PDA

View Full Version : Radiohead ....Who cares!



Christophe dininski
10-16-2007, 04:49 PM
What a bunch of wankers......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

vertiginous
10-16-2007, 04:56 PM
guffaw

rogersbowne
10-16-2007, 04:58 PM
i think its pretty awesome that they are changing the music industry's distribution ideas around, and all by themselves so far.

tackledspoon
10-16-2007, 04:58 PM
Great Thread A++

Christophe dininski
10-16-2007, 05:29 PM
I think its great that one writer for pitchfork was too scared to include a rating for the album and another reviewer said they listened to the album twice so far and had fallen asleep to it both times, (as if thats a positive review)
Personally I can only stomach a very little of Radiohead.
And how are they challenging anything, new with regards to music distribution, youtube, myspace, facebook, home recordings, internet, public radio, train station tunnel, street corner, bedroom, local pub,...............

Aqualad
10-16-2007, 06:22 PM
i think its pretty awesome that they are changing the music industry's distribution ideas around, and all by themselves so far.

um bands have been doing this for a while. Check out bomb the music industry! for one.

tackledspoon
10-16-2007, 07:32 PM
um bands have been doing this for a while. Check out bomb the music industry! for one.

Yes, but most of those bands couldn't get a large recording and distribution contract. They're not sticking it to the industry. Radiohead is changing the way people think about popular music.
I don't understand why people insist on debating the quality of this album. A lot of people like it, some people don't. Nobody is going to persuade anybody from the other camp that they're right because it's a simple matter of taste. Rhetoric will never convince anybody to genuinely like or dislike an album.
Personally, I think Radiohead is one of the greatest bands on Earth and that this album, while not their best, is still pretty excellent. The guy who started this thread clearly disagrees and that's where the conversation should end.

dust
10-16-2007, 08:25 PM
fuck this radiohead fawning. those geeks are just a bunch of collegiate bandwagon jumpers. anyway, talib kweli and madlib released an album for free a while back. are they big enough? but they're dumb ******* so fuck 'em.

tackledspoon
10-16-2007, 08:38 PM
fuck this radiohead fawning. those geeks are just a bunch of collegiate bandwagon jumpers. anyway, talib kweli and madlib released an album for free a while back. are they big enough? but they're dumb ******* so fuck 'em.
...so yeah. I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not Radiohead are any good, but I will dispute you on the second point (I'm particularly happy to do this since you just put some awful words into my mouth).
I love both Madlib and Talib, but no, they really aren't big enough to change the way people think about the distribution of popular music with an act like that. Talib Kweli hasn't sold a million records in his career and neither has Madlib. Radiohead's last four albums have gone platinum and they're one of the most talked about bands on Earth. The fact that Liberation remains in obscurity while In Rainbows has logged over 4 million downloads does not say anything about quality, but it sure does say a thing or two about the impact that each of these artists has on the industry.

rogersbowne
10-16-2007, 08:44 PM
...so yeah. I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not Radiohead are any good, but I will dispute you on the second point (I'm particularly happy to do this since you just put some awful words into my mouth).
I love both Madlib and Talib, but no, they really aren't big enough to change the way people think about the distribution of popular music with an act like that. Talib Kweli hasn't sold a million records in his career and neither has Madlib. Radiohead's last four albums have gone platinum and they're one of the most talked about bands on Earth. The fact that Liberation remains in obscurity while In Rainbows has logged over 4 million downloads does not say anything about quality, but it sure does say a thing or two about the impact that each of these artists has on the industry.

exactly

dust
10-16-2007, 09:05 PM
i'm not putting words into anyone's mouth. it's just odd that everyone hails radiohead for doing this revolutionary thing when a). lots of bands have done it already and b). talib kweli & madlib, two major artists, did it just a few months ago. while they're nowhere near as big as radiohead, they ARE substantial artists in their own right. most people who know about radiohead are gonna know about talib kweli. even more people who are primarily into hip-hop know who he and madlib are.

so the "dumb *******" stab wasn't directed at any one personally. if anyone, it's the media. is it really just a coincidence that radiohead is getting all this buzz for doing something that's a relatively old practice? as far as media poster children go, you can't get any better than an "intellectual" english rock band. it's annoyingly predictable: "hey, radiohead revolutionized music NOW THEY'RE REVOLUTIONIZING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY! WHAT WILL THESE AMAZING MEN DO NEXT!?"

i will give them this: they are excellent at promoting themselves, and i don't mean that backhandedly.

and for the record, i used to love radiohead and still like some of their stuff. i just really hate thom yorke. i bet homeboy will be on some bono shit in a few years.

pinocchio
10-16-2007, 09:33 PM
i think a lot of people who hate on radiohead have never listened to them and don't know them. they're not bad at all. they're certainly not one of my favorite bands and i probably will never even end up buying this album. but to just shit on them and talk about how much they suck is absurd. frankly it doesn't even make sense. this whole pr move isn't anything new however. maybe for a band of this sort you could make a point. but still, it seems like more of a plea for attention. i also don't care for thom yorke as a person AT ALL.

dust
10-16-2007, 10:22 PM
yeah, i would never dis radiohead for their music. it's not my favorite and nowhere near as innovative as people give them credit for, but i'm glad a band of their stature is trying to do the things they're doing (musically and otherwise). i just wish people wouldn't inflate thommy's ego any more than it needs to be. at his heart he's just a strange little nerd, not a genius.

Mutineer
10-17-2007, 12:21 AM
In Rainbows has to be the most boring album I've ever heard next to Daydream Nation.

Actually, I retagged it halfway through so the artist was Coldplay, so I'd feel like less of a faggot if it were to show up on my last.fm weekly top 10.

damonin
10-18-2007, 08:48 AM
wow. i didn't know so many people on this message board have such a drastic hate for probably one of the best bands to ever exist (in my opinion). i find it weird that a band that continues to change and experiment with sound would not find any love from a message board full of people who "seem" to love experimental and psychedelic music. no wonder i stopped posting here :S

jaimi
10-18-2007, 10:58 AM
I don't dislike Radiohead, but I do find them a bit too bland and pretentious. I mean, I wouldn't change the station if they came on the radio and I own some of their albums...that I bought when I was 14, 15 and just getting into music. I wouldn't call them inspiring or...psychedelic?? (please cite that source! what). I mean, maybe the willful defilement of vocals on Kid A was really out there back in 2000 but it's not like it hasn't been done before.

They aren't doing anything especially radical, unless of course we're comparing them in the context of mainstream alternative/modern rock or whatever.

JoeJustJoe
10-18-2007, 11:11 AM
Radiohead is a good band. They just got big/popular which is a turn-off to indie-hipsters. Half the people shit talking them now thought OK Computer was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Mutineer
10-18-2007, 01:33 PM
I'm pretty sure I've always thought OK Computer was boring!

damonin
10-18-2007, 01:45 PM
I don't dislike Radiohead, but I do find them a bit too bland and pretentious. I mean, I wouldn't change the station if they came on the radio and I own some of their albums...that I bought when I was 14, 15 and just getting into music. I wouldn't call them inspiring or...psychedelic?? (please cite that source! what). I mean, maybe the willful defilement of vocals on Kid A was really out there back in 2000 but it's not like it hasn't been done before.

They aren't doing anything especially radical, unless of course we're comparing them in the context of mainstream alternative/modern rock or whatever.

i never called them psychedelic, but i was guessing people who do like psychedelic music also enjoy experimental music.

tackledspoon
10-18-2007, 03:41 PM
No specific element of radiohead's music is necessarily extremely "experimental" or anything, but the way it comes together creates a sound that, while much emulated is never matched. I'd say their originality lies in their ability to blend electronics and organics so seamlessly and sort of express the conflict between those two movements in their music. They're also quite good at adapting avant-garde/alternative musical ideas to the mainstream. It's like the Beatles taking Indian music and putting it into a pop context- they didn't invent that style of music, nor ever claim to, but they reimagined it.

dust
10-18-2007, 09:31 PM
but that's what turns me off about them - they sanitize avant-garde/experimental ideas, then get credit for being innovators or whatever. there's nothing wrong with that per se, but they aren't doing anything nearly as radical as the press gives them credit for. i don't begrudge people who like radiohead (any music that gives you pleasure is worthwhile), but people who get paid to write about music (and are ostensibly experts on the matter) should dig deeper than that. what's the point of professing to like experimental music if you can only enjoy it in the context of a rock band? personally, i think it's much more interesting when primarily experimental bands graft rock ideas onto their music. what's more, i think radiohead are very naive and dilettanteish in their execution. yeah, it's cool that they're taking ideas from krautrock, but real krautrock is so much more radical and organic than what radiohead are trying to do. i suppose my gripe with radiohead superfans is my same gripe with people who regard the beatles as godhead (though the beatles are so ingrained in me that i would be lying if i said i don't still love them). instead of being satisfied with the beatles experimentation in music, why not get into real indian music or true experimentalists like stockhausen?

but these are just my personal thoughts on music, and i'm not trying to sermonize to anyone. if you enjoy it, then that's all that matters. i will also give credit where credit's due, and admit that radiohead probably expanded my horizons a lot and challenged my ideas about what music is supposed to be, and i will always respect them for that. they definitely occupy a necessary space in the mainstream. i guess i'm just the type of person who likes to continue to challenge those ideas.

and to respond to joejustjoe: i don't intend this as a personal attack, but people who accuse others of being "hipsters" are typically more self-conscious and concerned with being hip than the people they direct the word at. i think the word hipster in itself is cowardly and reductive, unless it's used as a compliment. the shit hit the fan when hipster took on a pejorative connotation.

dust
10-18-2007, 09:38 PM
oh and one more thing! the difference between the beatles and radiohead is that the beatles, at their core, were a fucking great rock band who did some cool things with music outside of the rock realm. radiohead, stripped of their experimental sheen, are just kind of okay, probably because they were influenced by boring, shitty bands like u2 and (bad) rem. but that's just MEEEEE!

memestein
10-19-2007, 03:04 AM
it seems like people are getting pissed because of the praise that radiohead has recieved for their various endevors...I think their music is really good, and it obviously strikes a chord with a lot of people which is nice to see because usually good music does not have such mass appeal anymore...now as for teir antics...well it's not that revolutionary, and if you read interviews with the band all you here is the refrain of "we just wanted to see what would happen"...anyways its absurd to turn yourself off from a band because of reaons other than the music...it's like people who hate on the Grateful Dead because a bunch of dirty hippies followed them around

pinocchio
10-19-2007, 08:19 AM
(bad) rem


huhwa?

tackledspoon
10-19-2007, 09:45 AM
huhwa?

I was confused by this, too. Radiohead's first album came out in 1993. R.E.M. hadn't made a record that could be considered even remotely bad (I'd go so far as to say "even remotely not great") before that. Any post-Bends Radiohead album sort of shed the U2/REM influence anyway.

dust
10-19-2007, 11:29 AM
i don't like any rem except early shit. rem had been bad for a good number of years by '93, then they got REALLY shitty.

tackledspoon
10-19-2007, 11:32 AM
i don't like any rem except early shit. rem had been bad for a good number of years by '93, then they got REALLY shitty.
FAKE POSTER ALERT. THIS DUDE THINKS DOCUMENT SUCKS. HE MUST BE A BOT.

dust
10-19-2007, 11:52 AM
my parents used to play rem all the time when i was a kid and i always used to think "what is this wack-ass shit? why would anyone listen to this?" then i heard their early stuff. sorry dudes, but rem became adult contemporary after the first two.

jefferoo
10-19-2007, 10:27 PM
radiohead = yawn.
They ain't no KLF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_KLF)

patman?
10-19-2007, 11:27 PM
I wish people would shut the fuck up about In Rainbows. Okay, so it's not a bad album; I'll agree with that. However, it seems that everyone is ejaculating all over the place about the album, and it's really not that special. If people would shut the fuck up, I would be much happier.

denialorcoped
11-02-2007, 03:39 PM
I think In Rainbows is a very good album that gets better with each listen. Radiohead is a remarkable band that has put out quality material consistently for around 15 years. They are awsome live too.

uncle eggma
11-02-2007, 06:45 PM
ok computer was (and is) in my opinion a great album, kid a really knocked me sideways when it came out (it hasn't held up as well as ok, especially that second half...yawn). true, they essentially just borrowed elements from acts like aphex twin, autechre, squarepusher etc and put them in a "rock" context. but still at the time it was a pretty big artistic leap for them. since then it seems they've sort of been treading water. trying to ride the fence on being a guitar based rock band and a more experimental electronic one, without fully realizing either style. by trying to please everyone they end up pleasing few. i'm growing tired of yorke's paranoid orwellian world view as well.

Mutineer
11-02-2007, 11:54 PM
I listened to OK Computer for the first time in like 2 years (probably the third time I've listened to it), and it was pretty boring and shitty.

I really don't know why people like this band.

uncle eggma
11-03-2007, 02:35 PM
different strokes for different folks and so on and so on....

antonyrocks01
11-03-2007, 05:12 PM
Radiohead's pretty awesome in my opinion, they are pretty boring but that's they're style. I haven't really listened to In Rainbows though.

jefferoo
11-03-2007, 05:50 PM
btw...
I had no idea Radiohead was E6... jk.
Seriously, though.
Only Radiohead, Madonna and a small handfull of acts could do what they are doing, in terms of distribution. It's not really going to change anything for smaller bands. It works for them because they are the most popular rock band around today.
If say The Thermals tried doing it without any help from SubPop, it wouldn't really work.

Aqualad
11-03-2007, 06:36 PM
It only works if you put out a good album, which I think is why most of the music industry won't do it.

Gin And Jews
11-03-2007, 07:24 PM
haha yeah radiohead is one of the few that can get away with that. in rainbows is good and all but it is really nothing to cream yourself over. there are plenty of other bands that are better. although i will admit amnesiac is a really good album

okinomiyaki-sensei
11-03-2007, 09:21 PM
I actually put on OK Computer again after a long hiatus and it's still pretty classic. It was one of those albums you'd play over and over again when it first came out-- especially Paranoid Android. You just couldn't wear it out. Of course at this point I hadn't yet discovered OTC or NMH or OM anything... so to hear something like this after listening to mostly grunge and classic rock it was pretty mind-blowing. I mean, it was really different from Pearl Jam. Maybe it's just me, but it seemed like music just got a lot better after that.

But they've not really done anything like it since... there have been some pretty good songs but I don't think any of the actual albums have been that great, mostly because they want to be all about atmosphere and not about good songs. The lyrics haven't been as interesting either. It seems like a lot of ego music to me.

In Rainbows is definitely better as an album than anything since OK Computer, though...

uncle eggma
11-04-2007, 07:39 PM
in my opinion it's not as good as kid a.

izzuhbella
11-05-2007, 06:35 PM
the first time i listened to "in rainbows" i was pretty unimpressed.
the second time i got more into it.
now i love to hear the opening beats of 15 step.

Harnk
11-07-2007, 01:25 PM
I've been flirting with in Rainbows very slowly over the past 2 weeks. I really like. It's a well balanced/textured record. I think Radiohead are great. I'm just not often in the mood for them. However, this is not the case here. I'm even putting this on in teh morning....which is not Radiohead time for me