Radiohead discussion continues

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Casual fan. He's an amazing guitar player. You're Living All Over Me and Bug are really good records and I've seen them twice at festivals.

Him praising Black Star is just icing on the cake. Definitely in my Radiohead Rushmore.
 
Last edited:
Casual fan. He's an amazing guitar player. You're Living All Over Me and Bug are really good records and I've seen them twice at festivals.

Not fan of anything later? I prefer the post-Lou Barlow era due to the increased sophistication. Green Mind and Where You Been? are great albums, and Without A Sound has a good number of standouts.

It was nice to see Barlow back though, as he definitely put some energy back into the band.
 
Apologies in advance to anyone who got excited at the bumping of this thread. No news that I know of.

I was just thinking though, that it's interesting that for all the grief we give Shuttlecock for their lack of productivity, we don't really give Radiohead that same grief even though their productivity hasn't been any better in recent years. In fact, it might be a little worse.

Their last EMI release, HTTT, was released in June 2003. In the twelve years and a few months since then, they've put out two albums, one of which was EP-like in length.

In that same period of time, U2 have put out three albums and might put out a fourth next year.

So I just thought it was an interesting contrast. Why do we not get as pissy at Radiohead for their lack of productivity?

Could be a number of reasons. Maybe...

1. Their recent output has been less disappointing for a lot of people and so they are willing to be more patient? Like, a lot of people might say IR is better than anything U2 have done in the 21st century and when you make an album that good, you get more leeway?

or

2. It bothers people less because when Radiohead takes five or six years to put out an album, it's because they hadn't felt like making one, whereas when U2 do the same, it's because they started making one in year two, nearly finished it by the end of year three, scrapped the whole thing and started over, nearly finished it again by the end of year four, brought in extra producers to remix half the tracks at the beginning of year five, and then finally put it out at the end of year five after several false starts?

Just wanted to start this discussion.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
We've gotten a number of solo releases and side projects from the members of Radiohead though.
 
I don't know for sure if there's maybe a sense that Radiohead are semi-retired... has anyone really been expecting anything (I mean, I guess, until Jonny or whoever started making noises about them being in the studio)?

Thom, singular, and others, singular, are certainly active, although I'm not that interested in them absent the sum of their parts.
 
They're working on the record as we speak. There are pictures of them working with an orchestra (Burn the Witch... maybe) and Phil has stated they have their hands full at the moment.
 
Remember how fucking exciting it was when they were like 'King of Limbs out in a week'? I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I saw it.

Cannot fucking wait though I am expecting first quarter 2016 at the earliest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom