Premier Rock Forum

I'm one of the few Radiohead apologists on the PRF. While my high marks have mostly been stated before (In Rainbows is excellent), I'll throw some criticisms out there:

Almost everything people I know who say they hate the band seems crystallized in Hail to the Thief. It's refreshing that the band themselves dislike the record. It has some less successful drum machine/live band hybrids (they do it well elsewhere), some peak whiney Thom Yorke singing (he does the 3 year old tantrum shouting a lot on this record and the mix is less flattering of it), and some meandering tunes that don't pay off. "There, there" is still a top 10 track for them, it's like Echo and the Bunnymen taken to another level.

losthighway wrote: Mon May 12, 2025 2:13 pm Almost everything people I know who say they hate the band seems crystallized in Hail to the Thief. It's refreshing that the band themselves dislike the record. It has some less successful drum machine/live band hybrids (they do it well elsewhere), some peak whiney Thom Yorke singing (he does the 3 year old tantrum shouting a lot on this record and the mix is less flattering of it), and some meandering tunes that don't pay off. "There, there" is still a top 10 track for them, it's like Echo and the Bunnymen taken to another level.

'2+2=5' is my favorite Radiohead song. I love that tension just before it explodes.

losthighway wrote: Mon May 12, 2025 2:13 pm I'm one of the few Radiohead apologists on the PRF.

Not sure if that's the case. I really liked them for a period of time, and based on this poll (NOT CRAP outnumbers CRAP and SHRUG combined) it seems like at least on PRF that the people who dislike them are just more outspoken than the ones who like them.

I like Hail to the Thief better than the two records that precede it, for what it's worth. And like you, I think In Rainbows is also excellent.

If I have an issue with them (other than their politics), it's the overhype. They're a good, sometimes quite interesting rock & roll band. They aren't revolutionary, however.

I just spent the last half an hour confirming that both “There, There” and “2 + 2 = 5” are indeed great.

The thing is that they are rich millionaires now and nothing else. Add gen-x to the equation… no comment.

People act like EOB is the conscience of the band and that’s fine, but I looked into it and the stuff I’ve read him post was the most milquetoast can’t we all get along-isms I’ve ever seen in my life. Like, glad he didn’t call everyone retarded for his band being held to account for a fucking genocide after playing like they would be the type of people to be bothered by that sort of thing, but that’s all, and that tells you the level of shit his stupid bandmates are capable of.

Kniferide wrote: Mon May 12, 2025 11:37 am Their records always sound very good. Kid A is good for testing big PA systems/studio monitors because the midrange and bass blend is fantastic.

Nigel Godrich is really the last super producer I accept as being really fucking good at his job. Those records sound amazing. He recorded Roger Waters, too! That’s something. I like how if you read up on him everyone’s like, well he likes to put 1176s on everything. Ok! Andy Johns was supposed to be like that too.

Kniferide wrote: Mon May 12, 2025 11:37 am Thom Yorke always looks like he was just startled out of bed by being stung by a bee.

…sucking on lemons, even?!

jfv wrote: Mon May 12, 2025 2:50 pm Not sure if that's the case. I really liked them for a period of time, and based on this poll (NOT CRAP outnumbers CRAP and SHRUG combined) it seems like at least on PRF that the people who dislike them are just more outspoken than the ones who like them.

Good point.

jfv wrote: Mon May 12, 2025 2:50 pm If I have an issue with them (other than their politics), it's the overhype. They're a good, sometimes quite interesting rock & roll band. They aren't revolutionary, however.

I slightly disagree with the second part of this. It's hard to even take up because the first part is pretty true. The critical and popular consensus is so overwhelming that it's hard to throw my all in defending such an institution. But as briefly as I can:

- The electronic meets organic thing was way less explored within pop/rock at this time. Pretty much Bjork was the only other person seriously placing a foot in each bucket (forget the lightweight singer songwriter with a drum loop boom). I'm sure there are less famous contemporaries because there's almost never a first anything in music.

- Compositionally they have some pretty untouched sophistication for a band that came out as an indie rock (or alt whatever) band. Sure there's plenty of jam or prog bands with similar curiosity about rhythmic dissonance, post modern harmonic structures, but none trying to contain it all as a true "song" that's trying to use these as compositional tools to make something concise. At their best they are a music major's theory-feast while still accessible to a rawk fan cause it's not just math for math's sake. As much as it pains me the Tool comparison earlier in the thread is the closest you can get to those goals. I suppose the Beatles had a similar interest in intellectually reaching for new musical language to better express personal/emotional themes. Fugazi did too.

U2 bombast, Smiths myopia.

When I was 16> I thought they were pretty great, but it is such a bummer that the band christened to be the most "important" in a "generation" is a buncha crybaby millionaire bullshit. "The world is a dark place . . . waaaaah waaaah." I thought this was supposed to be rock music? Gene Vincent out-raced the devil just so we can end up pouting "I wish I was special" in a stadium built on the ruins of a Palestinian village?

well-manicured CRAP