A Safe Space to Discuss “Radiohead”.

rickenvox said:
Yes and Yes! Really, too hard to decipher? All Stones alive, just missing Wyman. The Who, lead drummer dead, lead bassist dead, singer not sure where he is. Jagger fit, Wood fit, Watts fit, Richards undead. By body fat count, they're fitter than Death Cab for Cutie.
Click to expand...

Ok, but who brought up The Who?
 
Listening to Radiohead for me is pretty close to being hit with a radio in the head. I read most of the posts in this thread and found myself just slowly shaking my head.
 
Flamencology said:
Ok, but who brought up The Who?
Click to expand...

OMG, I did. Example of a band (2 guys) that need to make money but don't need to be considered in their current state when having conversations about the creative prowess of The Who.

You need to be reminded of the original thesis? Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm done, I've tried to impart my wisdom and enlighten and now it's all this. I will no longer post here . . .





Until I finish dinner. Cooking up a nice little dish tonight for my mom while she's down visiting. Peace out until then beatches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rickenvox said:
OMG, I did. Example of a band (2 guys) that need to make money but don't need to be considered in their current state when having conversations about the creative prowess of The Who.

You need to be reminded of the original thesis? Really?
Click to expand...

You’re comparing commercially successful and critically acclaimed albums by an active and currently influential band to a reunion tour by select members of a band that hasn’t had any success with original material in over 40 years.

Your thesis is flawed, but the execution is simply fucked.
 
Flamencology said:
You’re comparing commercially successful and critically acclaimed albums by an active and currently influential band to a reunion tour by select members of a band that hasn’t had any success with original material in over 40 years.

Your thesis is flawed, but the execution is simply fucked.
Click to expand...

Sooooo, you're drinking too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rickenvox said:
Bones, you ignorant slut - first of all, yes Kid A and Amnesiac were released 18 and 19 years ago.
Click to expand...
Point is they are 'known' for work that came out less than twenty years years ago. Not so for Cure or My Bloody Valentine. Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows were well known critical and commercial successes, too. Talking about the band without talking about that period would be kind of myopic.

It's only really with King of Limbs (2011) that they stopped making what are considered great albums.

While I'm not a fan of the foo fighters, there are songs/albums they are known for. Same with Beyonce. And that is separate from what I think of them as artists. So when you talk about Foo Fighters you have to know what their heyday was (roughly 1997-2005). For Beyonce, you have to know she probably peaked about a decade ago but her new albums still generate buzz and hit singles. Like it or not, sales are a big indicator of how well the public knows about something. Same for critical status. So when you talk about what is 'known' you have to take that into consideration. And not just your own personal memory which is likely not very reliable. Just because you didn't hear something doesn't mean it was obscure/unknown to everyone else.
 
Bones McHorror said:
Point is they are 'known' for work that came out less than twenty years years ago. Not so for Cure or My Bloody Valentine. Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows were well known critical and commercial successes, too. Talking about the band without talking about that period would be kind of myopic.

It's only really with King of Limbs (2011) that they stopped making what are considered great albums.

While I'm not a fan of the foo fighters, there are songs/albums they are known for. Same with Beyonce. And that is separate from what I think of them as artists. So when you talk about Foo Fighters you have to know what their heyday was (roughly 1997-2005). For Beyonce, you have to know she probably peaked about a decade ago but her new albums still generate buzz and hit singles. Like it or not, sales are a big indicator of how well the public knows about something. Same for critical status. So when you talk about what is 'known' you have to take that into consideration. And not just your own personal memory which is likely not very reliable. Just because you didn't hear something doesn't mean it was obscure/unknown to everyone else.
Click to expand...

There isn't a year since 1980 that I haven't read what most critics have written about each year. And if you saw the most recent R&R hall of fame (which I usually detest, but unusually good this year), when David Byrne presented the award for Radiohead he, David Byrne, mentioned Kid A as a personal landmark album for himself. Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows was only tolerated by some critics at the time, the point in their career where further work is only put into perspective by comparison to their older work. I actually enjoy both those albums, but neither is groundbreaking. And my personal preference is to focus on groundbreaking works of artists (artists that are even capable of breaking new ground, innovation-wise). So yes, people continue holding their breath for new decent albums from their favorite artists, and even rationalize those later albums which never surpass the ones of those artist's heyday, aaand those people do sometimes but a lot of albums. But that doesn't make album 8 or 9 by [insert your favorite band here] vital or important.

Personally I have this weird habit of seeking out new bands each year that are doing something I haven't heard before. Frees me from hoping reeeeaaally hard that Radiohead's next album will be good (or resorting to the sad practice of buying solo albums from band members). There's always something new under the sun (to contradict Solomon).

A person who seems completely unaware of an artist or band's great and mediocre albums would be the one I would assume isn't reading the critics, besides having good ears or taste to recognize it for themselves.

It's also hard to think of a single band and album in the 90s that's had the influence that My Bloody Valentine's Loveless has had on musicians, even to defining an entirely new genre that still has new bands cropping up today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows actually have higher scores on Metacritic than either Kid A or Amnesiac. You simply have a bad memory like I said. They got a ton of buzz and very good sales. Stylistically they are much tighter and more aggressive rock without retreading 90s cliches in contrast to nu-metal and post-grunge crap at the time.

JbS7R08.png

The Guardian writes about In Rainbows: "it ventures into new emotional territories."

Entertainment Weekly: "Rainbows may be the gentlest, prettiest Radiohead set yet."

Now Magazine: "when they actually exceed expectations, as they do here, it's a clear sign that Radiohead will continue to reinvent themselves and drop more jaws along the way."

BBC: "In Rainbows really does present Radiohead at their most full-blooded and confident."

Rolling Stone: "none of it sounds like any other band on earth; it delivers an emotional punch that proves all other rock stars owe us an apology."

Los Angeles Times: "The first time I listened to Radiohead's In Rainbows, I loved it, no holds barred."

AllMusic: "In Rainbows will hopefully be remembered as Radiohead's most stimulating synthesis of accessible songs and abstract sounds, rather than their first pick-your-price download."

Pitchfork did not like it very much. But they are usually garbage at stuff like this. And thought Arcade Fire would be their messiah forever.
 
rickenvox said:
There isn't a year since 1980 that I haven't read what most critics have written about each year. And if you saw the most recent R&R hall of fame (which I usually detest, but unusually good this year), when David Byrne presented the award for Radiohead he, David Byrne, mentioned Kid A as a personal landmark album for himself. Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows was only tolerated by some critics at the time, the point in their career where further work is only put into perspective by comparison to their older work. I actually enjoy both those albums, but neither is groundbreaking. And my personal preference is to focus on groundbreaking works of artists (artists that are even capable of breaking new ground, innovation-wise). So yes, people continue holding their breath for new decent albums from their favorite artists, and even rationalize those later albums which never surpass the ones of those artist's heyday, aaand those people do sometimes but a lot of albums. But that doesn't make album 8 or 9 by [insert your favorite band here] vital or important.

Personally I have this weird habit of seeking out new bands each year that are doing something I haven't heard before. Frees me from hoping reeeeaaally hard that Radiohead's next album will be good (or resorting to the sad practice of buying solo albums from band members). There's always something new under the sun (to contradict Solomon).

A person who seems completely unaware of an artist or band's great and mediocre albums would be the one I would assume isn't reading the critics, besides having good ears or taste to recognize it for themselves.

It's also hard to think of a single band and album in the 90s that's had the influence that My Bloody Valentine's Loveless has had on musicians, even to defining an entirely new genre that still has new bands cropping up today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In Rainbows was “only tolerated”?

You’re making this up now.

I agree with much of what you’re saying, but you’re also presenting a false binaries where innovation is the be-all and end-all, and that you can’t make a great music without it, and that fans have to prioritize it or else be lost in the past.
 
Flamencology said:
You’re comparing commercially successful and critically acclaimed albums by an active and currently influential band to a reunion tour by select members of a band that hasn’t had any success with original material in over 40 years.

Your thesis is flawed, but the execution is simply fucked.
Click to expand...

This ain't my fight, but I have to point out that this was only 38 years ago.



 
Flamencology said:
In Rainbows was “only tolerated”?

You’re making this up now.

I agree with much of what you’re saying, but you’re also presenting a false binaries where innovation is the be-all and end-all, and that you can’t make a great music without it, and that fans have to prioritize it or else be lost in the past.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say I've just been ambushed by some Rainbows fans who have suddenly come out of the woodwork in this forum. I thought this was a safe place.
 
Bones McHorror said:
Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows actually have higher scores on Metacritic than either Kid A or Amnesiac. You simply have a bad memory like I said. They got a ton of buzz and very good sales. Stylistically they are much tighter and more aggressive rock without retreading 90s cliches in contrast to nu-metal and post-grunge crap at the time.

JbS7R08.png

The Guardian writes about In Rainbows: "it ventures into new emotional territories."

Entertainment Weekly: "Rainbows may be the gentlest, prettiest Radiohead set yet."

Now Magazine: "when they actually exceed expectations, as they do here, it's a clear sign that Radiohead will continue to reinvent themselves and drop more jaws along the way."

BBC: "In Rainbows really does present Radiohead at their most full-blooded and confident."

Rolling Stone: "none of it sounds like any other band on earth; it delivers an emotional punch that proves all other rock stars owe us an apology."

Los Angeles Times: "The first time I listened to Radiohead's In Rainbows, I loved it, no holds barred."

AllMusic: "In Rainbows will hopefully be remembered as Radiohead's most stimulating synthesis of accessible songs and abstract sounds, rather than their first pick-your-price download."

Pitchfork did not like it very much. But they are usually garbage at stuff like this. And thought Arcade Fire would be their messiah forever.
Click to expand...

Ok you like Rainbows.

I do happen to like the critics on AllMusic, particularly since they consider the entire catalogue of work. Unlike Entertainment Weekly who may not even be Radiohead fans and may just want to look hip, far too late in the band's career. The only other serious source for good music criticism in your list is Los Angeles Times. Rolling Stone stopped being a serious source sometime in the 90s. Mojo is also a great source for thoughtful criticism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top