Radiohead's biggest weakness - Page 6 - 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 06-27-2005, 10:10 AM   #76
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 183
Local Time: 12:47 AM
First, Radiohead has attempted to make styled rhythms, such as "I Might Be Wrong" and the like. Along with what plenty of other people on this forum have already stated, I don't understand how having a groovy Radiohead would make them any better. Listening to the structures of their songs most trained music listeners will say their strengths lie in two areas: 1) they are probably the first band of all time to make a record with hardly any if not absolutely free of Beatles influence and sell more than a few thousand copies and 2) making great, completely orginial music with different rhythmic and melodic ideas than anything in the history of modern music. Reverting to the overused blues and rock grooves and rhthyms would be a step back for them, not to mention restrictive and boring for the band as a whole.
__________________

__________________
TheFly84138 is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:55 PM   #77
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cujo

Power behind songs can also be found in the contradiction of sounds and lyrics... which is not an indirect or disingenuous way of expression. It's human, it's real, and it's palpable. Under whatever "intellectual architecture" wrapping that surrounds the song, there is still an underlying passion to let a feeling be known... and that is as raw as it gets.
Ok, cujo I guess it's ok to be verbose----lol. I agree that it's possible to unwrap a Radiohead song and find something raw, but is that experience as raw for the listener as might otherwise be. I think not. I would also postulate that the experience is not even as raw for the creators as might otherwise be. 'You don't feel if you think too much' is a favorite Bono cliche that I'll borrow. Radiohead consistently leads with their mind. If one's not careful, that tendency begins to drown out other possible avenues, just like any other over used tendency. My interpretation is that Radiohead has become 80% sophisticated and 20% primitive. That's a poor ratio in terms of distibruting your humanity throughout your art. One has to agree with my thoery that we're all about 50/50 in our sophistication/primitive make up to agree, I suppose.

You've done a great job of relating Radiohead's formula for success with all your previous posts. I'm assuming you believe they've found a formula that can serve them their entire career. I think that it can't. I think they have to address the bad creative habits that formula has sneaked into their "process of making". I'll end with my umpteenth top of my head suggestion. What if they instead of wrapping the primal in the abstract, tried wrapping the abstract in the primal? We're all right and left brained, right? Well it's time for Radiohead to lead with left side instead of the right side (or vice versa). The best of the best lead from whichever side is necessary. They don't just favor one over the other.

Lastly, this has all been a blast, I'm gonna be travelling for the next week. So, I may not be able to reply for awhile if anybody wants to continue this.
__________________

__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 04:11 PM   #78
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFly84138
First, Radiohead has attempted to make styled rhythms, such as "I Might Be Wrong" and the like. Along with what plenty of other people on this forum have already stated, I don't understand how having a groovy Radiohead would make them any better. Listening to the structures of their songs most trained music listeners will say their strengths lie in two areas: 1) they are probably the first band of all time to make a record with hardly any if not absolutely free of Beatles influence and sell more than a few thousand copies and 2) making great, completely orginial music with different rhythmic and melodic ideas than anything in the history of modern music. Reverting to the overused blues and rock grooves and rhthyms would be a step back for them, not to mention restrictive and boring for the band as a whole.
With all due respect, I think saying that they're completely original is an overstatement. Radiohead's atmospheres are very Brian Eno influenced. Hell, Eno might be the only guy brainier than Radiohead in the modern music era. I would even argue, that Eno's melodic and rhythmic ideas are more non-mainstream than Radiohead's. Check out his solo stuff for proof of that, but even Eno knows there's a time for "Let's Go Native"----lol.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 05:48 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 10:17 PM
I'm banning the word "primitive" from this thread
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 10:37 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 06:47 PM
Fin

Layton, you have posted well, and the following response is directed to your argument. No personal criticism attached.

Quote:
Originally posted by cujo
They may just yet release an album that describes Layton’s ideal to the absolute… it would simply package the sound in an aesthetic more accessible to others (thereby defeating the notion of direct and personal expression).

Quote:
Originally posted by Layton
What if they instead of wrapping the primal in the abstract, tried wrapping the abstract in the primal?
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 an example (credit to another) helps to clarify, I hope this helps...

An environmentalist that is concerned with gas emissions wants to abide by their principles of energy conservation. So, they decide to grow a lawn of grass on their vehicle in order to keep up the appearance that they are participating in some green movement. But how does this change achieve their principles, if they're still driving an emission-based car and the grass does not act as a compensating mechanism? Aren't they merely satisfying the appearance of concern, rather than helping in any way to attain their convictions? There is no substance or relevance to their action. The grass car is just a means to project a false image of difference. It is fad, trend, and derivative showcase art. The message is irrelevant because the sentiment is not consistent with the initial idea and emotion.

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. There is a fundamental difference between the creative process and the actual product of music, and until that distinction is well defined and respected... this discussion has been rendered moot.

Interesting stuff nonetheless.

__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 06-27-2005, 11:25 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
lmjhitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: tbtf
Posts: 4,317
Local Time: 06:47 PM
Re: Fin

Quote:
Originally posted by cujo
placing pre-conceived ideas on artistic process, to enrich nothing but public image.
*coughATYCLBcoughHTDAABcough*

oh my, excuse me! seasonal allergies suck.

but seriously, this thread is fascinating to read, thanks to those of you who have made it so.

i don't really have a lot to add to it except that, as evidenced by their about-face after the acclaim of ok computer, i'm pretty sure radiohead don't WANT to appeal to the masses like a lot of other bands do. and that's fine with me. but i guess i'm just another pretentious radiohead fan.
__________________
lmjhitman is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 06:47 AM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 07:47 PM
Re: Re: Fin

Quote:
Originally posted by lmjhitman

*coughATYCLBcoughHTDAABcough*

oh my, excuse me! seasonal allergies suck.

but seriously, this thread is fascinating to read, thanks to those of you who have made it so.

i don't really have a lot to add to it except that, as evidenced by their about-face after the acclaim of ok computer, i'm pretty sure radiohead don't WANT to appeal to the masses like a lot of other bands do. and that's fine with me. but i guess i'm just another pretentious radiohead fan.
So Radiohead's last 3 albums were a conscious effort not to appeal to the masses? How's that any different than writing albums which will appeal to the masses? You're letting mass acceptance, or fear of it, dictate you're music? If they wrote a great pop song, does Thom say "can't put that on the record, too many people will like it, and we don't want that" It's 2 sides of the same coin.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 07:55 AM   #83
Acrobat
 
TheRooster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hiding out in the big city blinking
Posts: 391
Local Time: 07:47 PM
Re: Re: Re: Fin

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1


So Radiohead's last 3 albums were a conscious effort not to appeal to the masses? How's that any different than writing albums which will appeal to the masses? You're letting mass acceptance, or fear of it, dictate you're music? If they wrote a great pop song, does Thom say "can't put that on the record, too many people will like it, and we don't want that" It's 2 sides of the same coin.

I don't think they do that. Listen to "There There" its a very easily accessible song. What I took from Imjhitman's comment is more that Radiohead wasn't afraid not to be mainstream. They weren't going to let success dictate what they should do. Amnesiac was panned by many critics yet they did not come out and apologise for it or say that it was unfinished since the songs were left overs from the Kid A sessions. They could have decided that after having veered so far from the Bends and Ok Computer that they would go back to their basics. But they don't care who likes them they care about the music they make.
__________________
TheRooster is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 08:35 AM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
lmjhitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: tbtf
Posts: 4,317
Local Time: 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheRooster
I don't think they do that. Listen to "There There" its a very easily accessible song. What I took from lmjhitman's comment is more that Radiohead wasn't afraid not to be mainstream. They weren't going to let success dictate what they should do. Amnesiac was panned by many critics yet they did not come out and apologise for it or say that it was unfinished since the songs were left overs from the Kid A sessions. They could have decided that after having veered so far from the Bends and Ok Computer that they would go back to their basics. But they don't care who likes them they care about the music they make.
your last sentence is EXACTLY my point.
__________________
lmjhitman is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 11:36 AM   #85
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 183
Local Time: 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Layton


With all due respect, I think saying that they're completely original is an overstatement. Radiohead's atmospheres are very Brian Eno influenced. Hell, Eno might be the only guy brainier than Radiohead in the modern music era. I would even argue, that Eno's melodic and rhythmic ideas are more non-mainstream than Radiohead's. Check out his solo stuff for proof of that, but even Eno knows there's a time for "Let's Go Native"----lol.

Have you noticed a lot of people disagree with you?
__________________
TheFly84138 is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 12:08 PM   #86
roy
Refugee
 
roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dun Laoghaire
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFly84138



Have you noticed a lot of people disagree with you?
The only difference between Brian Eno and Radiohead is that the latter could've been hugh but chose not. While some people may think that's 'cool' it still doesn't make for an original sound.
__________________
roy is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 05:29 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 10:17 PM
Radiohead isn't huge?

my friends, their fan base is probably almost as big as U2's

Kid A debuted on top the US charts
Hail to the Thief broke Uk records when it was released. It's first week sold 300,000 copies

they have always been huge
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 05:49 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 05:47 PM
So I'd promised to come back with some thoughts but I just haven't had time. Also, this thread is nearly as cerebral as Radiohead's music. Where are the lower chakra responses in here, people? Get out of your heads and just enjoy the music.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 06-28-2005, 06:28 PM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Basstrap
Radiohead isn't huge?

my friends, their fan base is probably almost as big as U2's

Kid A debuted on top the US charts
Hail to the Thief broke Uk records when it was released. It's first week sold 300,000 copies

they have always been huge
I wouldn't go that far. Their US sales have been in decline since OK in 97, and the last 2 failed to go platinum. They're more like Phish were. Big 1st week. Big drop off in 2nd week. Solid tours.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 12:21 AM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 12:47 AM
Radiohead are sure smart. "We don't want to appeal to the masses, but we'll damn make sure the masses -know- we don't want to appeal to them first."
__________________

__________________
Saracene 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 07:47 PM.


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