- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 1/28/22 at 9:47 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Wait, bands are either ground breaking or they are ripping someone off? I reject your premise.
That isn't my premise. My premise is that Radiohead did break new ground with OK Computer, Kid A, and Amnesiac. Your premise is that they did not. Since those albums were not groundbreaking, that means that some other group must have broken that ground prior to them. Who did it?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:42 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:What ground? I might learn something here.
My premise is that Radiohead did break new ground with OK Computer, Kid A, and Amnesiac.
quote:We are back where we started. You're saying albums are either ground breaking or a copy. That's just absurd.
Since those albums were not groundbreaking, that means that some other group must have broken that ground prior to them. Who did it?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 12:03 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Great question. Is there even one? Does there have to be one?
Ok let me try a better question. Who IYO are the influential bands in that same time period? If no one was groundbreaking at least a few have to be influential. Or maybe not.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 12:03 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
You're saying albums are either ground breaking or a copy.
No, I'm saying those specific three albums were groundbreaking. They combined rock, electronica, ambient, and dance into a cohesive whole that sounded nothing like what they, or anyone else, had done before. It was something new when it was released. That's really all "groundbreaking" is - something that hasn't been done before. That's my question to you. If the sound Radiohead crafted with those three albums was not new, then who had done it before them? Who had tried to mold together those particular elements in those particular ways?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:09 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:You just keep saying the same thing over and over. And, you are saying that it's an either or. I don't see how you don't see this
If the sound Radiohead crafted with those three albums was not new, then who had done it before them? Who had tried to mold together those particular elements in those particular ways?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:12 pm to Decatur
quote:I am going with your maybe not. I think the last influential band was Television
If no one was groundbreaking at least a few have to be influential. Or maybe not.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:38 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
You just keep saying the same thing over and over. And, you are saying that it's an either or. I don't see how you don't see this
I guess I'm not seeing what your implied third way could possibly be.
1. Something has been done before.
2. Something has not been done before.
3. ???
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:47 pm to JumpingTheShark
quote:
Am I alone on the Radiohead kinda sucks island?
You are definitely not alone, friend. I fricking hate Radiohead.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:49 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:I wasn't saying anything. I was saying that you were saying every album is either ground breaking or a copy. Do you believe this? How do you define ground breaking?
I guess I'm not seeing what your implied third way could possibly be.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:50 pm to The Seaward
quote:
Karma Police has been played over 300 million times on Spotify, but sure nobody actually enjoys it. Just people fronting.
We're using Spotify plays as the barometer here? Some stupid Doja Cat song my kid likes has over a billion listens, does that mean she is some kind of musical genius?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 1:58 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Great question. Is there even one? Does there have to be one?
Different genre, but Rage Against the Machine was definitely groundbreaking. Unfortunately, their derivatives sucked pretty hard.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 2:01 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
We're using Spotify plays as the barometer here? Some stupid Doja Cat song my kid likes has over a billion listens, does that mean she is some kind of musical genius?
My Spotify example had nothing to do with trying proving Radiohead was good. It was in response to the really dumb “no one actually enjoys Radiohead” take. You don’t get 300,000,000 streams of a song just because people are faking.
I assume your kid likes that Doja Cat song and hence that is why he plays it? Not that he is “trying to look cool”. That was the point.
This post was edited on 1/28/22 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 1/28/22 at 3:22 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
I guess I'm not seeing what your implied third way could possibly be.
1. Something has been done before.
2. Something has not been done before.
3. ???
3. I don't like them therefore they suck and are irrelevant.
This post was edited on 1/28/22 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 1/28/22 at 7:32 pm to JumpingTheShark
kid a is probably my favorite album, but i definitely understand they're not everyone's cup of tea.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 9:07 pm to Pettifogger
quote:Yep. Tool is just as overrated. I like metal more, so I'm able to sort of abide it if I have to, but it is not good.
"Radiohead and Tool suck"
Posted on 1/28/22 at 9:16 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:I don't remember saying anyone who listens to it is stupid.
Sigh. The only pretentious thing I see is the discussion in this thread. "I don't like it, therefore it is crap and anyone who listens to it is stupid"
quote:I don't really disagree with this. It's just that the majority of the songs suck. At the end of the day, all I really care about is compelling songwriting. Paranoid Android is about as compelling as it gets. Treefingers is pretentious nonsense (in the direction of Revolution #9. And speaking of that, everyone seems to be able to agree that Rev 9 is pretentious garbage - it's just that the Beatles have a stunning catalogue of great songs such that it doesn't actually matter.)
Then word started to come out that Radiohead's next album was not just going to hit the same heights as The Bends, but would push the band into actual groundbreaking territory and might be a "best albums of all time" candidate. When OK Computer was finally released it was a massive hit, and it really didn't sound like anything anyone else at the time was doing. They left behind the "guitar band" label and brought in elements of electronica, ambient, and even dance in a way no one had to that point. I mean they more or less literally created 21st-century indie rock from scratch on that album and the two follow-ups, Kid A and Amnesiac. If they sound derivative today it isn't because they are copying everyone else. It's because everyone else is copying them. Listening to OK Computer in 1997 was a much different experience than listening to it now.
I still contend that at some point it just became "the thing" to act like you liked Radiohead more than they were worthy of. Again, they're so pretentious that they hate their own most famous song:
quote:
Moreover, whenever an adoring audience requests the song, Yorke responds by hurling invective. He told a Montreal crowd to “frick off” when they requested it, and called fans of the song “anally retarded.” The band have even been known to ask their touring partners to play the tune so they don’t have to.
And it’s not just the band’s frontman that dislikes the tune. When guitarist Jonny Greenwood first heard the track, he took an instant disliking to it, and even tried to internally sabotage it. That famous “chunk chunk” just before the chorus? That’s Greenwood’s not-so-silent protest against the song itself, an attempt to take it down from the inside.
You wanna know what pretentious is? Talking down to fans of your own material like that. Equally pretentious are the legion of fans that fall in line behind him and denigrate the other fans.
But I don't even care about this. He could be the biggest a-hole of all time; but if the songs were good, I just wouldn't care.
LINK
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:18 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
just that the majority of the songs suck.
I mean ok, they suck to you, but that doesn't mean they actually suck. Thats the point that people in this thread are trying to make. It's pretty simple.
quote:
I still contend that at some point it just became "the thing" to act like you liked Radiohead more than they were worthy of
This is such a cynical point of view. There is plenty of music that is "cool" that I do not enjoy. I listen to Radiohead because I like it. It strikes a chord within me. I have no desire to try and "act cool" by listening to a band that I do not enjoy, and I never have.
At some point you just have accept that there is a reason that millions upon millions of people like Radiohead.
quote:
Again, they're so pretentious that they hate their own most famous song.
You wanna know what pretentious is? Talking down to fans of your own material like that. Equally pretentious are the legion of fans that fall in line behind him and denigrate the other fans.
This anecdote has nothing to do with Radiohead's actual music, which is what we are discussing. Plenty of bands don't like playing their hits. Doesn't really mean anything.
This post was edited on 1/28/22 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 1/28/22 at 11:50 pm to JumpingTheShark
I waffle on them. I don’t think they suck by any means but I’ll flip flop between the yeah I get it crowd and the they are vastly overrated crowd. I do think they started to feel like they had to go the pretentious artsy route more and more though to satisfy the critics as time went on which turned them (especially Thom) annoying.
This post was edited on 1/28/22 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 1/29/22 at 12:48 am to Funky Tide 8
quote:Sure. You like their pretentious dreck and I say it sucks because it's pretentious dreck. You haven't committed a crime here.
I mean ok, they suck to you, but that doesn't mean they actually suck. Thats the point that people in this thread are trying to make. It's pretty simple.
quote:I do admit to being cynical.
This is such a cynical point of view.
quote:And for millions of them, that reason is it gave them something to identify with (rather than actually good songs.) I say this same thing about Pearl Jam - the debut album is obviously pretty good (I still don't love it, but whatever). I can see how someone could like the sophomore effort. But everything after that is borderline unlistenable. I maintain that - without the first 2 - people would NEVER have liked the latter stuff. I'm not sure how to properly label that effect, but it's far away from simply liking what comes out of the speakers, which is my litmus test. I love Creep. I love Paranoid Android even more. They sound spectacular coming out of the speakers...and that makes me indifferent, when I listen to them, to the fact that the rest of the catalogue is well below par.
At some point you just have accept that there is a reason that millions upon millions of people like Radiohead.
quote:We're talking - at least in part in this very post of yours - about fans liking Radiohead for reasons other than what comes out of the speakers. This is a perfect example of said effect. They like Radiohead because it makes them feel superior to us slobs - not because there's a vast catalogue of quality music.
This anecdote has nothing to do with Radiohead's actual music, which is what we are discussing. Plenty of bands don't like playing their hits. Doesn't really mean anything.
This post was edited on 1/29/22 at 12:46 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News