Where exactly did Radiohead go wrong?

[MrK]

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.

Of course the whole argument can get quite philosophical at this point. I'm a fan rather than a student of music (although I have studied the acoustics of music), but I know that there's a fair bit of debate over how you define music. Maybe the child at the piano isn't art in the wider sense, but I stick by my assertion that it is music. Is the time signature a bit off? Well time signatures are a human invention. Is it out of tune? Scales and modes are also human inventions. Try some microtonal music - it uses notes that don't even exist as a standalone entity in common western music, so it may sound a bit weird to people like us, but that's just because we're used to hearing music based on our western scales and modes.

John Cage's 4'33 was a musical piece from 1952. It consists of 4 minutes 33 seconds of pure silence. The music is the sounds of your environment as you listen to it. Is it art? yes. It it music? Well, probably, yes - it's art through sound. If over four and a half minutes of silence is art and music, how can the childs thrashings not be?

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.

And there is the bone of contention. To my mind, they can't be wrong. How can you discount where their attachment to the music comes from? One of the strongest grips music has on people is that memories can get attached to it - so hearing a song can make you remember a happy or sad time that you associate with that song. This strong property of music can't be disregarded. On top of that, there must have been something about Bon Jovi's music that made them identify with it at the time they were in school - it can't all be down to it being created when they were young and impressionable, something about it had to have made it more popular than the other music of the time.


Can you give me and idea of how you first got into Radiohead? Many Radiohead fans i've spoken to have been of a similar age to me, with Radiohead peaking in popularity when they were in their mid to late teens. OK Computer was released, and for them it blew everything else out of the water - very little else they had heard before that made so much sense to them. None can put their finger on why exactly this album worked so well for them.

In twenty years time there could be a revival of ageing Radiohead fans, extolling over and over the virtues of OK Computer just like you've been. I can tell you that if that time comes, the younger generation of that future time for the most part just aren't going to get it. Nothing about the album will have changed, but this future generation will have no experience of the context. Like other classic albums it'll still be held in high regard, possibly even across all generations, but it's just not going to be as effective as it was for the people who were there at that time. So I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that, I don't feel the Bon Jovi fans have shite reasons, or are wrong in their choices.

 

[Rood]

I've already explained exactly where they went wrong, why and how. Read. As for your vague assertions, weak.

Ive read everyword of this thread - some of it is actually quite interesting but as I said, I find a lot of what you say to be quite cliched and frankly boring. I would compare it to the incoherent rantings of a teenage emo who thinks his favorite local band just sold out by signing to the subsidiary of a major label.

The problem is that you start with certain assumptions that you think are fact (that Radiohead are/were the best band in the world and OK Computer was the best album of the 90s) but I think are debatable.
So right from the start I am not really with you and then your argument just goes downhill from there.

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.

Many people have made good points against yours but mostly you havent bothered to answer them and just reply with something along the lines of 'you are wrong' - that is why you come across as a complete twat and need to pull your head out of your arse.

 

[JCurr]

Of course the whole argument can get quite philosophical at this point. I'm a fan rather than a student of music (although I have studied the acoustics of music), but I know that there's a fair bit of debate over how you define music. Maybe the child at the piano isn't art in the wider sense, but I stick by my assertion that it is music. Is the time signature a bit off? Well time signatures are a human invention. Is it out of tune? Scales and modes are also human inventions. Try some microtonal music - it uses notes that don't even exist as a standalone entity in common western music, so it may sound a bit weird to people like us, but that's just because we're used to hearing music based on our western scales and modes.

John Cage's 4'33 was a musical piece from 1952. It consists of 4 minutes 33 seconds of pure silence. The music is the sounds of your environment as you listen to it. Is it art? yes. It it music? Well, probably, yes - it's art through sound. If over four and a half minutes of silence is art and music, how can the childs thrashings not be?

You're losing me here, mate. It's not human invention. You don't invent something like a time signature or a chord or a scale or a key or a note. You discover them. They are abstractions which have existed long before being discovered. We only had to find names for them. As for microtonal, ambient or silent music... You may choose to call it music, but I don't. And while I know it's a losing argument, I don't think art or music is an excuse to be cheeky or pretentious in the name of 'stretching the boundaries'. I love Harry Bertoia's furniture though, only decent pieces of art to come out of any of the twats who find that sort of nonsense appealing.

there is the bone of contention. To my mind, they can't be wrong. How can you discount where their attachment to the music comes from? One of the strongest grips music has on people is that memories can get attached to it - so hearing a song can make you remember a happy or sad time that you associate with that song. This strong property of music can't be disregarded. On top of that, there must have been something about Bon Jovi's music that made them identify with it at the time they were in school - it can't all be down to it being created when they were young and impressionable, something about it had to have made it more popular than the other music of the time.

You're revisiting what I addressed a couple of posts ago. I'm not addressing the emotion of the appreciator. Simply the media itself.

you give me and idea of how you first got into Radiohead? Many Radiohead fans i've spoken to have been of a similar age to me, with Radiohead peaking in popularity when they were in their mid to late teens. OK Computer was released, and for them it blew everything else out of the water - very little else they had heard before that made so much sense to them. None can put their finger on why exactly this album worked so well for them.

What does that have to do with anything? Fine. Even though I know what you're trying to deduce from this, I'll take the bait as this will not be what you were expecting... I didn't actually get a hard on for any of the Radiohead catalogue until nearly a year after Ok Computer's release. In my teens, I was a Cobain fanatic and was convinced he was the saviour of pop music(which he might've been by the way in some semblance). Suffice to say that my affinity for great independent(not indie) music throughout the early and mid 90's did not ready me for anything as polished as Radiohead. I was too busy hating the establishment and mourning the death of a rock icon while immersing myself in more disparate rock like Sonic Youth, Blonde Redhead, Elliott Smith, Fugazi, Pedro the Lion, etc... But once I grew up a touch musically in my mid teens, I revisited both The Bends and Ok Computer and listened to almost nothing else for nearly a year.

So like I said, it wasn't love at first listen. And before you deduce what you think you must, I'll give you a little precursor. Your friends who were blown away had every reason to be. Sure, there were great bands in the 90's. Weezer, Pavement, Wilco, Spoon, Built to Spill, Jeff Buckley, etc. along with those mentioned above. But what do they all have in common? The 90's was wrought with bands who were either too college, too indie or too whatever. The Flaming Lips were the most polished act of the 90's I'd say. And by all rights, they were and are too polished(overproduced). Aside from Nirvana, there were a very few bands who anyone really thought would stand the test of time. Very trendy era, although I love it with all my heart. I grew up in it. But a fully realized concept record with maturity and inspiration which was Ok Computer was quite an ear turner for a reason. It had all the elements of a classic rock opera, a grown up record. And the technological advances were just the icing on the cake.

twenty years time there could be a revival of ageing Radiohead fans, extolling over and over the virtues of OK Computer just like you've been. I can tell you that if that time comes, the younger generation of that future time for the most part just aren't going to get it. Nothing about the album will have changed, but this future generation will have no experience of the context. Like other classic albums it'll still be held in high regard, possibly even across all generations, but it's just not going to be as effective as it was for the people who were there at that time. So I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that, I don't feel the Bon Jovi fans have shite reasons, or are wrong in their choices.

Again, the level of argument which I addressed earlier. But I'll add something as well... If the younger generation doesn't have the fervor to explore and intuition to decipher pop music in twenty years, that will be their fault not mine. Your depiction is puzzling to me as I've not even called Radiohead my favourite band. In fact, I'm getting alot of stick for having a far more negative opinion of them than most present day. Has Ok Computer had an effect on me? Of course. But no more than Dark Side of the Moon or Pet Sounds or Sgt. Peppers or Ziggy Stardust... Relation plays no part.

 

[TuTuHimm]

Hey jcurr you are a massive cock....... thats it I said it. You think that everything you think is right and if you do not see eye to eye they are wrong. Well iðll tell you mister you are not the only person on the world. you probably also think that the sun and the moon and the earth revolves around you. DON'T you dare telling my fellow caftards that their appreciation of music is somehow wrong because they the rythm or melody is somehow inferior to your kind of music, and don't be fecking name dropping 'ohh I listen to marvin gaye and the likes' You can't and I repeat YOU can't argue with people taste, thats it, so don't do it.

 

[JCurr]

Ive read everyword of this thread - some of it is actually quite interesting but as I said, I find a lot of what you say to be quite cliched and frankly boring. I would compare it to the incoherent rantings of a teenage emo who thinks his favorite local band just sold out by signing to the subsidiary of a major label.

The problem is that you start with certain assumptions that you think are fact (that Radiohead are/were the best band in the world and OK Computer was the best album of the 90s) but I think are debatable.
So right from the start I am not really with you and then your argument just goes downhill from there.

Many people have made good points against yours but mostly you havent bothered to answer them and just reply with something along the lines of 'you are wrong' - that is why you come across as a complete twat and need to pull your head out of your arse.

Hey jcurr you are a massive cock....... thats it I said it. You think that everything you think is right and if you do not see eye to eye they are wrong. Well iðll tell you mister you are not the only person on the world. you probably also think that the sun and the moon and the earth revolves around you. DON'T you dare telling my fellow caftards that their appreciation of music is somehow wrong because they the rythm or melody is somehow inferior to your kind of music, and don't be fecking name dropping 'ohh I listen to marvin gaye and the likes' You can't and I repeat YOU can't argue with people taste, thats it, so don't do it.

I've explained my reasoning at a clip which you are unable to swallow apparently. Now, jog on. I'm trying to have a grownup conversation...

 

[TuTuHimm]

move along people the grown ups are talking here

 

[Jopub]

Notable quotes from illustrious musicologist JCurr (aka JJCant or JJCurrnt)

and this is only some of them !

".........in short, feck them.

You know nothing of music then, Anderson.

There are three parts that compose music... rhythm, melody and harmony. 99.9% of rap addresses only one of these. (posters then come up with examples to completely refute this)

There's no spilling of the guts like listing the tops of a genre. So spill it. I'd love you to pass. Not many do. But don't be sad.

Not many have lived the oblivious bliss I have.

Wonderful - ...in terms of music, you'll not ever get the better of me. Be assured of that.

Right. My definition isn't yours which means your definition is pointless. - Classic

And yes, I am a lost cause. I'm a lost cause to you kids who know and appreciate shite in regard to music. Jog on. .

Ah, never mind. feck off. Enjoy your Avril Lavinge and Justin Timberlake. .

After all, Thom is a complete spastic on top of the fact that he is a very smart lad. Often musicians are intellectuals.
But not often are musicians of this crop such smart lads.

Nice - "I've forgotten more about music than most my age have cared to learn."

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.

About Ok Computer "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.

so 'timeless that he went on to add .."And the songs just don't stand up given all the fuss combined with the time the band has taken between records." Made a right nob of yourself with that one

Here's a real corker
".... some music just isn't for the general public"

"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've explained my reasoning at a clip which you are unable to swallow apparently. Now, jog on. I'm trying to have a grownup conversation...

JJ - This line is something you may well want to explore more fully

"Take your own advice and feck off if you can't carry on a decent discussion"

 

[gaffs]

Radiohead never went wrong.

 

[MrK]

You're losing me here, mate. It's not human invention. You don't invent something like a time signature or a chord or a scale or a key or a note. You discover them. They are abstractions which have existed long before being discovered. We only had to find names for them. As for microtonal, ambient or silent music... You may choose to call it music, but I don't. And while I know it's a losing argument, I don't think art or music is an excuse to be cheeky or pretentious in the name of 'stretching the boundaries'. I love Harry Bertoia's furniture though, only decent pieces of art to come out of any of the twats who find that sort of nonsense appealing.

This isn't quite true. The diatonic scale, for example, is indeed based on the human physiological perception of pitch - so yes, they're not exactly magicked out of thin air. The diatonic scale, however, has varied over the years, the intervals between the notes have been changed from time to time, and still music was written with this 'different' scale. Another example; eastern music styles, such as that in India, China, Japan etc. have different scales and modes to those of Western music - and again, whole musical communities have been based on that. Can you really discount what a billion or so Indians would classify as music?

You're revisiting what I addressed a couple of posts ago. I'm not addressing the emotion of the appreciator. Simply the media itself.

Yes, but how can you possibly judge a piece of music without listening to it first? You can't remove the listener from the equation, because the listener is a fundamental part! Do you honestly think you can go through a song, and list how many rhymes, half rhymes, key changes, tempo changes, timing changes etc. that there are, and use some equation to translate that into a 'song quality rating'? These are tools of songwriting, they are not the art itself.

What does that have to do with anything? Fine. Even though I know what you're trying to deduce from this, I'll take the bait as this will not be what you were expecting... I didn't actually get a hard on for any of the Radiohead catalogue until nearly a year after Ok Computer's release...

That's fair enough - I'm glad you can see what I was getting at, though.

Again, the level of argument which I addressed earlier. But I'll add something as well... If the younger generation doesn't have the fervor to explore and intuition to decipher pop music in twenty years, that will be their fault not mine. Your depiction is puzzling to me as I've not even called Radiohead my favourite band. In fact, I'm getting alot of stick for having a far more negative opinion of them than most present day. Has Ok Computer had an effect on me? Of course. But no more than Dark Side of the Moon or Pet Sounds or Sgt. Peppers or Ziggy Stardust... Relation plays no part.

I just used Radiohead as an example since they were the original topic - it doesn't really matter who I used, my point still remains. You seem to feel your knowledge and understanding of music gives you more sophisticated musical tastes than other people - but will the musical dunce listening to Chas & Dave get any less pleasure from listening to their music than you will from listening to yours? I suspect there will not be a whole lot of difference. And at the end of the day, what else can truly matter other than the enjoyment factor? Ignorance is bliss!

 

[JCurr]

Notable quotes from illustrious musicologist JCurr (aka JJCant or JJCurrnt)

and this is only some of them !

".........in short, feck them.

You know nothing of music then, Anderson.

There are three parts that compose music... rhythm, melody and harmony. 99.9% of rap addresses only one of these. (posters then come up with examples to completely refute this)

There's no spilling of the guts like listing the tops of a genre. So spill it. I'd love you to pass. Not many do. But don't be sad.

Not many have lived the oblivious bliss I have.

Wonderful - ...in terms of music, you'll not ever get the better of me. Be assured of that.

Right. My definition isn't yours which means your definition is pointless. - Classic

And yes, I am a lost cause. I'm a lost cause to you kids who know and appreciate shite in regard to music. Jog on. .

Ah, never mind. feck off. Enjoy your Avril Lavinge and Justin Timberlake.

Your childish wummery is a waste of time. Stay out of the thread if you're not going actually read it.

About Ok Computer "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.

so 'timeless that he went on to add .."And the songs just don't stand up given all the fuss combined with the time the band has taken between records." Made a right nob of yourself with that one

Right. As I was talking about Ok Computer with the first two comments and every record after it with the last. Again if you're not able to take things in context, jog on.

a real corker
".... some music just isn't for the general public"

Which wasn't even argued by those in this thread who have some idea what I'm talking about...

B]"I'm content to sit atop my perch. If any of yous could actually make a decent point to refute,[/B] 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've explained my reasoning at a clip which you are unable to swallow apparently. Now, jog on. I'm trying to have a grownup conversation...

JJ - This line is something you may well want to explore more fully

"Take your own advice and feck off if you can't carry on a decent discussion"

Take this last comment to heart.

 

[JCurr]

This isn't quite true. The diatonic scale, for example, is indeed based on the human physiological perception of pitch - so yes, they're not exactly magicked out of thin air. The diatonic scale, however, has varied over the years, the intervals between the notes have been changed from time to time, and still music was written with this 'different' scale. Another example; eastern music styles, such as that in India, China, Japan etc. have different scales and modes to those of Western music - and again, whole musical communities have been based on that. Can you really discount what a billion or so Indians would classify as music?

Whatever scale. If a scale is altered it's not as if the previous version is rendered nonexistent, is it? But no, I was not discounting any culture's music. One of my mates once bought a sitar. I made no headway on it, difficult instrument to master. I was referring more to experimental Western music.

Yes, but how can you possibly judge a piece of music without listening to it first? You can't remove the listener from the equation, because the listener is a fundamental part! Do you honestly think you can go through a song, and list how many rhymes, half rhymes, key changes, tempo changes, timing changes etc. that there are, and use some equation to translate that into a 'song quality rating'? These are tools of songwriting, they are not the art itself.

You're oversimplifying the means of judgement. It's not as if I'm taking emotion fully out of it. I count myself as appreciator before student. Again, I'm talking about the media. Context, nothing more.

That's fair enough - I'm glad you can see what I was getting at, though.

Quite obvious.

I just used Radiohead as an example since they were the original topic - it doesn't really matter who I used, my point still remains. You seem to feel your knowledge and understanding of music gives you more sophisticated musical tastes than other people - but will the musical dunce listening to Chas & Dave get any less pleasure from listening to their music than you will from listening to yours? I suspect there will not be a whole lot of difference. And at the end of the day, what else can truly matter other than the enjoyment factor? Ignorance is bliss!

I don't go around terrorizing people for their musical tastes. But at the end of the day, there are other measurements aside from pure pleasure.