Rotten Tanx wrote:I've been thinking about Radiohead quite a bit lately.
...
Perhaps there's something I'm missing having never heard an album.

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.

these two posts made me lol all over my overpriced limited edition in rainbows box set. funny stuff!

salut! to the concept of spending more time thinking about a band/album than actually listening to it.

Minotaur029 wrote:

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.

Why thank you, good sir.

Radiohead are a lot more depressed and depressing than Eno ever was, so obviously they would make music that was creepy and sad in ways that were totally removed from Eno's oeuvre (though Eno certainly has creepy nailed - "The Great Pretender," anyone?). However, as soon as I listened to Another Green World for the second time ever about a week and a half ago, I said to myself, "Oh, so that's where Kid A came from." Another Green World is loads more of a positive work - it's humanistic, astoundingly lyrical (two qualities that Kid A definitely lacked), and evokes an intuitive, childlike sense of wonder at the world that is almost inexpressibly beautiful. In contrast, Kid A is a far, far more negative and less intuitive record. On first listen, it's a somewhat abstract record, but subsequent listenings show that almost all of the songs have some type of pop song structure underneath, which is borne out by the fact that almost all the songs on Kid A have Thom-Boy Yorkeshire arias on them.

The use of electronics in both records, though, is very similar - the ways that both use electronics and synthesizers to obliquely express human emotion are very closely linked. But there's no question who did it first: Eno is the master, and Radiohead are the students.

- I started obsessively listening to Radiohead when I was 13.

- I have moved far, far beyond Radiohead, "musical knowledge"-wise, and rarely listen to them now.

- I think it's a shame that Radiohead's most dedicate fans often listen to nothing other than Radiohead.

- I think Radiohead sometimes makes their influences transparent in their songwriting.

All of these things are true, but Radiohead is still one of my favorite bands ever. I think Kid A is a perfect record, and I also really love everything else they've done aside from their first couple and HTTF. Radiohead's music moves me emotionally, and I find Thom Yorke's voice beautiful, unsettling, and entirely unique. I'm impressed that their b-sides are generally of equal or better quality compared to their proper releases, and I like that they do pretty much what they want to do. I think it's hilarious that the band that released Pablo Honey released Amnesiac on the same label, and I respect them for moving on after the huge critical and commercial success of OK Computer. Not all of their stuff is great, but the stuff that is great meets a pretty high standard.

I also understand why some people who enjoy most of the same music I enjoy don't get Radiohead at all - or why they might even find them annoying or pretentious.

I love Radiohead.

Even if you never listen to them or even don't like their music, they are arguably one of the most important glacial bands sculpting the music industry, for good or bad.

Radiohead's career of "really good worthwhile songs" in my opinion would make a really good LP, maybe even an LP and a 7"- If you stretched it, you might get a 2XLP out of this band.

But- they are tons better than Travis and/or Coldplay. Cmon, really!

Radiohead has some great skeletal orchestrations underneath the Smiths/U2/Nirvana/Pink Floyd sheen. There's some Classical pianist guy I heard on NPR or somewhere that did Radiohead covers on solo piano. What I heard (in the car) was great, sometimes minimal, sometimes baroque and it proved to me that these guys know what they are doing, and it is far from standard.

If the same piano treatments were applied to Travis or Coldplay, it would be as limp as a bag of wet mice.

Does Radiohead go overboard on the fluff sometimes? Sure. Sometimes the fluff, the abrasiveness, and the noise is what brings Radiohead safely out of Coldplay lane.. (Sometimes it's just Thom Yorke's face- jeez, he's a strange looking bird ain't he?)

The act of creating a digital download for free of In Rainbows, was 100% brilliant, even if it got overhyped.

The Radiohead Brand: They are the iPhone of rock bands. People that are enamored by the device think it is a truly groundbreaking, original, elegant, refined thing and it will probably encourage a ton of good stuff to happen to other phones that have the bad design, poor interface cancer. But it is still an iPhone.

I like the iPhone/Radiohead but I am not a fanatic.

Minotaur029 wrote:First of all, this thread was a great read (at least for me). Was it good for you?

It didn't give me a blow job, so not good.


I thought Pablo Honey was really bad. But I really liked 'The Bends'. One good song after another. 'OK Computer'? Very good. 'Kid A'? Great. 'Amnesiac'? Meh... didn't bother with what came next. Not that 'Amnesiac' was so bad.

I was pretty disappointed with In Rainbows. One of the more intriguing aspects of Radiohead to me was the fact that they kept getting better. I don't like anything before it, but OK Computer was a good record. And then Kid A/Amnesiacand Hail to the Thief were good (I guess my theory falls apart here because KIDA is definitely better than HTTT). I even enjoyed The Eraser.

I was hoping they would continue in a similarly evolutionary (or experimentally, rather) vein. All things considered, though, I'm not a big fan anyway. Still, I'd like to see them play around with less conventional ideas (less conventional, you know, for a famous pop band). Maybe some kind of Drum's Not Dead meets Flowers of Romance style would do them some good. Maybe something a bit more tribal. Maybe not.

this band suffers from sneetchosity.



as soon as the wrong people started liking this band, the hipsters who embraced ok computer left in droves. I think we may have a few on this board.

I think coldplay is the iphone of rock bands...at least that's what my teevee tells me.

musical knowledge? this always cracks me up. so, one band is more "advanced" than another? pure bullshit.

madlee wrote:musical knowledge? this always cracks me up. so, one band is more "advanced" than another? pure bullshit.

You're right if someone is making the argument that the band has certain knowledge that makes them superior.

I however, argue that one can hear them use musical knowledge in a way that makes their compositions, arrangements etc. elegant and superior to many bands less refined and musically literate.

The musical knowledge argument is used as a snobbish tactic be it from music majors who are 'too clever' for some simple music that is good, or from people who were schooled in punk rock and have an anti-intellectual tendency to believe a knowledge of music theory will ruin your music.

The act of creating a digital download for free of In Rainbows, was 100% brilliant, even if it got overhyped.

I have to agree with this. If you dont like it, cool. If you do, then support the band by seeing them live so they can make some bank.

As far as them being Original in the idea of free album downloads... Total bullshit. Ever heard of NIN...

sonicdeath wrote:

The act of creating a digital download for free of In Rainbows, was 100% brilliant, even if it got overhyped.

I have to agree with this. If you dont like it, cool. If you do, then support the band by seeing them live so they can make some bank.

yup. it's the model independent bands have been using for years already. they're literally doing nothing new. that said, I think they're pretty great music.


...and that "National Anthem" on Kid A is fucking CRAP<OK.