Radiohead's biggest weakness

[Kieran McConville]

Radiohead's biggest weakness is that they won't make goodtimes rock/pop like Huey Lewis and the News. Man, I sure miss the 80s. Why do Radiohead hate freedom?

 

[intedomine]

Radiohead's biggest weakness is that they won't make goodtimes rock/pop like Huey Lewis and the News. Man, I sure miss the 80s. Why do Radiohead hate freedom?

Ah..... The Power of Love

"Don't need no credit card to ride this train."

Good Point Huey, but who uses a credit card to pay for a train ticket anyway?

 

[maurie]

You're probably right. The interpretation argument is always a hard one to get around when talking about art, but just for the hell of it I'll try anyway----lol.

To me it's a weakness that Radiohead doesn't allow the full breadth of human existence to flow through their music.

Now to keep this simple, I'll break down this idea of existence into 2 components. The first being an intellectual, abstract and relatively sophisticated way of experiencing life. The second being a more sensual, sexual and relatively primitive way of experiencing life. Usually people characterized by that second way express it through rhythm and beats (i.e. the great African rhythms that basically gave birth to all rhthym based music). There's been some good rebuttals stating that Radiohead is great with rhythm because of their use of varied time signatures, etc. Usually, varied siganatures are mathematically knotty and take great smarts to put together. Since Radiohead is such an artistically abstract oriented band, these signature changes feel like they're coming from the same tendency. Unlike say great jazz musicians who base their time signature changes more on feel than thought.

I'll go so far as to say that Radiohead might be rock's best ever at portraying their music through that more cerebral way, but they also might be one of the worst ever at portraying their music through more primitive means. Now that's a very minor criticism given how great their strength is. Still though, it makes me wonder because obviously that more primitive side has to exist in them. This leads me to think that they are suppressing this half of themselves. It's as if they're cutting themselves in half and only offering that part of their existence to the world with their art. From that vantage point as a listener, one can begin to feel this suppresion in their music. I think that feeling of suppression can be construed as a weakness relative to other all-timers.

hello have you actually listened to thom yorkes voice? it has more passion and feeling than all of u2 put togtether! radiohead is not just about the instruments but the voice and the lyrics. and by the way talk show host is one of the funkiest tracks ive ever heard!

 

[Layton]

Re: Fin

Your quote affirms what I said in an earlier post, and this is where the unraveling of your argument begins.

If what your position truly values is to see Radiohead create something "primal" at all costs, even if it requires them to abandon principle and actually contrive an emotional condition, then how will they supposedly re-connect with their audience and themselves in any direct way? The addition of more layers is just an appliqué and an artifice that only perpetuates the deficiency between idea and realization. The pursuit of this thread is one of the greatest contradictions I have ever seen, where an artist has been accused of making music in the fashion of being different for pretentious purposes... and the main suggestion for improvement is for them to be even more different, so that in posterity they can be viewed as having embraced a variety of audio aesthetics. Essentially, Layton's argument is requesting them to be different for the sake of it... which is a far cry from asking them to discover the basic and primal elements of musical expression (which I have argued are already quite potently there).

If you simply want to hear Radiohead make a specific sound or style, what validity does one type have over another? Is finding your true artistic self a result of re-packaging precedent material? Does meaningless quantity really contribute to a band's artistic portfolio in any way, shape, or form? There is a disjoint element in this thread that makes it difficult to further elaborate on anything of relevance. That element is placing pre-conceived ideas on artistic process to enrich nothing but public image.

You're reading an argument that doesn't exist. I could care less what they create regarding their principles. I've only made off the cuff suggestions. My only point is that they have a weakness derived from those principles. Do you think they have a weakness of any kind? Do you think they have over used tendencies or bad creative habits? Do you think sophistication in an abnormally high dosage is a misrepresentation of human existence? I'm sure you'll answere no to those question, but I just want it on the record---lol.


Next, you said something about contriving an emotional condition. That has nothing to do with a weakness and if they have to contrive to overcome what I'm addressing then they have a bigger weakness than I thought. Next, I've never accused them of "making music in the fashion of being different for pretensious purposes". I've accused them of being mind dominant and repeatedly said that's a good thing except that it's become a bit of a creative crutch. They lean on the tendency too hard. Next, I've never suggested they be "more different". I suggest they be more of themselves. Quit suppressing and start expressing, I've repeatedly offered. What they do express is great, but it's not a complete representation of their humanity, I think---lol.

Next, this has nothing to do with "audio aesthetics" or "finding your true artistic self". It has to do with finding their full human self. Aesthetically, that could mean anything. Next, "asking them to discover the basic and primal elements of musical expression". That could be close to what I'm asking, except I don't think they need to discover them; they need to rebalance the equation so to speak. Now, you have said you think these elements are "already quite potentially there". Why aren't you saying they ARE there, like I have? Remember, I said that it's impossible that these elements don't exist. Apparently, you disagree----lol. Guess, you think they're all brains. Well, I don't. Check out my 80/20 argument you forgot to quote.

Next, I "don't want to hear Radiohead make a specific sound or style". Again, genre hopping has nothing to do with what I'm on about. I agree that "meaningless quantity" is a waste of time. Only Radiohead dictates that, though. This is where having the ability to expand your artistry comes into play. The key word is ability. Next, "That element is placing pre-conceived ideas on artistic process to enrich nothing but public image" is a ridiculous statement. When have I said anything about public image? I'm talking about being a truly elite artist. You're being too protectionist with that statement. If they succumb to public pressure, that's their problem, not ours. But it doesn't preclude the idea that they have a creative weakness.

 

[u2popmofo]

So what is your argument now then, Layton? If you werent implying any of those things, I'm not very sure what you're wanting to say.

 

[Layton]

Have you noticed a lot of people disagree with you?

Lol---That makes me less mainstream than you are around here. Thank you, but I'm not afraid to step outside of the crowd with what's got to be said. Someone has to do it---lol. Apparently, that won't be you since you're stuck firmly in the crowd and covering yourself with it.

The Radiohead clique is a fun group to take on. They fancy themselves on being really intelligent (except the ones who hide in a crowd) and I like that. I'll be damned though, if that clique hasn't become an institution. An institution with all the inherent institutional biases and protectionist mindsets. I hope Radiohead sees what part of themselves created this institution and takes it on.

Some say Kid A did that. I say, hell no. It's a great record, but it didn't serve that purpose. It was an expansion of what they started on OK Computer. Just like Zooropa was an expansion of what U2 started on AB. Now was OK Computer the institutional buster that AB was. I say no because The Bends didn't create an institution comparable to the U2 '80's institution that AB busted.

 

[u2popmofo]

Why does everything have to be compared to U2? Talk about a bias.

 

[Layton]

So what is your argument now then, Layton? If you werent implying any of those things, I'm not very sure what you're wanting to say.

My argument is that their biggest weakness is that they lean on the tendency of being mind dominant too hard. It's become an over used creative tendency. Kind of like a creative crutch. Go back to my 80/20 theory from a few pages ago if you want more detail of what I'm thinking.

 

[Dalton]

Layton,

Please refrain from typing the phrase "lol". Please DO utilize the smilies located to your left for a greater level of humor (mine) and artistic pleasure (yours).

Thank you,

Management.

 

[Layton]

Why does everything have to be compared to U2? Talk about a bias.

Lol----it's a terrible bias, but I feel kind of obligated since this is a U2 site. Also, I believe Radiohead's work resembles U2's in more ways than most Radiohead fans like to admit. Really, it's more Brian Eno's work with U2 that are those above mentioned ways. I admit seeing the evolution of U2's career is one of the inspirations for my Radiohead theories, but also seeing the strengths of many other artists have also been inspirations.

 

[Layton]

Layton,

Please refrain from typing the phrase "lol". Please DO utilize the smilies located to your left for a greater level of humor (mine) and artistic pleasure (yours).

Thank you,

Management.

Dalton,

Sorry, but I don't let public image dictate my work----Lo-----aw, I can't do it. Cujo will certainly understand, though.

Geesh, thanks for reminding me why I hate being a manager.

 

[u2popmofo]

I like how U2 fans seem to think that Brian Eno is the first or only artist to ever make electronic or ambient music (yes, this is a generalization).

Anyways, back to the constant U2 comparisons..... I think it's more or less out of control here (and yes, I understand this is a U2 site. I also understand that 'Out of Control' is a U2-related pun, so stay away Cujo ) I'm just generalizing here, but it seems that many discount the work of countless other artists because of their own strange U2-related bias. It's odd to me too, because this bias seems to be of the "damned if you do, damned if you dont" nature. For example, if a band does not do something with their music or careers that is similar to U2, they must be inherently bad/weak. Then again, if a band does something similar to U2 with their careers or music, they must just be copying them. I guess I dont have much else to say about it, it just seems excessively silly to me.

 

[1stepcloser]

hello have you actually listened to thom yorkes voice? it has more passion and feeling than all of u2 put togtether!

You are joking right?

 

[MrBrau1]

You are joking right?

This is a Radiohead thread. It's as serious as death and taxes.

 

[cujo]

fin part deux

I love you Mr.Brau. And Layton too, for your commitment.

You may not like me (even more) after this post.

You're reading an argument that doesn't exist.

That was such an awesome way to start (my reply).

Do I think Radiohead have a weakness? Well, my evaluation deals more with whether they are satisfied and sufficiently challenging themselves as artists (similar, initially, to your sentiments). From my vantage, they are still maintaining an explorative and sustained musical effort (definitely successful in the creative senses), and their output is far from formulaic or predictable. Musically, I have no qualms with them… although, along with some others, I would like to see more EP’s. I think that format allows artists an opportunity to reveal a more potent theme in a more flexible and less time-consuming manner. Experimentation then might even be fostered to a greater extent, through whatever form it takes.

Quit suppressing and start expressing, I've repeatedly offered. What they do express is great, but it's not a complete representation of their humanity, I think---lol.

How do you know this? Where is your basis for this claim, other than how you personally express your emotions? You speculate with the same material that we are all privy too, so how does your opinion diminish ours? I do not feel that any of us here are qualified to comment on whether Radiohead is truly expressing themselves in the most human way possible, but from what I have heard and seen, there is no denying they have, at the very least, a passioned process (to me, that is the most important musical premise). The “musical wrapping” (aesthetic) or whatever you want to call it is inherent to the songs and the feelings, so it is a discredit to music when its integral, emotive sounds are labeled as frivolous and not of primacy. Songs are the extension of a feeling or thought, so how does the form of the tune matter… as long as the process reveals a progression that is consistent with the initial idea, then the result IS DIRECT (throw in whatever personified adjectives for music you want here). Your argument is understood regarding directness, but my definition includes more than just stream of consciousness writing and improvised session. A song is never primal in the way that you have described it, especially with regards to studio treatments.

I interpret their use of different media and approaches as being the complement to their artistic and “human self”. The balance is there, it’s just subjective in how you perceive it (which is why I disregarded the tried-and-true 80/20 percentage breakdown quote). It would be trivial and contrived for anyone to pursue a product emotion. If you disagree, that’s fine, but you may be advocating forms of music that are for all intents and purposes meaningless. It does not matter what the balance put forth is, as long as the creative expression is not pre-determined. Musical principles are paramount to creative expression, in this manner, because they obligate an artist to explore ideas without denying themselves (a built-in clause to ensure honesty and directness). Humanity is innate to the process. Principles are representative of one’s goals, so why go against them to satisfy some crowds who do not possess the patience to understand a well thought out (and by extension, direct) composition? Intent is the underlying measure.

Next, I "don't want to hear Radiohead make a specific sound or style". Again, genre hopping has nothing to do with what I'm on about. I agree that "meaningless quantity" is a waste of time. Only Radiohead dictates that, though. This is where having the ability to expand your artistry comes into play. The key word is ability. Next, "That element is placing pre-conceived ideas on artistic process to enrich nothing but public image" is a ridiculous statement. When have I said anything about public image? I'm talking about being a truly elite artist.

Well, since you brought it up…

Originally posted by, you guessed it… Layton
'A' list groups like U2 and the Stones have this in abundance, but Radiohead really lacks this quality.
…

… lack of a baser human side in their music holds them back from being a truly elite band. It's the difference from being an 'A' list band and an 'A-' list band.

…This is the one thing that is holding them back from true rock elite status

What you are describing is public image at its absolute. Relative measures, such as Radiohead’s ranking among the rock titans, only find relevance in the forum of public opinion. Yes, even the interpretation of critics and fans is public image. Do you not see what is troubling about your posts in those instances? You maintain that style and perception are of little importance, but it seems that they provide the basis for your misgivings about Radiohead’s sound. Boiling down your argument to its basic parts… you want them to make a different noise (mayhaps even genre-hop). You know, somehow. In their own little way. That is true to themselves.

Wait! (I would argue) they have already done that… without external pressures that might impinge on their creative fortitude.

Now, you have said you think these elements are "already quite potentially there". Why aren't you saying they ARE there, like I have? Remember, I said that it's impossible that these elements don't exist. Apparently, you disagree----lol. Guess, you think they're all brains. Well, I don't. Check out my 80/20 argument you forgot to quote.

I must chastise you. I can’t help it.

You quite smugly cast aside my last post, only to follow up in a grand fashion by glaringly misquoting me (seen above). I did originally say that the elements were there. While the word potentially and POTENTLY (the word I actually used) may look the same on a passing glance, they have severely different meanings. The upper case denouncement that ensued was not well founded, so I thought it would be appropriate of me to expose your CAPITAL offense.



The preceding example, among many misinterpretations, leads me to believe that you are really not interested in what I, or anyone else, have to say about the supposed Biggest Weakness. I think others would be more forthcoming in conversation, if your responses ranged beyond the styles of mildly condescending and overtly self-righteous. I will not impose on you a reiteration of what I already have said, since you can quite easily navigate back to previous pages and read the posts more carefully yourself (please do).

If they succumb to public pressure, that's their problem, not ours. But it doesn't preclude the idea that they have a creative weakness.

I would find it to be a creative weakness if they did succumb to your reasoning, because going outside of one’s musical principles IS a creative weakness. If a band went into the studio to intentionally make a final product sound, which you have suggested would be ok many times already, it would be a creative copout, and a sign that the artists only care about being prolific, instead of inspiring. Principles are not a restraining mechanism… they are a foundation to build a musical idea upon just as musical theory and precedent gives an artist a repertoire of reference to begin.

I guess we are from two fundamentally different schools of thought on music. Layton, from what I have read in your posts, you want to hear passionate and balanced results at any expense (as a part of a whole gauntlet of musical experimentation). For me though, creative process takes the impetus, and that means focusing on development rather than the type of sound that will emerge. Balance is inherent in the process. Pre-conceived studio ideas (external pressures aside) are as deceptive to the artist as the indirect method you purport Radiohead to have, so maybe you can empathize with my perspective there. I hope that I am making that distinction clear enough.

...

On a side note, it’s interesting that you accuse hardcore Radiohead fans (of which I am not) of being “protectionist” and elitist in these type of musical discussions, yet you yourself continue to shield U2 as the divine reference for all that is music. Was this thread merely an exercise in your own insecurity as a U2 fan? Throwing passive aggressive remarks and little quips such as “… Zooropa did it first” does little to impart a stable message. However, it does allow you to aspire for the oh-so coveted “more elite than a Radiohead fan” title. I recall at one point in my life that I took a similar stance, but I eventually came to realize that a lot of vital and mind-blowing musical avenues are parched by such fancentrism. Now, I’m more preoccupied with the integrity and delivery of musical discussion, and not so much the ego or gravitas of the bands mentioned (yes, I get slightly more pathetic as I get older). In the end, this thread simply became an outlet to generate the perceivable shortcomings of Radiohead, in order to help eliminate the existence of any threat to your self-justified musical hierarchy. How’s that for a gross misinterpretation?

Nah. I was just playing with that last paragraph, right?-lol.



(Really, I was. Being the advocate of evil is fun)

The Radiohead clique is a fun group to take on. They fancy themselves on being really intelligent…

What Dicks!

That’s what it takes though, Layton. If you want to make the ELITE A-list of posterdom, you have to start talking about other issues with passion and vigor. May I offer a few off-the-cuff suggestions? Maybe try being more honest and in touch with yourself, speak more directly, and stop underestimating your audience.

:sexywinkedout:

Edit: Really, I’m not a prick. I just play one on the internet.

 

[u2popmofo]

That post was long. I read it all.

You hit every point of frustration I've had with Layton's arguments or "evolution of an aruguments".

It all really goes back to this for myself, something cannot be considered a weakness for no reason other than personal opinion. If anything, this is nothing more than a personal weakness the said listener has.

 

[Dalton]

Re: fin part deux

I love you Mr.Brau. And Layton too, for your commitment.

You may not like me (even more) after this post.



That was such an awesome way to start (my reply).

Do I think Radiohead have a weakness? Well, my evaluation deals more with whether they are satisfied and sufficiently challenging themselves as artists (similar, initially, to your sentiments). From my vantage, they are still maintaining an explorative and sustained musical effort (definitely successful in the creative senses), and their output is far from formulaic or predictable. Musically, I have no qualms with them… although, along with some others, I would like to see more EP’s. I think that format allows artists an opportunity to reveal a more potent theme in a more flexible and less time-consuming manner. Experimentation then might even be fostered to a greater extent, through whatever form it takes.



How do you know this? Where is your basis for this claim, other than how you personally express your emotions? You speculate with the same material that we are all privy too, so how does your opinion diminish ours? I do not feel that any of us here are qualified to comment on whether Radiohead is truly expressing themselves in the most human way possible, but from what I have heard and seen, there is no denying they have, at the very least, a passioned process (to me, that is the most important musical premise). The “musical wrapping” (aesthetic) or whatever you want to call it is inherent to the songs and the feelings, so it is a discredit to music when its integral, emotive sounds are labeled as frivolous and not of primacy. Songs are the extension of a feeling or thought, so how does the form of the tune matter… as long as the process reveals a progression that is consistent with the initial idea, then the result IS DIRECT (throw in whatever personified adjectives for music you want here). Your argument is understood regarding directness, but my definition includes more than just stream of consciousness writing and improvised session. A song is never primal in the way that you have described it, especially with regards to studio treatments.

I interpret their use of different media and approaches as being the complement to their artistic and “human self”. The balance is there, it’s just subjective in how you perceive it (which is why I disregarded the tried-and-true 80/20 percentage breakdown quote). It would be trivial and contrived for anyone to pursue a product emotion. If you disagree, that’s fine, but you may be advocating forms of music that are for all intents and purposes meaningless. It does not matter what the balance put forth is, as long as the creative expression is not pre-determined. Musical principles are paramount to creative expression, in this manner, because they obligate an artist to explore ideas without denying themselves (a built-in clause to ensure honesty and directness). Humanity is innate to the process. Principles are representative of one’s goals, so why go against them to satisfy some crowds who do not possess the patience to understand a well thought out (and by extension, direct) composition? Intent is the underlying measure.



Well, since you brought it up…



What you are describing is public image at its absolute. Relative measures, such as Radiohead’s ranking among the rock titans, only find relevance in the forum of public opinion. Yes, even the interpretation of critics and fans is public image. Do you not see what is troubling about your posts in those instances? You maintain that style and perception are of little importance, but it seems that they provide the basis for your misgivings about Radiohead’s sound. Boiling down your argument to its basic parts… you want them to make a different noise (mayhaps even genre-hop). You know, somehow. In their own little way. That is true to themselves.

Wait! (I would argue) they have already done that… without external pressures that might impinge on their creative fortitude.





I must chastise you. I can’t help it.

You quite smugly cast aside my last post, only to follow up in a grand fashion by glaringly misquoting me (seen above). I did originally say that the elements were there. While the word potentially and POTENTLY (the word I actually used) may look the same on a passing glance, they have severely different meanings. The upper case denouncement that ensued was not well founded, so I thought it would be appropriate of me to expose your CAPITAL offense.



The preceding example, among many misinterpretations, leads me to believe that you are really not interested in what I, or anyone else, have to say about the supposed Biggest Weakness. I think others would be more forthcoming in conversation, if your responses ranged beyond the styles of mildly condescending and overtly self-righteous. I will not impose on you a reiteration of what I already have said, since you can quite easily navigate back to previous pages and read the posts more carefully yourself (please do).



I would find it to be a creative weakness if they did succumb to your reasoning, because going outside of one’s musical principles IS a creative weakness. If a band went into the studio to intentionally make a final product sound, which you have suggested would be ok many times already, it would be a creative copout, and a sign that the artists only care about being prolific, instead of inspiring. Principles are not a restraining mechanism… they are a foundation to build a musical idea upon just as musical theory and precedent gives an artist a repertoire of reference to begin.

I guess we are from two fundamentally different schools of thought on music. Layton, from what I have read in your posts, you want to hear passionate and balanced results at any expense (as a part of a whole gauntlet of musical experimentation). For me though, creative process takes the impetus, and that means focusing on development rather than the type of sound that will emerge. Balance is inherent in the process. Pre-conceived studio ideas (external pressures aside) are as deceptive to the artist as the indirect method you purport Radiohead to have, so maybe you can empathize with my perspective there. I hope that I am making that distinction clear enough.

...

On a side note, it’s interesting that you accuse hardcore Radiohead fans (of which I am not) of being “protectionist” and elitist in these type of musical discussions, yet you yourself continue to shield U2 as the divine reference for all that is music. Was this thread merely an exercise in your own insecurity as a U2 fan? Throwing passive aggressive remarks and little quips such as “… Zooropa did it first” does little to impart a stable message. However, it does allow you to aspire for the oh-so coveted “more elite than a Radiohead fan” title. I recall at one point in my life that I took a similar stance, but I eventually came to realize that a lot of vital and mind-blowing musical avenues are parched by such fancentrism. Now, I’m more preoccupied with the integrity and delivery of musical discussion, and not so much the ego or gravitas of the bands mentioned (yes, I get slightly more pathetic as I get older). In the end, this thread simply became an outlet to generate the perceivable shortcomings of Radiohead, in order to help eliminate the existence of any threat to your self-justified musical hierarchy. How’s that for a gross misinterpretation?

Nah. I was just playing with that last paragraph, right?-lol.



(Really, I was. Being the advocate of evil is fun)



What Dicks!

That’s what it takes though, Layton. If you want to make the ELITE A-list of posterdom, you have to start talking about other issues with passion and vigor. May I offer a few off-the-cuff suggestions? Maybe try being more honest and in touch with yourself, speak more directly, and stop underestimating your audience.

:sexywinkedout:

Edit: Really, I’m not a prick. I just play one on the internet.

Be Honest - did you cover your body with oil, stick a picture of Vanna White on your computer, and play some Barry White cd's while writting that post?















Cause that is what I did before I read it......

 

[Layton]

I like how U2 fans seem to think that Brian Eno is the first or only artist to ever make electronic or ambient music (yes, this is a generalization).

Anyways, back to the constant U2 comparisons..... I think it's more or less out of control here (and yes, I understand this is a U2 site. I also understand that 'Out of Control' is a U2-related pun, so stay away Cujo ) I'm just generalizing here, but it seems that many discount the work of countless other artists because of their own strange U2-related bias. It's odd to me too, because this bias seems to be of the "damned if you do, damned if you dont" nature. For example, if a band does not do something with their music or careers that is similar to U2, they must be inherently bad/weak. Then again, if a band does something similar to U2 with their careers or music, they must just be copying them. I guess I dont have much else to say about it, it just seems excessively silly to me.

Fair Enough. I totally agree that it's not good to discount work from countless other artists. Everybody needs reference points for for their ideas and theories, though. U2 have proven to have had a long and successful career. They more than qualify as a legitimate reference point in the modern rock era. It's only logical that the people who choose to use U2 as their musical reference point would express that at a U2 site. I agree that U2 fans can be as protective of their 'baby' as Radiohead fans are of theirs. It's really not a very open minded place when your extremely protectionist.

 

[Layton]

Re: fin part deux

Do I think Radiohead have a weakness? Well, my evaluation deals more with whether they are satisfied and sufficiently challenging themselves as artists (similar, initially, to your sentiments). From my vantage, they are still maintaining an explorative and sustained musical effort (definitely successful in the creative senses), and their output is far from formulaic or predictable. Musically, I have no qualms with them… although, along with some others, I would like to see more EP’s. I think that format allows artists an opportunity to reveal a more potent theme in a more flexible and less time-consuming manner. Experimentation then might even be fostered to a greater extent, through whatever form it takes.

Ok, I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to reply paragraph by paragraph. This will take numerous posts, but it's the only way to make this readable for anyone else who might care about reading any of this.

It appears you don't think they have a weakness. That's fine, but it reeks of blinders since everybody has weaknesses. More EP's? More LP's? It doesn't matter if they keep perpetuating a weaknesss. How they present themselves to the world is a far cry from exploring a creative weakness, which is what I've tried to do. You need a better idea for a potential weakness. Lastly, they could easily be "maintaining an explorative and sustained musical effort", but still be barking up the wrong tree with those traits. Obviously, you don't think they're barking up the wrong tree and I don't completely either. I just think that maintaining that effort you're talking about has put a small shackle around their feet.

 

[Layton]

Re: fin part deux

How do you know this? Where is your basis for this claim, other than how you personally express your emotions? You speculate with the same material that we are all privy too, so how does your opinion diminish ours? I do not feel that any of us here are qualified to comment on whether Radiohead is truly expressing themselves in the most human way possible, but from what I have heard and seen, there is no denying they have, at the very least, a passioned process (to me, that is the most important musical premise). The “musical wrapping” (aesthetic) or whatever you want to call it is inherent to the songs and the feelings, so it is a discredit to music when its integral, emotive sounds are labeled as frivolous and not of primacy. Songs are the extension of a feeling or thought, so how does the form of the tune matter… as long as the process reveals a progression that is consistent with the initial idea, then the result IS DIRECT (throw in whatever personified adjectives for music you want here). Your argument is understood regarding directness, but my definition includes more than just stream of consciousness writing and improvised session. A song is never primal in the way that you have described it, especially with regards to studio treatments.

Man, I don't know if I'm going to have time to get through your entire post. Forgive me.

First off, I don't know anything. This thread is just my theory of Radiohead's biggest weakness. Obviously, I don't have scientific proof, but then nobody does. Again, you're being too protectionist with the opinion diminishing comment. I'm not trying to change minds. I'm offering a THEORY. Quit believing I'm after Radiohead in some way. How can you say there's no denying they've expressed themselves in a fully human way right after you just said none of us are qualified to make that judgement? For your sake, I'll ignore that faux pax. I say everybody is qualified to offer a theory, but back it up. You may not agree with anything I've said, but I've done that.

Now, all your process stuff. Firstly, you're way too caught up in this process idea. Name me a U2 song or album you don't like? I bet you it came from a "passioned process" Of course, that doesn't negate your dislike of the work, does it?

I never labeled anything frivolous. My claim is that they express their rawer side disproportianetley to my theory of the proper human ratio----ugh.

You're right. Form of the tune doesn't really matter to me.

"A song is never primal in the way that you have described it". Again, think proportionally. I think they could get closer to primal than they've gotten. That's the only description I'm going with.

 

[u2popmofo]

I am a broken record, but I have to respond to this.

Layton, I think the issue is that stating something is a black and white weakness is silly. One persons idea of a weakness is another's idea of their greatest strength. It's all completely relative and ends up falling into personal opinion.

I could name countless "weaknesses" I think every band I like has (probably the highest amount would be attributed to U2, heaven forbid!), but I know it's not relevant or fair. I could say things like,"U2 are now taking the easy way out after Pop and not producing anything remotely experimental because they're too scared and second guessing themselves with every step. This is their biggest weakness". While this may be "absolute truth" to some peoples' tastes, it completely discredits the massive amount of people out there who dont feel this way and are completely enjoying their recent work. In all actuallity, there are probably countless people out there who would have never even gotten into the band if it wasnt for their most recent work. Wouldnt you be rubbed the wrong way if someone was to tell you the reasons you like a certain band were actually said band's biggest flaws?

To say something like this is an inherent weakness is like saying "my opinion is more valid than yours". It completely discredits anyone who doesnt feel that way. It's all just personal preference and opinion.

 

[Layton]

Re: fin part deux

I interpret their use of different media and approaches as being the complement to their artistic and “human self”. The balance is there, it’s just subjective in how you perceive it (which is why I disregarded the tried-and-true 80/20 percentage breakdown quote). It would be trivial and contrived for anyone to pursue a product emotion. If you disagree, that’s fine, but you may be advocating forms of music that are for all intents and purposes meaningless. It does not matter what the balance put forth is, as long as the creative expression is not pre-determined. Musical principles are paramount to creative expression, in this manner, because they obligate an artist to explore ideas without denying themselves (a built-in clause to ensure honesty and directness). Humanity is innate to the process. Principles are representative of one’s goals, so why go against them to satisfy some crowds who do not possess the patience to understand a well thought out (and by extension, direct) composition? Intent is the underlying measure.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with most of this paragraph. I told MsMofoGone many pages back that the interpretation argument is hard to get around. So, I agree that in the end subjectivity rules the day. There's almost no way to get around it, but like I also told MsMofoGone.....I was gonna try. It's too easy to shield yourself in that 99.9% winnable position regarding art, but that's not a fun way to go about it. Lastly, how did my 80/20 percentage breakdown become tried and true?

 

[Layton]

Re: fin part deux

What you are describing is public image at its absolute. Relative measures, such as Radiohead’s ranking among the rock titans, only find relevance in the forum of public opinion. Yes, even the interpretation of critics and fans is public image. Do you not see what is troubling about your posts in those instances? You maintain that style and perception are of little importance, but it seems that they provide the basis for your misgivings about Radiohead’s sound. Boiling down your argument to its basic parts… you want them to make a different noise (mayhaps even genre-hop). You know, somehow. In their own little way. That is true to themselves.

Those first 2 sentences are ludicrous. I did say that U2 and the Stones among others 'A' list bands and that Radiohead is an 'A-' list band, but the key word is 'I'. I does not equal public image or public opinion. The only relative measure I'm going by are my own. My theory of truly elite is my creation, not the public's. For now on, remember that I only represent myself with these arguments and get off the public image nonsense. You're more beholden to that than I am, apparently.

 

[Layton]

Re: fin part deux

I must chastise you. I can’t help it.

You quite smugly cast aside my last post, only to follow up in a grand fashion by glaringly misquoting me (seen above). I did originally say that the elements were there. While the word potentially and POTENTLY (the word I actually used) may look the same on a passing glance, they have severely different meanings. The upper case denouncement that ensued was not well founded, so I thought it would be appropriate of me to expose your CAPITAL offense.

My bad. I agologize!!

 

[Layton]

Re: fin part deux

I would find it to be a creative weakness if they did succumb to your reasoning, because going outside of one’s musical principles IS a creative weakness. If a band went into the studio to intentionally make a final product sound, which you have suggested would be ok many times already, it would be a creative copout, and a sign that the artists only care about being prolific, instead of inspiring. Principles are not a restraining mechanism… they are a foundation to build a musical idea upon just as musical theory and precedent gives an artist a repertoire of reference to begin.

I guess we are from two fundamentally different schools of thought on music. Layton, from what I have read in your posts, you want to hear passionate and balanced results at any expense (as a part of a whole gauntlet of musical experimentation). For me though, creative process takes the impetus, and that means focusing on development rather than the type of sound that will emerge. Balance is inherent in the process. Pre-conceived studio ideas (external pressures aside) are as deceptive to the artist as the indirect method you purport Radiohead to have, so maybe you can empathize with my perspective there. I hope that I am making that distinction clear enough.

Don't you think it's possible that sticking rigidly to one's musical principles can also become a weakness? I know you don't think that's the case here, but it is possible isn't it? If you acknowledge that possiblility then you might have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

I've never endorsed the idea of going into the studio with pre-conceived ideas. I think they should explore themselves more fully and go wherever that leads them. "Balance is inherent in the process"---I don't necessarily agree with that. One can focus on development and let creative process be the impetus on and on, but if a bad creative habit has invaded the process and development then the balance will be off, I think.

Lastly, I think your idea of process is too idealistic. That's not bad, though. It's just that I don't think even Radiohead is that pure with the creative process. Surely, you don't think they're bereft of goals and direction when beginning and during their song creation process.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I've read every word in this thread.

 

[Layton]

Re: fin part deux

On a side note, it’s interesting that you accuse hardcore Radiohead fans (of which I am not) of being “protectionist” and elitist in these type of musical discussions, yet you yourself continue to shield U2 as the divine reference for all that is music. Was this thread merely an exercise in your own insecurity as a U2 fan? Throwing passive aggressive remarks and little quips such as “… Zooropa did it first” does little to impart a stable message. However, it does allow you to aspire for the oh-so coveted “more elite than a Radiohead fan” title. I recall at one point in my life that I took a similar stance, but I eventually came to realize that a lot of vital and mind-blowing musical avenues are parched by such fancentrism. Now, I’m more preoccupied with the integrity and delivery of musical discussion, and not so much the ego or gravitas of the bands mentioned (yes, I get slightly more pathetic as I get older). In the end, this thread simply became an outlet to generate the perceivable shortcomings of Radiohead, in order to help eliminate the existence of any threat to your self-justified musical hierarchy. How’s that for a gross misinterpretation?

Nah. I was just playing with that last paragraph, right?-lol.

What Dicks!

That’s what it takes though, Layton. If you want to make the ELITE A-list of posterdom, you have to start talking about other issues with passion and vigor. May I offer a few off-the-cuff suggestions? Maybe try being more honest and in touch with yourself, speak more directly, and stop underestimating your audience.

Oh boy, where do I begin with this sorry crap. Actually, I think I addressed the first paragraph in a reply to MsMofoGone. As for "Zooropa did it first". I truly believe that album set the '90's trend for the deconstructionist rock band idea. Kid A and Adore by the Smashing Pumpkins followed suit. Up by REM is in that category, too. It imparts a very stable message. The stable message of my belief.

Next, your "oh so coveted 'more elite than Radiohead fan' title" comment is pathetic. I could just as easily start a U2's biggest weakness thread and have alot to offer. I don't have blinders on regarding U2. Next time, stop to ask before you regress to juvenelia.

This thread became an outlet to pose a theory to Radiohead fans; nothing more. I admit I like challenging the Radiohead clique. Just because I find enjoyment in these types of debates doesn't make me wrong or right. It's kind of irrelevant to the argument, really. Finally, trust me I don't underestimate my audience. With junk like this, though I'm starting to think I might be overestimating it.

 

[Lilly]

radiohead and u2 are both great, in different ways, mmk?

that is the most awesome(ly cheap) way of upping your post count, ever!


you can follow the cujo-pattern set above in which multiple quotes are used in one reply.


although that includes following someone, and since you're a manager, i can tell you simply aren't a follower.

 

[Elite]

Did someone mention elitism?


Should I have showed up earlier?


Hmm?

 

[Layton]

I am a broken record, but I have to respond to this.

Layton, I think the issue is that stating something is a black and white weakness is silly. One persons idea of a weakness is another's idea of their greatest strength. It's all completely relative and ends up falling into personal opinion.

I could name countless "weaknesses" I think every band I like has (probably the highest amount would be attributed to U2, heaven forbid!), but I know it's not relevant or fair. I could say things like,"U2 are now taking the easy way out after Pop and not producing anything remotely experimental because they're too scared and second guessing themselves with every step. This is their biggest weakness". While this may be "absolute truth" to some peoples' tastes, it completely discredits the massive amount of people out there who dont feel this way and are completely enjoying their recent work. In all actuallity, there are probably countless people out there who would have never even gotten into the band if it wasnt for their most recent work. Wouldnt you be rubbed the wrong way if someone was to tell you the reasons you like a certain band were actually said band's biggest flaws?

To say something like this is an inherent weakness is like saying "my opinion is more valid than yours". It completely discredits anyone who doesnt feel that way. It's all just personal preference and opinion.

I don't mean to state anything in black and white. This is all my theory offered to Radiohead observers for discussion. I'm not out to discredit anybody's likes or dislikes. One can have a debate without going down that road, I think. Sure, it's all relative, but if we just accept that, there'd never be a reason to debate about anything and surely you must think there's some things in life worth debating. I just thought on a music forum this would be more interesting than the usual so and so sucks or is great thread. You too easily cast art thought into the "personal opinion" category, I think.

There's nothing wrong with discussing strengths and weaknesses. It's part of analysis. Analysis is nothing to shy away from. Analysis fosters debate which fosters change. If you believe a weakness exists in U2, by all means express it. If the expression is done well (which apparently mine hasn't been) it won't discredit anything for anybody.