Where exactly did Radiohead go wrong?
- Thread starter JCurr
- Start date
Shouldn't be so shocking. The albums have been much more rhythm focused since Ok Computer. Not as emotion evoking in any sense, save Kid A.
Funny how we expect so much from bands. Radiohead produced two of the best albums of the 90s. Is it realistic to expect them to write the best albums of the noughties too? Even the Beatles creative burst only lasted about 6 years. There haven't been many or even any bands who have continued to make groundbreaking albums over the course of 10-15 years.
Fair point. But that lends some credence to my argument. The Beatles created seven of the best rock records in history within the span of five years, from '65 to '69. Radiohead has only released seven LPs over a span of fifteen years. Note my using the term released as they've created much more material which wasn't released for one reason or another, namely the subject matter up for discussion. Over ten years after releasing a classic rock opera, they've been doing little but banging their heads against a wall of pretentiousness if you ask me.
I'd argue that. Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Abbey Road. Possibly the White Album, although that has far too much clutter on it for it to be a classic album in my view. I can't agree that Let It Be, Help, Magical Mystery Tour, Hard Day's Night are of the best rock records in history.
Also, that's the Beatles for you. You can't judge every rock band against the Beatles, it's not fair. And don't forget the Beatles put out a fair bit of shit, both as a group and in their solo records.
I wasn't arguing Let It Be or Hard Day's Night. But I'll argue Help(my favorite) and Mystery Tour all day. Speaking from a general sentiment standpoint, the unanimously acclaimed classics of the moptops are(in chronological order) Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road.
In my opinion, Abbey Road is the weakest of the lot. But of course, that's preference. You are right. Not every band should be judged by the Beatles' catalogue. But Radiohead isn't just any band.
In my opinion, Abbey Road is the weakest of the lot. But of course, that's preference. You are right. Not every band should be judged by the Beatles' catalogue. But Radiohead isn't just any band.
Shit. Forgot about Sgt. Pepper's....
What's more impressive is that those seven records were made in succession.
Irony.
You might want to read the whole thread before you take the first page and a half or so seriously...
On the serious RedNome, you think Radiohead are above criticism?
But they did. Alot of Kid A and Amnesiac is holdover from the Ok Computer batch of songs. Hail to the Thief as well. They just chose to change the sound. From The Bends to Ok Computer was a giant leap and a natural one at that. They weren't feasibly going to make that progress again. It's one thing to progress and change, for argument's sake as the Beatles did from Help to Pepper's to the White Album. But to force the sound the way they did was contrived. That's the point. I think they lost the plot at that point. No one's asking them to pump out tired shite like the Stones did. But feck, just do what comes naturally.
Pretty sure i've proven myself so yes, irony it is.
I'm still awaiting an opinion from you on what we've discussed without any influence from birth control.
No need to prove yourself mate. No birth control in sight. Refresh me. What've I not addressed?
Who are you to say that they aren't doing exactly that?
and contrived? In what way exactly? Making the music they wanted to make at that point in time, is that contrived?
Anyway, to me you come across as the typical early doors Radiohead fan who has, to their bitterness, been left behind by the bands natural progression.
Maybe it's you that has the problem, not them.
So your answer is yes then I guess, Nomes. They are above criticism. Beyond analysis. No questioning the all knowing and all powerful Thom Yorke...
But back to reality, the truth of the matter is you are a Radiohead fanboy who think they can do no wrong. That's fine. I've run into many like you. But don't go telling me I've been 'left behind' or calling me bitter because I expected more out of the most talented band of our time after the greatest record of our time(or my time anyway, don't know how old you are). Progress is relative. If you honestly think Yorke listening to Remain in Light until his ears bled after Ok in an effort to spawn new ideas was progress, you've no idea of the history of music. Electronic drums... Synthesizers... Progress? It's been done, my friend. The 80's already happened. Your favorite band lost its soul in the name of 'What will everyone think of us?'
But back to reality, the truth of the matter is you are a Radiohead fanboy who think they can do no wrong. That's fine. I've run into many like you. But don't go telling me I've been 'left behind' or calling me bitter because I expected more out of the most talented band of our time after the greatest record of our time(or my time anyway, don't know how old you are). Progress is relative. If you honestly think Yorke listening to Remain in Light until his ears bled after Ok in an effort to spawn new ideas was progress, you've no idea of the history of music. Electronic drums... Synthesizers... Progress? It's been done, my friend. The 80's already happened. Your favorite band lost its soul in the name of 'What will everyone think of us?'
My answer to the first question would be that no one is above critism, although both you and myself are in no position to be telling any band what they should and shouldn't be producing music wise.
I'm a fan yes, a 'fanboy'? not sure what the definition of that would be. I was open enough not to have a little hissy fit when I heard Kid A for the first time and realised that OK computer wasn't going to get regurgitated for the closed mind radio listening public, and gave it the chance is deserved, I'm so glad I did.
As for the bolded bit, it's drenched in bitterness, I have nothing but respect for what they've done throughout their career, they didn't take the easy route, they risked alienating everyone with the direction they went in after OK and lost a lot of fans in the process, including 'Music History 101' bores like yourself, for that I am thankfull.
Who the feck is telling anyone what to play or write? The realm of opinion is where musicians and writers live and die.
And as for the bolded shite... Laddy, do not go at me as if I'm some close minded prick. I've been playing music since I was a wee little fella. Music has been my life as long as I've known or cared to know what life is. I've forgotten more about music than most my age have cared to learn. Suffice to say, you're coming off quite a bit cynical boy. The irony of your nonsensical post is that I was absolutely in love with Kid A as well as Amnesiac upon their release. In fact I was in a band composed of nothing but synthesizers save for a bass guitar at the time, which was run through a micro synthesizer. More 80's in persuasion. But Kid A turned our ears for the better. However, in the grand scheme of things, one must remember that it took three long years for them to release the followup to Ok due to their conflicted discarding of brilliant tracks like Big Boots due to their being 'boring'. This from the same band who've released two records in the past eight years. But go on with your progress talk.
You're a fecking tool, the hilarity of you saying that with all the tosh you've been spurting out in this thread. You, "laddy", just come across as an arrogant cnut who thinks because he's played and listened to lots of music, that his opinion is of a far higher ratio than anyone else on here.I've played music, been in a band, bla bla bla, but that doesn't mean I am more worthy of saying stuff about Radiohead or other bands than other people. Big fecking deal, everyone has their tastes, just because you don't like Radiohead as much anymore doesn't mean we shouldn't. And to be honest, from what's been said in this thread, you're on your own with that mate.
Almost any Radiohead fan that I know loves In Rainbows, it's a fantastic album, and to call it background music is ludicrous.
Now seriously, if you can't have a proper discussion then go take your self righteous bollocks somewhere else.
I've played music, been in a band, bla bla bla, but that doesn't mean I am more worthy of saying stuff about Radiohead or other bands than other people. Big fecking deal, everyone has their tastes, just because you don't like Radiohead as much anymore doesn't mean we shouldn't. And to be honest, from what's been said in this thread, you're on your own with that mate.
Almost any Radiohead fan that I know loves In Rainbows, it's a fantastic album, and to call it background music is ludicrous.
Now seriously, if you can't have a proper discussion then go take your self righteous bollocks somewhere else.
Jog on. I've not said I don't love Radiohead. In fact, I called them the best band in the world. This whole discussion is based on the pretense of comparing Radiohead from the release of Ok Computer, which I might add I called the greatest record of the 90's, until now. If you can't understand that, feck off. I never said I hated In Rainbows. It's a very good album. But compared to the celestial heights of a decade ago, it pales in comparison. So all you numpties making excuses for Thom and his narcissism in the name of progress can take solace in the fact that you can believe whatever you'd like to... But that doesn't make it true. I'm trying to open your eyes, poor deary. Wake up now.
Did I mention Ok Computer? No, I didn't, probably means I agreed with you on that, no?
I never said you did, Christ, learn how to read.
Here in lies your problem though, you've said on numerous occasions that Ok Computer is the best album of the last 20 years (I'd completely agree with you on that), so to expect Radiohead to make another album like that is almost outrageous. Thom pretty much admitted himself that it's nigh on impossible.
Personally, I'm just happy that Radiohead can still make great albums, which is what In Rainbows and Kid A are. They're great, not on the level of Ok Computer, but feck me, I'm not expecting them to be.
Here you go again with your bullshit. I can say that to you too, it's called opinion you muppet, not fact. The irony of your comments really is hilarious at times.
"Jog on"? How about feck off.
If Radiohead had made 'Ok Computer 2' then I get the feeling JCurr would be slagging them off saying they got complacent and, after progressing from The Bends to Ok Computer, have decided to 'play it safe'.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I rate Kid A on a par with Ok Computer. And In Rainbows only a tiny tiny bit behind.
Quite a poor response to someone trying to learn you something. This is no childish bickering contest. Take your own advice and feck off if you can't carry on a decent discussion.
What is this totally objective, universal, JCurr-endorsed, relative scale of good music? I wish I had a copy because it seems my opinions are wrong.
Learn me something? No thanks, I'm happy to enjoy the music I like rather than whine about it because I'm superior to everyone else in my music knowledge.
More irony there, the whole thread you've been acting like an absolute cock to people, you haven't been discussing anything, you've been pointing out "facts" and non-sensical tripe. But of course, you were drunk weren't you, so that's irrelevant...
Ignorance is bliss, friend.
If you're calling me a Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime because I know that your opinion that I'd be unhappy over another Okish record had it been made is off base, I can quite capably and within reason tell you you're wrong.
If you're rating Kid A along with Ok Computer and semi-sort of lumping In Rainbows in the conversation, everyone will tell you you're wrong.
Wonderful response, you sure did get me good there.
Anyway, I'm done, there's no point 'discussing' this with you, your reasoning is just too ridiculous.
JCurr - I would just like to point out that your location seems to be incorrect
It must be too PROGRESSIVE.
I would agree with you if it were listed as arrogant cnut.
Everyone can if they want, that wouldn't make it so. Art isn't judged by consensus. Otherwise we'd end up with some middle of the road, please everyone type shit. X-factor I guess.
Rating Kid A along with OK is quite popular, isn't it?
I think we should all share this campaign.
I stopped buying Radiohead albums at OK Computer. No conscious decision, just by the time the next one came out (was it Kid A ?) all I was buying was Studio One reggae and ska. Maybe one day I will sample their later stuff but I'm in no particular rush.
Laddy?
I'm older than you sunshine.But anyway, just time for me to call you a condecending prick and exit this pointless conversation for good. I would have walked away from you along time ago in real life so not sure why I'm bothering on here.
Good night sweety xxx
I expected nothing less in discussing this. Maybe just one of will come good some day however.
This ignorance that makes you think ok computer is the best one?
Its musically juvenile for a start, its a progression from the bends, as the bends was a progression from pablo honey. you can see the 1+1+1 of it, yet kid a was a sea change from that - and a welcome one.
Lucky is the standout track of the album, paranoid android, while being "the long song" is still pretty good - but its a little forced sounding to me.
Seriously - if you are banging on about how you are such and such a musician you would notice that ok computer is musically simple and in terms of progression is now massively dated. Just listen to the complexity in rainbows and you will understand.