, and the acidistic nature that Floyd had.

Ledbetterman10 · July 2008

ramblinpony wrote:

Discuss.

no

Jeremy1012 · July 2008

pdalowsky wrote:

Radiohead were a great band, they lost the plot when they tried to fix something that wasnt broken, and went all experimental on us. In my view (which many strangely diaagree with) they made a total bollocks of it all. Went from being a worlds leading band to knocking wank records out with all kinds of electronica and no melody or what I would call song structure, and just basically wailing.

In the live arena this is all different though, they are pretty damn good there. Although they are well off their peak even with that compared to 1995-1997, anyone who saw them then and now must surely agree??

You know the only thing worse than a person who thinks Radiohead are the second coming of Jesus? A person who expects them to keep treading water, churning out The Bends every couple of years. They aren't your band. They can do what they want.

Joe2TheRevenge · July 2008

Igottago wrote:

But hey, I hear the new Chris Cornell is pretty good.

You are apparently the only person on the planet who has heard it. Because not a single track has leaked from the album yet.

Rhinocerous Surprise · July 2008

Joe2TheRevenge wrote:

You are apparently the only person on the planet who has heard it. Because not a single track has leaked from the album yet.

Um... three have.

reversedarwinism · July 2008

Saturnal wrote:

hmm, I don't think I see that. When I think of Pink Floyd, I think of 2 things:

1. Music that completely overpowers you and puts you in a completely freaky state.

2. BIG, epic live shows.

Radiohead doesn't really apply to either of these for me. They can be trippy, but it's never gets deep inside enough to the point of frightening me like Floyd does you know?

I dunno...I still say the closest thing this generation has to Pink Floyd is Tool. They have the power, the mystery, and the acidistic nature that Floyd had.

I can see Radiohead being compared to Pink Floyd. By your measures, as well.

Radiohead have proen to me that they are just the best around today. Since the bends and including the eraser they have made nothing but stellar albums. Hail to the Thief and and In Rainbows are the best of those, IMO. They definately have a great atmospheric vibe to them, in that way I see the comparisons to Pink Floyd. Radiohead just has excellent creativity when it comes to using their talents and minds to make great songs. They deserve their reputation as being the best. Its not music for most "low-brows". Not an absolute, but I'd say Raidohead fans are generally more cerebral music fans.

Mike_Muse_Rage · July 2008

Joe2TheRevenge wrote:

You are apparently the only person on the planet who has heard it. Because not a single track has leaked from the album yet.

Bit behind on the old news eh?

Brain Of E · July 2008

i just want to jump on and say it's true, radiohead are definately an aquired taste. some songs are really accessible like "creep" or 'there, there", but the rest definately take an open mind. i like a majority of their songs, but there's also plenty of songs that I skip. My favorite record is Kid A.

DiRtYyELLoWoCeAn · July 2008

JWBusher wrote:

I think they're awesome and I don't normally like that kind of music. I think they're filling a void that was left open when Pink Floyd disbanded. They're the total opposite of a band like Oasis who are just another re-hash of the Beatles.

In my opinion I don't think they're fully a void that was left open when Floyd disbanded... that's a mighty tall void. While I do like The Bends, Pueblo Honey and OK Computer I just CAN'T get into the newer stuff I've tried. I've never seen them live I know people who have some said they were amazing some said they wanted to kill themsleves(and these are fans of the band!) Maybe some of the stuff doesn't translate well live? I wish I could like the new Radiohead but I just don't think it's in the cards if you can help or or reccommend something to help combat this by all means do!

Secondly I know this thread is about Radiohead so I'll keep this short.... you said Oasis is a re-hash of the Beatles... I agree with this post! I really like them though. I feel there B-sides are better then the stuff on the studio albums (just like PJ, save for Sweet LEW, Whale SOng and Last Kiss) I've never seen Oasis live either but you can bet you ass I will when their new cd comes out!

anotherclone · July 2008

I've listened to lots of different music in my 40+ years. Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass, but some of the sounds that come out of Johnny Greenwood's guitar, are sounds I've never heard before, or even thought might be possible to come out of a guitar.

I agree with the folks that mention a slight Pink Floyd comparison. Not so much for sound, but overall ambience.

Get_Right · July 2008

I like some of their stuff
I am told you need to see them live to truly appreciate them.

I will let you know after Aug 9.

Cropduster84 · July 2008

pdalowsky wrote:

Went from being a worlds leading band to knocking wank records out with all kinds of electronica and no melody or what I would call song structure, and just basically wailing.

Have you listened to the records you're slating?

No melody?!?!

Try these tracks - There There, Reckoner, All I Need, Sail To The Moon, Motion Picture Soundtrack, Idioteque, I Might Be Wrong, House Of Cards....I could go on, but my point is, Radiohead do amazingly rich melodies in their work....

Igottago · July 2008

pdalowsky wrote:

Radiohead were a great band, they lost the plot when they tried to fix something that wasnt broken, and went all experimental on us. In my view (which many strangely diaagree with) they made a total bollocks of it all. Went from being a worlds leading band to knocking wank records out with all kinds of electronica and no melody or what I would call song structure, and just basically wailing.

In the live arena this is all different though, they are pretty damn good there. Although they are well off their peak even with that compared to 1995-1997, anyone who saw them then and now must surely agree??

This is the worst assessment of their music I've ever heard. Their so called "experimental" stuff has amazing melody, structure, and hooks. Thats what makes it so great...yes it is somewhat challenging at first but underneath they are still songs that get stuck in your head.

If they continued to make the bends over and over again as you suggest, no one would be talking about them to this day.

FinsburyParkCarrots · July 2008

No Radiohead thread is complete without this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsNJU0bfxe4

Its Evolution Baby · July 2008

Cropduster84 wrote:

Have you listened to the records you're slating?

No melody?!?!

Try these tracks - There There, Reckoner, All I Need, Sail To The Moon, Motion Picture Soundtrack, Idioteque, I Might Be Wrong, House Of Cards....I could go on, but my point is, Radiohead do amazingly rich melodies in their work....

Add in No Surpises. How can someone listen to No Surprises and say there isn't a melody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqsyXdj_p_I

CrazyJD · July 2008

In anticipation of In Rainbows, I started listening to OK Computer again... didnt really appreciate it fully at the time it was released (more into peppy-alternative rock I guess). I now rotate OKC and InRainbows constantly.

They arent a band you put on at parties lol... and they do take a few listens to really differentiate between some songs at times... but once you listen a few times, wow... every time I listen I think I notice something different or great about a song. I can't begin to think how they put together the sound that they make and make it sound so clean.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KAPBhJfPA6Y

In Rainbows is truly enjoyable

I used to be primarily a fan of their faster stuff... but its the slow stuff that I absolutely love now (although wasnt a fan of the electronic phase). Listen through OKC or Rainbows a few times as an album and then judge. I was lukewarm to some songs at first, yet not long after those same songs were the ones I wanted to hear most lol. Now I cant get enough of them.

pdalowsky · July 2008

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Add in No Surpises. How can someone listen to No Surprises and say there isn't a melody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqsyXdj_p_I

The great thing about music is its so subjective, but then again if you read my post, No surprises is clearly off OKC and clearly an awesome song with an awesome melody. I was referencing the stuff from the later records post OKC.

Maybe its just not my thing, Thom Yorke is so talented, I personally think they let us down by not adding to the OkC sound. Nobody on the right side of the moon will put OKC in the same backet as Kid A. No one. Of course no one should ever churn out the same music year after year, but there is experiementing and then there is changing to be different.

Take Pearl jam, I dont think they have ever altered their sound that much, ok Vitalogy and No Code are slightly different, and they have tinkered with the production on some of the records etc but they have retained their sound without treading water if thats how we put it. But they havent gone off ther wall nuts with it like Kid A did to me.

I mean this might not be the best thing to say, but Green day are alive and well after doing the same three cords for near on 20 years. U2 are hardly breaking new ground and remain at the forefront of rock......But radiohead - well like I say maybe its just me.

we all have opinions I guess, I do love Radiohead dont get me wrong, and would totally agree with the person who lauds Fake Plastic Trees with compliment, that is indeed a very very special tune

pdalowsky · July 2008

oh and I do understand that Staunch Radiohead fans will always hammer my opinion on this, thats a given, like I would with anyone slagging PJ off so ignorantly.

Evacuation Rules · July 2008

pdalowsky wrote:

Take Pearl jam, I dont think they have ever altered their sound that much, ok Vitalogy and No Code are slightly different, and they have tinkered with the production on some of the records etc but they have retained their sound without treading water if thats how we put it. But they havent gone off ther wall nuts with it like Kid A did to me.

Radiohead has done nothing to "alter" their formula except a few tracks on Kid A/Amnesiac. Beyond that, they've progressed naturally, just like Pearl Jam. Can you say Bugs? Hey Foxymophandle? Aye Davanita? I'm Open?

Kid A/Amnesiac was a deliberate detour. The band was falling apart at the seams and it was a miracle those albums came out at all. Things got back on track for Hail To The Thief and In Rainbows, which pick up where OK Computer left off. If you can't see it, then compare Vitalogy to Avocado. They have similarities but the music has also noticeably changed. In Rainbows is not radically different from Ok Computer. It's a continuation. So I don't really get where you're coming from, or where anybody is coming from who says Radiohead have "gone crazy", there's no melody or structure, etc...it couldn't be further from the truth.

Mike_Muse_Rage · July 2008

I absolutely hated Kid A when I first bought it. I mean REALLY hate it. After a few listens however, I totally understood the direction the band had taken and appreciated the intricacies of the music. In fact I was astounded and it has become one of my favourite Radiohead albums, if not my favourite.

What is the deal with Radiohead?

Comments

Categories