Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Archguy, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:47 AM.
audiophiles? once again, modern dad proves to be off base and completely uninformed.
Phil the Philistine.
It seems that these threads always end up in the same place.
Yep. Radiohead ensured their longevity by staying true to their artistic vision and doing what they wanted, rather than doing another OK Computer, which would have been uninspired since that clearly isn't what they wanted to do, and becoming another in a long line of 90's alt rock bands that crapped the bed after the turn of the century and quickly faded away.
I would also listen to A Moon Shaped Pool. If you don't like either or both of those albums, then I think Radiohead is not the band for you.
Don't waste your life trying to "get" a band just because many other people do. Seek out music you can enjoy.
It's not theory, it's just the way it is. I know straight away if I like something or not. If I don't like something, I will never keep listening to it.
For me the relentless worship and critical adoration became rather annoying over the years. It was often used against other bands too, like "oh, this is ok I guess but not as great/innovative/arty as Radiohead". Of course this is not the band’s fault, and it’s impossible to deny the impact they had when they progressed from The Bends to OK Computer and then to Kid A, but over-the-top praise has been the norm since and it hasn’t always been deserved or healthy.
Okay, but the last 50+ years is loaded with rock bands who have received over the top praise, relentless worship, etc., and if you aren't a big fan of the band receiving it, of course it will be annoying, but as you alluded to, it's not the band's fault, and ultimately their music alone is what should determine their greatness or lack thereof, not fawning fans and/or critics.
In college, I was around folks who LOVED Radiohead and were just head over heels for Kid A. I tried at the time, and I hated it.
Like a month ago, going through spindles of old CD-Rs, I came upon a copy of Kid A that someone had burned me years and years ago (that evidently got thrown in the pile and was never played).
I played it, and with adult ears far removed from the hype, and it wasn’t bad at all. That said, in the years since it came out, I’d gotten into Brian Eno and more textured, electronic-based music in general. So I *got* it and could reference what their influences were. Still a bit pretentious and gloomy, but there was quality to it.
That said, I certainly don’t think they were doing anything nearly as compelling or inventive as a band like Stereolab, who released three times the material of a Radiohead during the same span of time and had only a mere fraction of the hype.
I like Stereolab but that's apples and oranges, isn't it?
This is rather reminiscent of a certain 1960s band.
That's a fascinating story. I'll never forget seeing them end their show with it in Tokyo on the In Rainbows Tour. Absolutely beautiful, and they leave to the sound of the Ondes Martenot making those haunting sounds. ****ing amazing. It's interesting how some people might dismiss the "synth" or "computer" sounds without realizing that the Ondes Martenot is an instrument that predates the electric guitar. This clip of Greenwood meeting one of the modern masters, who had just seen Radiohead for the first time, is wonderful.
three straight really in my mind (bends, okc, kid).
Technically it’s theory.....unless you have actually tried many times to let something grow on you and it just never happens.
Either way is fine, to each their own....just making an observation that I would probably have half the music collection if I went by my first impression of everything
Agreed. And it may have been perseverance when I first got something, or it may have just been where I was in my life at a given time. There is so much I listen to now that 10+ years ago if I heard I would have just said “meh” and moved on
Why try and let things grow on you when you know you don't like it?
I have a couple of thousand albums (I think) as physical media, so the cherry picking has kept things manageable.
Yes and no. They don’t sound like one another and operated in different music circles (for the most part). But Stereolab is an example of a band that made a pretty compelling and prolific catalog of inventive music, that both hearkened back and pointed a way forward - just as Radiohead was doing with OKC and Kid A. The difference is. Stereolab had a fraction of the hype and audience.
I agree, just pointing out that there was a bit of anger from Yorke towards Muse once. Besides, Bellamy's and Yorke's voice are still similar but the music content isn't.
That is one very good thing about Radiohead, they're not Muse.
Because. Some art isn’t simple and has many layers that need to be discovered. And people change over time.
they had a roughly 10-year run where they were one of the best (if not the best) band(s) on the planet.
since then, they've largely caused me to question why I ever liked Radiohead as much as I did.
Radiohead said they stole stuff from Genesis, as difficult as it was for them to admit.
VDGG is more accepted and they were well-known label mates. It's very possible.
I love how the movie Clueless pegged Radiohead all the way back in 1995 when Alicia Silverstone's character hears Fake Plastic Trees and calls it "crybaby music." I prefer Radiohead to Pink Floyd. However, Radiohead to me put out 2 essential albums (The Bends, OK Computer) and then became a really great singles band. Which is to say anything that wasn't a single from 2000-2011 is inessential.
Separate names with a comma.