Why Radiohead has got so poor sales in the US?

[Dorian Gray]

Can I disagree here? Not to hijack this thread, but it's still no shame for U2 to be in the same league as Bruce Springsteen. He's one of the few artists that's still amazing after so many years.

C ya!

Marty

I have to agree with this disagreement.
Bruce is the perfect balance between commercial success and true integrity.

 

[elevatedmole]

mofo is quite right, IMO. I thought Radiohead was strange when I was just getting into music, and didn't know much past VH1 and MTV. Once I actually got into stuff past VH1 and heard Kid A, I thought it was great.

And OK Computer.. I had heard Kid A and Amnesiac first, and liked them both a lot, and after reading all the OK Computer hype, I expected to hear something really strange and different. Instead I heard a lesser Amnesiac/Kid A type album. I'm still not very impressed by OK Computer. I need to listen to it more, I guess. It's not bad, but I think their newer stuff is better.

Curious, has Radiohead's label even pushed the album (via advertisements, promotions). I wasn't even aware that they recently released a new album

They haven't.. unfinished versions were leaked. It's being released in June.

 

[popkidu2]

I went back and listened to Kid A and Amnesiac a month or so ago. It's interesting, but nothing I can listen to on a regular basis. And personally, I think that Sigor Ross is far more interesting and experimental than anything that Radiohead has done, and the tunes are much more listener friendly.

I saw this thing on public television recently, about "fringe" art. There was this young woman who did electronic music. Now, when I say electronic, I don't mean a sampler, synths, and drum beats. I mean ELECTRONIC music. Strange boxes that created odd sqeaks and tics and sounds that generally would tell you that you've fried your motherboard something fierce. I watched in pure fascination as this woman gyrated in front of a small group of other artists, using some type of device (I can't remember what it is now) to create this so-called music.

Now, just to digress for a moment. I enjoy non-traditional music. I can listen to just about anything (including Kid A and Amnesiac) and find something redeeming in the song. Even if it's just the beat of the song. So I think I'm pretty open to different kinds of music (granted, I direct a lot of scorn at popular music, but that's more of a hobby than anything else ).

So I watched in pure fascination at this woman's performance, and was in awe when at the end of the performance people were clapping and congratulating her and praising her music. This music wasn't even along the lines of "when you go out on the street the diffferent sounds create a kind of music" music. It was pure and simple unadulterated crap. And if I was there I would have challenged this lady on what made her stuff music, or even something that one would want to listen to.

I know this is a tangent, but my point is this: At some point experimenting with music becomes a bore. It's all fine and dandy to experiment to challenge the listener, but when it reaches a point where you're scratching your head and going huh? Well, in my opinion, that's a bit 'naff.

So while I welcome Radiohead's desire to challenge poeple and do something new and interesting, I hope they aren't doing for the sake of being different and experimental. I hope they're actually trying to create beautiful music. Because if it's not pleasant to listen to, I'm not really sure what the point of making the music is.

Just my two cents...