Adzzz
Astrophysical Genius - Hard for Grinner
Are Radiohead not a current artist? Who are these current artists putting music together better than Radiohead?
Sounds like me!
Went through a phase where I loved Radiohead and thought they were the best thing since sliced bread, but moved on pretty early. Still thing they're a very good band, and their capacity to reinvent themselves with almost each album is a feat that shouldn't be underevaluated. So many bands just go through an entire career rehashing the same stuff (which isn't a crime in itself, by the way, just a fact), Radiohead really did take the "experimental music band" tag to heart and ran with it.
However, haven't listened to their discography in ages now, but thanks to this thread I think I'll delve back into it and see if I actually still enjoy their stuff.
They all wear black and white stripey jumpers though.
A lot of Radiohead is pretentious bollocks, but that is just too far for me. I grew out of the beret wearing, political t-shirts, "oh my god just listen to the ambience in this" student cuntery when I was 23.
MikeUpNorth thinks the dischordant ambient sounds in Bloom on KOL perfectly recreate the blooming aesthetic of nature. And that's why he's a dick.
Well it must be mind-blowingly amazing then. Recommendations?
Are Radiohead not a current artist? Who are these current artists putting music together better than Radiohead?
And vice versa. The National Anthem is one very simple - and after 5 minutes, very annoying - riff repeated ad infinitum, and ending with some absolute nonsense experimental bollocks. If it wasn't Radiohead, you'd hardly ever hear it brought up in the annals of musical importance.
I do really like Radiohead though, I think OK & Rainbows are masterpieces, and they certainly are one of the very best & most important bands of the last 20 years. I'm perfectly comfortable with their experimentation and that I think large chunks of it is absolute hornswaggle. Often literally. The end of National Anthem does actually sound like someone's swaggling some horns, violently, against their will.
Similarly I like Muse, although a lot less. It doesn't matter that I don't like certain tracks or that certain things are influenced by other things. Bands who can make enough good music in enough different styles should be afforded their indulgences.
Which is why the Stone Roses don't cut it fwiw.
Have you listened to any on my "if you don't like ANY of these you're a cnut" list on the previous page amol?
Did you work out whether you were a cnut or not?
None of them are from OK* or King of Limbs.
* Well the last one is, but that was more a Muse reference for Leroy than a cnut barometer.
I like a lot of Muse's stuff from their earlier albums too, and the Stone Roses (obviously). The Roses are definitely overrated, love what they've done but they aren't as good as the Smiths who were mentioned at the beginning.
Why would it be when I find Radiohead average?
There's quite a bit of good music out there right now. But I'm a huge huge Fleet Foxes fan. So they stand out from the rest in general, for me. But even otherwise I've liked lots of albums over the last few years. Some would be (other than fleet foxes):
Kurt Vile - Smoke Ring for My Halo
Joanna Newsom - Have one on me
Bon Iver - Bon Iver
The Decemberists - Love Live the King
Beach House - Bloom
The Lumineers - The Lumineers
The Tallest Man on Earth - There's No Leaving Now
Again, I don't find all of these amazing, but I like them all to different degrees. And I'm sure there's a lot more out there if I look harder. I'm very passionate about music but pretty selective about what I like.
Btw, I heard OK Computer and while I didn't love it I didn't find it bad. But the new Radiohead album was impossible for me to go through. I thought it was terrible. So I think first you need to realize that not everyone loves them. If you see that as someone's point of view, then the possibility of thinking other artists are doing better stuff is only to be expected rather than just believable.
Nickelback. Keep up, Adzzz.
I
Although I don't see the big deal. Music is all about personal taste. I'm sure a lot of people find the music I like boring and lacking "punch" or whatever words kids use these days.
I like all of those artists, and I love Fleet Foxes. Weirdly enough, Robin Pecknold has an account one of the Radiohead message boards or something but I don't think he be's on it that much anymore. I think it's atease.com. Remember reading an interview with him a while back about Radiohead. He was pretty obsessed by them.
Of course. The point about Radiohead though is that they've released a lot of very different material, so saying it's "all this that or the other" is more being ignorant than it is being subjective.
And I personally feel that regardless of taste, Bands who release a very disparate range of music and retain it's popularity can actually be called definitively better than ones who don't.
Everyone's overrated by their own fans though aren't they? Yeah proper Radiohead junkies will overplay their importance and the deepness of their experimentation, but they engender a lot of loyalty in the main because they are actually very, very good.
I
Strongly disagree. Popularity is no measure for me personally when I rate/compare music. Kanye West can experiment all he wants. I find his music a load of crap. Tons of unheralded artists that piss all over his stuff which I barely consider music.
You can't say S Club 7 were better than the Beatles for example, because it's nonsense. You can say you like them more, but you can't say they're better. Even in something as subjective as music there are levels of quality, technical, influential or otherwise that defy your subjectivity.
Of course, that's an extreme case. But we're talking about music that is generally thought of very highly. The stuff I'm saying is better than Radiohead isn't technically deficient music at all.
And I'm not saying it isn't, just making a point about the old "all art is subjective" get out clause you seem to be using a lot. Extreme cases often show the absurdity of it. I can't draw 2 squilley lines on my foot and go "Well you can't tell me that's not better than Van Gough's Sunflowers because all Art is subjective"
Nah, I do agree with that. I'm extremely passionate about music anyway. So I'm not going to take kindly to someone saying Britney Spears is as good as Fleet Foxes due to it being their preference. feck em.
I do agree that when the level of proficiency, or sustained quality, or whatever isn't ridiculously extreme, you can claim subjectivity. For example you're well within your rights to claim other bands are better than Radiohead, obviously. But I don't think you'd be able to say "Radiohead are crap" for example, and excuse that with it. They clearly aren't crap, in the same way that Constable clearly wasn't a crap painter, even if you really don't like his stuff.
Britney Spears is less pretentious than Fleet Foxes.
First we're going to look at who has the better looking lead singer
Fair play for the effort, Leroy.
I don't like Radiohead but Nickelback are absolutely terrible. This isn't even a contest. And that's no great praise for Radiohead. Nickelback make horrible, cliched commercial music with little or no depth. I'm sorry but it's awful.
Good stuff Leroy, looking forward to your Creed v. The Beatles breakdown.
That is so not true, I cleared that up here https://www.redcafe.net/12509165-post97.html