# So Radiohead is the only acclaimed band that is alive now and still doing great?



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

I saw reviews of Radiohead on RYM, sputnik, and many other websites. I also saw the wiki pages. Then I listened to their songs.
And I mostly agree with the consensus that Radiohead are a very good art,alternative,electronic, rock band.
I can understand how OK computer was probably very influential and jaw dropping at the time. It is very fun to listen to. I love(currently) Airbag and paranoid android, let down is amazing too. 

Then I checked out Kid A, In Rainbows, and also A moon shaped pool. And I gotta say the band is very versatile. They had gone from alternative/art rock(OK computer) to electronic (Kid A) and to art pop (In Rainbows) very smoothly. I was pleasantly surprised by a moon shaped pool. It is a brilliant art rock album.
I also checked out their other stuff like hail to the theif etc. The other stuff was pretty good. 
And I also realized that currently they are the only band alive that have got such consistent acclaim worldwide. Their albums are critically and commercially acclaimed (except hail to the thief and amnesiac).
And it is amazing to see that band members are still together. And they are still touring.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

My favorite band is critically acclaimed:

STRYPER Continues to Dominate Billboard Charts with New Studio Album 'God Damn Evil


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> My favorite band is critically acclaimed:
> 
> STRYPER Continues to Dominate Billboard Charts with New Studio Album 'God Damn Evil


Very nice, I did not hear a lot about Stryper. I will check them out too.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

tomterry said:


> I saw reviews of Radiohead on RYM, sputnik, and many other websites. I also saw the wiki pages. Then I listened to their songs.
> And I mostly agree with the consensus that Radiohead are a very good art,alternative,electronic, rock band.
> I can understand how OK computer was probably very influential and jaw dropping at the time. It is very fun to listen to. I love(currently) Airbag and paranoid android, let down is amazing too.
> 
> ...


 Crimson is still touring and they've done more interesting things with their old material than Radiohead has in their entire career.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> Crimson is still touring and they've done more interesting things with their old material than Radiohead has in their entire career.


I disagree. Radiohead is massively influential. After listening to their music patiently I do feel that the acclaim they get is well deserved. Moreover the last studio album that King Crimson released was in 2003. I read it was well received but it did not get critical acclaim.
Still it is your opinion. I think Radiohead is brilliant and based on wiki,critical and user rating on metacritic,rym,sputnik. I will say Radiohead is probably better than King Crimson. Or atleast more proficient in what they(Radiohead) do. 
I did not listen to King Crimson. I will check it out though.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

You guys are both wrong. Stryper rules with their 80s retro pap.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

starthrower said:


> You guys are both wrong. Stryper rules with their 80s retro pap.


Whatever floats your boat I guess.  .


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

tomterry said:


> Whatever floats your boat I guess.  .


I guess the joke was lost on you?


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

starthrower said:


> I guess the joke was lost on you?


I have not heard anything about Stryper. Maybe that is why the joke did not work or something.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2019)

tomterry said:


> So Radiohead is the only acclaimed band that is alive now and still doing great?


No, I don't think so. There are many "acclaimed" bands out there still touring and selling - look at the Rolling Stones! It's already obvious from the small number of replies so far that this is all a matter of taste and opinion, and not fact (although we could probably agree on a few factual criteria for "acclaimed").

Having said that, they are probably the only band I might like to see live again.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Stones aren't doing anything creative. Just their usual stadium tour mop up once every 5 years.


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2019)

starthrower said:


> The Stones aren't doing anything creative. Just their usual stadium tour mop up once every 5 years.


I wasn't suggesting that they were - just offering the easiest example of an acclaimed band still doing well (oh, and still alive!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_%26_Lonesome_(The_Rolling_Stones_album)They tour more often now than you suggest too.

The OP didn't refer to creativity. Some might argue that Radiohead's last two albums don't represent much in the way of creativity either.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I guess they're very popular but I've never heard Radiohead. I could never understand the obsession with these famous bands and spending a week's pay for tickets to sit in some stadium 500 feet away from the stage.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

tomterry said:


> Very nice, I did not hear a lot about Stryper. I will check them out too.


The stryper of the 2010s is heavy metal. The Stryper of the 1980s and early 1990s is hard rock. Both great.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> You guys are both wrong. Stryper rules with their 80s retro pap.


That 80s retro pap managed to have two videos in the MTV top 10 at the same time and a third video also made the top 10. Awesome band.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I go with Living Colour


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

starthrower said:


> I guess they're very popular but I've never heard Radiohead. I could never understand the obsession with these famous bands and spending a week's pay for tickets to sit in some stadium 500 feet away from the stage.


I am also not interested in going to live shows and stuff. I generally like to listen to one of my favorite songs while driving or while drinking tea and eating snacks. Or I just sit and listen while I make some good stories(not any dirty ones,just psychological and philosophical ones) in my mind.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

personally not a fan of Radiohead. Sounds like a pretty generic pop rock to me, similar to Coldplay, which is another generic boring band. I think Muse is a the more talented and interesting band


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Jacck said:


> personally not a fan of Radiohead. Sounds like a pretty generic pop rock to me. I think Muse is a the more talented and interesting band


I also like Muse. Absolution is a good album, Butterflies and hurricanes, and hysteria are very nice.
Now lets talk about Radiohead,
If you only listened to Pablo honey you may think that Radiohead is generic. But I do not know how can you say Radiohead is generic after listening to OK Computer, Kid A and In Rainbows. Also A moon shaped pool is amazing too.
And again I do not think Radiohead is pop rock. They do not have pleasant enough or simple enough stuff that is easy to make or easy for ears to be considered pop rock.
Imagine Dragons could be classified as pop rock and I am not insulting imagine dragons.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

tomterry said:


> I also like Muse. Absolution is a good album, Butterflies and hurricanes, and hysteria are very nice.
> Now lets talk about Radiohead,
> If you only listened to Pablo honey you may think that Radiohead is generic. But I do not know how can you say Radiohead is generic after listening to OK Computer, Kid A and In Rainbows. Also A moon shaped pool is amazing too.
> And again I do not think Radiohead is pop rock. They do not have pleasant enough or simple enough stuff that is easy to make or easy for ears to be considered pop rock.
> Imagine Dragons could be classified as pop rock and I am not insulting imagine dragons.


I haven't listened to them much. I know just the hits that were played on the radio etc. And let us just say, that I was not impressed sufficiently to explore any further


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Jacck said:


> I haven't listened to them much. I know just the hits that were played on the radio etc. And let us just say, that I was not impressed sufficiently to explore any further


You are missing out the main magnificent stuff of Radiohead my friend, seriously!! The hits on the Radio are way different from the amazing stuff they released after The Bends. You seriously need to check out OK computer, Kid A and In Rainbows.
Even Muse are inspired by Radiohead. Come on... just give them a chance man.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

tomterry said:


> You are missing out the main magnificent stuff of Radiohead my friend, seriously!! The hits on the Radio are way different from the amazing stuff they released after The Bends. You seriously need to check out OK computer, Kid A and In Rainbows.
> Even Muse are inspired by Radiohead. Come on... just give them a chance man.


OK, I will, although I haven't been listening to much rock lately (since I switched to classical music).


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Jacck said:


> OK, I will, although I haven't been listening to much rock lately (since I switched to classical music).


I listen to classical music too, but I also listen to music from many other genres. Otherwise I will probably burn out by listening to only one genre or one type of music.
And I generally look for music with very high scores since there are a lot of songs or soundtracks which are getting released all around the world. I look at rym/sputnik/metacritic, youtube reviews and a few website reviews and I look at both critical and user reviews. And then I select an album which I listen or buy. Reviews are generally kind of helpful in selecting high quality stuff.


----------



## Desafinado (Apr 13, 2014)

I'm jealous that you just got to listen to them for the first time. I was introduced in about 2003 when I borrowed a few CDs from a friend. It took a while but when I _got_ Ok Computer it absolutely blew me away, like nothing else I had ever heard.

I think where Thom Yorke is also underrated are his lyrics. He's no Cohen, but there are a number of songs that stab you right through the heart.

Overall I agree with you, I'd say Radiohead is one of, if not, the most successful bands artistically and commercially of the past 30 years. I can't think of anyone who's surpassed them in both integrity, influence, and financial success.

Now only if I could go back and relive the small venue show I saw of them in 2006 at the Hammersmith in London, England, when they were testing out In Rainbows songs.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Magma, Hawkwind


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Swans

And is Radiohead doing great? Never much of a fan but respect them


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Desafinado said:


> I'm jealous that you just got to listen to them for the first time. I was introduced in about 2003 when I borrowed a few CDs from a friend. It took a while but when I _got_ Ok Computer it absolutely blew me away, like nothing else I had ever heard.
> 
> I think where Thom Yorke is also underrated are his lyrics. He's no Cohen, but there are a number of songs that stab you right through the heart.
> 
> ...


I seriously wish sometimes that Pink Floyd should have stayed together or they should reunite. But it seems Pink Floyd is over. And Roger and David are also not even friends anymore.



Bwv 1080 said:


> Swans
> 
> And is Radiohead doing great? Never much of a fan but respect them


Oh yeah... Holy ****! I forgot about them. Yeah I did check out swans and they are very good. But their music cannot be listened to while driving or something ;P .


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Anyone like R.E.M.?


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

LezLee said:


> Anyone like R.E.M.?


I listened to their song called "Everybody hurts". It made me cry(silently). I also heard that Radiohead and R.E.M are friends. I will check out the whole Automatic for the people album.
I think I will probably like it.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

It's a brilliant album. This is my favourite song:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

LezLee said:


> Anyone like R.E.M.?


there was a short period of my life (maybe 2 years) when I listened to them - along with Cranberries, U2, The Police, The Cure, Depeche Mode, RHCP etc. It had to be sometimes in the 1990's, when I was a teenager and walkmans were still popular. Also, my recently deceased uncle was a musician, and he played a lot of R.E.M. with his band until recently.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I remember Stryper's classic 80s Christian hair metal sound. I think I played the death out of 'To Hell with the Devil', 'Calling on You' and 'Always there for you' back in the day. They were up there with bands like White Sister and their ilk at that time. THWTD reminds me of a rock club I used to attend in Manchester back in the 80s.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

tomterry said:


> I disagree. Radiohead is massively influential. After listening to their music patiently I do feel that the acclaim they get is well deserved. Moreover the last studio album that King Crimson released was in 2003. I read it was well received but it did not get critical acclaim.
> Still it is your opinion. I think Radiohead is brilliant and based on wiki,critical and user rating on metacritic,rym,sputnik. I will say Radiohead is probably better than King Crimson. Or atleast more proficient in what they(Radiohead) do.
> I did not listen to King Crimson. I will check it out though.


Crimson has been playing new material as well as older stuff. They don't record studio albums now because there is no reason to. Their live performances are studio quality in one take. This is from this decade:






Radiohead is not in the same league by any measure you want to pick. As instrumentalists Crimson of any era blows them off the stage, which I'm sure Radiohead would acknowledge if anyone were so unfeeling as to ask them. Composition? Not even close.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

I went to Green Day in 2017. Still awesome as f***!!!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

But has Crimson ever had their music "remixed" by Steve Reich?

And to return the favor:


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

A few years ago there was a TV programme about Radiohead, one of those informal late-night ones. Part of it featured drummer Phil Selway who has worked with various other artists and also done some really good solo work.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Radiohead is not in the same league by any measure you want to pick.


Rather like the fruitless comparisons between Genesis and CM...there is no common league within which it is reasonable to expect them to compete.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Crimson has been playing new material as well as older stuff. They don't record studio albums now because there is no reason to. Their live performances are studio quality in one take. This is from this decade:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did not compare Radiohead to King Crimson like you are implying. I just roughly compared them based on user and critical reviews.
On the user side both Radiohead and King Crimson have 3 albums with above 4/5 rating on RYM and sputnik. 
On the critics side Radiohead simply had slightly more edge, 
And in terms of latest album (on critical side) Radiohead has got 88 on metacritic while Crimson has 72 and the album by King Crimson is also very old, it was released on 2003. 
I would also point out that Radiohead has not changed any member ever since their first album. 
I never meant to compare them side by side like you are thinking of. It is also useless to compare acclaimed bands of different genres tbh.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

tomterry said:


> I did not compare Radiohead to King Crimson like you are implying. I just roughly compared them based on user and critical reviews.
> On the user side both Radiohead and King Crimson have 3 albums with above 4/5 rating on RYM and sputnik.
> On the critics side Radiohead simply had slightly more edge,
> And in terms of latest album (on critical side) Radiohead has got 88 on metacritic while Crimson has 72 and the album by King Crimson is also very old, it was released on 2003.
> ...





tomterry said:


> I will say *Radiohead is probably better than King Crimson*


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^


I did compare them based on reviews (again it was rough comparison, not exact side by side), so when I said Radiohead is probably better, I meant based on overall numbers on metacritic,rym,sputnik,wikipedia etc.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

tomterry said:


> I did compare them based on reviews (again it was rough comparison, not exact side by side), so when I said Radiohead is probably better, I meant based on overall numbers on metacritic,rym,sputnik,wikipedia etc.


Generally speaking, rock critics are not to be taken seriously. Crimson album reviews are readily available in more than a few Jazz websites.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> Generally speaking, rock critics are not to be taken seriously. Crimson album reviews are readily available in more than a few Jazz websites.


Okay.. I understand. Btw I checked out King Crimson, really liked that Starless(listened to it a few times) song, especially the live one on youtube. I will listen to few more songs now. So far I like it. But again music for me has always been a slow boil. It is not like I love a song or music within an hour. But again I still do not know if I will like their stuff more than Radiohead. Only time will tell.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

There's a dedicated Crimson thread at:

King Crimson appreciation thread


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

tomterry said:


> Okay.. I understand. Btw I checked out King Crimson, really liked that Starless(listened to it a few times) song, especially the live one on youtube. I will listen to few more songs now. So far I like it. But again music for me has always been a slow boil. It is not like I love a song or music within an hour. But again I still do not know if I will like their stuff more than Radiohead. Only time will tell.


they are better than Radiohead. This is not even something debatable. One of my favorite songs of theirs is Islands. Another great song is In The Wake Of Poseidon and Epitaph

it has great lyrics, poetry-like, mystical
also, KC are much more influential band than Radiohead will ever be. Many rock musicians and bands were influenced by King Crimson


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2019)

Jacck said:


> they are better than Radiohead. This is not even something debatable.


That's absurd. Of course it's debatable.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Jacck said:


> they are better than Radiohead. This is not even something debatable. One of my favorite songs of theirs is Islands. Another great song is In The Wake Of Poseidon and Epitaph
> 
> it has great lyrics, poetry-like, mystical
> also, KC are much more influential band than Radiohead will ever be. Many rock musicians and bands were influenced by King Crimson


I don't know how do you claim they are better though. I claimed Radiohead as probably better based on ratings. I mean Radiohead has overall slightly higher ratings. You can see the reviews on metacritic,rym,sputnik etc. 
I did not analyze both of them thoroughly. I do not know why are we even comparing both of these bands. I think I shouldn't had said Radiohead is better, even based on reviews and ratings.

Btw I am listening to King Crimson and I like their songs so far. "Starless" is awesome, I like "Fallen angel" and "One more nightmare".
Even then I would not go as far as to claim they are better than Radiohead. Or if Radiohead is better or superior.

Sure I will say that songs by King Crimson are lengthy and have difficult and weird timings. Drums feel hard to master. 
But again I cannot say if I like Starless more than Paranoid Android or if Starless is better than Paranoid Android. Because in my opinion Paranoid Android is another beast which is of different genre and it one of my favorite songs of Radiohead.
Let Down is another brilliant song by them(Radiohead). 
I got to say though, lyrics of let down, subterranean homesick alien and 3rd part of paranoid android connect with me a lot more than lyrics of Starless,fallen angel or One more nightmare.I also like how the way Let Down and Paranoid Android are made.

Let me tell you how I basically feel and analyze/judge music.

I consider,
Complexity- This involves everything from timings,lyrics,song structure,song length,instrumentation. I of course like complex songs. I appreciate them
Connection- This is a major thing that makes me love a song, for example Wish You were here and Comfortably numb are not as complex as some symphonies of the old musicians. But still I listen to them and like them a lot more than some symphonies by the old great artists.

By connection I mean to say how the lyrics appeal to me, how I am able to connect with the overall sound of the instruments. Or if I am able to make stories or make narrative based on the emotions that I feel while listening to the songs.

For example Beethoven's moonlight sonata is less complex compared to Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji - Opus clavicembalisticum. But still I like moonlight sonata more because I feel anger,frustration in that piece of music. I can create stories or narrative or build a world in my mind while listening to moonlight sonata.
Same with Radiohead's Paranoid Android, I made a story(and not cheesy stuff) while listening to Paranoid Android in my mind. One of the story is related to Rabies disease.

Sure King Crimson is more influential then Radiohead, and The Beatles are more influential then King Crimson. But then again, personally influence does not matter that much to me. 
Now I am not going to argue with people and convince them that Radiohead is better or if King Crimson is better because people have their own standards of what they consider better or worse. And I am not saying that there are no basic consensus standard for judgement of music. Of course Friday by Rebacca black is bad and awful because of the consensus standard. There is such a thing called consensus good or consensus bad. But there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad. The thing is it is consensus standard, not exactly objective. Based on logic, objectively good or bad is meaningless and senseless because good and bad are subjective statements based on moral standards created by human beings.

Personally, Radiohead is more appealing,better sounding to me so far. I am listening to KC and I like it, and I will probably love it too by listening to it more and more.
And again we can go on endless debate of who is better. Mozart or Beethoven, The Beatles or Rolling stones. What we have is consensus alright. Now based on critical consensus Radiohead is slightly ahead in the ratings(on sum of all metacritic,sputnik,rym etc). Similarly based on "talk classical consensus" ( Beethoven Vs. Mozart ) Beethoven is slightly ahead of Mozart. Or based on standards of people Beethoven's music is better than Mozart. 
So you see, we have consensus. Not exactly objectivity but very close to quality determination.

So yeah, so far I love Radiohead. And I am into KC now. Listening to the 3 masterpieces KC released. I hope I will like it as much as Radiohead.

TLR- Both Radiohead and KC are massively influential and brilliant bands, KC is more influential.There is such a thing called consensus standard and consensus good and consensus bad exist. There is no objective(without human interference,absolute) standard for music, there is no such thing as objectively bad or good.

I hope you understand and read the mess I written above. Sorry for my bad English by the way.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Enslaved has had a longer and more productive run than Radiohead, coming out of the early 90s Norwegian Black Metal scene 

Also Cannibal Corpse, one of the original DM bands or Napalm Death, the original grindcore band which both date from the late 80s

Radiohead did not develop a more original sound than these bands


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Not a band, but Bjork deserves a mention here. Her Homogenic album was released the same year as OK Computer and already sounded more like the dark, electronic soundscapes of Kid A, while Vespertine could almost be a 15-years-earlier Moon Shaped Pool. Bjork’s Post even predates OK Computer and already sounds much more progressive than The Bends. I have both artists in my top 20, but Bjork edges Radiohead out by a few notches, mostly on the overall strength of her discography. 

As for the King Crimson/Radiohead debate, KC are in my top 10, so I do indeed prefer them, but I’m fairly certain history is going to rule on Radiohead being the “better band.” Why? Because prog rock has rarely had the respect of indie-art rock, and KC’s influence was ultimately much more limited in the rock-sphere (perhaps it’s wider if we count jazz and other avant-garde artists). Radiohead’s influence has been immense over the last 20 years. Listen to how much electronic music was in the mainstream before OK Computer and Kid A, and listen to the radio now; most of it is electronic dominated, and much of it is directly derived from what Radiohead was doing (even though others were doing similar things in the underground before them). 

Yes, KC are more virtuosic, yes their compositions are generally more complex, but these are generally *****-measuring criteria rather than genuinely artistic ones. Now, I also happen to think KC made great art, but that goes beyond their complexity and instrumental proficiency, and more to the notion that nobody sounded like them back then and, despite their influence, few artists have sounded like them since. They had such a singular, unique mix of rock, classical, and jazz sensibilities that I don’t think has ever been matched. Not to mention a versatility that could go from the heaviest of metal to the zaniest, out there, avant-garde stuff, to soft, beautiful lullabies, to apocalyptic instrumentals. Still, there are things Radiohead had achieved that KC never did either, and OK Computer will remain a permanent fixture of my top 5 albums for its mix of sonic adventurousness, beauty, horror, weirdness, and everything in between. Two great bands, and I can’t argue with anyone taking either.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2019)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Enslaved has had a longer and more productive run than Radiohead, coming out of the early 90s Norwegian Black Metal scene
> 
> Also Cannibal Corpse, one of the original DM bands or Napalm Death, the original grindcore band which both date from the late 80s
> 
> Radiohead did not develop a more original sound than these bands


Longer? Not according to Wiki.
More productive? In what way?

I've not heard their music, so I can't comment on it directly, but the fact that it belongs to a distinct genre suggests "orginal sound" might not be a strong point.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Listen to how much electronic music was in the mainstream before OK Computer and Kid A, and listen to the radio now; most of it is electronic dominated, and much of it is directly derived from what Radiohead was doing (even though others were doing similar things in the underground before them).


Good post, though I think you overplay the role of Radiohead in influencing electronic music. Depeche Mode might lay claim to that role, though they were only one of a number of bands emerging from the late 70s after Kraftwerk had set the ball rolling.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Good post, though I think you overplay the role of Radiohead in influencing electronic music. Depeche Mode might lay claim to that role, though they were only one of a number of bands emerging from the late 70s after Kraftwerk had set the ball rolling.


I would say Radiohead influenced the use of electronic music in pop rather than electronic music in a broader sense. While there was plenty of electronic music in the late-70s, 80s, and early 90s, with the exception of Depeche Mode, most of it was either underground or quite different from the kind of electronic music that Radiohead popularized (eg, new wave). Even Depeche Mode's darkest lacks the starkness of Kid A. Really, Depeche Mode is closer to the new wave/post-punk aesthetic in general.

One thing I've noticed that's happened is that the mainstream has basically taken Radiohead's dark, minimalist, electronic soundscape approach and affixed to it more regular, typical beats/rhythms and touches of hip-hop and R&B to make it more radio friendly. If you strip the latter elements away, it's easy to hear this as a kind of simplified sketch for what could be a Radiohead demo: 




And she's probably the most famous music artist/performer in the world right now.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

I bought In the court of crimson king album and it is awesome, I loved all the songs in the album except 21st century schizoid man, because vocals are little too ear piercing on that one, yes I do not generally listen to metal because my ears are not that durable and I start feeling pain if I listen to loud music or ear piercing music.
But still I liked the instrumental music on that 21st century one.

I will not compare it to OK computer or any other album though because I still love OK computer,Kid A and In Rainbows. Both are brilliant bands and have released phenomenal albums. You know what I am going to stop comparing or rating songs from acclaimed bands because to be honest, these are just too brilliant music to be compared or listed. I mean it is hard for me to pick between things that I love. I love "In the court of crimson king" but I also love "OK computer" and "Kid A" .


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2019)

tomterry said:


> You know what I am going to stop comparing or rating songs from acclaimed bands because to be honest, these are just too brilliant music to be compared or listed.


Good plan !


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

tomterry said:


> I bought In the court of crimson king album and it is awesome, I loved all the songs in the album except 21st century schizoid man, because vocals are little too ear piercing on that one, yes I do not generally listen to metal because my ears are not that durable and I start feeling pain if I listen to loud music or ear piercing music.
> But still I liked the instrumental music on that 21st century one.
> 
> I will not compare it to OK computer or any other album though because I still love OK computer,Kid A and In Rainbows. Both are brilliant bands and have released phenomenal albums. You know what I am going to stop comparing or rating songs from acclaimed bands because to be honest, these are just too brilliant music to be compared or listed. I mean it is hard for me to pick between things that I love. I love "In the court of crimson king" but I also love "OK computer" and "Kid A" .


Make sure to pick up Larks' Tongues in Aspic and Red while you're at it!

As for metal being loud, you know you can adjust the volume, right?  Plus, not all metal is all loud all the time (progressive metal especially often switches between soft/loud dynamics).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

tomterry said:


> I am also not interested in going to live shows and stuff. I generally like to listen to one of my favorite songs while driving or while drinking tea and eating snacks.


I love live shows, but not stadiums or arenas. I like theaters, concert halls, old churches, or a club if it insn't a dive.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> No, I don't think so. There are many "acclaimed" bands out there still touring and selling - look at the Rolling Stones! It's already obvious from the small number of replies so far that this is all a matter of taste and opinion, and not fact (although we could probably agree on a few factual criteria for "acclaimed").
> 
> Having said that, they are probably the only band I might like to see live again.


Perhaps you haven't heard of 'Bat For Lashes'?


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Perhaps you haven't heard of 'Bat For Lashes'?


Funnily enough, I've not only heard of them, I've seen them...supporting Radiohead on their 2008 Tour.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Funnily enough, I've not only heard of them, I've seen them...supporting Radiohead on their 2008 Tour.




I think she's fantastic.


----------



## smoledman (Feb 6, 2012)

Radiohead are indeed still doing quite well. However there are a ton of great bands making progressive/art rock on indie labels like KScope and Dead Oceans. Specifically Steven Wilson and Slowdive. Both put out great LPs in 2017.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

smoledman said:


> Radiohead are indeed still doing quite well. However there are a ton of great bands making progressive/art rock on indie labels like KScope and Dead Oceans. Specifically Steven Wilson and Slowdive. Both put out great LPs in 2017.


Thank you for suggesting Steven Wilson and slowdive. I got into porcupine tree through your suggestions. I liked their Fear of the blank planet and deadwing by porcupine tree. Very good stuff.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

tomterry said:


> Thank you for suggesting Steven Wilson and slowdive. I got into porcupine tree through your suggestions. I liked their Fear of the blank planet and deadwing by porcupine tree. Very good stuff.


Porcupine Tree are very good, but one of those odd bands that I feel are overrated by their fans and underrated in general. For PT, I think Stupid Dream and In Absentia are their best. For SW, I really like The Raven That Refused to Sing.

If you can tolerate metal, you might also check out Opeth. Mikael Akerfeldt of Opeth and Steven Wilson are good friends and they've had a pretty big influence on each other. Wilson produces several of Opeth's albums starting at around the turn of the century. Blackwater Park, Ghost Reveries, and Still Life are generally considered their best. If you can't tolerate the vocals (many can't), then you might check out Damnation and Sorceress, which don't feature any of the "growl" vocals.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I still think if you like Radiohead then Pineapple Thief are essential listening. The early albums are very Radioheady but since Tightly Unwound their sound has changed a lot. Every album since Someone Here is Missing is brilliant, especially 'Magnolia'. I know I'm biased as I love them but if you don't believe me go and see them live. They're awesome.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Radiohead [sigh], it's one of those bands I revisit every 3 or so years. My friend gave me "Amnesiac," "The Bends," "Hail to the Thief," "In Rainbows," "Kid A," "The King of Limbs," and "OK Computer." I have listened to each album at least 3 times...

... I just don't get their appeal. Long winded, droning, aimless, bland, blah-ness. Those and similar descriptions are all I can come up with to describe this band. Sure every blue moon, they come up with a song that I find listenable such as High N Dry, Reckoner, House of Cards, and even (if I'm in the mood although it's still "droney"), Nude. But overall, I feel like slitting my wrists and get depressed when I listen to them.

But hey, like I say with every band, genre, and sub genre: If it rings your bell then I say Rock On and keep listening and enjoy. There's an @$$ for every seat.

V


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2019)

Varick said:


> Long winded, droning, aimless, bland, blah-ness. [...] overall, I feel like slitting my wrists and get depressed when I listen to them.


It has occurred to you that that is exactly their appeal, has it? I don't put Radiohead on if what I want to listen to is cheery 3 minute pop, egghead noodling, or metal thrash.

I wouldn't necessarily use the words you've chosen, but I get the drift that what they offer doesn't suit your mood, and perhaps not your temperament either.

Having said that, I don't get depressed. They confirm my instinct for melancholy - I think the phrase we like to use these days is "resonate with". In the same way that listening to Fleetwood Mac's _Don't Stop _and _Go Your Own Way _pairing yesterday prompted a risky andrenalin rush while I was on the motorway, Radiohead provokes a more reflective, languid mood - probably safer driving too.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Varick said:


> I just don't get their appeal. Long winded, droning, aimless, bland, blah-ness.


Hmmm, I can understand why Radiohead don't appeal to many, but these are rather unusual descriptions. Long-winded from a band that keeps almost everything under 6 minutes? Droning from a band that have many songs that move between very different sections? Aimless from a band whose only flaw is I often feel they're TOO focused on where they're going? To me, you're describing a lot of bad jam/prog bands more so than anything I'd associate with Radiohead.

As for depressing, they are often melancholic, but not sure I'd call it depressing. They're frequently too cryptic, or beautiful, or dark/heavy to be depressing. For true slit-your-wrist depression give a listen to Billie Eilish: 





Mazzy Star and Lana Del Rey do the depressing aesthetic really well, too, or Alice in Chains on the Dirt album.


----------



## 50iL (Apr 8, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> true slit-your-wrist depression give a listen to Billie Eilish:


Billie Eilish is NOT slit-your-wrist depressing, come on now. Have you heard of, like, Daniel Johnston? "Hello, How Are You" is literally about his life as a schizophrenic man with crippling anxieties in the form of a cassette tape. It's ******* brutal. In terms of active bands, surely Phil Elverum is more depressing; "A Crow Looked at Me" is literally about his wife's death. Again, brutal.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

50iL said:


> Billie Eilish is NOT slit-your-wrist depressing, come on now. Have you heard of, like, Daniel Johnston? "Hello, How Are You" is literally about his life as a schizophrenic man with crippling anxieties in the form of a cassette tape. It's ******* brutal. In terms of active bands, surely Phil Elverum is more depressing; "A Crow Looked at Me" is literally about his wife's death. Again, brutal.


I'd say that Eilish track is as depressive as it gets. It sounds like a suicide note in song form. I've heard some of Daniel Johnston, but not Phil Elverum. My list was hardly exhaustive and I wasn't looking to turn it into a who can out-depress who contest, so I'll simply view your rather confrontational post as a friendly recommendation.


----------



## 50iL (Apr 8, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'd say that Eilish track is as depressive as it gets. It sounds like a suicide note in song form. I've heard some of Daniel Johnston, but not Phil Elverum. My list was hardly exhaustive and I wasn't looking to turn it into a who can out-depress who contest, so I'll simply view your rather confrontational post as a friendly recommendation.


Sorry, I didn't mean to get confrontational. I see my message more as a "if you think Billie is bad, you MUST check these few" kinda thing. Sorry if it came across a tad aggressive. Anyway, if you dig Phil, The Microphones are a freaking must. Indie folk can be pretty damn depressive.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

50iL said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to get confrontational. I see my message more as a "if you think Billie is bad, you MUST check these few" kinda thing. Sorry if it came across a tad aggressive. Anyway, if you dig Phil, The Microphones are a freaking must. Indie folk can be pretty damn depressive.


No problem, and thanks for the recs. Always on the lookout for new music to check out. :cheers:

Another song I thought of as being extremely depressing is Big Star's Holocaust: 





Never quite figured out how a band that started out as fun power pop made an album like Third/Sister Lovers...


----------



## 50iL (Apr 8, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> No problem, and thanks for the recs. Always on the lookout for new music to check out. :cheers:
> 
> Another song I thought of as being extremely depressing is Big Star's Holocaust:
> 
> ...


Thanks! I'll check em out for sure.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

To clarify, It's not necessarily the mood they convey in their music that I find depressing (some songs, yes), it's after hearing the often whiny vocals and the cacophony they create after a few minutes, sometimes I feel like slitting my wrists just so I don't have to hear them anymore. But then suddenly my wits come back to me and I realize I have a stop button and almost an entire terabyte of other music to choose from in my library.

Rock on Radiohead fans!!! Enjoy!!!! (And I truly mean that).

V


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2019)

Varick said:


> To clarify, It's not necessarily the mood they convey in their music that I find depressing (some songs, yes), it's after hearing the often whiny vocals and the cacophony they create after a few minutes, sometimes I feel like slitting my wrists just so I don't have to hear them anymore. But then suddenly my wits come back to me and I realize I have a stop button and almost an entire terabyte of other music to choose from in my library.
> 
> Rock on Radiohead fans!!! Enjoy!!!! (And I truly mean that).
> 
> V


The OP was about whether Radiohead is "the only" etc etc etc. Your post doesn't really address this, merely offering a personal response to their music.

If this were _Just A Minute_, I'd point out your deviation and claim my point.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> For true slit-your-wrist depression give a listen to Billie Eilish:


This is depressing alright-depressingly bad. The 'singer' is mediocre at best, and what's with the bedroom voice? Tacky.

As for Big Star-exceptionally talented band. Radiohead? Not so much.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I saw Radiohead in about 1997 or so, got dragged along to the show as some friends of mine were massive fans at the time. Was a bit underwhelmed to be honest although I guess they've written a couple of interesting songs. My rock music tastes are more retro really, although I was a very big fan of the White Stripes for their first 3 or 4 albums. Thought they went a bit downhill after that. I find myself listening to more and more classical music these days, the rock gets less and less of a look-in.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Red Terror said:


> This is depressing alright-depressingly bad. The 'singer' is mediocre at best, and what's with the bedroom voice? Tacky.


I rather like her low-key delivery. It's an interesting change from the contemporary paradigm of belting divas, and it fits the music well.



> As for Big Star-exceptionally talented band. Radiohead? Not so much.


I love Big Star, but never would I consider them more talented than Radiohead.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> The OP was about whether Radiohead is "the only" etc etc etc. Your post doesn't really address this, merely offering a personal response to their music.
> 
> If this were _Just A Minute_, I'd point out your deviation and claim my point.


Thank you Sergeant-Thread-Subject-Police Officer. Duly noted *SIR!!!!!!!!!*

V


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm not big on RH. It's mostly b.c of his voice, but lots of their arrangements feel pompously artistic to my ears as well. Take something like "Kid A" (song), "Spinning Plates" and "We Suck Young Blood". These are three examples where I feel they are trying too hard to be artsy.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Since this thread includes artists/groups that people have enjoyed "recently" not only including but besides Radiohead, I thought I'd add my 2 cents to the list: first, the two bands founded and fronted by James Mercer--Broken Bells and The Shins: can't explain it; I just like their sound--a sort of slightly bemused and not particularly cheerful pop:

The Strange Magic of: Broken Bells
The Strange Magic of: The Shins

Also Incubus: Emotionally engaged hard rock which engages me......

The Strange Magic of: Incubus


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

*Motorpsycho - (2012) The Death Defying Unicorn*


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I really love The King of Limbs album. I need to listen to the latest a few more times, that one is solid too!


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Just saw Earth, other than one song, the whole set was from the new album >>>>>>>>>>>>> Radiohead


----------



## merijn2 (Sep 9, 2020)

Jacck said:


> personally not a fan of Radiohead. Sounds like a pretty generic pop rock to me, similar to Coldplay, which is another generic boring band. I think Muse is a the more talented and interesting band


I am going to be that annoying Radiohead fan guy who finds this one and a half year old post via google, and then makes an account for the sole reason to answer this, (although I am in the process of discovering Classical Music, so the account might come handy). Anyway, I don't mind if you find Radiohead generic, after all, people have different standards, and people who listen to 12-tone music, or Free Jazz, or Black Metal, will probably find most music generic, and Radiohead is certainly more generic than a lot of music those people listen to. And there are certainly other at least somewhat popular bands that sound less like your average Rock band than Radiohead does. Tool for instance comes to mind, or The Velvet Underground, or Nick Cave, or not a band but an album, but one of the most moving albums from the last couple of years was Low's Double Negative, which was very experimental, and in terms of how non-generic it sounds blows everything Radiohead has probably out of the water. So, if you'd given one of those as an example of music more interesting than Radiohead's music, and less generic, I could certainly live with that.

However, for some reason you chose a band I regard as one of the most generic mainstream Rock bands of the last 20 years to argue that they are more original than Radiohead. There is nothing wrong with enjoying Muse, what they do they do well, but in my opinion, Matt Bellamy, Muse's singer and songwriter, had one trick as a composer(that he mostly used at the beginning of their career), and that was combining classical-like chord progressions with chromatic Rock riffs, and that set them apart somewhat, but in their arrangements and general sound they are quite generic, and derivative to the point that quite a few of their songs sound like pastiches of other artists (of the songs you linked one is clearly inspired by Depeche Mode, and the other one by Timbaland). I'd also say that since he stopped using those classical-like chord progression, his songwriting in general has been quite generic. I'd say that the symphony you linked is probably the thing that is most "non-generic", as are some of their more classical inclined moments, but these are not the rule, but rather the exception. And still those aren't as weird as Radiohead's weirder moments.

As for Radiohead, from OK computer onwards, while not usually as out there as many more avant-garde music, the majority of songs has at least one thing that is a bit strange, either in the rhythm, or the harmony, or in the arrangements of the songs. I say that on their arguably most experimental album, Kid A, all songs are less generic than 99% of Muse's songs, if not all. Obviously, the most popular songs are the ones that have a more mainstream sound, but even amongst quite a few of their "hits" there are things going on that I say make them more interesting than the Muse songs you linked to, and less generic than the Muse songs save arguably that symphony. So, the following songs are all amongst the more popular songs of Radiohead of their era.
Paranoid Android 
This song has a quite unusual structure, it features a few 7/8 bars in the second and 4th sections, and the Rain Down section has a very unusual chord structure
Pyramid Song 
Pretty unusual chord progression (i've been told it is in Phrygian or Flamenco mode), and then the rhythm is really something else, which is only revealed once drums come in.
Weird Fishes/Arpeggi 
Again a bit of an unusual structure, where no section is repeated. In the first section the most interesting thing is the way the different guitars (which play a 3/8 and (I think) a 5/8 pattern over a 4/4 beat) interact rhythmically with each other and with the rest of the song, in the second section the drums fall out, so there is suddenly no ground beneath you feet rhythmically.
Daydreaming
The way the song starts, beginning with some ambient noises, and then slowly the song appears, is quite interesting, as is how it ends with more haunting noises. The chords used, especially in the sections that have lyrics, are very unusual. That is, it isn't the progression, but rather the chords themselves that are weird.

Now these are all quite popular songs, and none of them are extremely out there, but still there is enough on each of those songs that is unusual to say that they aren't generic. If you look at the more obscure songs from their albums, you find things that are even more weird, especially in their middle period (as the two most important songwriters of Radiohead started their solo-careers in 2004 and 2006, and generally used their more experimental impulses for those records). I am not going to explain all of them, but just link them here. Admittedly, these are more outliers than the songs above (Bloom is probably the least of an outlier), but they do give you an idea how weird they can become.
Fitter Happier
In Limbo
Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors
Bloom


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

merijn2, thank for the lenghty post. TBH, I don't particularly care for any of these two bands. When I made the comment, I have not really given Radiohead much chance. I knew them (their hits) from radio and TV. I never listened to any of their albums, because what I heard did not really motivate me to investigate further. As you said yourself, once you make a proper jump to classical music like Bach or Bartok, there is very little these bands can offer you (speaking just for myself). Concerning rock, my favorite is likely Neil Young, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Genesis, Gentle Giant and hard-rock and some types of metal. Radiohead is simply not a style of rock I enjoy too much. And I have some other peculiarities, for example I dont connect with Pink Floyd and dont like their music. So everybody is different.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2020)

Jacck said:


> As you said yourself, once you make a proper jump to classical music like Bach or Bartok, there is very little these bands can offer you (*speaking just for myself*).


Phew. Glad you added that caveat.


----------



## merijn2 (Sep 9, 2020)

Jacck said:


> merijn2, thank for the lenghty post. TBH, I don't particularly care for any of these two bands. When I made the comment, I have not really given Radiohead much chance. I knew them (their hits) from radio and TV. I never listened to any of their albums, because what I heard did not really motivate me to investigate further. As you said yourself, once you make a proper jump to classical music like Bach or Bartok, there is very little these bands can offer you (speaking just for myself). Concerning rock, my favorite is likely Neil Young, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Genesis, Gentle Giant and hard-rock and some types of metal. Radiohead is simply not a style of rock I enjoy too much. And I have some other peculiarities, for example I dont connect with Pink Floyd and dont like their music. So everybody is different.


Have you listened to Radiohead since? Or to the songs I songs I linked to? I don't mind if you don't, if based on what you've heard of Radiohead doesn't give you an appetite to delve into them, as there is so much great music out there, of all genres, that I can imagine not wasting your to something you suspect you won't like It is just that your comment isn't clear on the question if you have. In all fairness, given the kind of Rock you like, I don't suspect you would like them, I know who Gentle Giant are, but never checked them out but I don't see much in common with the other music, although Thom Yorke (Radiohead's singer and main songwriter) has said the Neil Young is a big influence, but I don't hear it. Just in case (or for other people reading this thread) I have a copy-paste on reddit for people who want to check out Radiohead, but don't know where to start.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

merijn2 said:


> Have you listened to Radiohead since? Or to the songs I songs I linked to? I don't mind if you don't, if based on what you've heard of Radiohead doesn't give you an appetite to delve into them, as there is so much great music out there, of all genres, that I can imagine not wasting your to something you suspect you won't like It is just that your comment isn't clear on the question if you have. In all fairness, given the kind of Rock you like, I don't suspect you would like them, I know who Gentle Giant are, but never checked them out but I don't see much in common with the other music, although Thom Yorke (Radiohead's singer and main songwriter) has said the Neil Young is a big influence, but I don't hear it. Just in case (or for other people reading this thread) I have a copy-paste on reddit for people who want to check out Radiohead, but don't know where to start.


I did check all the songs you posted and I listened to a couple of them in their entirety and the rest just parts. I guess it is OK. So I might retract my comment that it is generic rock. I will still likely not be listening to the band, since 99% of my listening now is classical music. It is possible that I will get tired by classical music at some point and will return to other genres such rock, so I might discover them in the future. Some GG for you to discover


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'm a Radiohead hater of their most acclaimed stuff: The Bends, OK Computer, Kid A. That stuff makes me want to vomit. But I listened to In Rainbows recently. I liked quite a few of the songs. Can't stand some tracks, like Videotape and Nude, which come off as pretentious as I normally find them. But I feel they grew into their oversized image of themselves with Bodysnatcher, Weird Fishes, All I Need, Faust Arp, House of Cards, Jigsaw Falling.

Not as acclaimed, Belle and Sebastian is still doing pretty well.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2020)

Jacck said:


> Some GG for you to discover


I'm afraid that cover is enough to put me off.

Maybe it was something to do with the school I went to, and the prog geeks I was at college with, but we tended to like only two or three of the leading prog bands. In fact, most would be known by the T-shirt they wore proclaiming only The One True Prog. So, it was Genesis for me, and no other. Obviously, in your clique, you'd sample the rest (including GG) and watch _The Old Grey Whistle Test_ where you could give grudging praise for the False Prophets of Prog (including GG) and secretly admire the instrumental skills of the best American bands invited on. Little Feat seemed to be regulars.

Anyway, I was too young to be a real prog geek, as the hippy era was already passing when I was 18, punk was in full swing and Floyd, Yes, ELP etc were just so passé.



Phil loves classical said:


> Can't stand some tracks, like Videotape and Nude, which come off as pretentious as I normally find them.


Can you explain what it is about them that makes them seem 'pretentious'?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I'm afraid that cover is enough to put me off.
> 
> Maybe it was something to do with the school I went to, and the prog geeks I was at college with, but we tended to like only two or three of the leading prog bands. In fact, most would be known by the T-shirt they wore proclaiming only The One True Prog. So, it was Genesis for me, and no other. Obviously, in your clique, you'd sample the rest (including GG) and watch _The Old Grey Whistle Test_ where you could give grudging praise for the False Prophets of Prog (including GG) and secretly admire the instrumental skills of the best American bands invited on. Little Feat seemed to be regulars.
> 
> ...


Lyrics for one thing. Any lyric like in Airbag which has "I am born again" or "in an interstellar burst I am back to save the universe" even if it supposedly refers to something else comes across to me as pretentious. Or as in Exit Music if it has "breathe, keep breathing" sprinkled with other words like "escape" "tears" "chill" "everlasting peace" "choke" in such a short span. I feel those are words that are put there with the intent to garner attention and appear deep.

Another is the vocal style. In Paranoid Android, how Yorke goes falsetto within each line, proudly displaying what is supposed to be a vocal limitation. But it shows a lot of Attitude, in keeping with values of the culture in the 90's. And how in the latter part there is this lingering melisma (always a big sign to me).

The music is repetitive, switching only between a couple of riffs, which they try to mask with slick production, which is the most ingenious part of that song and the entire album to me.

Compare with a more talented band like the Beatles. Their lyrics have better put together phrases, still showy but my idea of pretension is coming short of what you're trying to achieve and exuding confidence in it. The lyrics by Radiohead are half-a$$ed to me. Like the Doors. The Beatles got their sarcasm across to me, and they seemed less concerned with how fans would take it. Radiohead seemed to cater to their fandom. They may act like they don't, but it doesn't ring true to me. Also Beatles songs are better structured. The production adds to the music, rather than hide flaws. I wouldn't want to hear a "naked" version of OK Computer.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Lyrics for one thing. [etc]


Thanks for your post and your explanation.

As a 'fan' (I don't like the term, as I'm not a 'fan'atic, but it's a convenient shorthand) of both The Beatles and Radiohead, I hear and see things differently from you. I wonder at the relevance of a comparison between two bands who flourished more than 40 years apart, in rather a different musical and cultural environment, and with one at the 'end' of a chain of musical evolution.

In the case of Thom Yorke's vocal style, it does seem to divide opinion. I really like it. It's part of the whole appeal of the band for me. Some artists just 'sing their songs' (mostly the case for The Beatles); others try to vary their delivery beyond more than just a ballad 'wistful', or a rock 'shout', or blues 'pain', using their voice as an instrument, not just as a vehicle for the words.

Is falsetto a limitation? It seems to have been a standard feature of rock music. It might be a limitation if you want your vocalist to be able to sing across genres, but I guess Thom doesn't choose to aspire to that...yet, at any rate.

Lyrics can be difficult to hear, to understand, to interpret. That goes for any band that goes beyond plain love/sex ('Gimme Some Lovin' for example - great song, but not adventurous lyrically). So, a song about a personal near death experience - not many of those make the charts - so you'd expect it to be more idiosyncratic. You'd have to ask Thom what he actually meant by an 'interstellar burst', but I question why it's 'pretentious' to express himself in this way. Hyperbolic, perhaps, but I think that's probably intentional. Maybe he's wondering if he's been 'saved' for something special.

https://diffuser.fm/radiohead-airbag/


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ FYI, you probably know I don't claim to be right in any way. Just an impression, and a lot of speculation on my part. I agree the lyrics are intentional, and the falsetto. It's just my interpretation of the situation for now. Sometimes I did change my stance drastically on certain views I had before. For instance is In Rainbows which I like, really that different from the other albums?


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> For instance is In Rainbows which I like, really that different from the other albums?


They themselves claimed it was, mostly because of the continuing decrease in the use of guitar, and for a band with three guitarists, that's quite something.


----------



## merijn2 (Sep 9, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> For instance is In Rainbows which I like, really that different from the other albums?


I would argue in terms of sound, it is their most representative album of their overall work. In feel it is one of their lightest, and poppiest albums. A Moon Shaped Pool is pretty close in terms of sound,(but more piano, less guitars, more strings ( a lot of them) and even a choir) but where In Rainbows is very unstrained, AMSP feels a bit more emotional and unfiltered if you will, and is certainly not a light record, even for a Radiohead album it is pretty dark. Hail to the Thief is also relatively close to In Rainbows in sound, but it has more explicitly electronic songs, but also more traditional rockers, and is angrier, and arguably their most bombastic album.
Also, in my previous comment I linked to a copy-paste I have that give a good introduction to all Radiohead albums.


----------



## SyphiliSSchubert (Sep 21, 2020)

I love Radiohead, but I would like to mention an older band: King Crimson is one of the most innovative, original and complex bands, with a pleasant degree of resonance and emotion in their music too, that keeps on being amazing. Their most recent lineup is incredible, they managed to unify all their albums in their recent tours, and added a new character to the whole discography, making it sound very coherent and impressive. 
This band is incredible, and gets better and better live.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I really dislike his voice, and don't think it's ever been stronger than on the bends, which I don't like, but think is their best album. King of Limbs comes in second, and that album is typically hated by the fans.

I do think they have some interesting ideas sometimes, just not realized or put together in a way that pleases my ears.


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

So Radiohead is the only acclaimed band that is alive now and still doing great?
You think that? If so, why?


----------

