Radiohead's biggest weakness

[lmjhitman]

Originally posted by 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.

but isn’t this where it gets subjective, layton? if YOU feel they’re not rocking out, does that really mean that they’re not letting go? maybe they’re not going far enough for you, and that’s their perceived weakness. this is radiohead. THIS is radiohead rocking out. at this point, it seems you’re asking them to be something that they’re not. they’re not going to be metallica or fatboy slim. radiohead have to work within the constraints of being radiohead. as the beatles did. as U2 do. as any artist does. when U2 released 'pop', it was wildly different for them. did they not go far enough because they didn’t sound like daft punk? of course not. they’re not an electronica act, they’re U2, a group of people who have particular ideas about what is artistically, aesthetically, aurally pleasing. they, and radiohead, work within that framework. i don’t think i would consider that a habitual creative tendency, nor is it a weakness.

that being said, i liked moritz’s idea of coming up with a tracklisting that might appeal to those who’d like to hear radiohead get down. there is no rhyme or reason to this list. just a collection of songs that i think show radiohead’s music can and does sonically, emotionally, rhythmically and (gasp!) hip-shakingly ‘go there’:

- electioneering
- idioteque
- lewis (mistreated)
- lift
- mxyomatosis
- nothing touches me
- reckoner
- sit down, stand up
- talk show host
- where I end and you begin

[uwwedoogie]

Originally posted by namkcuR


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?

1: Yes

2: Apologies for the spelling mistake, like all of us I'm not perfect

3: giving my opinion

[bread n' whine]

Layton, did you hear that "Arpeggi" song/piece Thom performed with the orchestra earlier this year?

I don't really like it, because the music sounds derivative of other bands (and Steve Reich) to me, in fact it sounds way too close to completely blah '70s prog rock (whereas "Pyramid Song" was better-than-anything-actually-from-the-'70s prog rock) but I guess it's nice enough. And that song is hardly typical Radiohead. It seems to be a sort of new agey love song, relaxing and lacking the sense of tension and political angst. It's like what I would expect from modern day Mercury Rev. Wouldn't more songs like that, however good or bad, be exactly what you mean by showing their non-intellectual side?

I guess what I'm asking is, are you criticizing lyrics or music? If they made an underproduced album of piano/organ and acoustic tunes with minimal electronic embellishment-- songs that sounded like "Mr. Magpie," "I Froze Up," "Gagging Order," "Reckoner" etc.-- yet the lyrics continued in the vein of the past few albums (but back to the old Kid A levels of ingenuity) would you complain they were still not being primitive because they weren't saying "you go girl" to Aung Sang Suu Kyi and professing love to their wives?

If the lack of personal lyrics is what bothers you, hopefully you noticed "Sail to the Moon."

[Dalton]

Originally posted by Basstrap
I never want to hear the word "Sensual" or "Primitive" again

stop saying these words!
STOP SAYING THEM!

Why is Oprah yelling? Why?

[TheFly84138]

Originally posted by Layton


Absolutely no doubt about that. I'm amazed more RH fans in here don't see this. Maybe, I've been cruel with my blinders comments to Cujo, but it just stuns me when the RH defenders can't at least admit to this. They've played out an entire aspect of their artistry and I'm convinced THEY know it. Why can't the defenders realize it, too is beyond me.

Also, U2popMofo and others have pointed out numerous times how U2 has declined nowadays. Even if this is true, it's apples and oranges. U2 has ALREADY proven to have had 2 decades of greatness. Any quibbles with their current output is just a quibble with their attempt at a 3rd decade of greatness. RH has only proven 1 decade of greatness. HTTT was their first attempt at the elusive 2nd decade. Given the obligatory Best Of or two that will most likely come (the record company will probably demand it, soon), they aren't going to have a whole lot of attempts (already at least 3 yrs between HTTT and next album). They better start making the most of them.

Radiohead no longer has a record deal and doesn't have to answer to anybody. Currently Hail to the Thief completed their contract with Capitol records and have yet to sign with a new label. Last I saw they wish to release EPs on their own record label. So the thought of any best of would have to approved directly from them, which at the moment seems doubtful at best.

[MrBrau1]

Originally posted by TheFly84138


Radiohead no longer has a record deal and doesn't have to answer to anybody. Currently Hail to the Thief completed their contract with Capitol records and have yet to sign with a new label. Last I saw they wish to release EPs on their own record label. So the thought of any best of would have to approved directly from them, which at the moment seems doubtful at best.

Do they own their masters? If not, Capitol can release a GH whenever they want, without band approval. It happend to REM when they moved from IRS to WB in 1988. Now REM have 2 GH records, Eponymous(which was the IRS album) covering 1982-1987, and In Time (The Warner record) covering 1988-2004.

[TheFly84138]

Originally posted by MrBrau1


Do they own their masters? If not, Capitol can release a GH whenever they want, without band approval. It happend to REM when they moved from IRS to WB in 1988. Now REM have 2 GH records, Eponymous(which was the IRS album) covering 1982-1987, and In Time (The Warner record) covering 1988-2004.

Hmm, I'm not sure. Didn't REM owe IRS an album and that's why it got released?

[Layton]

Originally posted by lmjhitman

but isn’t this where it gets subjective, layton? if YOU feel they’re not rocking out, does that really mean that they’re not letting go? maybe they’re not going far enough for you, and that’s their perceived weakness. this is radiohead.

Of course it's subjective. As I've said numerous times, this is just MY THEORY of their weakness. Call me nuts, but I think all things have strengths and weaknesses. I put this out there for the sake of DEBATE. I probably irritated a few people by adding that this weakness prevented them from making MY truly elite list, but I've never claimed to represent anything other than MYSELF with all of this.

[Layton]

Originally posted by bread n' whine
Layton, did you hear that "Arpeggi" song/piece Thom performed with the orchestra earlier this year?

I guess what I'm asking is, are you criticizing lyrics or music?

I have not heard this "Arpeggi". I'll have to search that out.

To answer your second question; This has been all about the music. It's my sense of how they approach things rhythmically that led me down this weakness path.

[cujo]

It really was just opinion, and there's no refuting that. I believe that some took contention to Layton's ideas because the word theory implies a more universal meaning. There was a lot of vague words selected (on behalf of everyone, myself included) that made it difficult to gain an understanding. Personally, my thoughts were hindered by my attempts at hypocritical irony in later posts, where other approaches would have been more suitable. There were things I left unsaid, but it's all just semantics. Hats off to the folks who carried on the interest in a civil manner.

As a gesture to rectify my lowbrow usurping, I offer all Arpeggi.



Mail trebek@gmail.com if you, Layton, or anyone else is interested.

Cheers.

[ZeroDude]

( First off great thread, but I don't want to be jumped on due to the stupidity that may reside in my post)



After reading through both threads, the one here and the one at atease, I think I can safely say that a lot of Radiohead fans ( Yes I'm a fan of both bands) have a grand tendency towards pomposity and self righteousness, basically while most of us here openly criticise what we don't like about our favourite band ( What ever that band may be U2 being mine ), the Radiohead fans on that forum seem stilted in their reasoning and ability to coerce themselves into a more free state of mind.

I apologise for generalising our fellow forum goers, but music is not about intellectual ponderings and having soulless agendas, music is about passion and heart, passion that I feel when listening to Sunday Bloody Sunday or 2 + 2= 5, I find comfort in No Surprises as well as One, Bono is a master of conceptual lyricism, Thom captures mankind’s inner doubts and paranoia.

In the end of the day we're all pretentious, ignorant assholes in my opinion atleast, sorry if this post doesn't really belong here per se due to my lack of an education

[u2popmofo]

Originally posted by ZeroDude
In the end of the day we're all pretentious, ignorant assholes

You've uncovered my biggest weakness.

[ZeroDude]

Originally posted by u2popmofo


You've uncovered my biggest weakness.

Well it's probably one of my biggest weaknesses too