OT: Thankfully, this critic sees through Radiohead hype

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 11:31 am

Ah, sweet relief: This critic sees Radiohead for about what it is -- a pretentious band that has a few good songs but is overrated, in my opinion:
 
 >>>
 RADIOHEAD: “Hail to the Thief” (Parlophone/Capitol) 2 stars
 Except for U2, is there another band as deeply unfunky and
 inexplicably celebrated as Radiohead? Since 1997’s admittedly intriguing “OK
 Computer,” the members of this quintet have fancied themselves pop
 visionaries, but the result is deadly, purposefully unmelodic albums choked with
 banal electronic noise. Little has changed with singer/lyricist Thom
 Yorke and company’s sixth effort, “Hail to the Thief” (in stores
 Tuesday), which merely adds a conventional layer of guitar to the instantly
 dated computer programming. These 14 icy missives offer only wisps of
 meaning and melody in the atypical art-damaged tracks “Sit Down. Stand Up”
 and “Backdrifts.” Where are the Smiths when we need them?
 -- Fred Shuster
 <<<
 
 Flame away, Radiohead fans ... <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif">
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 09-06-2003 08:42 ]

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:40 pm

I maybe alone here and I never claimed to be a great music critic, but I have always thought Radiohead sucked big time.
 
 Of course just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:55 pm

Radiohead is to music,what CART is to open wheel racing. They both blow <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_biggrin.gif">
 
 sfz......Thats trolling brother <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif"> [ This message was edited by: JackDog on 09-06-2003 10:58 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 2:02 pm

Z:
 
 No, not a troll! Honestly, it was just refreshing to find a music critic that doesn´t inhale Radiohead whole.
 
 Frankly, I find Sigur Ros a ton more compelling and interesting than Radiohead. I know they´re not parallel bands -- just making a comparison.
 
 Take care,
 PK

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 2:27 pm

Couldn´t agree more - Radiohead have been flaunting the emperor´s new clothes for their last 4 releases..and yes, I include the vastly overrated OK Computer in that.
 
 New guitar music ? try British Sea Power.
 
 Thoughtful guitar without its head up its arse ? Try the Durutti Column.
 
 Reviews in the UK have been of the 2 or 3 star variety as well. [ This message was edited by: davet010 on 09-06-2003 11:29 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 2:37 pm

Dave:
 
 Thanks for the tips on those bands! I´ll check them out, as I know you´re a no-bullshit mate.
 
 Take care,
 PK

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 4:28 pm

SF
 
 Yeah, Vini Reilly is still around, looking like a consumptive as usual. He´s just released a new CD, the name of which escapes me for the moment.
 
 One thing - Sigur Ros don´t actually sing in Icelandic..it´s a made up language that they term ´Hopelandish´. Still, singing in a made up language never did the Cocteau Twins any harm...nor me, as it was my professed liking for them that swung my gf´s opinion of the sensitive me !
 
 Paul - if you are gonna try out the Durutti Column, I would recommend any of the following.
 
 Without Mercy
 The Return of
 Circuses and Bread
 Fidelity

bdt92 · Post by **bdt92** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 5:56 pm

I honestly don´t know how a band that released the single Creep in the 90´s (granted it was a good song but c´mon people) have achieved the level of God-status. I listened to Kid-A or whatever it was and thought it was average at best. They remind me of U2 and Metallica(not to take anything away from U2 or Metallica I think they´re great so bear with me here). U2 and Metallica both achieved God-status and decided to really mix things up and experiment a lot as evidenced by Zooropa and the Load albums. In the body of work of U2 and Metallica I´d have to say that those are the worst albums by either band. After they got the experimentation out of their systems both bands went back to what got them there in the first place. The only band who successfully achieved experimentation properly was the Beatles and now every band that achieves a certain level tries to emulate what the Beatles did. Guess what, they´re not the Beatles.
 
 Or I could be completely wrong, wouldn´t be the first time. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:51 pm

WTF? Radiohead is nothing like U2 or Metallica. U2 has changed their style and progressed somewhat over their history but not to the extent that Radiohead has progressed in a much shorter time. There are few bands that are willing to bring non-mainstream influences into the mainstream or risk losing popularity by trying new styles.
 
 A few good songs? This band has so many good tracks that deciding on a setlist for a live concert is a nightmare. Even their B-sides are better than most top 10 songs.
 
 Anway, the quoted review is not representative of the general critical opinion of HTTT. While reviewers may not be going all out in their praise like with OK Computer, they definitely still are praising an album that everyone had high expectations for. If you want to read a fair and well-written review, check this new one out:
 
 http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-re ... hief.shtml
 
 RH isn´t really my favorite band either, but the amount of rh bashing and ignorance about the group is shocking. They aren´t so popular because of media hype, they are popular because the band offers superb vocals, quality professional musicians, and a sound that´s always fresh among other things.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:20 pm

Parker:
 
 To each their own. But that "fresh sound" that Radiohead brings to the table almost has become a cliche, in my opinion.
 
 It´s almost as if the band has to reinvent itself with every record just to satisfy the critics and keep the hype machine going.
 
 Glad you enjoy the band, though!
 
 Take care,
 PK

BBReBozo · Post by **BBReBozo** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:37 pm

I´ve enjoyed HTTT more than I did Amnesiac on subsequent listens. At first, I was pretty transfixed with Amnesiac, even moreso than KidA, simply because of the drumming which I found mesmerizing at some points. Much more akin to breakbeat/d´n´b beats than traditional pop/rock. However, the songwriting on Amnesiac doesn´t really hold up after a while.
 
 That said, I really see HTTT as a logical extension of Amnesiac, which slowly brought more acoustic instruments back into the mix. Really, you can consider OK Computer and HTTT as bookends between a marevelously experimental time in the band´s history with KidA and Amnesiac.
 
 If Radiohead sticks around for another 20 years (and I hope they do), critics will likely look upon these four albums as the artistic highlight of the band´s career.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:46 pm

BB:
 
 I´m still thankful to you every time I hear Sigur Ros. You pointed me toward the band!
 
 Take care,
 PK

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:06 pm

"RH isn´t really my favorite band either, but the amount of rh bashing and ignorance about the group is shocking"
 
 
 Parker ...Welcome. But also kiss my arse! Calling people ignorant becuse of the freedom of choice not to like a band is weak at best. To each their own brother. IMO... RH sucks,my choice.
 
 Shocking is a word I would use to describe AIDS in Africa,not someones viewpoint of a band. Use some commonsense or reason when you start calling people ignorant.
 
 Again welcome.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:26 pm

The ignorance I was referring to was mainly the U2/Metallica comparison. You can say even that is just opinion, but I think anyone with two ears and eyes can tell that there is little resemblance between the musical progression and careers of these 3 groups. You can´t lump Radiohead into any category, that is part of their appeal.
 
 There are a lot of valid opinions being expressed by those who don´t care for rh, but there are also too many myths and misinformation being spread. [ This message was edited by: Parker on 10-06-2003 12:28 ]

bdt92 · Post by **bdt92** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:37 pm

U2 became very popular and started to expiriment. Metallica became very popular and started to expiriment. Radiohead became very popular and started to experiment. I really don´t see how I was wrong with that one.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:11 pm

I haven´t heard Hail to the Thief and don´t own Amnesiac, but I think Ok Computer and Kid A are phenomonal records. I appreciate that RH doesn´t try to do the same thing on every record. What I do dislike is people rating a record based either on hype or backlash instead of just letting their ears do the work (not referring to posters here, but the review PK cited).
 
 That´s the same reason I´ve always liked U2. They took their initial sound as far as it could go, perfecting it by Joshua Tree. They tried to experiment and made the very muddled Rattle and Hum, but instead of making Joshua Tree II, they kept experimenting and created the amazing Achtung Baby and the underrated Zooropa. They crashed again on Pop but then sort of combined their 80s and 90s sounds on All That You Can´t Leave Behind.
 
 Likewise, I´ve been a Rush fan for 20+ years for the same reason, even though their late 80s-early 90s discs get little play these days. They never kept making the same record over and over.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:40 pm

Parker:
 
 While I disagree with the notion that Metallica experimented, how can you say U2 didn´t?
 
 Listen to "Boy" and listen to "Zooropa" and tell me there´s not a big difference in sound. Listen to the overt American influences of "Rattle and Hum" and the overt techno and Euro influences of "Achtung Baby" and tell me U2 hasn´t tried new sounds.
 
 It just really pisses me off that Radiohead seems to be given the mantle of the most adventurous rock group alive.
 
 F*ck, Joe Jackson is 50 times more adventurous than Radiohead. That guy has done jazz, swing, jive, punk, rockabilly, you name it. He has more musical balls in one piano key than Thom Yorke does in his entire being.
 
 Take care,
 PK

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:15 pm

Nice to see that at least here different points of view are discussed peaceably..
 
 Anyway..you are all wrong. For true innovators, I present the following list..
 
 Brian Eno (hell, he even coined a whole genre of ambient type music with the seminal ´Music for Airports´ and ´Discreet Music´) Think also of the multiple groups he influenced, Talking Heads in the late 70´s, U2.
 
 The whole ´Krautrock´ scene of the early 70s. Running the entire spectrum from the variety and invention of Kraftwerk´s and Can´s output, to the complexity of Tangerine Dream, Amon Duul and the simplicity of Neu.
 
 Radiohead ? Pah !! The poor man´s Pink Floyd.
 
 Stretch your minds (says, thinking about sparking up a Camberwell Carrot....)
 
 <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:25 pm

Comparing a majority of songs on Kid A to the tracks on Pablo Honey represents a more drastic progression than when you consider any of U2´s stylistic changes. And if you think that Metallica can be considered a highly experimental band, then you don´t know the meaning of the word. There has never been a moment where a Metallica song has come on that I´ve never heard and I´ve had to think about who the artists who wrote the song could be. On the other hand, I have witnessed many people struggle to identify new Radiohead material because it sounds so different from any of their prior songs.
 
 I´ve been to U2 concerts before, and the variety of material played just doesn´t compare to when Radiohead plays selections from most of their albums.
 
 This is not to say that a band has to be progressive to be good. I think that Tool is 20 times more musically interesting than Metallica is now. But while their initial sound was unique, Tool hasn´t really progressed much from their first album. You can still immediately recognize the conventions of a Tool track. This isn´t bad though, because there still isn´t another band that sounds much like them.
 
 You are entitled to your opinion about Thom Yorke, although I think your comment was misguided. It´s ridiculuous to compare someone like Jackson to Yorke. But I do think Thom Yorke is one of the most influential musicians of their past several decades. This is obvious with the number of people that have tried to copy his vocal style (paging Chris Martin). He also has proven his worth as a songwriter of incredible variety and he also has mastered his share of instruments. [ This message was edited by: Parker on 10-06-2003 14:34 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:39 pm

Parker:
 
 Valid points. But again, all of the bands DaveT mentioned are much more progressive musically than Radiohead.
 
 And I stand by my assertion that the underrated Joe Jackson is much more diverse and interesting than Radiohead.
 
 Listen to "Body and Soul" (jazz), "Look Sharp!" (pseudo punk) and "Night and Day" (piano pop) and you´ll find a much wider variety of styles than with Radiohead. Sure, you can identify the song as Joe Jackson, but only when he opens his mouth due to his distinctive voice.
 
 Every decade needs an overrated band that´s a critical darling. Now it´s Radiohead´s turn.
 
 Take care,
 PK

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:47 pm

Isn´t it strange that such an overrated band is so underplayed? Usually this title is given to a band that is actually given decent airtime on mainstream radio and tv airwaves. This is not the case with Radiohead.
 
 I can understand not liking Radiohead, but would you really rather hear top 10 crap acts like Creed, Sum41, Linkin Park instead? I wish anti-Radiohead people would spend more time complaining about the truly awful music currently in the mainstream.

bdt92 · Post by **bdt92** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:13 pm

Ok, wait a minute. Metallica didn´t experiment? They didn´t put out a countryesque song? They didn´t play with a fricking symphony? Anyone who´s ever heard the first four Metallica albums knows that Metallica experimented a lot with Load, Reload, and S&M. Maybe they weren´t as artsy about it like other bands but by god they experimented just as much. [ This message was edited by: bdt92 on 10-06-2003 15:15 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:51 pm

Parker:
 
 You´re calling Radiohead out of the mainstream? That´s comical.
 
 F*ck, have their last three albums gone multiplatinum? Do their concert tours pack multi-thousand-fan venues? Has every music publication and many non-music pubs, such as daily papers -- a sure sign a band is in the mainstream -- reviewed the last couple of Radiohead albums?
 
 Oh, and the lead story tonight on MTV.com, the Web site for the most mainstream commercial music medium in the U.S., is -- gasp! -- about Radiohead. Namely, pre-release song snippets from "Hail to the Thief" that you can hear at the site.
 
 OK, so Radiohead isn´t as played on the radio as Linkin Park and Blink 182. And I´d rather hear Radiohead than either of those bands.
 
 But you´re pretty daft if you think Radiohead isn´t a mainstream, commercial band.
 
 Just look at the record sales. Just look at the tours. Just look at the amount of media coverage. And then tell me Radiohead isn´t mainstream.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 10-06-2003 20:27 ]