Premier Rock Forum

I really like Radiohead, although I have to be in the mood to listen to them. Kid A, Amnesiac, OK Computer, Hail, In Rainbows I really like. The first two, so-so. I'm glad they took the route they did after The Bends, as a pure rock band they weren't at their strongest. The thing that gets me about them is the quality of their song writing.

I didn't like Pablo Honey, but the Bends was good. OK Computer is not my favorite, but I can't deny it's quality. I respect them for their change of course. Although, they set a high standard and seem very stagnant now. Will they change course again? They should have done it after Hail to the Thief, that album was good, but started to feel stale.

Also, I have to be in the mood to listen to them, which I rarely am.

First of all, this thread was a great read (at least for me). Was it good for you?

Rotten Tanx wrote:The reason I refuse to pay any attention to Radiohead is because for a while they were everywhere. Adverts on TV, billboards, magazine covers, constant radio and MTV play, everything. When a band is rammed down my throat like that I feel compelled to ignore them.

That's why now seemed like a good time to talk about them. It's the middle of 2008...do people still really care about Radiohead like they did? Aren't people coming to their senses now?

Rotten Tanx wrote:In my mind they are on a par with Coldplay and Travis. Yet they attract fans that would usually abhor that kind of whoring.

I think this is an astute observation. I think Coldplay in particular is similar to Radiohead...Coldplay is obviously lame, but they have some strong songs. In some ways, they are not so dissimilar from Radiohead. Sorry, y'all.

Skronk wrote:The 'head songwriting gets to me and stuff.

Word. I have been thinking the same thing. They got better post-OK Computer in particular. They just wanted to be Nirvana for longer than they'd like to admit.

2nd Edition, bitches wrote:Radiohead needed Eno's vocal albums to learn how to kick ass 'n' stuff.

This is also really interesting. I never thought of this before, but I can totally see where you're coming from. SecondEdition...you are always good for an observation that I never would have realized...no pressure...

I have to say though, Radiohead figured out their own creepy vibe that is separate from Eno's. One only needs to look to In Rainbows to see that they are comfortable in their own synthy skin. In Rainbows is actually fairly weak, however. It's [IR] all right...obviously, Radiohead died a bit post-Amnesiac.

When I was growing up and listening to the "alt-rock" stations, I was haunted (in a good way) by "Karma Police." When I started a CD collection of my own, OK Computer was definitely one of the first albums I got and loved to death. It fit perfectly with that time of my life, being barely 12 and starting to feel down and out with loneliness and other issues. I also went backwards and got The Bends, which I enjoyed for their more alt-rocky numbers that still had that atmosphere to them that the songs on OK Computer did, just on a much smaller scale.

Come high school and Kid A dropped out of the sky. In no way was I expecting that I'd never really think of music the same way ever again after that. At this point I was also into a full-on depression that lasted most of high school. In a strange way, Kid A also was like my gateway drug into "weird" music that no one else knew about, no question. The same can be said about its follow-up album, Amnesiac. The tour for Amnesiac by the way, was pretty fucking dope.

Now I'm 22 and I know more than a 22-year-old probably should about music that goes even beyond Kid A. The Drift by Scott Walker for instance, totally annihilates Kid A as an end-of-the-world album of incredibly dark and spooky music and lyrical content. "Treefingers" on Kid A is like Radiohead copying from Brian Eno's "On Land" playbook.

Hell, by the time Hail To The Thief came out, I was already kinda done with Radiohead. I remember thinking that HTTT was pretty dull in comparison to the tag-team effort of Kid A and Amnesiac, but I still saw them on the HTTT tour. However, I ended up just being really out of it and yawning.

I haven't even bothered with listening to In Rainbows. In fact, I'm kinda pissed that they used that title. After going to see an exhibit at the Hirschhorn Museum in DC called "Visual Music" and now having listened to all kinds of weird shit, no album should be called that unless you're bringing some serious fucking business to the table. Sadly, I know that Radiohead do not do this with their album, and thus, it shall remain shunned by me.

Listening back, I enjoy the songs on the Bends just as much as I did back then. I like a good song that I can sing along to and not have to be cerebral with, and these songs are good for that. As for OK Computer, I find myself mostly just shrugging my shoulders at it - I enjoy the shorter mini-album Airbag/How Is My Driving? more now. Those b-sides are fantastic.

I haven't listened to Kid A or Amnesiac in whole for quite some time. I'd have to listen to them again, and I'll post my comments after that.

Robert G wrote: "Treefingers" on Kid A is like Radiohead copying from Brian Eno's "On Land" playbook.

What great big ears you have. Very, very astute. And I'm sure that a platitude of derivatives can be found in the rest of their catalog.

Robert G wrote:I haven't even bothered with listening to In Rainbows. In fact, I'm kinda pissed that they used that title. After going to see an exhibit at the Hirschhorn Museum in DC called "Visual Music" and now having listened to all kinds of weird shit, no album should be called that unless you're bringing some serious fucking business to the table. Sadly, I know that Radiohead do not do this with their album, and thus, it shall remain shunned by me..

Ah, to be 22 again.

iembalm wrote:

Robert G wrote:I haven't even bothered with listening to In Rainbows. In fact, I'm kinda pissed that they used that title. After going to see an exhibit at the Hirschhorn Museum in DC called "Visual Music" and now having listened to all kinds of weird shit, no album should be called that unless you're bringing some serious fucking business to the table. Sadly, I know that Radiohead do not do this with their album, and thus, it shall remain shunned by me..

Ah, to be 22 again.

Unfair.

I did not say he wasn't right, but it is a youthful statement.

it's interesting that a lot of people here haven't bothered with in rainbows, because to me it seems to succeed where HTTT failed. you sort of have the 'classic rock' albums in the first three, then the 'electronic/jazz' albums in kid a and amnesiac, and then with HTTT and IR they seem to have been trying to reconcile those two approaches and integrate them in a pretty natural way. HTTT was a pretty big failure in that regard - it's too bloated and all over the place and thom's songwriting isn't up to his usual standard. IR seems to have learnt from the mistakes of HTTT and improved on all aspects - it's nice and concise at 10 songs, all of the songs fit together really well, and it's pretty well written (though 'house of cards' is probably a minute or two too long).


so yeah, i'm a pretty big radiohead fan. it's not because they're 'progressive' or because they've changed the music industry or because they synthesize all of these disparate influences. it's just because they consistently write great songs and release great albums. after HTTT i thought they were on their way out, but IR was an album whose quality i wasn't sure they could reach again.

MrWarandieBoy wrote:you sort of have the 'classic rock' albums in the first three, then the 'electronic/jazz' albums in kid a and amnesiac, and then with HTTT and IR they seem to have been trying to reconcile those two approaches and integrate them in a pretty natural way. HTTT was a pretty big failure in that regard - it's too bloated and all over the place and thom's songwriting isn't up to his usual standard.

you got that right. I thought Hail to the Thief was a total drag.