Radiohead's biggest weakness - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-09-2005, 03:13 PM   #151
War Child
 
Alan Jamison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: pimp walkin the LBC
Posts: 640
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoomerang96
congratulations, ladies and gentlemen.

this thread has raised discussion over at at ease.

http://www.ateaseweb.com/mb/index.php?showtopic=52476

yours truly,

soylent green
From atease:
Quote:
That poster Cujo would crash our server regularly.... Talk about the ability to turn a sentence into a paragraph. He's even more verbose than I am!


































__________________

__________________
Alan Jamison is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 03:16 PM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 11:36 AM
I wish I could use some of the repsonses they use over there to respond to you Alan Jamison.
__________________

__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 03:17 PM   #153
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoomerang96
congratulations, ladies and gentlemen.

this thread has raised discussion over at at ease.

http://www.ateaseweb.com/mb/index.php?showtopic=52476

yours truly,

soylent green


Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!



It's PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE.

(oh and I got a trunk full of amps mother fucker.)
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 05:19 PM   #154
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bread n' whine

By this reasoning wouldnt U2 be automatically ahead of the Beatles, since the Beatles only had "one decade of greatness." And Nick Drake must not have been great at all since he only did three albums. This is a stupid kind of reasoning.

As to whether they've actually "played out an entire aspect of their artistry," I don't know. That's the first impression you get from HTTT, but there are songs on it where Radiohead is as Radioheadish as they've ever been and it's still exciting and new--

The easy thing is always to ask a band to be what it isn't. But U2 never really did that. At first what you said sounded right but then I thought about it. Achtung is a left turn musically from The Joshua Tree

Asking RH to make a happy album is asking them to make an album that doesn't question the state of the world and that's kind of like asking U2 to make an album that promotes violence. Just not gonna happen. I'm not sure Thom's voice could pull off "happy" very well.
Ok, 4 points I want to address from this post as outlined by what I've quoted.

First, my reasoning regarding decades of greatness stems from 2 places. The first being the fact that RH is still in the game. As long as they keep recording, the question is an obvious one; Will their 2nd decade be as great as their first? I believe they need to address the weakness I've postulated to make it happen. The second is that a few in here have constantly slammed nu-U2 (as you like to call them) as their rebuttal to my theory on RH's weakness. The point I was trying to make with the post you quoted is that the comparison is apples and oranges. Just because U2 may or may not suck now, doesn't mean that RH may or may not be at an artistic crossroad. As for your Beatles vs. U2 comment, I think both have achieved the elite status. Put it this way, The Beatles didn't need a 2nd decade of greatness to achieve that, U2 did, but they went out an did it. RH also needs to go out and do it, I think. Because, just like U2, their first decade isn't on the same level as The Beatles only decade.

Second, hopefully we can agree to disagree regarding HTTT. It's not a bad album. Like you've said, there's some good songs on there, but I don't think it did much of anything to build on their artistry or address the weakness I've described.

Third, I'm not asking RH to be what they aren't. It's the opposite. I'm asking them to be more of what they are. Like I've said many times, I think there's a side of their humanity they havn't given enough of a creative exploration to. AB focused on a side of U2's humanity that had only been touched on in the previous decade. Mainly, a looser, freer more primitive side. By doing that a wonderful thing happened; they liberated themselves as artists. It's that sense of liberation that is AB's secret artistic weapon, I think. All the while, as you point out, they're still very much U2. RH could use a dose of that kind of liberation about now, I think.

Finally, remember I've never asked RH to make a happy album. THEY asked themselves to judging by the quotes posted earlier.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 06:17 PM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
lmjhitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: tbtf
Posts: 4,317
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Yeah, that's his nickname: The Edge. I used to think names like "The Edge" or "Spike" were cool, but then I turned 12.

The only way I could ever respect him is if he shouted some stupid catch phrase before every concert like "WATCH OUT! THE EDGE WILL CUT YOU!" That might almost be stupid enough to be cool again with the dumbass hipster crowd, until the next stupid trend shows up at Hot Topic for you to oversaturate and ruin.


gotta love atease
__________________
lmjhitman is offline  
Old 07-09-2005, 11:54 PM   #156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 93
Local Time: 04:36 PM
This board is a lot more open to people's differences than At Ease I have to say. I'm not in danger of becoming a permanent member, but it's weird to see a music forum where multi-page threads are made about artists ranging from Seal to Broken Social Scene, with the haters mostly staying out of them. It's cool to see a lot of people here don't irrationally worship U2 anymore than I do. They just have an incredibly wide fanbase, you can't really categorize it-- some of the people seem to have learned about other music through U2, the way I learned about music through Radiohead. Hey, they're both mainstream bands, one is just more uncomfortable with the idea. I'm not an elitist. If U2 were still doing music worthy of that fanbase, I would think it was great. Their flaw is their need to always be universally loved, but when they don't force it too much, it works. "Beautiful Day," and some stuff off ATYCLB.

Although that thread in defense of the line about freedom and babies' heads is a bit disturbing.
__________________
bread n' whine is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 03:22 AM   #157
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
intedomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,952
Local Time: 02:36 AM
Um...

Just because U2's most recent album is more conventional and not as experimental as UF, Pop, Zooropa and Passengers, does not make it a "bad" or "bland" album.

To think so smacks of elitism.

It's far from bland in my opinion, and both stronger and more enjoyable than Zooropa.
__________________
intedomine is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 03:38 AM   #158
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bread n' whine
For the first 7 pages, you guys had a great argument going here. I'm a "Radiohead fan" and I found it impressive. There wasn't necessarily a point, and you should probably stop now because no one is convincing anyone and the arguments are getting lazier and more boring. But it was fun. Radiohead forums are too hung up on Radiohead's self-evident brilliance to get at some of these things.

Of course, Layton is wrong. If only because he has changed his argument over the course of the thread as he realized what he originally proposed was laughable-- so at this point all his argument boils down to is "Radiohead is too intellectual and I don't like their fans." But later on he did hit on some good points in spite of himself and I didn't see Cujo refute them. No hard feelings, he's right, that's what arguments are for. It's his opinion. Putting it out there for us to refute it makes the world more interesting, but we're still gonna refute it.

Now at first there was the "no rhythm" thing. That was rightfully swept under the rug when you realized how lame it was. They don't always have a lot of it as you define it, but U2 doesn't either, and apparently they can still rate at the A level-- soul and funk and blues musicians as influences is different from a soul and funk and blues outcome, as you'd know if you followed Radiohead enough to know Colin Greenwood (bassist) lives for Booker T & the MGs, all of them are reggae addicts, Thom favors Prince and Gilberto Gil and even called Outkast's "Hey Ya" one of the greatest things ever long before that was what every white guy thought, actually, maybe before the record was even out. It was early summer 2003.

There's tons of jazz going into the last few albums, especially Amnesiac. I don't know if jazz has the kind of rhythm you're thinking of. Probably not jazz by Mingus, Alice Coltrane, or late Miles Davis. You probably think that stuff is too intellectual. There's some hidden racism in that "rockist" critique of Radiohead you make at the beginning. The idea that pasty people can only be fully in touch with themselves when they steal a conga line and a blues riff and a gospel choir from primitive Negroes. I guess black people stopped being black around the '60s and '70s and '80s when they started developing nontraditional forms of music, the types Radiohead mostly draws from.

But anyway, if it matters, Radiohead have stolen plenty from "primitive" black people as well, and occasionally it even shows up in their music. You would be hard pressed to find anything by any current white band that's as funky as the b-side "Paperbag Writer."

But really, it's all about "There There." They call it a Can homage, but if you'd ever heard the live version (try the original performance, from Portugal, July 2002), I think you might have not made this thread in the first place. It fulfills all the cliches anyone could want of an A list rockist rock band-- gospel, blues, soul, rawwwk, and still distinctively Radiohead, so just different enough from the cliches. It sounds sexy till it gets all distorted, and it could even be ABOUT sex.

Yeah, there are a lot of rhythmic or soul-influenced Radiohead songs besides that, which the good people here have pointed out (the b-side "Bishop's Robes" even) but "There There" was the first one that indisputably sounds that way. The studio version is typical, clinical, controlled-chaos Radiohead style-- still brilliant, but not what I'm talking about. Download that mp3, or see them live next time (all the band members play drums on it), and if you still believe in that original stupid argument right now, you no longer will. I admit, hearing "There There" felt great maybe for some of the reasons you said. We could use more songs like that from Radiohead.

And that brings me to your other points, the surprisingly good ones you made when you stopped with the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame crap. See, I agree with you: I'm not sure I would want to jump to any conclusions before their next record, but Hail to the Thief was unexciting, at best. A couple songs aside, it did absolutely nothing to advance Radiohead's right to be included among the great fearless pioneers-- that's your angle. That doesn't matter to me since I'm not a list maker for Rolling Stone, although I agree. But my angle is, it did absolutely nothing to advance its own sociopolitical arguments, or much more importantly, move listeners, that the earlier two albums hadn't done far better. Radiohead makes albums for themselves. U2 doesn't. Cujo has to be applauded for pointing this out on a U2 site-- the difference is, no matter how stale HTTT may be, and it IS stale, it does not sell itself out except by having weaker songs than usual. If anyone is calculating everything today it's U2, or nu-U2 as I like to call them, for their lack of resemblance to the great band that existed last millennium. Radiohead are in a bit of a rut right now, judging by their last effort, and Layton is correct-- a new approach is needed. But their reputation is in less danger than U2's. There's an expression in Christianity which I'm sure U2 fans would be familiar with-- "searching." Radiohead is doing it no matter how redundant that last album was, and U2 has stopped. Even if their music still sounded good, that would be a very bad thing.

Listened to Passengers for the first time today. I have to say, this is quite f*cking amazing. AND, yes, for once, it actually is Radioheadish. I always thought U2 had been more of a career than musical influence on RH, showing them which ways to go (and not to go). There was a lot of U2 in their very, very early music, under the name On a Friday (check out "Jerusalem / Mr. B," "Give It Up" or "What is that You Say"), but since then the only similarity I heard was both bands were melodic and anthemic. Pop addresses very similar concerns as Kid A, from a Christian perspective. But musically-- at the other end of "electronica."

This Passengers thing might change my mind. It's a lot more subtle than anything else U2 has ever done, and some of it's slightly dissonant and jazzy. Calling Radiohead subtle seems wrong, but Kid A and Amnesiac are, in a way that Zooropa and Pop aren't. Passengers is that way too. The problem is I don't think it means anything.

I mean, Zooropa and Pop are great, but they feel like unfinished masterpieces. Problem is, the type of "finishing" U2 would have applied to them would have been the wrong kind. Take the best half of Zooropa and merge it with Passengers, you would have U2's best album, easily. What they should have done is written music like "Passengers" for those songs on Pop, to do them justice. Now you rhythm obsessives who buy into the laughable Springsteen quote have all gotten your wish: they're the new old Stones. No less, and no more. In commercial terms, of course.

So that's U2's greatest weakness: underestimating their audience. Save the real experiments for the fake band with the throwaway lyrics, and produce every track you care about until you feel it's ready for acceptance by every single human on earth. This is usually called "pandering" and "watering down" (or "selling out") but somehow U2 have gotten around the term. I want to believe in their artistic sincerity and desire for things other than money, but really at some point, they've gotta be ranked against everyone else. The last album was that point. If they are out of it enough to believe such enforced blandness is necessary because no one will hear of them otherwise, that's delusional enough to not be an excuse. Every time they come out with an album the press has to act like the last multimillion-seller was a failure just to justify the hype. U2 wants their music heard no matter what, and at least now, always makes it with that in mind. Radiohead wants to make whatever music they want and getting it heard is the bonus. Both bands could stand to learn a little from the other's approach, but there's no doubt which is worth more. The song "I Forgot More than You'll Ever Know" comes to mind when comparing the bands. Ultimately, does it really matter what U2 supposedly did first? They've disavowed any of their innovations by making it look like that was all just about securing a "Respectable" berth in rock history. After a decade of brilliantly blurring the line between art and commerce, they simply embraced commerce, laughing in our faces. It's Radiohead that has kept up the legacy of what U2 supposedly did, but maybe never did after all, who knows. And we know they won't laugh in our faces. Even when their music is dull, they don't even care what we think, and that's really refreshing.
Best. Post. Ever.

Please stay.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 09:28 AM   #159
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Jeez. Atease is like an AC/DC forum with more syllables & sharper insults. Close minded indeed.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 10:34 AM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
uwwedoogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cork, Ireland... IM BACK!
Posts: 3,618
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Radiohead's biggest weakness is that their crap...
__________________
uwwedoogie is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 10:48 AM   #161
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by uwwedoogie
Radiohead's biggest weakness is that their crap...
1.Are you over the age of 16? I doubt it.

2.T-H-E-Y-'-R-E means 'They are', T-H-E-I-R is poccessive.

3.Why do you insist on coming into a thread with so much intelligent discussion on the topic and littering it with something like this?
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:21 AM   #162
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
Local Time: 04:36 PM
1. There There
2. A Punch-Up At A Wedding
3. Go To Sleep
4. I Am A Wicked Child
5. Follow Me Around
6. Good Morning, Mr. Magpie
7. Gagging Order
8. Fog (live version)
9. Talk Show Host (live version)
10. Sail To The Moon

I thought about a tracklisting that would sound like the groovy, bluesy, happy album people like Layton wanted to hear. This is my result. It's great somehow, but otherwise you can see why it's not what Radiohead released with HTTT. On the one hand it lacks the feeling of alienation and the mysterious touch, which belongs to Radiohead and will always do, I think. It sound almost radio-friendly and commercial. And this is the other problem. Releasing an album like this would be the same for Radiohead as saying: "You critics were right, our last too albums were too experimental, strange and barely listenable. Sorry for these albums, now we will try to sound like Coldplay."
But I'm sure Radiohead are proud of "Kid Amnesiac" and that they wanted to get the attention of people who dismissed these albums, that were under-estimated by the critque.
As far as that I have to defend, what Radiohead did.
On the other hand HTTT has some big problems, I (a radiohead fan from the atease msg board) have to agree. Listening to the previous albums was like watching a movie. "OK Computer" takes me to an Orwellian future-world, "Kid A" is a journey through wide icy landscapes and listening to "Amnesiac" is like going through the labyrinth of the minotaur. HTTT is good music, but it takes me nowhere, it lacks that visual quality. And the reason for that is probably that the album was made without a concept, without thinking too much about it. So somehow I wish Radiohead would analyze their music more carefully again. Can you understand that point, Layton?
Also I think it's a big mistake to put a song like "We Suck Young Blood" on the record and let it follow by "The Gloaming". As Thom said in the quote I have posted earlier, "WSYB" has a real sense of humour to it and it seems as Radiohead were making fun of themselves. They take themselves not too seriously. But on the next song, "The Gloaming", they talk about the apocalypse with lines like "this is now the witching hour" and "your alarm bells should be ringing, this is the gloaming" so seriously that they don't have to wonder when people dismiss all the irony that you can find in WSYB.
One last thing: Some people speculated what Radiohead may do in the future. As a big fan I can add some information. Thom Yorke said in an interview something like: "With HTTT we just wanted to stop our musical development for a moment and enjoy where we are now and what we have achieved. But I think on the next album it's time for us to disappear again in a black hole of the unknown. I think, the next time we will be completely unrecognizable."
And some months ago they compared their studio sessions that are going on at the moment with the "Kid A" sessions, where they kind of reinvented themselves.
Jonny Greenwood has a new job as a composer for the BBC orchestra and if you listen to this music, it's obvious that he is very interested in oriental music at the moment. So maybe you can expect the next album with classical elements and especially influenced by the oriental composer Mohamed Abdel Wahab. I think that's possible and I think it would be great. But when you're dealing with Radiohead, nothing's ever for sure.

(Please excuse my bad English, because it's not my first language.)
__________________
Moritz is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 12:38 PM   #163
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moritz

1. There There
2. A Punch-Up At A Wedding
3. Go To Sleep
4. I Am A Wicked Child
5. Follow Me Around
6. Good Morning, Mr. Magpie
7. Gagging Order
8. Fog (live version)
9. Talk Show Host (live version)
10. Sail To The Moon

As far as that I have to defend, what Radiohead did.
On the other hand HTTT has some big problems, I (a radiohead fan from the atease msg board) have to agree. Listening to the previous albums was like watching a movie. "OK Computer" takes me to an Orwellian future-world, "Kid A" is a journey through wide icy landscapes and listening to "Amnesiac" is like going through the labyrinth of the minotaur. HTTT is good music, but it takes me nowhere, it lacks that visual quality. And the reason for that is probably that the album was made without a concept, without thinking too much about it. So somehow I wish Radiohead would analyze their music more carefully again. Can you understand that point, Layton?
Most of those songs on your list only touch on an under-developed side of themselves, particularly the 4 HTTT songs. It feels to me like they don't know how to fully allow themselves to 'go there', so to speak. I feel like they want to and at moments do sensually let go, in those songs, but they always pull back into their usual intellectually aesthetic territory. Thus, the habitual creative tendencies, I've been talking about.

Sure, I understand your point about the evolution of the last 4 albums and where that's gotten them, currently in your mind. Only time will tell what happens from here, I guess.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 01:32 PM   #164
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 02:06 PM
I never want to hear the word "Sensual" or "Primitive" again

stop saying these words!
STOP SAYING THEM!
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 07-10-2005, 01:37 PM   #165
Blue Meth Addict
 
u2popmofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 36,961
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Basstrap
I never want to hear the word "Sensual" or "Primitive" again

stop saying these words!
STOP SAYING THEM!
Are you saying that over-use of these terms is Layton's biggest weakness?
__________________

__________________
u2popmofo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com