revolver
The Fly
Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't buy into this at all.
Experimental is not a genre. To me a musician experiments when they do something outside their comfort zone or norm, nothing more nothing less. If U2 recorded a Polka album it would be experimenting for they've never done so before, it wouldn't be innovative because Polka had been done before, but it would be experimenting for U2.
Radiohead did something pretty innovative with Kid A. They've expanded and perfected that sound with the albums that followed it up, but they haven't experimented all that much since then or done anything innovative. They've found their sound and have been writing great tunes within that sound. In order for Radiohead to experiment again it would have to not sound like the last four albums.
I agree with everything you say here.
Though I still find Radiohead being Radiohead standing still to be more experimental than U2's small experiments on NLOTH. Some bands by nature are more experimental, even if they're just doing one thing all their lives, even if they're not actually experimenting beyond their established sound. This is obviously where we're differing, as I believe some people have "experimental" built into their DNA while others have to try. Even if those others try, they still may not end up all that experimental in the sense that they've created something unique. Of course they're experimenting - I agree with you - but I just don't think it's anything to talk about unless they've really gone out on a limb. U2 in the 90s was always out on that limb, even if Pop wasn't really that much different from Achtung/Zooropa, it was still U2 already out on the limb.
Bottom line for me is that I don't think U2 actually went out of their comfort zone. If U2 made a Polka album, it would be experimental for them. A big risk, a big experiment. NLOTH certainly isn't that, and that's all I'm saying.