U2 vs. Radiohead

[Earnie Shavers]

Yeah, I think U2's music is like this:

Simple, effective, emotion very obvious and close to the surface, but that doesn't mean it's not a display of massive talent and great detail. You just glance at it and you get it, it instantly means something to you or says something to you with little to no fuss. It takes amazing talent to transfer that feeling, like in this painting, or, generally, in their music.

Radiohead's music is like this:

Stay a while, get lost, search in every corner. It's all in the detail, not the immediate impact. It's intricate and beautiful, but it's meant to be swam in over time and the overall meaning or emotional impact may not shine through for a while.

So you can't really compare on most levels.

 

[the tourist]

Exactly!

 

[bgmckinney]

I was scared to visit this thread because I was afraid I might get hit by flying bodies coming through the door. Glad to see everyone is nice and mellow.
I don't think it's true that you can't compare u2 and radiohead. You can - you just have to very careful defining what you are talking about, and to know that when you've analyzed everything there is to analyze, you may not have an answer, just a list of interesting observations.
I don't believe, either, that it all comes down to taste. We can change and develop our taste by becoming better listeners and more thoughtful fans; we can learn to appreciate what we once did not (or vice versa); and the reason we can do that is that there are some real truths about music which are more fundamental than our taste. But that said - there is no point in discussing any of this if the ultimate point is not to enjoy music more.
I'm not sure exactly what I'm getting at here - I guess I mean that it is perfectly possible and legitimate to compare bands on the one hand, but to believe that there is no ultimate scale upon which you can rank them, on the other. Maybe someone should start a thread whose sole point is have readers offer their opinions about how U2 and radiohead are different without making any judgments about who wins the contest.
Jdelbove, if it's any comfort, I also sometimes feel that radiohead have soured me on U2. And that zeppelin have soured me on both of them. If you're trying to figure out the source of that feeling, I sympathize. When that happens, I just go with it, and enjoy whatever I am loving at the moment as much as I can.

 

[Salome]

I always found it easier to admire Radiohead than to love them. I love quite a few individual songs and appreciate the fact that their albums are incredibly well made and that their music is full of intricacies and textures that keeps it interesting through many listens. But when you get down to it my connection to music is mostly visceral and emotional, rather than dissecting and analysing it for quality, originality, etc. And to me Radiohead's music, at large, has a certain dry, sterile quality to it that keeps me at distance even while admiring it. Even their warmer stuff is IMO only really warm when you compare it to the rest of Radiohead's music.

best post of the thread as far as I'm concerned

also worded a lot more nicer than I would have as there isn't a Radiohead song yet that I didn't get bored of after 7 listens

 

[Rob33]

I know what you mean

sometimes is boring and cheesy as hell

"and its you when I look in the mirror"

umm...re read the quote, then read your response...

 

[intedomine]

Reckoner > All I Need

I think in rainbows is pretty excellent maybe radioheads second best album (we will have to wait for the rest of the tracks when the box set is released) but I am not a fan of Videotape (the electronic drum beat meant to be different and cool is just anoying and Fuast Arp is pretty bad)

Faust Arp is a sweet little tune....

Wierd Fishes >>>>> All other songs on In Rainbows (and it is a 5 star album)

Check out two cracking tunes on the second disc called Last Flowers & Bangers & Mash (not the theme from the show about Chimps)

 

[xaviMF22]

umm...re read the quote, then read your response...

I know,

 

[U2girl]

Might there be a comparison in that both bands, even in their approach to music being different, each made a very accessible album (ATYCLB/In Rainbows) and a back-to-basics album (Bomb/Hail to the thief) ?

 

[xaviMF22]

and a back-to-basics album (Bomb/Hail to the thief) ?

tracks like backdrifts, where I end and you begin, the gloaming and so many more are not back to basics for RH

and I really don't think RH sat down and said lets make a more accessible album with IR.

 

[Pero]

Might there be a comparison in that both bands, even in their approach to music being different, each made a very accessible album (ATYCLB/In Rainbows) and a back-to-basics album (Bomb/Hail to the thief) ?

accessible In rainbows???
back to basics Hail to the thief???
i want your drugs!i want it now

 

[U2girl]

Looking at other Radiohead albums, they are.

 

[xaviMF22]

Looking at other Radiohead albums, they are.

I can totally hear the similarities between HTTT and The Bends

 

[LMP]

Looking at other Radiohead albums, they are.

Hail to the Thief may very well be their most polarizing album in their discography.

The fans of the Kid A/Amnesiac-type music wanted less guitars and conventional recording while the Bends/OK Computer people wanted a more straightforward, less bells-and-whistles and solid album. At least that's what I've drawn from my experience with the band's fans.

I'm growing to love it after every listen.

 

[LemonMelon]

and I really don't think RH sat down and said lets make a more accessible album with IR.

In Rainbows IS the most accessible album they've made since OK Computer though, whether that sounds like a bad thing or not, or whether they intended it or not.

I tend to agree that HTTT isn't really "back-to-basics". It's just lazy and doesn't really push any boundaries. There is a difference.

 

[U2girl]

How so ? Going back to basics, by definition, means being "lazy" and not pushing boundaries. Another way of looking at it is a band is doing what they do best.

I've seen HTTT being described as almost self-parodying Radiohead, as well as comparisons to ATYCLB.

 

[LMP]

How so ? Going back to basics, by definition, means being "lazy" and not pushing boundaries. Another way of looking at it is a band is doing what they do best.

I've seen HTTT being described as almost self-parodying Radiohead, as well as comparisons to ATYCLB.

How is "doing what you do best" considered lazy? I don't call you lazy if you're good at typing with your hands, but don't want to with your feet. As long as the music put out is good, then what's the problem? (Plus, with bands like U2 and Radiohead, there's enough of a back catalog to go back to whenever you want to listen to them "push the envelope")

There isn't another U2 album similar to ATYCLB. Not one. It's their first real pop album (ironically). There's nothing wrong with pop music at all when it's done right, which is what that album is.

Hail... was just a failed experiment to blend Radiohead's older sound with their newer sound. Something In Rainbows actually achieved, at least in my estimation.

 

[LemonMelon]

"Going back to the basics" is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It's a conscious distillation of previous works used to make a finished product that is more widely pleasing. It's not necessarily an easy thing to do.

Being lazy is just that; being lazy. HTTT is a hodgepodge of tunes that kind of go back to what Radiohead is known for, and some moments of cheap experimentation that don't really cohere with the rest. Thus, I don't consider the entire album to be a conscious effort to reshape previous glories.

 

[U2girl]

LemonMacPhisto: I don't think it is, but with U2's past experimentation Bomb was considered (by some fans) lazy.

LemonMelon: I don't know about other bands, but for U2, I think the back-to-basics on Bomb happened because Edge wasn't into new sounds (not counting for the nod to the "the" bands on Vertigo). I remember an article around ATYCLB when the band was asked if they ever thought Edge's guitar sounded too much like U2 during that album, and they said "all the time." I imagine more scenes like the infamous dirty look story on Beautiful Day happened. I don't buy the theories that the last two albums were consciously written, played and produced just to cash in because they reminded people of 80's U2, I assume most bands do a retro sounding album at some point in their career.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Bomb certainly isn't lazy. If anything they probably worked too hard on it. (Bono's lyrics aside - they're lazy, stop hiding behind 'direct' to defend him).

 

[BVS]

(Bono's lyrics aside - they're lazy, stop hiding behind 'direct' to defend him).

I don't think there's anything wrong with direct some of my favorite songwriters write in a very direct tone, Bono just isn't that great at it. I think he's more clumsy than lazy, but who knows.

But in a thread about Radiohead, I'm really not sure lyrics are something that should be brought up.

Thom isn't exactly a poet, but I think he gets away with it due to the obscureness, kind of like early Michael Stipe. I mean many in the In Rainbows thread in B&C admit they hardly know what Thom is talking about and that they really don't care, that's not why they listen to Radiohead. Which is completely understandable.