Radiohead's biggest weakness - Page 9 - 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 07-06-2005, 05:29 PM   #121
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Re: radiohead and u2 are both great, in different ways, mmk?

Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
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.


Why would I want to up my post count?
__________________

__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 07-06-2005, 05:42 PM   #122
Blue Meth Addict
 
u2popmofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 36,961
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Layton


You too easily cast art thought into the "personal opinion" category, I think.
I dont.
__________________

__________________
u2popmofo is offline  
Old 07-06-2005, 05:55 PM   #123
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 711
Local Time: 10:29 AM
"IDIOTEQUE" has NO RHYTHM?!?!? Are you serious?!?

"Idioteque" was intended to be ironic... you know, like 90's U2?!?

It was supposed to be the an idiotic dance record (hence the title). I love this song (especially the BBC Remix).

By the way, Radiohead has rhythm. Just listen to "I Might Be Wrong," "Punch Up at a Wedding," "Talk Show Host", ...
__________________
chiso is offline  
Old 07-06-2005, 06:39 PM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 09:29 AM
wink for sheer jackassery!

Quote:
Originally posted by Layton


Why would I want to up my post count?
why else post every paragraph separately
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 07-06-2005, 07:44 PM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 09:29 AM
le denouement

Quote:
Originally posted by Layton
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.
Ah, so you do not enjoy being the brunt of stereotype either? If only I had known (I did). My consistent disagreement does not imply a veil of blinders over my eyes. Although, it would be nice to have a pair of those at this point.



Quote:
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.
Thank you for once again affirming my points.

If you had once successfully exhibited an understanding of counterarguments (or irony), I might find that comment endearing. Laughs are always welcome though. Your misplaced superiority knows no bounds indeed. If you are merely here to read your own words (even in other people's posts apparently), then you have only created a flatulence of words (I love that phrase).

Solipsism is fun, but only for one, Layton.



Generalizing your audience and assuming that contrary opinions are homogenous implies both a poor respect for the posters and for the thread itself. I throw praises in your direction for sticking to your guns with conviction, but that committed drive was tainted in the face of criticism. Again, thanks for lumping me and others into a faceless crowd. I guess a label makes it easier to write someone off in order to wallow in self-affirmation. It really does credit highly to your theories and arguments. Then again, maybe the whole thread was simply a lack of clarity on both fronts. NEXT time, maybe an executive summary would be a more suitable approach?

(please take that for what it is... jest. If I wanted to stab you with words I would say something more inflammatory)

After all of this, you have suppressed other reasoned and articulated opinions to stall any further insight into this topic. Your posts are almost devoid of any human sentiment (I would say 80% ramble and 20% filler?), and I feel it is my self-appointed duty to intervene in the state of your shackled mind. I want you to be free to be yourself. Essentially, Layton, in a bout of creative constipation... you have become your own personal Radiohead.



Adieu.

It was fun even during the worst of it. That's all that matters.



(Oh, and Dalton... one point of correction: I was looking at Barry White while listening to Vanna White. That's how I roll)
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 10:03 AM   #126
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 183
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Layton


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.
No layton, I didn't mean it in the way that since you disagree with everyone you're wrong. I meant that you need to stop arguing with people all the time. I see you in a lot of topics telling people about how right you are and how wrong everyone else is. Chill out and follow your own principles; let people like what they want regardless of who thinks what about it.
__________________
TheFly84138 is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 02:29 PM   #127
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by chiso
"IDIOTEQUE" has NO RHYTHM?!?!? Are you serious?!?

"Idioteque" was intended to be ironic... you know, like 90's U2?!?

It was supposed to be the an idiotic dance record (hence the title). I love this song (especially the BBC Remix).

By the way, Radiohead has rhythm. Just listen to "I Might Be Wrong," "Punch Up at a Wedding," "Talk Show Host", ...
I'm very serious. "idioteque" has no rhythm for the very reason you stated. It's too caught up in irony. In other words, caught up in an abstract pursuit. Like I said in my first post, this is not a slight on "Idioteque" per se. It is what it's meant to be. I've never heard the BBC remix so I can't comment on that. As for those other songs, they're great. I just don't think they're enough to change the proportional problem I think is Radiohead's biggest weakness.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 02:42 PM   #128
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Re: for sheer jackassery!

Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly


why else post every paragraph separately
I'm still confused by the high post count aspiration idea. What does that matter to anything?

I replied to every paragraph separately because cujo posts these enormously elongated replies that I just can't let slide. Simply put, I don't have the time to do the same. So, I broke it down piece by piece in order to reply in a briefer manner. This allowed me to get a few things done and then come back to reply a little more, etc. Plus, I think this whole conversation has spiraled out of control, a little. I thought encouraging more succinct replies might reign things in a bit. The best points are usually made in the least amount of sentences. Long posts are usually a red flag to me. I try to avoid them.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 03:26 PM   #129
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Re: le denouement

Quote:
Originally posted by cujo


Ah, so you do not enjoy being the brunt of stereotype either? If only I had known (I did). My consistent disagreement does not imply a veil of blinders over my eyes. Although, it would be nice to have a pair of those at this point.

Pathetic means pathetic. It doesn't mean I'm mad at you. Keep things simpler, please.

Your consistent disagreement is fair enough. The reason I keep harping on the blinders thing with you is because you consistently fail to say if you observe a weakness in Radiohead of any kind. Not enough EP's doesn't count. That's superfluous. I really think that a fan of anything should be able to identify strengths and weaknesses of that thing. In this case, Radiohead's music. I guess, you've identified a strength. This whole process thing you're so idealistic about. That's cool, but show me more analysis on the weakness thing or just flat out say you don't think they have any and I'll quit bugging you.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 03:40 PM   #130
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Re: le denouement

Quote:
Originally posted by cujo

Thank you for once again affirming my points.

If you had once successfully exhibited an understanding of counterarguments (or irony), I might find that comment endearing. Laughs are always welcome though. Your misplaced superiority knows no bounds indeed. If you are merely here to read your own words (even in other people's posts apparently), then you have only created a flatulence of words (I love that phrase).

Solipsism is fun, but only for one, Layton.
Why do you care about my misplaced seperiority? This is a debate. Just engage or disengage.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 04:36 PM   #131
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFly84138


No layton, I didn't mean it in the way that since you disagree with everyone you're wrong. I meant that you need to stop arguing with people all the time. I see you in a lot of topics telling people about how right you are and how wrong everyone else is. Chill out and follow your own principles; let people like what they want regardless of who thinks what about it.
Which topics are you referring to? What you call arguing in here; I call debate. A few have taken me to task about this idea of a Radiohead weakness. Why shouldn't we hash it out? Cujo in particular keeps coming back with more. I say bring it on. It's just a debate. Cujo says ALOT. I want to challenge it. Cujo keeps replying (or should I say chastising me) so it continues. Cujo tells me it's over; it's over. Cujo hasn't said that, yet. So your perceived argument is still a 2 way street.
__________________
Layton is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 11:43 PM   #132
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 93
Local Time: 03:29 PM
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.
__________________
bread n' whine is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 12:01 AM   #133
Blue Meth Addict
 
u2popmofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 36,961
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Wow. Now that was a good post. Wow.
__________________
u2popmofo is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 02:23 AM   #134
Babyface
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Let me sum up what you critizise about radiohead: They think too much about their music, they have too many sad songs and they've got no sexy rhythms. They should learn to swagger.

These are some snaps of interviews with the members of radiohead after the release of "Hail To The Thief":

Ed from radiohead describes the sessions to HTTT: "It was the best recording experience we ever had. We finished one song each day we were booked. We didn't over-scrutinize. We didn't get too cerebral. We trusted in ourselves, Nigel, the studio and the songs and just let go, really. This time we captured our actual energy. As a Radiohead fan, the last thing you had was Amnesiac and... I’ll be honest. I don’t like it very much. There are things I really don’t like about it. This time the energy is there. It’s not so cerebral, it’s more physical. This is the first time we’ve had that punky adolescence energy since The Bends."
Thom Yorke describes the HTTT-sessions: "The music sounds really positive to me. There's a darkness to it but it's also really shiny and bright. Direct music, quick, not thinking about it too much, just letting things happen. I think this is a sexy record. The rhythms are very sexy where the beats fall. It has its own sexy pulse. " And later he says: "To me, a song like `We Suck Young Blood' has got a real humour to it. When I hear it, I think it's sick, but it's funny. The bubble's burst in the middle when we go into this terrible jazz exploration. There's a queasiness and terror to it, but there's also a joy, a not terribly serious side to it. It's the most fun record we've made."
In another interview (that I can't find at the moment), Thom says that they were listening to their live record "I Might Be Wrong" and they realized that the live versions had an energy the album versions were missing. So with Hail To THe Thief they tried to capture this energy.
And Ed says in another interview that during the recording process "we as a band really learned to swagger". And he compares this with a certain period when the Rolling Stones started to play more blues.
And there is also an interview where Colin Greenwood asks the interviewer: "Does it work?"
"Does what work?"
"The Listening. People always say we make melancholic autumn music. This time we really tried to make our summer record."

So, my question is: Are radiohead totally wrong about their last album or is it possible that you didn't listen carefully enough to it?
__________________
Moritz is offline  
Old 07-08-2005, 05:51 AM   #135
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Ottawa!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 255
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moritz
Let me sum up what you critizise about radiohead: They think too much about their music, they have too many sad songs and they've got no sexy rhythms. They should learn to swagger.

These are some snaps of interviews with the members of radiohead after the release of "Hail To The Thief":

Ed from radiohead describes the sessions to HTTT: "It was the best recording experience we ever had. We finished one song each day we were booked. We didn't over-scrutinize. We didn't get too cerebral. We trusted in ourselves, Nigel, the studio and the songs and just let go, really. This time we captured our actual energy. As a Radiohead fan, the last thing you had was Amnesiac and... I’ll be honest. I don’t like it very much. There are things I really don’t like about it. This time the energy is there. It’s not so cerebral, it’s more physical. This is the first time we’ve had that punky adolescence energy since The Bends."
Thom Yorke describes the HTTT-sessions: "The music sounds really positive to me. There's a darkness to it but it's also really shiny and bright. Direct music, quick, not thinking about it too much, just letting things happen. I think this is a sexy record. The rhythms are very sexy where the beats fall. It has its own sexy pulse. " And later he says: "To me, a song like `We Suck Young Blood' has got a real humour to it. When I hear it, I think it's sick, but it's funny. The bubble's burst in the middle when we go into this terrible jazz exploration. There's a queasiness and terror to it, but there's also a joy, a not terribly serious side to it. It's the most fun record we've made."
In another interview (that I can't find at the moment), Thom says that they were listening to their live record "I Might Be Wrong" and they realized that the live versions had an energy the album versions were missing. So with Hail To THe Thief they tried to capture this energy.
And Ed says in another interview that during the recording process "we as a band really learned to swagger". And he compares this with a certain period when the Rolling Stones started to play more blues.
And there is also an interview where Colin Greenwood asks the interviewer: "Does it work?"
"Does what work?"
"The Listening. People always say we make melancholic autumn music. This time we really tried to make our summer record."

So, my question is: Are radiohead totally wrong about their last album or is it possible that you didn't listen carefully enough to it?

WORD UP! People need to learn how to LISTEN to music more.

(The reverse of what Wesley Snipes says to Woody Harrelson in White Men Can't Jump - "You Listen, but you can't hear Jimi!")
__________________

__________________
Mr. MIKEphisto 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 10:29 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