OT: Thankfully, this critic sees through Radiohead hype

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:15 am

When did I ever say they weren´t in the mainstream? I said that they weren´t played nearly as often as other chart topping acts on mainstream radio and tv. Despite this fact, Radiohead´s albums enjoy mainstream success. But when I think of overrated groups, I think of bands that I am forced to listen to over and over that have few unique qualities.

Neckthai · Post by **Neckthai** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:45 am

I happen to like many of the artists mentioned here as well, and can´t it better than what Z just did.
 
 Well said Mr. Zeck,
 
 neck

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:39 am

Z:
 
 Well said. I don´t hate Radiohead. Hell, I have a handful of its tunes sitting on my Archos right here.
 
 What pisses me off about Radiohead is the constant insistence by the media and many of the band´s fans -- not you, Parker, not you! -- that the band is so damn avant-garde and out of the mainstream. It´s not -- not at all. It is a mainstream rock band, plain and simple.
 
 There´s nothing wrong with that, though, and many RH fans need to get a grip on that. After all, arguably the most influential rock band ever, The Beatles, also was a massively mainstream popular success. And yet The Beatles evolved even more over six years between 1964-70 than Radiohead has.
 
 Yet Radiohead is alternative, avant-garde and out of the mainstream, and The Beatles were the most mainstream pop-rock band ever. Yeah, OK.
 
 RH fans are a lot like Clash, Green Day and Metallica fans who raged at the prospect of their heroes "selling out" through big record deals and massive tours. Well, you know what? I don´t know a professional musician alive who doesn´t want to get paid for their work and earn a living. Yet meanwhile, too many RH fans cling to this notion that their band isn´t part of the mainstream, is alternative and is different because it pushes the musical boundaries.
 
 Well, that´s bullsh*t. Again, look at my example of The Beatles. Compare "The White Album" with "Hard Day´s Night" and tell me that band didn´t progress and experiment despite being the most popular and biggest-selling band in the world.
 
 This rant is veering more toward my distaste for all the labels hung on bands by record companies, the music media and fans. F*ck, it´s music. But bands like Radiohead are "alternative," "non-mainstream" and "avant garde" yet sell millions of records. Meanwhile, someone like Junior Brown deserves to sell millions of records but doesn´t because a label is hung on him -- he´s not "Nashville" enough.
 
 Country is the absolute worst for labels, but rock and pop aren´t far behind.
 
 Bottom line: I don´t hate Radiohead. In fact, I find some of its stuff very interesting. But I do despise the mystique and myth surrounding the band that´s been created by the media and the band´s fans. It´s an intelligent, talented rock group for this generation -- nothing more.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 11-06-2003 07:41 ]

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:03 pm

I don´t know what to think of the concept of mainstream anymore. There are other bands that take creative risks, but their music is rarely heard by the masses. What mainstream rock band has put out an album as risky as Kid A in the last ten years? It´s correct to label them as a mainstream band in many senses of the word I guess, but they definitely stand out from most of the generic rock bands that top the charts.
 
 I´d like to discuss the indie groups that I´m a fan of, but the fact is that I doubt many people would know about them so it would be pointless. That´s why I find myself talking about Radiohead so often.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:12 pm

>>>What mainstream rock band has put out an album as risky as Kid A in the last ten years?<<<
 
 Uh, how about last year? Wilco, with "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot."
 
 The record was so offbeat and risky that the record company (Warner Brothers, I think?) initially refused to publish it. After the band released the tracks on the Internet to critical and public acclaim, a subsidiary of the original record company picked up and released the album, in a stroke of irony.
 
 And even though they´re constantly criticized about "selling out," what about Metallica with "S&M?" Come on -- a metal band playing with a philharmonic orchestra? That´s not risky?
 
 Again, Radiohead doesn´t have the mainstream musical market cornered when it comes to risk-taking. This insistence that RH is the leader among risk-taking mainstream bands pisses me off.
 
 Take care,
 PK

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:18 pm

Wilco is not what I´d call a chart-topping band.
 Not that it isn´t quality music. But their worldwide popularity or presence in mainstream media really doesn´t compare to Radiohead, even after that critically acclaimed album.
 
 But what other band that generates as many album sales and consistently reaches the top of the billboard charts has released so many risky albums? [ This message was edited by: Parker on 11-06-2003 09:21 ]

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:47 pm

Lets see Parker,you make 8 new posts on a sports gaming website,and they have all been about Radiohead. For someone that says this isn´t their favorite band you sure are trying to pimp em.
 
 You really sound like another Radiohead fan that frequents SR. Let it go man move on.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:54 pm

Parker:
 
 Again, I don´t see why Radiohead´s records are so "risky." The band isn´t even changing genres. It´s just drifting around the edges of electronica and alternative, to use a couple of the labels I hate.
 
 Again, someone like Joe Jackson has taken way more creative risks by completely jumping genres than Radiohead has.
 
 And as for mainstream, chart-topping artists taking risks, what about Madonna? Don´t sniff. She´s done power ballads, electronica with William Orbit, stripped-down stuff, dance, feeble efforts at political statements and pure pop -- all in the last 10 years. She´s shown nearly as much daring -- although it´s much more calculated and commercial -- as Radiohead.
 
 I´m awaiting your "Sheesh. Don´t compare a pop princess like Madonna with geniuses like Radiohead" reply. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 11-06-2003 09:55 ]

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:16 pm

Actually, I made one post about Wakeboarding Extreme.
 
 I suppose Madonna is an ok example, but look what has happened to her album sales. Her mainstream success is rapidly dwindling, while Radiohead´s sales continue to increase. And it´s far easier for a single artist to change genres suddenly than it is for a tight-knit group of 5 people that expect to some relatively defined role in the recording process.
 
 A song like Kid A itself really has very little in common with what anyone would label rock. It´s completely computer-generated with an arrangement that would be most strange for an ordinary rock band. The same goes for many of the other songs on that album and Amnesiac. Sounds like genre changing to me. But it´s true that Radiohead has not completely changed genres. They instead tend to experiment with several different genres at once and go back and forth between them. [ This message was edited by: Parker on 11-06-2003 10:21 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:59 pm

>>>Her mainstream success is rapidly dwindling, while Radiohead´s sales continue to increase.<<<
 
 Hmm ... that wouldn´t have anything to do with her recent anti-American statements and the fact that she´s been a commercial powerhouse for 20 years now and maybe her time is up?
 
 Radiohead first broke through with "Pablo Honey," which was released in 1993. It´s been a known quantity worldwide for about 10 years. Ten years into Madonna´s international pop career, coincidentally also in 1993, she still was selling a shitload of records. So let´s wait and see if Radiohead still is selling tons of records in 2013.
 
 As for daring computer music, hmm ... didn´t Kraftwerk and Brian Eno already do that about 20 years ago? Again, RH doesn´t break nearly as much ground as its fans would like to think.
 
 Take care,
 PK

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:22 pm

But when have you ever heard electronic music like that on mainstream radio or tv lately? That´s exactly the point. Radiohead´s popularity allows them to introduce influences like Aphex Twin and Autechre to the masses that usually consume the same static types of music over and over. And that´s one reason why they should be considered a unique and important group.
 
 I don´t really understand why you are so devoted to showing that Radiohead is not a unique group. There are plenty of bands that I realize have unique qualities but I don´t like. They play an important role among other popular rock acts and that´s the bottom line.

BBReBozo · Post by **BBReBozo** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:09 pm

I think PK´s just trying to force a point. I´m not a rabid Radiohead-head, but I really do think that KidA (and it´s followup) was something different in the rock world. I can´t imagine a s***-pop band like Matchbox 20 or the Goo Goo Dolls even attempting something as visceral and, yes, different sounding on one of their records.
 
 Having never heard Joe Jackson, I can´t comment on what he´s done, but I will say that mere genre-hopping does not automatically make one a risk-taker. Bjork did a pure swing jazz album a long time ago (Gling Glo) but her more recent albums like Vespertine and Homogenic find her pushing her "pop" art form way past the boundaries of the traditional.
 
 My definition of "progress" in terms of music is in creating newness, new sounds, new structures, something that´s never been heard before. There are sounds on Kid A and Amnesiac that were utterly fresh sounding to me, along the lines of hearing the lead singer of Sigur Ros´ voice for the first time.
 
 Here´s a couple more good CDs that were recently released:
 
 King´s X - Black Like Sunday (heavy powerful rock from the masters. These are all old songs but they sound great).
 
 Gord Downie - Battle of the Nudes. The lead singer of the Tragically Hip´s second solo effort is much less grating on the ears than his first disc, Coke Machine Glow. As always, Downie writes some of the best lyrics in the business, this time set to some very nice tunes.
 
 Fountains of Wayne - Welcome Interstate Managers. The absolute kings of power pop just released their third CD. These guys do melody like Jenna Jameson does the nasty: nice and sweet.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:51 pm

>>>Radiohead´s popularity allows them to introduce influences like Aphex Twin and Autechre to the masses that usually consume the same static types of music over and over. And that´s one reason why they should be considered a unique and important group.<<<
 
 Given that Nirvana spawned a slew of "grunge" acts, I hope you put it in the same category as Radiohead. After all, grunge never was heard by the masses until "Nevermind" broke through and Nirvana became accepted by the mainstream.
 
 But of course, I doubt many RH fans would lower their band into the same doldrums as Nirvana. That´s just a commercial, straightahead rock group that didn´t change its sound much over three studio albums, after all ... <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">
 
 F*ck, I never heard anything like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "Territorial Pissings" when I first heard "Nevermind" in 1991. That was pretty damn fresh for me.
 
 Same with Run-DMC and NWA. I don´t like rap, but those two bands -- with help from Aerosmith in Run-DMC´s case -- broke rap into the mainstream and spawned countless imitators. Run-DMC´s cover of "Walk This Way" with Aerosmith also was one of the precursors to the thrash metal/hip-hop crossover that´s so prevalent in rock today. So again, there are two bands that rarely are put on the critical and fan pedestal as Radiohead that arguably had a greater long-term influence on modern music.
 
 And while we´re at it, what about the commercial breakthrough of R.E.M. in the mid-1980s? Think jingle-jangle rock bands like Train, Counting Crows and even Dave Matthews would have achieved popular acclaim without the boys from Athens doing it first? I doubt it.
 
 I´ll leave my argument at this, promise: I´m just so sick and tired of critics and fans proclaiming Radiohead to be one of the most important and influential acts in rock music. Some have even said in rock music history. There are many other bands who have been there, done that already. RH is a fine, adventurous band, but it´s not walking trails that haven´t been blazed before.
 
 Yes, RH takes more risks than most commercial bands these days. But that´s not saying much considering the bland, homogenized state of the music industry today.
 
 Now, Parker, what sports games are you playing lately? <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif">
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 11-06-2003 13:02 ]

James_E · Post by **James_E** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:58 pm

You guys certainly take this stuff seriously.
 
 I like Radiohead´s new album. I like listening to it. Isn´t that all that really matters?
 
 I don´t give a rat´s ass if it is revolutionary, copies "Artist X" or isn´t as risk taking as Madonna (LOL.)
 
 I´ve never been one to get overly emotional about how the press treats art forms like music, movies etc. Music is a completely personal thing. No discussing of it changes how it makes you feel. It is the perfect example of how the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
 
 As far as sports games go, I´m really enjoying WE6, Indycar, golf games on PC and Nascar 2003. How about you guys?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:21 pm

James:
 
 Moto GP 2 and Inside Pitch 2003 for the Xbox are ruling my world now.
 
 Take care,
 PK