[Masonjar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Have you ever heard of the term 'popular avant-garde'? It's a term used for musicians who are hailed by enormous amounts of fans for being "out there" and "different", but, in reverse, they are taking music a few steps back instead of a few steps forward. Sunn 0))), Boris, Angel, Boredoms -- these are the kinds of bands that innovate in today's alternative/avant-garde rock/metal scene, and they ALL do what Radiohead does, but correctly. Don't ask me to translate any more of what my ears hear into text. Listen to an album by each youreslf and compare them. I sure as hell know I've done it.

I've been meaning to check out Boris. Since I saw the Melvins play the song "Boris" back in '92 I figure any band that names themselves after a Melvins song can't be all that bad. Though It will be interesting to hear if they really are innovators.

Even If I totally love Boris, I will still enjoy Radiohead...

Hey I'm all for innovation, but I also know what I like.. I don't have to justify it to anyone but myself.. I remember back on Rave Recs arguing with people over the merits of The Jesus Lizard and Don Caballero over prog wank like the Flower Kings. Then I came to realize that people will like what they like, it's like Religion. It's fun to discuss but ultimately it comes down to personal choice and tastes, and you really can't change anyone's mind.

-jar

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xakepa I was looking to buy OK Computer the other day on Amazon (as a gift), considering it being "probably the best recording of the nineties" and OMG it's rated 4.5/5 stars, almost 2000 reviews and many many cruel bashers...

I don't think you can place too much confidence in Amazon reviews. Plenty are one-liners (both raves and trashes) -- these are of no use to begin with. Others are clearly written by people with an axe to grind, and they really only want to give one star to try to draw the average rating down.

Actually, as I think about it, statistically speaking, 4.5/5 stars based on ~2000 reviews is a much stronger rating than 5/5 stars based on, say 200 reviews (more statistical power in a sample that large).

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Svperstar Almost nobody wants to admit they listen to pop but almost everyone does. Radiohead is pop, Tool is pop, all the bands are, yet at the same time the fans act like the music is so underground and esoteric, please. I have had the following conversation, "Man I HATE pop music, it drives me nuts, that why I listen to Audioslave!" Yes someone actually said that. As if there could be anything more pop than a super group.

I'm trying to understand your definition of "pop". Sounds like you equate it with the size of the fan base ("popularity"?). I don't think that is really the connotation of the term. In addition to what greatfool wrote, pop music really is radio-friendly (not, radio-head

) music that conforms to a set pattern, never varies too much in instrumental or vocal style, and is rarely ambient. Whatever you hate about Radiohead, it's not accurate to label it pop music.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wirbeltier "No, what they shouldn't do is use the exact same philosophy of the Floyd in their songs and then removing all that made this philosophy work. Floyd's songs were dynamic. Actual chord progressions occurred - key changes - whatever. Radiohead? Literally, they will play a verse-chorus-verse song without ever once making it dynamic. Don't get me started on their songs that have untraditional structures! It's as if they WANT to bastardize the brilliant innovations of other people!" Maybe I understand what many people find annoying or boring about Radiohead. Their songs, especially KidA/Amnesiac, are NOT MEANT to be dynamic or like verse-chorus-verse-songs. They start somehow, make you listen to them, and then disappear into nothing... Pink Floyd is much more classical composed. Radiohead is doing that differently and innovative IMO. What also strikes me, is that most people who do not like Radiohead, don'like them because of the singer Thom Yorke. Yes, he is pretentious and yes, he is a whiner. But that is exactly what I like about him and what is so fascinating about Radiohead. He makes you believe that he really knows the deepest and darkest corners of a poor soul - which we all are somehow And that is also why I like the albums after OKC better...

This is another problem I have with Radiohead: Their fans.

You completely bastardized my point. In fact, you completely missed my claim that their lack of dynamics is the exact opposite of innovative. This is nothing new. Even "drone" songs have hooks. Boris and Sunn 0))) are good examples. If you're such a proclaimed fan of Radiohead, you should check these guys out immediately. These guys are the true innovators. They simply make you wonder "What the hell are they doing?" Their music stretches the boundaries of music theory. They simply throw all order out the window. Radiohead is too electronic. They are hardly doing any of the work - they are simply letting one note hold for a lengthy amount of time. Sunn 0))) layers and layers and layers until you are simply wide-eyed and speechless. You'd never imagine such evil and power could be put into a simple chord layer. Radiohead continues to believe that crooning a few words out here and there, and constructing a simple sonic landscape in the background, will be meaningful. But it's really just lazy. If they were better musicians, they'd figure out a better way to get across their so-called "message".

Trust me - I'm all about the 'drone' genre. I have many artists from such musical styles. However, Radiohead doesn't cut it for me. While the drones of Sunn 0))) make my stomach churn (a good thing), Radiohead seems to have taken the fun out of it. I feel a lifelessness in their music. I feel as if computers are making the music.

Why?

Because Radiohead hardly plays anything throughout their albums! Radiohead continues to just hide behind the magic of the studio. I will never get over this. It is unacceptable for an artist of such proclaimed degree.

But you are right about one thing: Thom Yorke is the modern day Roger Waters. Whiny, pretentious, and with no reason to be that way.

 

[Svperstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman This is another problem I have with Radiohead: Their fans.

You know the funniest thing about Radiohead? EVERYTHING that has been said about them between 2000-2006 was said about Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor around 1993-1998. "Original, experimental, unbelievable blend of electronics, deep introspective lyrics, blah blah blah" Trent Reznor was hailed as this technical wizard in the studio.

Well around the time KidA comes out every collectively wipes the slate clean and all the sudden it is Radioheads turn to be the electronic marvels.

Interesting backstory, Thom Yorke said he was greatly influenced by Autechre for KidA, and it is obvious down to the CD art. Well Reznor signed Autechre to his Nothing Records label in 1995 or so

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Trust me - I'm all about the 'drone' genre. I have many artists from such musical styles.

Cool, Drone Zone on www.somafm.com is one of my favorite radio stations, along with www.sleepbot.com. www.matthewflorianz.com is my favorite musician.

 

[taoster]

I cant believe you haters are still going on with this thread! I don't care whether Yorke sounds like a b@#$% or Radiohead is pretentious, unoriginal and can not compose challenging pieces musically(iyo). All I know is that I enjoy Radiohead, both their old albums and new. I found it emotional and explorative. Enough with the hate, i don't see why anyone would want to share hate and not love. If I want more hate I'd turn on the tv.

 

[dragula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Because Radiohead hardly plays anything throughout their albums! Radiohead continues to just hide behind the magic of the studio. I will never get over this. It is unacceptable for an artist of such proclaimed degree.

What are you talking about with Radiohead hiding behind the magic of the studio? Have you seen them live? They pretty much recreate all the important sounds on the album with such expertise, using what ever equipment/instruments they need. Sure they might have a few pretaped recording of a guy speaking but all the musical things are recreated right on spot. Live radiohead is really something to be experienced.

On another note, yes, in terms of the album there is a lot of "studio magic" being done on Kid A. Lots of it sounds electronica and well, most notably his voice is sometimes warped. If you think though that using electronica got them their reputation you are far incorrect. If you listen to their acoustic rendition of kid a songs, they sound arguably better. Reason: It's not the "futuristic" sounds, it's the compositional work. ****, u can probably get chills if they played the album on an oboe.

 

[Rempert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by taoster I cant believe you haters are still going on with this thread! I don't care whether Yorke sounds like a b@#$% or Radiohead is pretentious, unoriginal and can not compose challenging pieces musically(iyo). All I know is that I enjoy Radiohead, both their old albums and new. I found it emotional and explorative. Enough with the hate, i don't see why anyone would want to share hate and not love. If I want more hate I'd turn on the tv.

Well, to be fair, the original poster did ask why so many people hate Radiohead. I guess you can say he is getting more than enough useful feedback to that query! Once you get haters started, there is no stopping them. It is best to make one good rebuttal and then let the issue drop, because they will never concede or relent.

 

[ojnihs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rempert Well, to be fair, the original poster did ask why so many people hate Radiohead. I guess you can say he is getting more than enough useful feedback to that query! Once you get haters started, there is no stopping them. It is best to make one good rebuttal and then let the issue drop, because they will never concede or relent.

I think you're forgetting that the fans never concede or relent as well, as you can tell by this very thread. Neither side can agree that the other is right, for obvious reasons: we all have different tastes in life. You cannot just say that it's the haters fault, it's as much the fanboys fault as it is theirs.

 

[chadbang]

OK Computer is quite good. The rest of their albums (despite trying hard to 'get into' Radiohead) are still mediocre in my opinion. I admire their musicianship and Thom Yorke's singing, but I feel they meander just too much. No matter how hard you try and get away from it, a "popular" tune stays with you. Mozart wrote "catchy" tunes. Beethoven wrote 'memorable melodies'. If you can't write something people will hum going out of the theater, you've missed the point of making music, IMO. Especially in the rock genre. There's an art and a magic to writing a memorable song. I hear a really old song like "Shine" or whatever from the 20s jazz period, or an old Gershwin tune and go, "Oh, yeah, that's a great song." Way before my time and not even in genres I like, but their still a joy to hear and make you want to sing along. Anyway, don't underestimate the skill of crafting a solid pop song. Take for example, say a song like, oh, 'Creep'....without which, no one would have ever heard of Radiohead.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ojnihs I think you're forgetting that the fans never concede or relent as well, as you can tell by this very thread. Neither side can agree that the other is right, for obvious reasons: we all have different tastes in life. You cannot just say that it's the haters fault, it's as much the fanboys fault as it is theirs.

I don't feel strongly about Radiohead either way, but it is always funny to hear people offer opinions as though they are matters of fact... endless, fruitless debate is the inevitable result.

 

[ojnihs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleestack I don't feel strongly about Radiohead either way, but it is always funny to hear people offer opinions as though they are matters of fact... endless, fruitless debate is the inevitable result.

Couldn't agree more. After being here for quite a while, I've noticed more and more recently that people can't take other people's opinions for what they are: opinions. It ends up creating these long threads of people bickering back and forth about why each and every one of the opinions in the thread is wrong. It's one of the reasons that I don't come around here very much anymore, as well with the fact that there is an ever increasing number of inane posts.

As for Radiohead, I cannot stand listening to them. I tried to listen to them, but I'd rather listen to nails on a chalkboard, it makes me cringe less.

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang OK Computer is quite good. The rest of their albums (despite trying hard to 'get into' Radiohead) are still mediocre in my opinion. I admire their musicianship and Thom Yorke's singing, but I feel they meander just too much. No matter how hard you try and get away from it, a "popular" tune stays with you. Mozart wrote "catchy" tunes. Beethoven wrote 'memorable melodies'. If you can't write something people will hum going out of the theater, you've missed the point of making music, IMO. Especially in the rock genre. There's an art and a magic to writing a memorable song. I hear a really old song like "Shine" or whatever from the 20s jazz period, or an old Gershwin tune and go, "Oh, yeah, that's a great song." Way before my time and not even in genres I like, but their still a joy to hear and make you want to sing along. Anyway, don't underestimate the skill of crafting a solid pop song. Take for example, say a song like, oh, 'Creep'....without which, no one would have ever heard of Radiohead.

It's my perception, albeit a not very well backed up one, that sometimes people seem to believe that "catchiness" is a negative quality and in order for music to be good it must be very strange, with a difficult to discern melody or theme, unusual sound effects, and also it must not be popular.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

[new yorker] There's something very particular about the chords of your songs. You hold a single tone and skate from one chord to another unexpectedly. [thom york] Yeah, that's my only trick. I've got one trick and that's it, and I'm really going to have to learn a new one. Pedals, banging away through everything. I just find it really nice, because things can pull and push against it. I don't know many chords, and what I do know is from guitar playing—to approach playing piano after playing guitar is quite peculiar. I'm not worried about filling up the chord, and I really like the low, fat sound. I don't like the high stuff at all.

Well, Thom York spells out why I don't find Radiohead involving whatsoever. No argument there.

Also, K2Grey is right about catchy songs. Writing one is difficult, and even those capable seem to go through a period of brilliance before settling into mediocrity. And the catchy stuff lasts. Look at the classical favorites, they all are compelling that way. Same with traditional folk songs that have been around for centuries. And, more recently, the reason why talentless rappers have to sample hooks from real musicians.

 

[taoster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik Well, Thom York spells out why I don't find Radiohead involving whatsoever. No argument there.

don't get it.

maybe this is more your flavour 2+2=5