[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rizumu Just ignore HTTT, they're still a good band

Why should one want to ignore the best CD of one of the best rock bands on earth?

 

[GuineaMcPig]

Hail to the Thief, to me, seems to be the album that most addresses the average listener's expecations of what Radiohead should sound like. As many have said here, HTTT seems to blend the guitar-oriented rock of OKC with the keyboards and electronica of Kid A.

To me, it seems like the first time that Radiohead have let their listeners influence their music. After the lukewarm response of the critics to Kid A, Radiohead seemed to have retreated back to their older, more universally lauded material.

It seems like a regression to me, but I certainly think it's more accessible than the Kid A sessions.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by GuineaMcPig Hail to the Thief, to me, seems to be the album that most addresses the average listener's expecations of what Radiohead should sound like. As many have said here, HTTT seems to blend the guitar-oriented rock of OKC with the keyboards and electronica of Kid A.

I don't see myself as an «average listener» and have no expectations about Radiohead's sound (since I've not followed them until OK Computer anyway), so this accusation is unjustified, and it's also unnecessary to denigrate a certain musical taste which prefers HTTT. No, I wasn't shocked by the electronics on Kid A and Amnesiac, I just found the majority of the songs too simple and low-dimensional, both absolutely and compared to OK Computer. Hail to the thief now just touches me more and has the even greater musical depth than OK Computer (to my ears).

 

[CRev2002]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your statement that HTTT has more musical depth than Ok COmputer. ALthough HTTT has more broad instumentation, it is in no way a deeper album than okay computer.

Ok Computer was very carefully composed over many months to get the perfect arrangement of guitars and keyboards. The precision and interplay of all the instruments is the best I've ever heard on a rock album.

HTTT was purposely made with less care and therefore sounds less rehearsed and much simpler. They only spent about a day on each song and it shows.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by CRev2002 I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your statement that HTTT has more musical depth than OK Computer. Although HTTT has more broad instumentation, it is in no way a deeper album than okay computer.

Oh yes, it is! I am much more touched by it, and I don't care about the missing final polish you're postulating. Either I don't even notice it or it's better because it's less artificial and perfectionist than OK Computer that way... however, it's more interesting, multifaceted and touching, so it's the better album... in fact the best one from Radiohead so far.

 

[Rizumu]

Personal opinion people. JaZZ likes it so let him enjoy it. Heck, I wish I could enjoy it that much :/

 

[blessingx]

Before this goes on much further, what the hell is musical depth?

 

[Rizumu]

Quote:

Originally posted by blessingx Before this goes on much further, what the hell is musical depth?

I'm not sure. I rate on a good music/bad music scale, not a musical depth scale

 

[miroslav]

I`ll support the peace initiative by adding my vote for HTTT as the second best album I`ve heard this year.

 

[CRev2002]

let me clarify a few things. First, you are free to enjoy any album you want. It doesn't bother me that you like HTTT more than radiohead's other albums. You should like whatever touches you. HOwever, when you make an objective claim that HTTT has more musical depth than OK computer, I feel obliged to argue the opposite.

Musical depth is essentially how carefully the music was made. WHen I say something is deep, it means that the music I'm listening to reflects the artists efforts. HTTT may sound more spontaneous because not as much time was put into it and it's not a concept album the way ok computer is, but it doesn't sound as cohesively put together.


some people that read this may be relativists who think that there is no way to objectively and or qualitatively argue that one album is better than another. I have to disagree ( when you compare beethoven to raffi there is an obvious difference in the quality of the music.)

Once again, we must differentiate between opinion and the actual quality of the music or else there will be no fun arguments at all.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by CRev2002 ...you are free to enjoy any album you want. It doesn't bother me that you like HTTT more than radiohead's other albums. You should like whatever touches you. However, when you make an objective claim that HTTT has more musical depth than OK computer, I feel obliged to argue the opposite.

I don't understand; why do you feel «obliged»?

I don't seriously claim an absolute valuation of music. Music is highly subjective. I just couldn't resist to counter the «absolutistic» tendencies of my previous posters.

Quote:

Musical depth is essentially how carefully the music was made. When I say something is deep, it means that the music I'm listening to reflects the artists efforts.

Wrong! Musical depth reflects the artists' inspiration, not their «effort». Music is not work (in first place); it also is not circus. BTW, I also like improvised music; such can have a great musical depth without being in the least calculated and elaborated.

Quote:

HTTT may sound more spontaneous because not as much time was put into it and it's not a concept album the way ok computer is, but it doesn't sound as cohesively put together.

I really don't care about the album history and lack completely all the background imformation you guys seem to have. I'm only interested how the music sounds. And yes, it sounds more alive and spontaneous, less calculated and artificial than OK Computer (which I like too anyway!). I know -- e.g. -- that the majority of music lovers think Pink Floyd's zenith has been around Dark Side of the Moon. In my opinion the raw, spontaneous Piper at the Gates of Dawn was their only true psychedelic album and an immensely inspired stroke of genius, one of the most important works within the history of pop music. After Syd Barretts retirement all the genius was gone, and the so-called masterpieces were perfectly constructed surfaces. Not really bad, but without great musical depth.

Quote:

some people that read this may be relativists who think that there is no way to objectively and or qualitatively argue that one album is better than another. I have to disagree (when you compare beethoven to raffi there is an obvious difference in the quality of the music.)

Maybe you can postulate some key data from which music experts can picture a sort of quality level. But it's not absolute -- musical depth isn't synonym to technical perfection, the less so in pop music. And I really don't care about Beethoven, be it oh so perfect music. To me the Music of John Adams -- just as an example -- is of much higher value, although every poll on earth would tell you Beethoven has made much better music.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Musical depth is essentially how carefully the music was made. When I say something is deep, it means that the music I'm listening to reflects the artists efforts.

Quote:

Wrong! Musical depth reflects the artists' inspiration, not their «effort». Music is not work (in first place); it also is not circus. BTW, I also like improvised music; such can have a great musical depth without being in the least calculated and elaborated.

With great trepidation I'll jump in. Still am confused by this term. Assuming it isn't referencing sonic layering (why am I picturing a submarine?), I'm guessing it's getting somewhere close to "depth" in an artistic sense? Can we agree here? If so, I disagree with both of you... sort of. It's not inherently about production, but it can certainly be (think Phil Spector or the recent My Bloody Valentine thread). It's also difficult to say it's not about work but instead about inspiration. Improvisational music is a lot of work, and there's a ton of inspired "artists" out there putting out crap... or more directly to the argument, putting out nothing. Inspiration is just an idea until it becomes a work. For fun (and opposition) look up Sol Lewitt’s “Sentences on Conceptual Art”. A keystone of my disastrous Art career.

So I'm gonna say "depth" can be the field recording of an eight year old Balinese girl singing with her chickens, but it's still "the work", not the inspiration, and if beautiful (as the recording I'm thinking of is), it is also "work" ‘cause it's obvious she putting her heart into every word.

 

[GuineaMcPig]

JaZZ,

I would like to know exactly what touches you in HTTT, considering the "inspiration" (lyrically, at least) for HTTT is a slightly more paranoid (and less subtle) world view than that of OKC.

The music is less carefully composed, the lyrics are obvious to the point of being trite, and the net result is an album that is simply NOT AS GOOD.

We're not even talking about production quality, here...these two albums were both produced by Nigel Godrich, and they both sound polished in terms of sound quality. HTTT sounds more spontaneous, it's true, but not in the "jazz improv" kind of way. It sounds as if Radiohead actual did the unthinkable and LESSENED THEIR STANDARDS. Instead of spending more time coming up with complex arrangements, intelligent lyrics, and songs that come together to form a cohesive album, they were content to call it quits after 2 weeks in the studio.

Also, JaZZ, I'm sure Thom Yorke would love to hear that music isn't work after spending 2 years in the studio composing Kid A.

 

[Rizumu]

Quote:

Originally posted by GuineaMcPig JaZZ, I would like to know exactly what touches you in HTTT, considering the "inspiration" (lyrically, at least) for HTTT is a slightly more paranoid (and less subtle) world view than that of OKC. The music is less carefully composed, the lyrics are obvious to the point of being trite, and the net result is an album that is simply NOT AS GOOD. We're not even talking about production quality, here...these two albums were both produced by Nigel Godrich, and they both sound polished in terms of sound quality. HTTT sounds more spontaneous, it's true, but not in the "jazz improv" kind of way. It sounds as if Radiohead actual did the unthinkable and LESSENED THEIR STANDARDS. Instead of spending more time coming up with complex arrangements, intelligent lyrics, and songs that come together to form a cohesive album, they were content to call it quits after 2 weeks in the studio. Also, JaZZ, I'm sure Thom Yorke would love to hear that music isn't work after spending 2 years in the studio composing Kid A.

I think it's obvious that they didn't want to pore over every minute detail this time around and instead just go into the studio and record some new songs. I even remember Thom saying this in an interview with them.

Whether this makes it a worse record of not is debatable.

 

[CRev2002]

Also it seems to me that the amount of work (yes! making good music takes hard work) you put into an album would reflect your inspiration. HTTT does not sound more inspirational to me. To me, the songs sound less genuine. For example, in the song, "sit down stand up" York threw in the whole bit about the raindrops because he liked the sound of it. It in no way fits with the other lyrics or the tone of the rest of the song.

You consider musical depth to be a reflection of inspiration. I consider musical depth to be a reflection of effort and skill. I guess it goes to show us that abstract words do not make for convincing arguments. But let me ask you this question. If a child who is inspired sings a bunch of random notes into a microphone and calls it a song....would it have musical depth? Inspiration needs direction to produce a great work of art. I'm very inspired to make music, but first I have to learn to play an instrument and navigate my home studio before I can make anything that's worth listening to.

Oh and "obligated" may have been an intense word to use. I was in no way obligated to argue but i felt like I had a legitimate reason.