Radiohead

For new sounds, old sounds and favourite sound discussion...

Moderators: sunny, BzaInSpace, runcible, spzretent

Post Reply
Guest

Radiohead

Post by Guest »

In my effort to try and understand this community,

starting today I am going to be creating subjects, an average of one a day I suppose, that are about my favorite bands. So I'll start with my favorite, and work my way down the list, and gauge you all reactions to the music that I love.

#1:

I do love Radiohead. I believe they are miles above their contemporaries in creative capacity and guitar and instrument playing abilities. Thom's song writing to me is reminiscent of (more)Lennon and (less)Mccartney in many ways, and the whole spirit of the music is very similar to me, although expressed different, by different people.. Nobody i've encountered yet has seem to agreed with me about the similarities between the Beatles and Radiohead.
to tell you the truth, I'm not quite sure why exactly I think they are so similar, that may be why I haven't found anybody to really agree with me.
However, I do believe Thom references the beatles a LOT.. yet i've never seen him speak about them, it may be a kind of deep, silent respect he has for them... with songs like 'Wolf At The Door' which the intro sounds very similar to the arpeggiating 'Because'. The radiohead b-side Polyethylne may have been named in respsect of Polythene Pam. "Paperbag Rider" was most likely named in respect of "Paperback Writer". "I Will" may very well be influenced by Mccartney's "I Will" Aside from that, though, it's many subtle melodic influences and lyrical influences I notice. If anyone's interested in discussing it I'd be willing to much more in depth. This thread though is more about the general appreciation of Radiohead.. and it's already too long.. gah.. OK, time for other people's input.
Sam Salem
Known user
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:21 am

Sam Salem

Post by Sam Salem »

By the way this thread was started by me.

im not too used to the login thing yet.


Theres another guest roaming around here that isn't me, though. hehe
twentysixdollars
Known user
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by twentysixdollars »

Oh...boy.

Shorthand answer: Radiohead are not the new Beatles. They are, on the other hand, a version of U2 that gradually absorbed more and more of the influence of Pink Floyd before they decided that it was really Eno and schlock movie soundtracks they dug.

In other words, they became in or about 1996 a third-string neo-prog group. Like Pink Floyd, they are soul-food for the perpetually adolescent: petulant, 'paranoid', lugubrious, joyless.

They lack a strong vocalist, a lyricist of substance, an instrumentalist of novelty or distinction, an aesthetic of their own. What they have is several gold records. In the annals of musical history I rank them with Chicago.

Issue 2:
All pop groups sound like the Beatles. The Beatles are the most popular performers in the history of recorded sound.
Last edited by twentysixdollars on Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a beautiful noise
Known user
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: things are easier said than done

Post by a beautiful noise »

"the general appreciation of radiohead"


ha (edited for common courtesy and to avoid the wrath of WTD)

sorry that was really funny.


appreciation of radiohead, why i never.


xxme
Last edited by a beautiful noise on Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
toomilk
Known user
Posts: 2973
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: San Diego

Post by toomilk »

I like a few Radiohead songs, but I don't think they are ahead of anything. They appear so, however, because they are popular.

As for the similarities, ummm...I don't think so. It's the case of twentysixdollars' Issue #2.
Sam Salem
Known user
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:21 am

Post by Sam Salem »

So why is it I find Pink Floyd dull and overrated and drawn out when I find Radiohead exciting, sometimes agitating (which to me, in music, can be a good thing.. if im in an irritable mood.. sometimes Radiohead is the only thing that can snap me out of it)

Radiohead is responsible for many classic riffs, such as Paranoid Android's, The National Anthem, I Might Be Wrong.

Mostly, I like Radiohead due to it's prominence and catchiness in melody.

Granted, it's not your usual top 10 catchy.

many people see radiohead as whiney and pretentious, when in fact, everytime he sings I only hear honesty and his most fullest expression.

He writes songs Neil Young wishes he had the passion to preform.

This may help you understand why I appreciate Radiohead...

I am not the type of person that seeks new music. I let it come to me. I know, I know.. this isn't necessarily the best way to go about it in some respects. But it helps to teach me what it is about great songs that are able to make themselves heard around the world.

I think often people misinterpret Radiohead as a very dreary, spacy, melodramatic type of band... and sometimes, when stoned, i think they go a bit in that direction. But as for overall, they have raised my spirits more than any other group I've been into. Also, the consistency of his song writing is unmatched in my experience.. not even the beatles in my opinion were capable of writing good songs that consistently.

Thom as a lyricisist, is remarkable, he uses vague platitudes which can often fit into many different situations.. making radiohead very versatile.

The only downside... to me... which usually isnt a problem... is that many songs are mood specific... there are certain times I can't listen to them and enjoy them the same amount, for example..

Im in a car with a bunch of friends who love gangster rap and r & b.. it's far too emotional for the air.

Certain girls. Certain girls get reaaally uneasy listening to radiohead. and make sour faces.

i'm not a biased person by any means... if i understand that word correctly... i don't own any Radiohead posters, any radiohead t-shirts, any radiohead anything, not even an album. I'm not a fan. I'm an appreciator, who simply keeps his mind open to everything he hears. I constantly tell myself to hate Radiohead because of the convincing things i hear people say, and they constantly re-prove themselves to me.

Songs to Listen to:

India Rubber (B-side)
Polyethlyne (B-side) this two part song reminds me of I Want You (She's so heavy) In my humble opinion, I havent heard anyone rock out like this since then. I'm also young.

The thing is, Radiohead.. SHOULD be a crappy and moody band, but in a world full of empty, unrealized music, they are saviors. it's merely what they are compared to and contemporary to that makes them great.

And I happen to disagree with you, I think Radiohead borrows more heavily from the beatles "aura" (if you will) than most other bands.
Sam Salem
Known user
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:21 am

Post by Sam Salem »

hey, excuse my inexperience, but what is twentysixdollars' Issue #2. if i may ask?
jack white
Known user
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: Tralfamadore

Post by jack white »

when i first started visiting this board there was a massive radiohead debunking from $26 going on. for some reason i couldnt be bothered reading it at the time, even though i was coming down from a fandom of radiohead, fast and hard and embittered. weird.

anyway, now that the dust has settled, although i had a lot of fun and strong moments with radiohead, it was really only because i didnt know better. i do have to hand it to them, that as far as more mainstream, moderate rock music goes, the bends and ok computer are terrific records and easily transcend any noddling by the emotional punch they pack - lucky, for all its floyd leanings, is still an absolute classic (and the only band i dislike more than pink floyd is queen). kid a was a nice change of pace. but then the problems started. amnesiac was an awful record, even though it contained four of their finest songs and hail to the thief, even with where i end (which is perhaps their best song since lucky), wolf at the door and i will, was an appallingly produced piece of work. the density of the record ruined whatever impact it was intended to have, and an incredible piece of stupidity by godrich (who really, outside of his work on ok computer has contributed to basically one disaster after another - httt the culmination of his horrible work).

then i started finding other avenues to satisfy my brain. i was disappointed in the bands most recent efforts but i wasnt turning against them. but i had overplayed their meaningful stuff and needed something refreshing. thankfully spiritualized (who i had never really "got") were playing my union soon and that door would not only have been opened, but blown completely to pieces.
aside from that, i had finally gotten time along the line to immerse myself in a way i had only hoped about before, in the classics of dylan and young - id always been a fan, but never on the level i was about to experience. and i suddenly started thinking, you know radiohead arent as good as i thought.
then i started tracing their roots, and i found that quite a few of their tunes sounded distincly similar to those that went before, or even if they werent carbon copies, those artists were either doing things far more interesting than radiohead, or with far more gravitas.

fucks sake. fuck it. another point is - live, theyre not all that. ive seen them 3 times now and each time they become more and more boring. the last time, only a monumental lucky saved the evening on the penultamate night of their european tour in dublin. they were absolutely awful.


i could actually discuss my awakening all night, but ill stop cause its just wasting my time and anyones who has read this. ill just say, there are so many reasons as to why radiohead arent all that, and there are so many acts better than it seems impossible to me as to how i could ever connect with radiohead, or a band like them, in such a way again. i find them now, absolutely boring and often ridiculous. the bends, okc and kid a are all excellent records, but they all have superiors. though the bends and kid a, have many more than okc.
Guest

Post by Guest »

that was very honest, great.
I almost feared I was completely alone here.

jack, you have just presented to me the closest explanation to mine of radiohead I've ever heard.


Amnesiac indeed was an awful mess, but with some of their best songs.. almost exaclty how you put it.
i only disagree with you slightly, and I know why that is... Hail To the Thief was the first rock album I heard. Yes, I'm that young.
Sail to the Moon, 2+2=5... you must understand I'd never heard anything like those before. nothing had affected me like that. The way he peaks in the middle of the song in 'Where I end and you Begin' was a completely new concept to me.
so to me.. it's completely great and colorful, otherwise, we're on the same page.

Before that (since you are willing to be so honest, I will be) all I appreciated was certain movie soundtracks and certain video game (yea..) soundtracks i listened to. Mainstream, radio music did not appeal to me. Occasionally I'd hear a hit I liked, or thought was exceptionally catchy, but nothing stood out too much. I even heard Creep from time to time and wrote it off as grunge, alt-rock (although not really, since i didnt understand those categorizations at the time)

One of the reasons it becomes increasingly harder for me to defend Radiohead is because, like you said, you listen to the songs so much, they do indeed become less emotionally effective. I think that goes with just about every song, though. Or does it? So it becomes harder for me to remember why I was ever so into them. That's why I listed those B-sides as current favorites, I really don't know whether they are better songs than their album songs, but they are much more fresh to me.

Sometimes, though, Jack. I'll be listening to Radiohead... and I'll reach a very peaceful state of mind, where the emotional effects their songs try to have on me become useless. And I start to crave more Joy Division style music (or RH's more repetitive, "dull" works). I suppose because I'm more patient. These are more like visions, than experiences. So, I do believe maybe I'm beginning to grow out of them similar to the way you did, yet always will hold fond memories.

Funny you mention Dylan, because I've always known in the back of my head that he was one of the greats, yet I haven't delved yet. Hurricane always seemed like a masterpiece to me.
His lyrics I already know are masterful.
The problem I run into with Dylan, currently, which may fade, is that his vocals seem much less restrained than Thom's... as though there's more character in his voice (dylan's). Which I haven't determined is a good or bad thing yet. Since Thom nearly uses his voice not as a vocalist but almost as an instrument. (if that makes sense)

I don't think I've ever compared these two before.

I had more to say jack, but I have to go. thanks for the honest opinion. i'd like to continue this later.
spzretent
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Motor City

Post by spzretent »

Could it be the read all their press clippings circa OK Computer. And then collectively shoved their heads up their own asses and put out three pretty bad records?
Seems to me they were on a roll up until OK Computer. Then they tried to reinvent music and just started to suck.
http://www.lilmoxie.com
Detroit, Music, Sports and Other Stuff(including Spiritualized, Spacemen 3)
Sam Salem
Known user
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:21 am

Post by Sam Salem »

uh.. that was me. =P
jack white
Known user
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: Tralfamadore

Post by jack white »

it wasnt overfamiliarity breeding contempt with the radiohead songs id loved. even when exploring others, i knew i could always return to the likes of lucky, exit music, talk show host etc. and they would always take me to a special place (and actually, those tracks maybe still would).

and they were my in too. i owe them because they really opened the door for me (you know the clip on meeting people is easy where there is a panel discussing christmas songs and they diss no surprises - i saw that actual moment and something clicked with me), but the further i delve, the more distance i have i began to see they werent as special as i thought and that a lot of their decisions and output really didnt sit well with me.
you mention sail to the moon, and to me it was one of the final straws. theres the great line in let down, "dont get sentimental/it always ends up drivel", and what does thom go and do 5 years later? write a song for his kid. pyramid song is a great, great tune, easily one of their best. they seem to have tried to repeat the trick with sail to the moon and just fell flat on their faces, out of ideas - or rather with awful ideas.


and on spzretents point - i dont think they tried to reinvent music with kid a. what they had been doing up to and including ok computer, was taking their influences and moulding them into something that (intentionally or not) was a lot more accessible to a wider audience than the original artists. post ok computer they decided to focus remoulding a different set of influences.
but they'll never top ok computer.
spzretent
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Motor City

Post by spzretent »

Jack:
I just remember reading the press prior to Kid A and maybe it was the record company's fault too but things were being said like "Kid A will change music forever". It wasn't even good. And then the next record, whatever its called was unlistenable to my ears.
But then again my fave Radiohead record is The Bends. Its the only on I own.
I think Q or whoever had OK Computer as the greatest British rock record ever made may have soured a lot of people.
I just read another poll where the Bends is ahead OK now.
http://www.lilmoxie.com
Detroit, Music, Sports and Other Stuff(including Spiritualized, Spacemen 3)
duppyconquerer
Known user
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:08 am

Post by duppyconquerer »

i can't be bothered to read this, yet i feel qualified enough to add my two cents (once again). i'm gonna assume that Radiohead fans think they 'art' oh so 'spacecial' and... actually can't even be bothered to finish what i was going t

listen to:
Various Production (got some 7s out, album coming soon)
Aphex Twin...
....and and and errr like a pig in a cage,


Radiohead fans remind me of fundamentalist christians.

" i feel really sorry for myself, that makes me extemely intelligent, all the injustices in the world can only be understood by me, all hardcore Radiohead fans and occasionally, Johnny Greenwood. Every time somebody insults my art behemoth an angel looses it's wings, even though the secret esoteric puppet masters made them up. See I knew that and you didn't. I'm so depressed, no one can ever understand my emotional turmoil, I hate being famous, it makes me so ill. The money doesn't cheer me up, the fame the record sales or even the fans; that isn't why i chose to share my gift with the world." Thom Yorke - Feb 10th, speaking exclusively to as many people that will listen.
twentysixdollars
Known user
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by twentysixdollars »

Allow me to go ad hominem for a moment. Sam Salem's post goes a long way to accounting for why I despise Radiohead and find their fans such a risible contingent.
Sam Salem wrote: [Thom Yorke] writes songs Neil Young wishes he had the passion to preform.
Uh, I don't like Neil Young, but Jesus fucking Christ. For all you can say about Neil, his work is certainly heartfelt. And he's almost always an interesting lyricist. (vis, Rust Never Sleeps).
Thom as a lyricisist, is remarkable, he uses vague platitudes which can often fit into many different situations.. making radiohead very versatile.
I've never heard anyone use the term "vague platitudes" (an appraisal with which I concur, by the way) as a compliment before. Yes, Thom writes vague platitudes. I couldn't have put it better myself. So, just like Bono, he's a rotten lyricist - self-involved or merely spiteful when he's not flatulently political.
Certain girls. Certain girls get reaaally uneasy listening to radiohead. and make sour faces.
And there it is - the inevitable spurt of adolescent misogyny.
I'm also young.
No kidding. And I knew that from the start, which is why I was easy on you at first. Everyone sounds like the Beatles if you don't have a sound enough context in popular music to spot the real, or rather specific, points of reference. I could tell you, for example, that "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is kind of a Zeppelin cop, or that "Polythene Pam" is a pastiche of the Who. I could also tell you that most of Kid A is in the same ballpark as Eno's Another Green World, but it doesn't matter, because you haven't heard of it. Radiohead are not exactly a force for evil, because, as an earnest, fairly professional, an undoubtedly artistically sincere group, they probably would sound revelatory to someone who hasn't had the chance to hear anything better. But, honestly, kid, hyperbole is more and more laughable the less you know. I could list a hundred records better than OK Computer, objectively better, without prejudice (because, if anything, I despise Pink Floyd and lots of other acts even more than I despise Radiohead), but it wouldn't matter, because you'd protest that you hadn't heard most of them, and if you hadn't already in all your fifteen years then there must not be any merit in them. Which I know, because I thought exactly the same thing when I was fifteen.
BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Post by BzaInSpace »

Sam Salem wrote: Certain girls. Certain girls get reaaally uneasy listening to radiohead. and make sour faces.
Possibly those certain girls are trying to mimic Thom ? :lol:

Is Polythene the extra track on 'No Surprises'? That was brilliant, well a brilliant pastiche of Pixies. It also sounds how Radiohead would sound if they ditched their shiny production.

They are similar to Beatles in that they are heavily overated.

But hey, 'Pyramid Song' was good too... I saw them on tour last time and the played a good stadium rock set. It was hard to move oweing to all the backpacks - sorry, satchels in the place though...
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Post by TheWarmth »

*Sigh* Do we have to do this again? Anyone who says Kid A isn't any good simply isn't paying any attention or doesn't care to. However, Sam, pitting Radiohead against Neil Young is a bad idea, especially on this board. I suspect you haven't yet wrapped your head around Tonights The Night, Zuma or, most importantly, On The Beach.
twentysixdollars
Known user
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by twentysixdollars »

TheWarmth wrote: Anyone who says Kid A isn't any good simply isn't paying any attention or doesn't care to.
Well that's a pretty confident statement, indeed a pompous one, or at least a careless one, Warmth. I'm actually one of the few who vaguely admires and somewhat enjoys Kid A - I don't think it was necessarily brave of them commercially, since they were certainly at their critical-mass shit-in-a-bag phase at the time, but it was definitely a self-conscious effort to try something they hadn't yet done, which their treadmilling ensuing discs have not been - it's absurd to say that anyone who claims not to like it hasn't given it a good listen. I can sympathize with those who say it's bad: most of it meanders, much of it is silly, there isn't an idea that wasn't done better by Eno twenty-five years prior, with the exception of "The National Anthem" which was done better by Spiritualized three years prior. (Was "Pyramid Song" on that one, or Amnesiac? In any event, Alice Coltrane.) But by and large, with its diminished indulgences in Radiohead's half-dozen Achilles's heelses (dreary acoustic balladry and glammy guitars and irony-hurts posturing etc. etc.), it's OK.
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Post by TheWarmth »

A lot of my friends consider Kid A to be Radiohead's best album. It certainly has aged well and as for being silly ... well, explain to me how Another Green World isn't! That record is ridiculous. I enjoy listening to it and would never say it's bad, but it certainly isn't as serious as most people make it out to be. Moreover, I don't really see why you think Kid A borrows so heavily from Eno's work. I find that comparison a bit lazy.

I'm really hesitant to enter into another Radiohead argument, so forgive me if I don't accept further baiting.
Greeny
Known user
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Burgess Hill

Post by Greeny »

Not this hoary old chestnut again!!

Spiritualized message board in some-people-love-Radiohead-and-others-hate-them shocker....

For the record, I love them!

:wink:
duppyconquerer
Known user
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:08 am

Post by duppyconquerer »

I really tried hard to like Kid A. A good friend of mine with exceptional taste swears by it, so i give it a listen from time to time. But it just pisses me off. The whole sound. I do like Exit Music from OK Computer though (possibly more so because of the Father Ted episode!). I think it was Richard D James that said about Kid A, "I can understand why people like it if they haven't been exposed to those kind of sounds". And I couldn't agree more.
Did anyone hear Various Production on the Breezeblock the other week? I've never heard anything remotely like it. It was genius, but my stereo ate my copy. If anyone else recorded it would it be possible if I could get a copy?
clewsr
Known user
Posts: 1982
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Post by clewsr »

Certain girls. Certain girls get reaaally uneasy listening to radiohead. and make sour faces.
And there it is - the inevitable spurt of adolescent misogyny.
that was a liitle bit mean, and unecessary
twentysixdollars
Known user
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by twentysixdollars »

TheWarmth wrote:and as for being silly ... well, explain to me how Another Green World isn't! That record is ridiculous. I enjoy listening to it and would never say it's bad, but it certainly isn't as serious as most people make it out to be.
No argument. I agree completely. I don't even like Another Green World that much (although I think "St Elmo's Fire" is not merely his best song, but one of the best damned songs of the whole seventies.) It's only the first two Eno records I love. Another Green World is terribly uneven and God knows Kid A might even be more consistent. But I don't think it's shallow or rote to note that Radiohead wouldn't be what they were circa Kid A if it weren't for that album. Certainly none of the Autechre/Aphex comparisons hold as much water. Kid A sounds exactly like any group of nice young white men would sound if they toured with Spiritualized and listened compulsively during that tour to Another Green World. ("Morning Bell"="Golden Hours"). There are barely any other influences. Maybe some theatrical brit-mope ("History" etc.) on that Big Folk Ballad thing on side A, and Procol Harum on the theatrical mope-pop thing that ends side B. Still OK, though.
Guest

Post by Guest »

twentysixdollars wrote:
TheWarmth wrote:and as for being silly ... well, explain to me how Another Green World isn't! That record is ridiculous. I enjoy listening to it and would never say it's bad, but it certainly isn't as serious as most people make it out to be.
Certainly none of the Autechre/Aphex comparisons hold as much water.
Despite the fact that Thom consistently went on about Aphex Twin's influence on the album, in loads of interviews, prompting Richard D James to have a listen on behalf of (I think) Select magazine, hence his comment. And another guy from Radiohead saying on Mary Anne Hobbes show that Autechere and the Warp / Braindance scene (amongst other things of course) made the group as a whole to do something a little more experimental. Yeah it sounds like Eno, but so does Aphex sometimes; the rythmns on Kid A however are of a little more IDM nature.
Sam Salem
Known user
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 9:21 am

Post by Sam Salem »

not me ^


not that all guests aren't me, or not that they are supposed to be, but..

Im still not sure how often people named Guest post around here
Guest

Post by Guest »

true though.
jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Post by jadams501 »

i don't think i've ever been motivated to post only because of the sheer ridiculousness of another post... but twentysixdollars, c'mon!

So you don't like Radiohead. Neither do I, much. I used to love them back in high school before I wearied of Thom Yorke's rather one-note misery, and now I only have a largely-ignored eighty-minute best-of on my itunes. I tried listening to OK Computer about a month ago and just couldn't get through it. But I understand why people like it, how they're stimulated by it, and why many enjoy Radiohead much more than I do. It doesn't make them bad people or any lesser because of it. They just are looking for something different in their music (a form of entertainment) than what other people might like, including yourself.

Twentysixdollars, you clearly are very informed and passionate about music, which is wonderful. I'm sure that nearly everyone on this board would be stimulated and educated by pursuing records that you recommend. However, I think it's very rude of you to address another board member with such unabashed contempt simply for sharing his feelings about a group of entertainers that you do not enjoy. Just because he's young doesn't mean that he doesn't have his own set of ears with which to do his own listening, and you're way out of line to attack him for having opinions that he's clearly put some thought and feeling into. Perhaps you have "better taste" in the sense that you're more sophisticated, and perhaps we could all benefit from your insights, but that certainly doesn't make you a superior person.

I don't mean to single you out or bring about any hostility... I just think that discussion and enjoyment and education are better suited if we're all civil.
twentysixdollars
Known user
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by twentysixdollars »

If I responded contemptuously (indeed, with 'unabashed' contempt) to Sam Salem's post, it was not because I disagreed with his opinion. I think you'll find that I tend to steer clear or threads concerning subjects in which I'm not interested unless I'm in a distinctly fulminating mood. But this time, I responded as I did because the poster made a number of confident pronouncements, all without qualification of opinion, all of which were manifestly wrong. To wit:

1. Radiohead sound a lot like the Beatles.
2. Radiohead are in fact better/more consistent than the Beatles. Support: their melodies are catchy; their riffs are "classic".
3. Radiohead are better/more soulful/etc. than Neil Young.
4. Other than the obvious Beatles influence, the sound of Radiohead emerged more or less fully-formed, as if from a vacuum.
5. Ditto the Beatles, except they didn't even have the luxury of being influenced by the Beatles.
6. Radiohead are great at playing their guitars.

He then prompted response. I could've been meaner, pointing out, for example, that polyetheline is a chemical, not a neologism coined (then corrupted) by John Lennon. Instead I concerned myself with his (fatuous) musical arguments, my general thesis being that any continuities he perceived between the Beatles and Radiohead were really up to a) the general vocabulary of popular music and b) the limits of his musical experience. If I made these points a little condescendingly it is because Salem himself comes off as condescending, which hardly takes much effort on the part of a teenager.

He responded to me by repeating himself, making asinine aesthetic judgments, and snarkily-or-defensively dismissing the capacity of "certain girls" to recognize greatness. Paging Dr. Freud.

Let's move on.

Someone brought up the term "IDM" a few posts up. Here's a provocative statement: I think "Intelligent Dance Music" is one of the most useless generic subdivisions ever advanced. It's a contradiction in terms, for one thing. Music that is made for dancing is not intelligent. It's not supposed to be intelligent. That doesn't mean it's not good; I consider the second MC5 record primarily an album of music for dancing, and it's pretty moronic, if almost always clever (and there's the fine line again). I also think that it's excellent. On the other hand, music like ELP, for example, which is inarguably Not For Dancing, is eminently Intelligent - but it also happens to be colossally tasteless and outrageously pretentious. In other words, it's horseshit.

Music that is made for dancing (hereafter, "dance music") is intended to engage viscerally. If it is clever then it also bears attentive listening and aesthetic respect. But it is not, by definition, intelligent. I can understand why the purveyors of this sort of music are frustrated with the term: it is not merely that it suggests that other forms of dance music are stupid, but rather, it is because it suggests that the music they make, which is demonstrably intelligent, is necessarily for dancing. What the likes of Richard James and Autechre peddle is either dance music or it's not, but if it is or it isn't, it's not "intelligent dance music" - it's either dance music, or ("serious") electronic music. What is usually called IDM is usually not made for D'ing, and on the rare occasion that it is, it is not I.
ORBITAL
Known user
Posts: 1249
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Drinking Breaker at night, in the cold duchess light.

Post by ORBITAL »

Or to put it another way. He could, so he did!
Work is the scourge of the drinking classes
duppyconquerer
Known user
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:08 am

Post by duppyconquerer »

as is often the case with me i have not read the whole thread, but i'm going to have to say i agree with $26. IDM is a most infuriating phrase. Indeed, some of the music that is associated with it is deliberately stupid (see anything on the 'wrong' label). Rephlex even coined their own term to take the piss out of the it, Braindance. I like this phrase as it is both practicle and funny. It even has it's own logo:
Image

another phrase I despise is 'Art-Rock'
By the way Thom DID keep saying he was influenced by Richard D James on that Art-Rock classic 'Kid A'.

How do you know Sam's a teenager?!

edit: i see now they have also used the term braindance.hmm. anyway at least you have a picture to look at!

On the subject of genres, can someone explain to me what Emo is? Does it just mean 'emotional' or angsty? If so it is another annoying phrase. (Probably be suited to Art-Rock giants Radiohead however)
ORBITAL
Known user
Posts: 1249
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Drinking Breaker at night, in the cold duchess light.

Post by ORBITAL »

Work is the scourge of the drinking classes
a beautiful noise
Known user
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: things are easier said than done

Post by a beautiful noise »

ha! i have always wanted to know what IDM meant. so waht is DDM (c'mon now, dumb dance music?)

i have never heard of any of the IDM bands you guys were on about. what are the more popular acts??

am i missing out on something? (underscore i know that you have a great knowledge on electronic music, can you shine a light?)


thanks

xxme
u_nderscore
Known user
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:48 pm

Post by u_nderscore »

a beautiful noise wrote:underscore...can you shine a light?)
'fraid not...i don't have a great knowledge of much at all. i didn't even know what idm stood for myself until relatively recently. in fact i have to say i don't really 'get' most buzzword music genre labels. like duppy says, what the fuck emo is, i don't know. i'm still wondering what's post rock about 'post-rock' - sounds pretty much like rock to me. or why 'r n b' couldn't think of it's own name instead of using one that'd already been used for a different kind of music. or what's 'diva' about the likes of mariah carey. i don't get it. i kind of hope i never do.
i'm off to listen to some altgrass-fusion-punktronica.


ps richard d james is aphex twin and rephlex is his record label.
a beautiful noise
Known user
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: things are easier said than done

Post by a beautiful noise »

u_nderscore wrote:
a beautiful noise wrote:underscore...can you shine a light?)
'fraid not...i don't have a great knowledge of much at all. i didn't even know what idm stood for myself until relatively recently. in fact i have to say i don't really 'get' most buzzword music genre labels. like duppy says, what the fuck emo is, i don't know. i'm still wondering what's post rock about 'post-rock' - sounds pretty much like rock to me. or why 'r n b' couldn't think of it's own name instead of using one that'd already been used for a different kind of music. or what's 'diva' about the likes of mariah carey. i don't get it. i kind of hope i never do.
i'm off to listen to some altgrass-fusion-punktronica.


ps richard d james is aphex twin and rephlex is his record label.
ahh aphex, the only thing i know is his video gave me the creeps for weeks.

mariah, well, i know i'm gonna get ripped ta shit for this, but good gawd i think she is absolutely beautiful. i don't know what it is but i'm mesmerized by her.

so yes, she's a DIVA to me. but whats a DIVA.



xme
a beautiful noise
Known user
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: things are easier said than done

Post by a beautiful noise »

haha! my lil' secret will stay with me to the grave. but it felt great to get that off of my chest. finally.


xxme
u_nderscore
Known user
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:48 pm

Post by u_nderscore »

Image
a beautiful noise
Known user
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: things are easier said than done

Post by a beautiful noise »

you're fucked up.



:shock:
duppyconquerer
Known user
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:08 am

Post by duppyconquerer »

Spring Heel Jack were once labelled Intelligent Drum n Bass - stupid media phrase!
A list of established 'IDM'rs is:
Aphex,AFX,Polygon Window, Caustic Window - all him
Boards of Canada
Autechre
Black Dog
Plaid
Two Loan Swordsmen
Bochum Welt
Leftfield
Khonnor
Squarepusher
Cylob
Leila
Global Goon
Four Tet
Bogdan Raczynski - notable for at the hight of the Ibiza craze releasing an album called 'Ibiza Anthems', which sold loads of copies, mainly to fools who ended up having purchased about an hour of ficked up rythmns and squelchy noises!

other acceptable phrases include, Braindance and EDM. But you could argue you can't actually dance to alot of it, though it is often more danceable live as anyone who has seen Aphex would agree, and anyway people dance to all sorts of crap. It is just Braindance or electronic music. Anyone that says 'electronica' is a prick.
sub genres include:
glitch and
'shut up emo kid!'
a beautiful noise
Known user
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: things are easier said than done

Post by a beautiful noise »

huh?

out of the list i have only heard boards of canada, only because our bassist is mad about them. i have heard of squarepusher but never heard.


haha! that's a perfect name for the genre, GLITCH, that's exactly what it sounds like to me.

xme
BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Post by BzaInSpace »

duppyconquerer wrote:
Leila
"Thats the good shit right there..."
eeee22
Known user
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: d.c.

Post by eeee22 »

ok back to the original topic

Radiohead is not the greatest band ever so i'm sorry for all the english whos opinion was soured by the media over there.
Radiohead is a pretty good band with a wide variety of output n many great songs I feel.
Like most music, i got into radiohead late as i am young
Kid A was the first album i owned by them and i thought/think it is terrific
Ok Computer on the other hand i really dont like to listen to tho i find some of the songs enjoyable ( exit music, lucky, no surprises)
the bends is also a good album and i like the com lag EP

I'm convinced the first two tracks on hail to the thief suck n my friends just like them because they are overly political n there are laser sounds.

Yes Thom Yorke is a whiny bitch n johnny greenwood is a little girly but NBD no big deal

other great songs include
pyramid song, you and whose army, gagging order, fog, where i end and you begin , talk show host, life in a glass house, idioteque and how to disapear completely, kid A , shit n let down is awesome


ohhh n as for emo, radiohead is too "weird" to be emo
emo is often called punk these days, but its just a bunch of turds all singing the same way n trying to disguise the fact they are a boy band n only appealing to 16 yr old girls n girly men :)
altho Weezer used to kick ass n same with sunny day real estate, they were building blocks for emo
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Gruff
Known user
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: UK

radiohead

Post by Gruff »

In my experience, people who like radiohead (and thus people who generally class radiohead as 'far out' and 'extreme' etc etc) also like Ocean Colour Scene. I would suggest that this explains their feelings for Radiohead.

I would also suggest that perhaps IDM (and other more precise genre labels) are more often used by journalists than 'real listeners'. I don;t like that sort of term either; however I would suggest that as long as you are talking to someone else who understands/uses the same definitions as you then they are useful to get to the point without over talking. if you see what I mean.
When the hand points to the moon only the fool looks at the finger
u_nderscore
Known user
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:48 pm

Post by u_nderscore »

there's an album of radiohead re-interpretations coming out soon, loads of great people doing their thing with tracks from 'exit music (for a film)'. scissorkick has one by the cinematic orchestra to hear right now.
Post Reply