Radiohead's biggest weakness

[Layton]

Heard "Idioteque" the other day and remembered how it used to be my favorite song off Kid A (National Anthem is now). It does a very good job at the whole anti-rock band rock song thing (although Zooropa did it first----lol), but then I realized for as rhythmic as it is it actually has no rhythm. Now this is not a knock on "Idioteque" per se as it's probably not intended to have rhythm, but no Radiohead songs have rhythm. When Springsteen inducted U2 into the HOF he mentioned something about their earthy below the belt quality. 'A' list groups like U2 and the Stones have this in abundance, but Radiohead really lacks this quality. U2 didn't find this quality until AB, but when they did they took off in a whole new direction. I don't mean to turn this into a Radiohead sucks thread (I think they're top 3 from the '90's), but I say Radiohead needs to go listen to a bunch of Motown/R&B records and learn to wiggle their ass before they become truly elite or else their music will remain utterly sexless.

[Flying FuManchu]

Radiohead and wiggling ass won't ever happen unless a Thom Yorke performance seizure is what you consider an adequate ass wiggle.

[TheRooster]

Keep Radiohead as far away as possible from Motown. For that matter, keep Springsteen far away from Radiohead.

[mikal]

Originally posted by Layton
Heard "Idioteque" the other day and remembered how it used to be my favorite song off Kid A (National Anthem is now). It does a very good job at the whole anti-rock band rock song thing (although Zooropa did it first----lol), but then I realized for as rhythmic as it is it actually has no rhythm. Now this is not a knock on "Idioteque" per se as it's probably not intended to have rhythm, but no Radiohead songs have rhythm. When Springsteen inducted U2 into the HOF he mentioned something about their earthy below the belt quality. 'A' list groups like U2 and the Stones have this in abundance, but Radiohead really lacks this quality. U2 didn't find this quality until AB, but when they did they took off in a whole new direction. I don't mean to turn this into a Radiohead sucks thread (I think they're top 3 from the '90's), but I say Radiohead needs to go listen to a bunch of Motown/R&B records and learn to wiggle their ass before they become truly elite or else their music will remain utterly sexless.

good post.

[zoopop]

Radiohead has some songs that you can bob your head to, but yeah for the most part you can't really shake those hips. One quality U2 has is you can dance to quite a few of their songs. I don't think Radiohead is out put the shaking of hips in their music. Not really their style.

[u2popmofo]

I fail to see how in any way this is a weakness.

Radiohead does not make mainstream "been done a million times before" blues based rock. It's not something they're intersted in, and it's not something they're trying to do. That cannot be considered a "weakness" in my opinion.

[Layton]

Originally posted by TheRooster
Keep Radiohead as far away as possible from Motown. For that matter, keep Springsteen far away from Radiohead.

What??? You don't want Radiohead doing "A Man And A Woman" or "Mysterious Ways"----lol. I like Radiohead as much as the next guy, but they need to give in to the baser side of themselves once in a while. My Radiohead fan friends get so pissed at me when I talk about this. They act like it would be sacriligious for Radiohead to do anything other than arty and intelligent. I think they'd all have a collective heart attack if Radiohead ever 'got down' in a song. They know I'm right too---lol. They just don't know how to reconcile this human desire in their geek'ish minds----lol. I tell them all the time that Radiohead is a tad too geek boy'ish to be truly elite. It's about this time they tell me get the f... out of their house----lol.

[Layton]

Originally posted by u2popmofo
I fail to see how in any way this is a weakness.

Radiohead does not make mainstream "been done a million times before" blues based rock. It's not something they're intersted in, and it's not something they're trying to do. That cannot be considered a "weakness" in my opinion.

Lack of variety can be considered a weakness and letting an untamed side of yourself loose doesn't have to be mainstream. If U2 can do it, surely Radiohead can do it. I mean U2 in the '80 couldn't have been more square and look what letting that human side out did for their career. Hey look, I'm not really attacking Radiohead. I'm just saying that maybe this lack of a baser human side in their music holds them back from being a truly elite band. It's the difference from being an 'A' list band and an 'A-' list band. So yeah, I'm splitting hairs, but groups like the Beatles and U2 have it all; a human side and an intellectual side.

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Layton
Heard "Idioteque" the other day and remembered how it used to be my favorite song off Kid A (National Anthem is now). It does a very good job at the whole anti-rock band rock song thing (although Zooropa did it first----lol), but then I realized for as rhythmic as it is it actually has no rhythm. Now this is not a knock on "Idioteque" per se as it's probably not intended to have rhythm, but no Radiohead songs have rhythm. When Springsteen inducted U2 into the HOF he mentioned something about their earthy below the belt quality. 'A' list groups like U2 and the Stones have this in abundance, but Radiohead really lacks this quality. U2 didn't find this quality until AB, but when they did they took off in a whole new direction. I don't mean to turn this into a Radiohead sucks thread (I think they're top 3 from the '90's), but I say Radiohead needs to go listen to a bunch of Motown/R&B records and learn to wiggle their ass before they become truly elite or else their music will remain utterly sexless.

Let it be known that Radiohead are my favorite band next to U2. That said, I have to say I do understand what you're saying and in fact once upon a time, before I became the huge Radiohead fan that I now am, I made the comment to a friend that though they write great songs, "Radiohead are so cerebral they are practically neutered."

However, I have since, and for quite some time now, come to the same conclusion as u2popmofo:

I fail to see how in any way this is a weakness. ..It's not something they're intersted in, and it's not something they're trying to do. That cannot be considered a "weakness" in my opinion.

I now don't just love them despite this fact, but because of it. I just get what they're doing and there is quite enough booty-shakin' music out there already. The live version of "Idioteque" on I Might Be Wrong is one of my favorites.

And may I add that this thread is just the kind of intelligent discussion this board has been lacking as of late.

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Layton


Lack of variety can be considered a weakness and letting an untamed side of yourself loose doesn't have to be mainstream.

You don't think Thom lets himself loose onstage? Granted, it's a more inner kind of letting loose but while the music may not be exactly sexy it is certainly not without passion.

[u2popmofo]

I have to admit Layton, I dont really understand your arguments at all.

Who cares if someone can do something, if that's not remotely something they're trying to do. If you dont find any of their music to have a "human" or "baser" quality to it, then that's really nothing more than how you interpret their music.

Radiohead is an A- group compared to U2??? Again, personal opinions and tastes. I'm fairly certain that MOST of us around here (Bang and Clatter) would probably flip that judgement around in reverse with the kind of music U2 is making these days....

More or less, I'm wondering if you dont understand why Radiohead is popular AND respected. The main and most important thing Radiohead has going for themselves is that they're unique. To say that their weakness is that they're not just like everyone else is like saying that Apple computers should all be switched to use Windows operating systems to be better.

[u2popmofo]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl



And may I add that this thread is just the kind of intelligent discussion this board has been lacking as of late.

I agree (though I probably have come across as seeming otherwise), it's good to see someone (Layton in this example) share their opinions AND actually be able to back up why they feel that way.

[TheRooster]

I think in the decades to come Radiohead will be mentioned with the "elite" groups of the past, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Police, U2. In fact I think they will overshadow the more popular choice of Nirvana as the band of the 90s. I think the rules that they play by are what will make them great. For 40 years rock bands have been playing by the same rules and Radiohead turned against that and made something just as good if not better. However a Radiohead cover of Baby Got Back would be quite amusing.

[2Hearts]

I like their weakness, people are having too much sex as it is.

[Sleep Over Jack]

I do think Radiohead are a very stilted band, when they try to rock out it sounds awkward and cumbersome, maybe they just don't have the "swagger" (for want of a better term) to make that kind of music. I would also say another weakness they have is a limited palette of emotion in their music, its all pretty much uniformly dull and gloomy to me..it wouldn't hurt to write from a differing perspective, as I think they are sort of parodying themselves a bit, especially with their most recent album.

[u2popmofo]

Originally posted by Sleep Over Jack
I do think Radiohead are a very stilted band, when they try to rock out it sounds awkward and cumbersome, maybe they just don't have the "swagger" (for want of a better term) to make that kind of music. I would also say another weakness they have is a limited palette of emotion in their music, its all pretty much uniformly dull and gloomy to me..it wouldn't hurt to write from a differing perspective, as I think they are sort of parodying themselves a bit, especially with their most recent album.

Arent these more or less just things in your personal taste that make you not like them?

I know I sound like a broken record here, but just because you dont personally like how someone does something musically, doesnt mean there's something "inherently wrong" with the music. I personally prefer their rock to anything the Rolling Stones have ever done (I used this example because of your description of "swagger"), and I'm sure the vast majority of Radiohead fans would agree. At the same time, your opinion that their "negatively based emotions" are a weakness is probably what a lot of fans would think is a huge strength. It's all just a matter of opinions and tastes, there are no black and whites in music or art.

[Zoots]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl

I just get what they're doing and there is quite enough booty-shakin' music out there already.

Hey joyfulgirl, that's one booty shakin' avatar you got there! Very nice.

PS: Who is that in the avatar?

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Zootlesque


Hey joyfulgirl, that's one booty shakin' avatar you got there! Very nice.

PS: Who is that in the avatar?

That would be me of course.

Not. It's Tori Amos.

[Zoots]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl


That would be me of course.

Not. It's Tori Amos.

Ah... I Tori. For some reason I thought it would be Edie Brickell but didn't say anything.

[MrBrau1]

Originally posted by Layton
Heard "Idioteque" the other day and remembered how it used to be my favorite song off Kid A (National Anthem is now). It does a very good job at the whole anti-rock band rock song thing (although Zooropa did it first----lol), but then I realized for as rhythmic as it is it actually has no rhythm. Now this is not a knock on "Idioteque" per se as it's probably not intended to have rhythm, but no Radiohead songs have rhythm. When Springsteen inducted U2 into the HOF he mentioned something about their earthy below the belt quality. 'A' list groups like U2 and the Stones have this in abundance, but Radiohead really lacks this quality. U2 didn't find this quality until AB, but when they did they took off in a whole new direction. I don't mean to turn this into a Radiohead sucks thread (I think they're top 3 from the '90's), but I say Radiohead needs to go listen to a bunch of Motown/R&B records and learn to wiggle their ass before they become truly elite or else their music will remain utterly sexless.

I agree. Their lack of range is a huge weakness. It would be great to hear them toy with some "Rock and Roll", country, R&B, even pure pop. But I think their fanbase would run away if they released anything with a "wink" or "smile" in it.