Wow. Ok Computer, dated. Well, I guess by your logic then Steve Vai and Joe Satriani must be the greatest things to ever happen to rock music. By your admission then, Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan along with the rest of the meaningful country/folk music of the past might as well all burn.
Where exactly did Radiohead go wrong?
- Thread starter JCurr
- Start date
Wow. Ok Computer, dated. Well, I guess by your logic then Steve Vai and Joe Satriani must be the greatest things to ever happen to rock music. By your admission then, Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan along with the rest of the meaningful country/folk music of the past might as well all burn.
The point is songs, folks. It's not about dissident progressions or sparse artificial noises. It's about the fecking songs. It's not about being cheeky or being smarter than anyone else. It's about recording good songs. And while Radiohead's last few offerings have certainly been fully realized, they haven't been inspired to the same degree. Not even close. Once again, forced.
Been listening to Radiohead quite a bit lately, before I saw this thread, but I'd never heard Kid A until reading this thread. I really like it on first listen... should I get Pablo Honey or Amnesiac next? I heard Hail to the Thief isn't that good, right?
If you came to Radiohead late and like their Post-'Ok Computer' work, then 'Pablo Honey' will most likely disappoint. 'Amnesiac' is mostly in the same vein to Kid A, but not as coherent albeit with some amazing individual tracks.
'Hail to the Thief' is underrated in my opinion and just suffers slightly from being a couple of tracks too long.
'Hail to the Thief' is underrated in my opinion and just suffers slightly from being a couple of tracks too long.
I wasnt aware Radiohead had gone wrong.
no steve vai et al play without feeling.
ok computer is on the same vein as like space and kula shaker. Kid A was their real breakthrough album into doing something actually progressive. Again, now it is old hat. Its still good, but you are ascribing some kind of timeless quality to ok computer which it doesnt hold. Its a pretty good britpop album, slightly pushing at the upper boundaries of it but still a clear derivative of the bends - which is exactly the kind of middle of the road goodness that people listen to everywhere - the snow patrols and coldplays of the day.
Anyone can write "fecking songs"
The days of writing "fecking songs" are numbered.
I'll disagree with you there. Writing a good 'pop' song that doesn't sound clichéd is not easy.
Music is about personal preference lads... once something strikes a chord (excuse the pun) with someone then its all gravy...
Basing your opinion of a song on who has written or performed, or what 'genre' they fit into it is unbelievably stupid.
Also its no ones place to tell someone else what they should or shouldnt like or listen to... immense amount of shite in this thread...
Basing your opinion of a song on who has written or performed, or what 'genre' they fit into it is unbelievably stupid.
Also its no ones place to tell someone else what they should or shouldnt like or listen to... immense amount of shite in this thread...
Yes but who are you to decide what makes a good 'song'?
Many people think Kid A is as good or even better than OK Computer and some think that The Bends or In Rainbows is the best album - their opinion is as valid as yours.
Ive read all your comments here and you obviously think you are some kind of musical guru but to be honest I think you talk a lot of bollocks and most of the time i dont even understand what point you are trying to make.
pretty much agree - i think we've covered this.
do you still hold this maxim for daphne and celeste?
Which album did you start off with?
Think I might give them a listen to see what all the fuss is about.
Nah, just popular.
Its really hard for me not to be an elitist cnut about music - i'm aware of it at least! I think my opinions on music are more valid than the average joe on the street, but i put that down to experience.
hmmm i feel a spin off coming
if you have never heard any then start with The Bends or OK Computer
Well the general consensus is that Ok Computer is their best. I'd recommend The Bends or Pablo Honey first though, they'll give a good indication as to what they're like, the albums after that, such as Ok Computer and In Rainbows, are different, but in the same context, and probably better, if that makes any sort of sense at all.
Hard to explain, but feck it, listen to The Bends!
Start with The Bends, then go chronologically (leave Pablo Honey until later).
Whatever floats yer boat...
My music collection ranges from Hank Williams to Panthera... Nina Simone to Fatboy Slim
Righto, the bends it is!
Are you listening, Dwayne?
yeah i like all that stuff too. but there is an inherent goodness to it. see my other thread, i really would like to hear your input on it.
No, their opinion is not as valid as mine. Those many people you speak of are wrong, period. This is not a matter of what someone may like or not like. There is right and there is wrong. Preference refers to how much you enjoy something. Lends nothing to appreciation or understanding. Music is due far more than that petty approach.
You might want to lower your self perception, mate. Of all the elitist cnuts I know including myself, not one thinks Ok Computer is just another record. To say Kid A is more impressive is stupid. But to say the best record of a decade isn't timeless is pure foolishness.
Why anyone is telling you to start out with anything other than Pablo Honey is beyond me. When giving a first listen to a band the quality of Radiohead, chronological is the only way to go. The progression is much more enjoyable that way. And it's not as if Pablo Honey is a bad record. Just adolescent at this point.
I agree 100%. Best way to go is chronological.
Jesus christ.
It is, actually. It's terrible. The most amazing thing about Radiohead is how they went from that slab of shit to OK and Kid A.
A bit harsh I think. Pretty college to be sure. But debut albums often are. You have to appreciate it for what it is.
so they release a couple of hit rock/pop records and that's where how athey are categorised in HMV but they can change their sound as they see fit.
as for it being background music , it may not have large isloated chords but it's not background music , and your assertion that it is makes a mockery of the pseudo intellectual bollocks you spouted i this thread
so they release a couple of hit rock/pop records and that's where how athey are categorised in HMV but they can change their sound as they see fit.
as for it being background music , it may not have large isloated chords but it's not background music , and your assertion that it is makes a mockery of the pseudo intellectual bollocks you spouted i this thread
This.
Moses, I very rarely disagree with you on these sorts of things.
Granted, that could be because fools seldom differ, but nonetheless...
so they release a couple of hit rock/pop records and that's where how athey are categorised in HMV but they can change their sound as they see fit.
as for it being background music , it may not have large isloated chords but it's not background music , and your assertion that it is makes a mockery of the pseudo intellectual bollocks you spouted i this thread
No. You just don't get the gist of what I'm saying. When I say it's more like background music, I'm addressing the fact that it tugs at none of the ole heart strings as past albums have. The movements aren't moving. The emotion isn't there. Not inspired, hence not inspiring. Jog on.
So which people are right? Just you and anyone who agrees with you?
The lines between preference/appreciation/understanding are not so clearly defined - you may have an interesting point in there somewhere but unfortunately it gets lost in all your pretentious bullshit.
There are gray areas. And to those who don't adhere to the pedestrian approach to music, I can be heard saying 'To each his own' now and again. But Ok Computer is not gray subject matter. It's become massively underappreciated amidst the love circus for the supposed pioneering Radiohead. Truth be told, they've done it on their own terms and that is admirable. But the motives are very questionable a decade later. And the songs just don't stand up given all the fuss combined with the time the band has taken between records.
Oh get fecked mate!!!
All i need - when that piano bit comes in before the cymbals
The reckoner - at the end with the rising violas.
oh wow, you make me look humble
Curious, I was addressing you with this post...
Meh. Take too fecking long those lads these days. In every way.
you must be a troll, and a really wonderful wonderful troll at that. Take a bow son!
to tell me to lower my self perception, when you've been spouting utter bollocks in this thread is laughable.
Secondly, ok computer isnt the best record of the decade, its nevermind. (lol)
to tell me to lower my self perception, when you've been spouting utter bollocks in this thread is laughable.
Secondly, ok computer isnt the best record of the decade, its nevermind. (lol)