junkiesmile Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Radiohead are horrible, dont see how so many people think they are the best thing since sliced bread, I guess if you like whiney singers that are barely audible and stupid nosies instead of music there the band for you. Highly overrated, couldnt even get past the first song of In Rainbows, acutually couldnt even get past a min of that horrible piece of shitThat's funny. Not even a minute huh. Link to post Share on other sites
Orkie Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Radiohead was actually a good band at one time. Then they faded badly after Kid A, stuck on the same ideas and gloom. One of the problems with Radiohead is the same problem that currently plagues Wilco and Son Volt - mumbly lead singers with little vocal balance unlike the true great acts like the Beatles and Pink Floyd. You can only take those mumbly, depressed vocals for so long before you get sick of it. Nowadays, Radiohead is largely propped up by "Listonistas", a cadre of aging white males who own blogs and forums and who "pimp" year end lists( see the recent In Rainbows Rate Your Music debacle where several Radiohead fans were caught voting a few hundred times each. There is a blatant need for justification for certain people to have "a big act" to attach themselves to. The difference is that this time gloomy white males with blogs can be heard, rather than in the 70's and 80's where they just pumped their fists in concerts and *maybe* had a job writing for the local paper. In Rainbows is an example of the internet delivering hype over substance, as a "tip of the spear" for propaganda. Link to post Share on other sites
Orkie Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Seriously!?! I mean I can understand the criticism lyrically (and I can even understand some backlash for their success), but how can anyone say The Bends and Kid A are even in the same ballpark musically, let alone "one tone"? They aren't. The "one tone" has been Amnesiac to IR. They are awful records. As for Radiohead being overrated, any of the greatest bands ever you could make a case for them being overrated (The Beatles, The Band, Dylan etc etc.), it's natural for the music community and press to put bands that are obviously a cut above on top of a pedestal. Hopefully you aren't implying that Radiohead are even on that level. U2 is still the biggest band in the world and has been for quite some time. Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I mean, The Beatles--good singers. Paul McCartney-- genius....but Pink Floyd? Sorry, you had me til then. Also, Thom Yorke has an extremely good voice and decent range. Probably a better range than Tweedy, and better singer. But I feel like Tweedy has consistently captured different moods. If you look at two quiet Wilco songs- Sky Blue Sky, and Someday Some Morning, there is a still a huge different in tone and color. Thom Yorke doesn't do that. Tweedy's a good singer, on the mumbly side, but he is extremely good at using what he's got. To me, Radiohead and the cartoonist R. Crumb present the same problems and are two groups that to me have a certain level of enjoyment but don't understand the large excitement about. Both entities are talented to an extent, but they just are presenting the same mood over and over again, always complaining about the same bullshit. (R.Crumb I hate even 10x more than my just overall distaste of Radiohead) also, U2? really? first you had me laughing with Pink Floyd in terms of singing (I'm not saying "bad" or anything, but to even compare them to any of the Beatles--even Ringo-- is kind of stretching it). but jeez, I said Radiohead needed humble pie, and then you brought up U2, probably the only band who could use it more and by the gallon. also, the common thread here I'm noticing is that all these bands are English. When I think of English bands, and then American bands, there tends to be more joy and humility present. It seems weird, like even a band like The Arctic Monkeys don't really make happy songs in a way. Link to post Share on other sites
indy81 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 It's not good for the most popular band around and the one people rally behind most to be one that wallows perpetually in its own self-pity and misery. I's really bothersome. There's way more to life than that, and a large part of a generation may be denying that. So people who like Radiohead can only experience feelings of self-pity and misery? Hmm, that's a bit much, don't you think? Folks seemed to be in a pretty good mood at the Radiohead concerts I've seen. Saying that Radiohead only does whiny, self-pitying songs is no better than those local newspaper blurbs that say "alt-country band Wilco." Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Radiohead was actually a good band at one time. Then they faded badly after Kid A, stuck on the same ideas and gloom. One of the problems with Radiohead is the same problem that currently plagues Wilco and Son Volt - mumbly lead singers with little vocal balance unlike the true great acts like the Beatles and Pink Floyd. You can only take those mumbly, depressed vocals for so long before you get sick of it. Nowadays, Radiohead is largely propped up by "Listonistas", a cadre of aging white males who own blogs and forums and who "pimp" year end lists( see the recent In Rainbows Rate Your Music debacle where several Radiohead fans were caught voting a few hundred times each. There is a blatant need for justification for certain people to have "a big act" to attach themselves to. The difference is that this time gloomy white males with blogs can be heard, rather than in the 70's and 80's where they just pumped their fists in concerts and *maybe* had a job writing for the local paper. In Rainbows is an example of the internet delivering hype over substance, as a "tip of the spear" for propaganda. Wow, and I here I thought I really liked In Rainbows. Thanks for setting me straight. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Wow, and I here I thought I really liked In Rainbows. Thanks for setting me straight.Perhaps you haven't seen Orkie's other commentary. Take a look at his thoughts on alt-country. Don't you all know that until everyone's musical tastes trend EXACTLY the same way, we will never truly achieve eternal bliss!?! Oh yeah, and your favorite band sucks! Link to post Share on other sites
halftheworldaway Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I dont think that it is fair to say that mostly English bands mad unhappy music, the point of Britpop in the 90s was to rebell against grunge and the music of seattle, it was alot more optimistic, bands like Oasis, Travis, Pulp make optimistic music, but I do see where your coming from with bands like Radiohead, even Blur and to an exten the Arctic Monkeys making angry and pessamistic music. But I really do think that alot of american bands are more in to the unhappy type of music, just look at everything that was on MTV from 99-03, and the same goes for 90-95 Link to post Share on other sites
rareair Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 But I really do think that alot of american bands are more in to the unhappy type of music, just look at everything that was on MTV from 99-03, and the same goes for 90-95 looking at mtv to solve any music debate is dubious. this whole discussion is off the rails. Link to post Share on other sites
radiokills Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 The "one tone" has been Amnesiac to IR. They are awful records. thanks for setting that straight for me. i'll stop listening to them now. Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco LP #7 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 So people who like Radiohead can only experience feelings of self-pity and misery? Hmm, that's a bit much, don't you think? Folks seemed to be in a pretty good mood at the Radiohead concerts I've seen. Saying that Radiohead only does whiny, self-pitying songs is no better than those local newspaper blurbs that say "alt-country band Wilco." Well, that isn't what I said. The point is that the overwhelming arc of Radiohead's library is one of defeated negativity. The imprint they leave is one of depression and anxiety, and doesn't shine light on the plurality of life. That's a high bar to meet, of course, but it's one that Radiohead should meet if they're half as good as people make them out to be. Link to post Share on other sites
radiokills Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 That's a high bar to meet, of course, but it's one that Radiohead should meet if they're half as good as people make them out to be. no, according to you its a standard they should meet. Link to post Share on other sites
Orkie Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I mean, The Beatles--good singers. Paul McCartney-- genius....but Pink Floyd? Sorry, you had me til then. Also, Thom Yorke has an extremely good voice and decent range. Probably a better range than Tweedy, and better singer. But I feel like Tweedy has consistently captured different moods. If you look at two quiet Wilco songs- Sky Blue Sky, and Someday Some Morning, there is a still a huge different in tone and color. Thom Yorke doesn't do that. Tweedy's a good singer, on the mumbly side, but he is extremely good at using what he's got. Well Pink Floyd is second only behind the Beattles in terms of albums sold by a rock band, so they fit the bill. They also had three vocalists which gave better balance to the music. Link to post Share on other sites
redpillbox Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Why do interesting topics for discussion always devolve into a battle of taste? I mean, I understand that there was an element of this implied in the topic, but, must it always go down the road of...this band sucks, no they don't, yes they do, no they don't. Eh...whatever...I'll just go tilt at windmills. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Why does a band have to be uplifting to be the best band in the world? Not to say that Radiohead necessarily is, but I would think that the quality of the music is the only factor in determining how good the band is, isn't it? Why do they have to make you think happy thoughts to be good? Link to post Share on other sites
radiokills Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 The thing with music is it is totally subjective. How can you tell someone that they are wrong to like the art and/or entertainment that they like? i think it can be left at that. Link to post Share on other sites
dondoboy Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 i think it can be left at that.Nah, it shouldn't be left at that. I'm sure there's some idiot out there that would call Richard Marx art (or entertainment, for that matter). And instead of slapping them, they should be told..." it ain't art, but here's an alternative. Take a listen to this. I don't know that this is art either, but its gonna blow your socks off." And then give them a Wire record. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 Why does a band have to be uplifting to be the best band in the world? Not to say that Radiohead necessarily is, but I would think that the quality of the music is the only factor in determining how good the band is, isn't it? Why do they have to make you think happy thoughts to be good? I dont think Berman is saying that the music has to be uplifting for a band to be the best in the world. I think he doesn't like Radiohead all that much, made a fair critique of their music, and the discussion has now turned into "Radiohead sucks" vs. "Radiohead is great" talk. In fact, Berman admits that Radiohead is considered the greatest band in the world now. That's a title that has been bestowed upon them by others, but he wishes that some other band held that title. Nothing wrong with that. Sure, no one thinks that music can start a revolution, but Berman thinks that 30 years from now, people will look back on our time, and our music as a reflection of us. And we will be the generation that got all pissed off because someone insulted our favorite band on an internet message board, but didn't give a shit about knocking on doors in swing states. And Radiohead will have been the best band in the world while it was happening. Radiohead's contribution to our times seems to fall into two categories: (1) new and interesting ways to present depression and introspection in music, and (2) new and interesting ways to sell more records in a digital age. I like Radiohead. I happen to think they are overrated, but I do think they make good music and I like listening to them when the mood is right. I do agree with Berman though. It would be nice if the best band in the world had something more to say. That's not an obligation that they deserve. It's just my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 I'd also like to say with a bit of tongue firmly implanted in cheek that I find it amusing how many saracastic Radiohead references have ended up sprinkled throughout other threads by folks not participating in this discussion. Sort of proving Berman's point. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I dont think Berman is saying that the music has to be uplifting for a band to be the best in the world. I think he doesn't like Radiohead all that much, made a fair critique of their music, and the discussion has now turned into "Radiohead sucks" vs. "Radiohead is great" talk. In fact, Berman admits that Radiohead is considered the greatest band in the world now. That's a title that has been bestowed upon them by others, but he wishes that some other band held that title. Nothing wrong with that. I agree, I was responding to WilcoLP#7 who said its a bad thing for the best band in the world to wallow in sorrow. Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco LP #7 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Why does a band have to be uplifting to be the best band in the world? Not to say that Radiohead necessarily is, but I would think that the quality of the music is the only factor in determining how good the band is, isn't it? Why do they have to make you think happy thoughts to be good? The best band in the world shouldn't be so one-dimensional. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 They're not. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted October 23, 2008 Author Share Posted October 23, 2008 I hereby put this thread out of its misery. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts