What is the appeal of Radiohead?

I never understood the massive critical praise, some of which I always thought was contrived by a number of "music journalists" following the trend. I listened to the band during their early years through Kid A (which is still my favorite of the early era albums), and while I enjoyed the first four albums, I never bought into the rhetoric that the band was an all-time great.

 

They will clearly regain his respect when they resume making ‘Approachable music’.

We’ve been here before, he would personally prefer it if they made The Bends all over again every 2 years.

 

If your the biggest Radiohead fan then god knows how you feel about groups you really dislike!

 

This is not going to end well. He has infected Radiohead topics before and will continue to do so. What I don’t get is, if he hates their post 97 output so much why does he expend so much energy in talking about it?

 

I asked him the same thing in another thread.

 

Hopefully not the album by album topic, I’ve been enjoying looking through that, though I did have him on ‘ignore’. I’d hate for negativity to ruin that topic

 

If they had just done that, they truly would have ended as a band a long time ago--and I doubt we'd even be talking about them right now.

 

That's the thing. I think what has fed the suspicion or threads like this in a way is the way there seems to be no middle ground. From the press to the fans, it was all about the genius of Radiohead and how they are this godlike creative band. It is possible to enjoy Radiohead but not find they're an all-time great.

 

If you want me to leave, just ask.

But what I don't understand is why some Radiohead fans are so intolerant of other Radiohead fans and why every Radiohead thread with a variance of opinion suddenly is declared a fanclub and the outsiders are denounced as unwelcome.

 

It is you who appears to be the intolerant one though. Radiohead are not my favourite band (though I like them a lot and bought every album) I have never declared them to be ‘god like geniuses’ and I, like many fans, prefer some albums to others. There are a some I don’t play with any sort of regularity. But I respect their desire to create something new and not just churn out 1995 indie rock until the day they retire. I’m not sure in what world Kid A can be considered a ‘flop’ and find it ridiculous that anyone could state that.

 

Speaking for myself, I'd rather you would just state your opinion (which we've all heard many times btw) about their later output and leave it at that. Not try to make outlandish, unprovable claims that the band hit rock bottom and lost their entire fanbase. It's simply untrue and you know it.

 

It's like Tool's or Mike Patton's fanbase. For some, it's like "oh you just don't understand Radiohead" if you don't bow down to their perceived genius (I'm glad to read decent, sensible comments by true Radiohead fans here Proves it's still possible to debate... ) . I've seen Radiohead, I've seen Faith No More (with Mike Patton) and I haven't seen the genius there - for me. Which doesn't mean there were no qualities at all. But they are two shows I happened to get in for free - a nice experience, but if I had the chance,I'd gladly trade off seeing Radiohead in 2000 for their first "Kid A" show (which would make a real fan happy I'm sure! New songs, not out yet, etc) for another show that I missed over the years (Elliott Smith in my town, for instance).

 

I'm sorry Kid A hurt your feelings so much. But it's been 20 years.

No one's asking you to love their post-Ok Computer records, it's all in the ears of the listener. But to call them flops is just too funny.

I'm assuming this thread was started by someone who hasn't connected with Radiohead's music but for various reasons is still intrigued by the band and is asking for context or insight into why the band has a big fanbase. That's a great topic for a thread. But the responses the OP is looking for is detail on what people like about the band. Not constant and repetitive arguing with posters about their love for the band's post-OK Computer music. That's not helpful and just feels like trolling.

 

If you're deliberately trying to play the role of the prototypical Philistine, you can't do better than this.

 

I can't speak to the Faith No More mentality, but with Tool, it's almost like their complex, epic, progressive stuff of the last 20 years is all that is seen to matter in the minds of many current listeners I encounter. As if their early stuff doesn't even rate (which I completely disagree with). Which is kind of like the opposite problem of disliking Radiohead's later output.

 

Well...not really though, because most current Radiohead fans seem to dismiss "Pablo Honey" for being simplistic 90s "alternative rock" by numbers too.

 

This is both the most bizarre and hilarious thing I’ve ever read on here. “Whoever sells the most albums wins.” Do they really? How about a band making the music they want to make, whether it sells 1,000 or 10,000,000 copies, and still being able to pay the bills and feed their families? Surely that is the ultimate victory

 

Well, I still count OK Computer and The Bends as the band's "early stuff" too.

 

Oh okay. So yeah, basically you mean pre and post 2000, roughly. Get it.

 

I've always hated this kind of mentality. Crazy Frog was a work of genius. It sold so much, so it's undeniable.

I mean...Radiohead, Blur, the Pumpkins, bands like these all released the album they wanted after a big smash hit. In their position, they could have milked it, and their accountants would have been happy on the way to the bank.

 

I find Radiohead to be ‘mood music’. I bought all their albums from thrift shops and have everything but the latest release.
I will probably buy ‘A Moon Shaped Pool’ at some point. The textures and vocals are interesting to me and they sound good through headphones.

 

On this, and past threads, the part that I don't understand is how you continue to pay such close attention to this band (you tend to pass judgment on virtually everything they've done for the past two decades).

All I know is that if a band I liked stopped producing music that I enjoy twenty years ago, I'm out. I don't keep listening to every album they release to convince myself that I still don't like them anymore.

They must have made a huge impression on you at some point...

 

I see dozens of comments here where people seem to be railing against somebody or something, but they never bother to quote who they're responding to. Are they really arguing with somebody, or are they just shouting at clouds?

{Edit... I just realized that they're responding to a troll I put on Ignore months ago. Apparently the quotes are also hidden. So... never mind, it all makes sense now...}

 

Calling them ‘defunct’ is not a ‘variance of opinion’, it’s just factually incorrect.

 

I like them but I find them today to sound quite dated for some reason...