Nevermind isn't even Nirvana's best record. More influential than Ok Computer, sure. But not better in any sense. You're choosing a record which went back to basics over a concept record which made wicked clever use of technology after calling Ok Computer dated. Which is it then?
Where exactly did Radiohead go wrong?
- Thread starter JCurr
- Start date
Nevermind isn't even Nirvana's best record. More influential than Ok Computer, sure. But not better in any sense. You're choosing a record which went back to basics over a concept record which made wicked clever use of technology after calling Ok Computer dated. Which is it then?
hehe, im illustrating the point that the word better is ridiculous.
bring on the counter troll!
Dont bother
I thought I'd contribute to this thread with this brilliant song.
Over and out.
Over and out.
You do talk a lot of shite - just a few posts ago you were going on about how it is all about the 'fecking songs' and thats it isnt about being clever with technology - now you say the complete opposite.
Which is it then?
whats wrong with you big girls (particularly jcurr). ffs, no one is better qualified to comment on music than anyone else. music is unique to an individual and aural percptions and tatses will differ.
IMO the bends will never be bettered by RH, whats the point in arguing about it, as its my opinion. it matters to me and should not matter to you. some of you might like biting the heads of bats to a bit of black sabbath where as other will like to knock out a little wank in the shower to justin timberlake.it's what YOUR into. fair play
whether some one has a music degree or 2,000 cd's, plays in a band, or is just an opionated cnut (yes you jcurr) it gives them no right to say they are better qualified about judging someone elses personal opinion. look at it this way, it is possible that we might not even hear music(or any sound for that matter) the same as the next man. It is the case with viewing colours, or taste buds for instance.
also music is a generation thing. even if there is only 3-4 years between parties in a music arguement it can influence their decisions and opinions. i grew up with the bends, a kid of 18-20 will not have done, therefore ok or kid or rainbows will be more appealing to them and they will have been around when the album was hyped by mass media. so girls, get yer knickers out of a twist and respec' each other opinions.
that is all. god bless
IMO the bends will never be bettered by RH, whats the point in arguing about it, as its my opinion. it matters to me and should not matter to you. some of you might like biting the heads of bats to a bit of black sabbath where as other will like to knock out a little wank in the shower to justin timberlake.it's what YOUR into. fair play
whether some one has a music degree or 2,000 cd's, plays in a band, or is just an opionated cnut (yes you jcurr) it gives them no right to say they are better qualified about judging someone elses personal opinion. look at it this way, it is possible that we might not even hear music(or any sound for that matter) the same as the next man. It is the case with viewing colours, or taste buds for instance.
also music is a generation thing. even if there is only 3-4 years between parties in a music arguement it can influence their decisions and opinions. i grew up with the bends, a kid of 18-20 will not have done, therefore ok or kid or rainbows will be more appealing to them and they will have been around when the album was hyped by mass media. so girls, get yer knickers out of a twist and respec' each other opinions.
that is all. god bless
What's a better book
Spot the Dog or Oliver Twist?
What's a better film
The Shawshank Redemption or Sister Act 2?
What's a better song
Eat to the beat - Fast food rockers or The Clash - London Calling
Jcurr in this thread
sublime stuff
sublime stuff
some of us can spot a subtlety that may pull a heart string, it doesn't have to be part of a fanfare, when your balls drop come back and we'll talk, by then your 'facts' may approach knowledge, until then turn your amp up , because , after all maybe the purity of a child's outlook is the best.
Jcurr in this thread
sublime stuff
He thinks he writes the history books and is the only critic / purchaser of music
Well is the Shw Red better than Sis Act?
For You ? For me ? For millions of others ?
By what criteria do you hail one as being 'better' than the other? Its not as if a billion people thought Shaw Red was fantastic and a billion thought Sis Act was shite is it ? If you dont get into deep vilolent and heavily, emotional movies then Sister Act is for you and judging Sis Act for what it is makes it a good film
'Picasso is shite but Leonardo is a genius' If you dont happen to like modern art / painting then that could be true for you. However I like modern art and for me its not so and therefore it doe'snt make Leonardo shite either does it? they're poles apart but both fantastic artists / thinkers
There is no real fundamental 'better' in artistic endeavour
btw I prefer Shawshank meself and I'm a fan of the Clash
Lost, all of you...
Poor form, lads. You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? But would I even be discussing the record if the songs weren't there? Well done!
That made less sense than my baby formula-induced posts earlier in this thread.
You astound me, JCurr, with the increasing level of cuntishness that occurs with each new post of yours.
Even I'm impressed.
Even I'm impressed.
!!You are crazy if you seriously think that, look at any of Vai's live performances and you will see that what you just write was very spasticated.
Complete and utter bollocks. Anyone who would ascribe to your hypothetical would have to be down syndrome. And while calling Picasso better than Leonardo would be fecking stupid as they are worlds apart and bring different things to the table, there is absolutely a fundamental 'better' in any artistic endeavor. Would anyone with a respectable knowledge of art say Andy Warhol is superior to Pablo Picasso? In like mind, would you call Stephen King a finer writer than Kurt Vonnegut? Anyone here who would say there is a better modern director than Stanley Kubrick? The same is so for music.
You are crazy if you seriously think that, look at any of Vai's live performances and you will see that what you just write was very spasticated.
He's not so far off. Vai is a chronic masturbator, his guitar being his dick.
But back to Radiohead, I knew this would go over about as well as insulting Gerrard on RAWK. But the truth of the matter is that fame conquered them. They've now slipped into the realm of the 80's Rolling Stones. There's no carrot to chase. Nothing to motivate them. They come out of their fat cat houses to make a record or play a show when they feel like making some dough. There's no sense of surprise, no anticipation for me anymore even. They've concocted their formula for making records and adhere to it with everything they do. From the artwork to the instrumentation to the melodies. They are no longer the best band on earth. They are now every other band. But call it whatever you like.
does your mammy not give you the attention you need?
where they ever?
Resorting to wummery then I guess.
Stupid question. But yes(since apparently you'd like a history lesson), Cobain's death in '94 followed by the release of The Bends in '95 made the realm of popular opinion pretty unanimous. Ok Computer then left nothing up for debate in '97.
JCurr, I think you disrespect the freedom of expression that makes art what it is. I quite liked The Bends, one of my favourite albums of the 90s - some fantastic songs on there, the rawness, the melodies, the emotions, the sounds, all worked very well to give an overall feeling that I felt I could identify with. Obviously this was echoed by a fair few other people, as it was quite a popular album.
OK Computer, didn't do it for me so much. The quality of the songwriting was still clearly good, there were some great tunes there, but the overall feeling of the record didn't strike as much of a chord with me. I could offer some suggestions why, but they're just my reasons - they're not up for debate. Obviously the album had a far greater effect on a lot of other people, and they've got their reasons. And as much as I'm interested in hearing what those reasons are, I'm still going to have my own feelings at the end of the day.
OK Computer, didn't do it for me so much. The quality of the songwriting was still clearly good, there were some great tunes there, but the overall feeling of the record didn't strike as much of a chord with me. I could offer some suggestions why, but they're just my reasons - they're not up for debate. Obviously the album had a far greater effect on a lot of other people, and they've got their reasons. And as much as I'm interested in hearing what those reasons are, I'm still going to have my own feelings at the end of the day.
First, let me say that's a fair post. But as for the bolded, I'm not disrespecting or even addressing freedom of expression in any way, shape or form. Expression comes from the artist. Artists are free to express themselves however they like. However, once that act of creation is finished... criticism, whether good or bad. But your reasons for liking or not liking or being moved or not are certainly your own. I'd not argue you on that level for an instant. That's not the level I've been arguing on. If you like or feel some semblance of sympathy for The Bends rather than Ok Computer, that is preference. For that, I'd never fault you or anyone else(would have to question you if it were In Rainbows however). That said, it's one thing to say you like The Bends better. It's quite another to say The Bends or any of the other Radiohead records are superior to Ok Computer. That is not preference. After all, it's not often that the entire lot of critics(cnuts the likes of which even I don't even begin to rival in terms of cuntishness) across the globe deem a record 'the second Dark Side of the Moon' before it's even released. There is a means of intellectual appraisal of music, of every element. And every element of Ok Computer was deemed not only fantastically realized and inspired but cutting edge. That is the difference. A classic. To say you don't prefer it over another record for emotional or personal reasons is one thing. But to deny that it is indeed what it is, one of the great rock records of all time, or call another of the lot superior is quite objectively wrong.
I do see what you're saying. And to an extent you may be right - OK Computer could probably be correctly classed as 'superior' than The Bends under a number of different headings, be it melodic complexity, structural complexity, lyrical ingenuity, or even record sales. However, under the heading of 'music', there is no general measure of better or worse.
If I compare Paranoid Android to a recording of a three year old plonking out 'three blind mice' on a broken piano, I could probably name a thousand different categories under which Paranoid Android would be classed as better. But if you played both recordings for the parents of the kid, there's a very good chance that they're going to prefer the supposedly less 'musically good' crashings and wailings of their child.
To give you a personal example of mine - I like some of the music of Daniel Johnston. I'm not sure if you know him, but he suffers pretty badly from psychosis, and records most of his music himself with just a guitar or piano, and an old cassette recorder. This can sound pretty lo-fi at best, and most people's first reaction would be to switch it off. Many of my friends in fact have - after I told one of them a little more about the guy, her reaction was "and they let him embarrass himself like that?", to which I replied "you think it's embarrassing, I think it's beautiful".
Put one of his albums next to OK Computer, and again, the Radiohead record would probably come out on top under most categories. However, if the sounds of the slightly unstable guy with the cheap tape recorder make more of an impact on me than OK Computer does, how can I honestly say that OK Computer is a superior work of art? I cant, and no one else can either, because art (including music) is created to make an impact on people - and without considering that impact, the art cannot be judged.
Fair play once again. I will not argue that albums such as Ok Computer or Dark Side of the Moon are out in the atmosphere to a certain degree. I quite like Daniel Johnston, for many reasons. I rather sympathize with him. We'll leave it at that. However, one of my favorite songwriters and musicians of all time is Elliott Smith. I think he might be a better example as Johnston is a bit of a musical anomaly. Smith is the better example I think because he recorded a very stripped down debut album similar in production to Johnston's stuff on an eight track in his basement. From there, he progressed both instrumentally and melodically as we all know or should know(check it out, numpties). He was actually criticized by the minds of music for being 'too Beatlesesque' with a couple of his later records, XO and Figure 8. Both brilliant records... great instrumentation, very mature sound. They'd have to be pretty brilliant for the main criticism to be 'too Beatlesesque'... But if you were to give me the desert island scenario, the one Elliott Smith album I'd have to take along would be the stripped down self-titled debut, with all of its trappings of limited instrumentation and lo-fi production. Obviously, that's an emotional choice. Some things are hard to explain. I was once in a cheeky and pompous looking back band called 'The Human Situation'. We certainly can't stop ourselves being human. But I don't think the desert island scenario is the be all end all barometer for judging music either. Emotion is certainly why we love music. It's fundamental. But the cultivation of that media counts for something as well. And brilliant cultivation paired with content worthy of moving us, I think that's the combination that creates classic rock records. Again, hard to explain. It is still an intellectual's approach to music. And I'll not pretend there aren't records closer to my heart. But feck, we have to have some means of judgement...
Nice shout on Elliott Smith!
As for the part in bold, though - I'm personally not sure we do. Obviously music critics have their uses - although I think their usefulness was far greater back when you had to buy an album before you'd had a chance to hear most of the tracks on it, and when your places to find new music were limited to a few radio stations and/or tv channels. These days you can just buy a single song if you like it rather than a whole LP or EP, and there are far more avenues to hear new music for yourself - and surely that's got to be a more natural musical journey for someone to take, rather than having someone else listen to a bunch of music and tell you what's good and what's not. Would you not agree? What would we gain from an absolute ranking system for music?
I'm also unsure about your use of the word intellectual in this - sure, the more you understand about music the more you can enjoy the deeper complexities of a well written intricate arrangement. But is music really intended to be a form of entertainment which only the properly experienced and learned can truly appreciate? Is a really technically profound piece of music "amazingly good", or is it just "amazingly good for those who appreciate the details and technicalities of music"?
I'm guessing what you're thinking about OK Computer is that it had appeal for a wide range of people - radiohead fans, non radiohead fans, the musically inclined and the non musically inclined. It means that it had a resonance with a lot of people at the time of release - making it somewhat of a soundtrack for that time. But since a different musical relationship occurs between a performer and each set of listening ears, there can't be any true declarations of best or worst, only personal preferences.
Sorry to say but some music just isn't for the general public. You don't honestly think a fencepost influential album like Psychocandy was aimed at the general public, do you? No, the lads were onto to something. They had something to offer. Some albums of this ilk say 'feck all of you' some say 'here, this is the next step'... The most popular of these which ended up saying both after all saw its creator put a shotgun in his mouth over the mindfeck of actually becoming an icon, mind. Not everything that is put to tune is looking for popularity. Of course, I'm not blowing your mind here. You know this. But, there is a definitive response to your argument. I hate that it's so cheap, but reality is sometimes the greatest teacher... In the States, there is a new cult. The clan is composed of 40ish-somethings who swear by Jon Bon Jovi and every other useless fecking hairband from the 80's. They would go to war for the shite. They don't even know new wave happened. Quite obviously, these aren't the smartest fellows you'll come across. But their reasons for thinking this are just as valid as yours. They sympathize with it. It affects them emotionally. Relation and emotion. So, in short, there have to be parameters. There have to be some standards to which we look to judge any and all art. If we were to go by affection alone, you and I might as well start on our mullets and Radiohead could just as well be Poison.
oh dear
I think you'll find you've probably just closed this thread !
He is right though.
This is the best page of the thread so far.
MrK is putting forward excellent points, i'll let him off the neutral milk hotel sounding tagline.
You don't like NMH?
really not.
but its an opinion
but its an opinion
Just checking. I have to work now, so I'm not going to start a fight. Yet.
Christ, isn't this done yet?
I find it hard to understand why someone who thinks Radiohead made one of the best albums of all time would make a thread called 'Where exactly did Radiohead go wrong?'
You seem very confused JCurr - a lot of what you say is very cliched and your posts contain a lot of contradictory ideas - a long way from the higher interlectual level you believe you are on - in time you will realise what a deluded muppet you have been.
You seem very confused JCurr - a lot of what you say is very cliched and your posts contain a lot of contradictory ideas - a long way from the higher interlectual level you believe you are on - in time you will realise what a deluded muppet you have been.
He wont though, there's no way he'll be climbing down from that self made pedestal - ever
He's built it so high..... its a long fking way to fall
I've already explained exactly where they went wrong, why and how. Read. As for your vague assertions, weak.
He wont though, there's no way he'll be climbing down from that self made pedestal - ever
He's built it so high..... its a long fking way to fall
I'm content to sit atop my perch. If any of yous could actually make a decent point to refute, that'd be one thing. But I know it's not going to happen. This is no longer a fight. I'm trying to help you son.
I mostly agree with you. When I said this:
I didn't mean to sound like I was putting down technical proficiency in music creation. It can still be amazingly good for those that understand it - or if it's really well done, it can appeal to many more people than that. But I'm just saying that's because it's more technically adept, it doesn't make it generally better.
Of course some music isn't for the general public - like the 3 year old child, her only fans are likely to be her parents, but if they get something from hearing her play, you can't say it isn't art or music. Likewise, Psychocandy will have had an impact on a fair number of people - and those particular people may say it had a profoundly big impact on them. But that doesn't make it 'better' than anything else. For some random person at the other side of the world who knows nothing of the context of the album, and doesn't really identify with it - the album won't be anything special. This doesn't make it 'worse' than anything else. And this is why you can't have overall bests and worsts in music, because at the end of the day no two minds in the world are the same, and music is interpreted by those minds, so the music can't be exactly the same for any two people.
Your story about the ageing Jovi heads pretty much exemplifies my point; does the fact that these guys are so passionate about Bon Jovi mean that you and I are wrong to not like them? Does the effect Bon Jovi's music has on these guys make their albums 'better' than, say, Bob Dylan's albums, whose fans I haven't seen act quite so hysterically?
There are no absolutes, we don't have to be influenced by what other people think, feel or do when it comes to music.
cheers mate, each to his own!I mostly agree with you. When I said this:
I didn't mean to sound like I was putting down technical proficiency in music creation. It can still be amazingly good for those that understand it - or if it's really well done, it can appeal to many more people than that. But I'm just saying that's because it's more technically adept, it doesn't make it generally better.
Of course some music isn't for the general public - like the 3 year old child, her only fans are likely to be her parents, but if they get something from hearing her play, you can't say it isn't art or music. Likewise, Psychocandy will have had an impact on a fair number of people - and those particular people may say it had a profoundly big impact on them. But that doesn't make it 'better' than anything else. For some random person at the other side of the world who knows nothing of the context of the album, and doesn't really identify with it - the album won't be anything special. This doesn't make it 'worse' than anything else. And this is why you can't have overall bests and worsts in music, because at the end of the day no two minds in the world are the same, and music is interpreted by those minds, so the music can't be exactly the same for any two people.
Your story about the ageing Jovi heads pretty much exemplifies my point; does the fact that these guys are so passionate about Bon Jovi mean that you and I are wrong to not like them? Does the effect Bon Jovi's music has on these guys make their albums 'better' than, say, Bob Dylan's albums, whose fans I haven't seen act quite so hysterically?
There are no absolutes, we don't have to be influenced by what other people think, feel or do when it comes to music.
I knew you weren't belittling the technical aspects. I was just putting a different spin on it. Context is everything. Fair shout about the lad who listens to Psychocandy half way across the globe. But again, his opinion of that record in no way affects what that record actually is or its quality. I listen to music from across the globe. Some I like, some I could care less about. But I don't pretend that my knowledge stretches across cultures or that I am charged to judge a particular musical movement from a country or people whose day to day lives I could never understand. We're discussing pop music here. It's impossible to compare pop music to classical or cultural music. And the little girl wailing away at the toy piano is just that, a little girl wailing away at a toy piano. To call it music is highly debatable. To call it art is just plain wrong. As for the bolded, you're putting the appreciator before the creator and the media itself. I argue that you're allowing the realm of public opinion affect you more than I. The question should be are they wrong. And the answer is yes. And the reason is very plain and very simple. Motive. Numpties the likes of these have the affinity for whatever shite they do purely out of relation. The emotion is there simply because the music which they hold dear was created while they were young lads in school. I think you'd agree that is a shite reason for liking or not liking something. There's no exploration. No questioning. Just relation and acceptance. So yes, there are absolutes. There have to be. And there are standards of judgement by which those absolutes are measured. There have to be.