Radiohead's biggest weakness

[lmjhitman]

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.

[MrBrau1]

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.

[TheRooster]

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.

[lmjhitman]

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.

[TheFly84138]

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?

[roy]

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.

[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

[joyfulgirl]

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.

[MrBrau1]

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.

[Saracene]

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."

[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]

Originally posted by 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?

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]

Originally posted by Layton


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]

Originally posted by cujo

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]

Originally posted by TheFly84138



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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by u2popmofo
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.