"OK Computer": Classic Or Dud?

(1) It speaks of man's fear of the times he lives in. This (personally speaking) has made it get more and more relevant as times goes on. I've heard it claimed as the first album to articulate this fear: anyone care to give a counter example?

(2) They didn't have to make it. They could have made The Bends pt.2 and the world would never have known what it missed. But there's a spirit lives in the hearts of men... Always a sucker for a good narrative, me.

(3) The conscious push away from being A Guitar Band. Obviously Kid A is further on this path, but I've been listening to a megamix of OK Computer, Kid A and Amnesiac, and it does feel of a piece.

(4) "A heart that's..."

I'm sorry: Radiohead are NOT the first people to address this issue.

And if you just mean, uh, scary computers'n'stuff: John Foxx's _Metamatic_/Gary Numan's _The Pleasure Principle_ — both (manifestly) superior musical artists and/or intellects.

Kid A though. Wow! I don't know what the hell he's on about, but it's just beautiful!

I really must reconsider my position on the Stones as just irrelevant rock dinosaurs. Hang on, this is the one with classic rock chugger Honkytonk Women on it. How freaked out and paranoid is that?

>_Pithecathropus Erectus_?

This doesn't sound likely to get past my "Jazz Wank" filters. Not that Instrumental Jazz can't sound claustrophobic (and I've quite liked being slipped a mickey on the last albums by Spiritualized and, erm, Radiohead), but it's apples and oranges to something with lyrics.

>_Germ-Free Adolescence_

Now this is more like it, by all accounts.

>I'm sorry: Radiohead are NOT the first people to address this issue.

You don't have to be sorry, you just have to answer the question. It was asked in all honesty (and much ignorance).

>And if you just mean, uh, scary computers'n'stuff: John Foxx's >_Metamatic_/Gary Numan's _The Pleasure Principle_

Okay, but you'll have to vouchsafe me a bodypart or something before I go get something by Gary Numan. This is the one with Cars on it, for god's sake.

>both (manifestly) superior musical artists and/or intellects.

Oh, just fuck off.

Instrumental vs lyrics/apples vs oranges: this makes no sense to me

One of Numan and Foxx MIGHT be in my top ten. Plainly Numan is a force-nine dimwit (and Yorke is... ?) but that just means GN's unable to censor or rationalise as effectively as We Smart Foax do. The clueless express many things better, because they don't notice, and sidestep.

Concept totally aside, "Cars" is a better record than any Radiohead will EVER make. This is basic.

The technological themes are also a red herring - unlike with the much crasser Grandaddy there's hardly any overt technofear on OKC - the alienation seems pretty much entirely societal (in classic rock style). "Cars" is a great single by the way, not so sure about the rest of Numan.

I think in the end the specific content and concept are a cover story to allow culture-paralysed types (not least the band) to enjoy Big Rock themes (fuck the system) and more importantly Big Rock sounds, which as Nicole suggests OKC has in spades. It'll age worse than their other stuff but a lot of it sure is pretty.

_OK Computer_ is classic, classic, classic. The song "Paranoid Android" alone makes it a classic album. The fact that it has "Climbing Up The Walls", "Lucky", "The Tourist", "Let Down", and "Exit Music (For A Film)" seals the deal.

Everyday I Die. Steel And You. My Love Is A Liquid. Zero Bars (Mr Smith). Me! I Disconnect From You. Are "Friends" Electric? Praying To The Aliens. When The Machines Rock. I Nearly Married A Human. This Wreckage. The Aircrash Bureau. Remind Me to Smile. Sleep by Windows. I Dream of Wires. Remember I was Vapour. Please Push no More. I Die: You Die. A Subway Called "You". Cry, the Clock Said. She’s Got Claws. Boys Like Me. My Brother’s Time. You Are, You Are. Music for Chameleons. We Take Mystery to Bed. I am Render. This Prison Moon. My Centurion.

Do you SEE!!

It's really sweet in some ways that he ended up marrying a fan.

That's all I have to say.

Arrrrrrgh.

How long is it before Solinger buys OK Computer again, since Tom just did? Arrrrgh. If I ever, ever, ever, ever have to hear OK Computer again in my life, I will commit suicide. I just can't talk about this album rationally. It's the most godawful whinging and everyone LOVED it. I'd actually rather listen to Gorillaz.

Similarly, direct lyrical depiction is different from abstract picture-painting. Old versus new REM. Or Kid A vs OK Computer. I couldn't call it a weaker or stronger album because I don't see a coherent theme in KID A to compare to. Amnesiac is as I said half-and-half.

No, Thom Yorke isn't a force 9 dimwit. He makes incredibly indulgent whiny music, but that's not the same thing as being as thick as most of his fans.

And I'm going to have to disagree about Gary Numan. Glam with the entrtainment value stripped out isn't really my cup of tea.

Now get ready for more "Dude, the Replacements rocked and if you don't like them YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ROCK AND ROLL!" type responses.

Classic. Yorke's lyrics never bothered me despite their ranting qualities (all you Destiny's Child fans, pause in thought about which 90s artists are the biggest whiners). The music is pretty much amazingly written and executed.

Oh, come on, Gary Numan? "Cars" sounds like it was written by a nitwit child with a synth (and not in a good way), with lyrics written by his older brother who just read 1984 in tenth grade English class. And you can go on all you want about how it was an amazing bit of paranoid futurist chart pop, but between "Cars" and "No Surprises", which is/will be more dated?

Heh heh heh...

(They're not really comparable lyrically, though - Pulp's "The Fear" covers similar territory to "No Surprises" (and a lot of OKC), but does it with more wit, sympathy and humanity.)

(I won't say all, because I own the Numan-Sharpe LP, which is only better than Orwell's earlier unfunny stuff.)

Oh, ummm, "OK Computer", yeah, its a pretty good album. Its no "Pleased To Meet Me" though.

But sadly not flirty fishing, like religous cults use.

"pointless distrust of basic human interactions" is the best description of Yorke's lyrical failings (and in my weaker moments, strengths) that I've ever seen. Cheers.

Tom was right to note that the subject matter and vague reachings towards 'concept' are red herrings. Do you get off on the sonic fun of _OK Computer_ or not? On that level I do, and it's great. I can't agree completely on the late eighties Simple Minds comparison, though -- that bunch were perfectly sculpted (listen to _Street Fighting Years_ -- I DARE YOU), whereas Radiohead were trying to sound perfectly unsculpted, intentionally rough around the edges. Perhaps the same approach via different means, I'll grant.

What I think is interesting about the claim regarding 'pointless distrust of human interaction' -- and that *is* a great line -- is that clearly the lyricist and the person are two different things. An obvious point, but still -- after all, would the figure outlined in the lyrics actually have had a girlfriend for a decade, plus one baby? ;-) One more reason why I don't look for depths where they are overdetermined by others...

As for the Replacements, they're dead. Well, one is.

*goes back and look at that Replacements thread*

Pfft. Hey, Mr. Baier, it's called decaf, try it sometime.

I think its about time we just put up the question to end all questions: "Taking Sides: Loveless vs OK Computer vs The Stone Roses vs Nevermind".

*shudder*

The question you are perhaps thinking of is The Plan vs Telekon vs vs I, Assassin vs The Berserker

I love "OK Computer". It is the favourite album I own. It may not be the best in the world ever ever ever, but I wouldn't know. Done by someone else, better? Not that I've heard but that may be because my knowledge is limited. So I wouldn't know.

I can understand why its not everyone's cup of tea, I do agree with some of the common criticism of the band, their records and their politics.

But I object to people making radical comments that they've convinced themselves into believing just to rebel against the. Lots of people have written that stuff here. Examples? No, sorry, I can't remember them, so you'll have to look for 'em. You'll know them when you see them.

I think I need a lie down...

NOOOOO!!!!! Don't listen to Nate!!!

Its Fushitsusha's 'I Saw It! That of which I could only sense...'

Go for that!

I didn't know that everyone thought this alb was great. If by everyone= media, then they are not 'everyone' are they?

Really? I thought everyone raved about this album. I've only ever found one other person who thought it was so-so. Everyone else I know thinks it's one of the best albums every. I can't, for the life of me, figure out what the hell they're talking about.

The next two keep me more satisfied. I think they are the true classic albums. OKC sounds very passengers to me, and also early floyd. And that last roger waters lp, last march, stand final cut thats it. I think radiohead were lucky that people were looking for an album to be the saviour of rock....

Why are you being so nice to it?

''Ten to twenty years from now we'll have learned to just appreciate it for the pretty melodies (just like ppl did with "The Wall").''

Not after the avant-garde REVOLUTION is over and done with. We will not be needing 'melodies' any longer hurrah.

Dear God, it may be one of the best albums ever!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH!!!!

oops. I need to change my underwear.

Don't even get me STARTED on how great the Replacements were. Let's just say you had to be there.

xpost -- yeah, I forgot about that. 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING MAN.

Were I to be limited to one Radiohead album for the rest of my days, I'd go with The Bends.

...even though this album perhaps thinks it's The Wall, it's really The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway with a marketing degree. Thankfully the degree was top notch.

good point, Ned.

I like the Lamb lies down on Broadway a damn sight more.

then why listen to an album with "Paranoid Android" as a single?

Ned, what do you mean by this? I haven't heard Lamb, not sober and paying attention at least, so maybe it would make more sense if I had. I know you don't really like The Wall and do like some Genesis (and like this album) so I don't think this is supposed to be a dis.

There's lots of great stuff on this album. I really like the sprawling riff in "Airbag", and the delayed guitar sounds and electronic bits all over the record. The first six songs are flawless, the next three are junk, and by then I'm not usually in a mood for the remainder. Albums are too long anyway.

It isn't. If I had to break it down to individual elements I suspect that my head would hurt but if I had to try and spell it out a bit more off the top of my head, The Wall is strictly internalized angst that begs for a conflation of narrator/creator (ie Mr. Waters) whereas Lamb, while pushing for some sort of narrative connection, feels more fragmented and more self-consciously divided, separating Gabriel from the chosen role of his Nuyorican lead figure. Inasmuch as I've never identified Yorke directly with his subject matter -- I've NEVER thought he was specifically the figure 'telling' the songs, when I've cared to focus in on that aspect -- I think it bears comparing there, say. Similarly I also get much more of a sense of a band creating Lamb in the way that a band created OKC where The Wall is One Guy and his obsessions translated for the reduced-to-session-musicians folks to record -- with the exceptions notably being Gilmour's efforts (and unsurprisingly "Comfortably Numb" is my favorite song from the album for that reason).

The marketing degree bit is mostly acknowledging that if there is a thematic obsession on OKC and Radiohead at that time in particular, it was the whole busines of buying/selling/commodification, not that that's alien to a lot of what else they've done. But the whole two figures shaking hands and the trashed/altered celebrations of airports and travel and 'business' and everything else in the artwork, etc. It was all VERY carefully conceived and then sold, and all the reflexiveness in the world on the band's part (or Yorke's in particular if one likes) -- thus Meeting People is Easy as well -- doesn't change or hide that. Which is obvious, granted.

Still, I'd have to relisten to Lamb again to see if they tried to do something as ridiculously and yet wondrously obvious in terms of Waters Floyd cramming a DISCO number into their two disc slab o' pain (and scoring a massive hit as a result!).

Radiohead have turned into one of those bands where I actually think each new album of theirs is better than the last one.

I agree with this completely, though, with each new album, a better Radiohead is further from what I need

I find seeing them live I'm utterly impatient with most of the OKC and earlier songs -- one or two exceptions aside, like "Fake Plastic Trees," they could just play stuff from Kid A onward and I'd have a great time.

This was me. But now I've come to realize that OKC is a great pop record just to listen to, not as some Panacea For Post-Modern Blues.

i've barely touched any rock music in a year now, and still i spin "ok computer" when needed.

No Surprises is quite beautiful, though.

There's not a track on it I'd skip, there's not a moment where I think 'eh, get on with it'; it feels utterly natural in a way that few records do, the way parts move around one another, little hints of melody sneak out from behind the vocals and the bulk of backing. I don't think that's just because it's familiar: it's not comforting&well-remembered, I can't predict it, but it fits together. There is no way it could be any better, and in that sense it's polished; yet it isn't bland or immaculate, the anger to it isn't po-faced but caustic, the resignation isn't ironic but almost glorifies in itself. There's that guitar noise in it, soaring, which has always made me think of hope and the spiralling flight of birds or flames into the sky.

And 'exit music' still makes me cry.

(plus it's a fucking huge leap from the Bends, which is just an indie rock record.)

(hahahaha purple prose attack! for my next trick I will explain how Richey James Feels My Pain--
& thus here is the true glory of OKC: it makes me fourteen again.)

see, some of us hate feeling that way

One key reason why they're so dull.

oops, xpost.

The statement "you are insane" can only hint at my frustratingly intense disagreement.

Why the FUCK wasn't "Let Down" ever released as a single??
-- Unknown User (unknownuse...), June 5th, 2004.

it was pushed on radio a bit but the band was supposedly horrified with the video that was created for it.
-- Anthony Miccio (anthonymicci...), June 5th, 2004.

Makes sense. I remember hearing Pinfield on 120 Minutes saying that they originally intended to make a video for every song. Also I remember around the time "Karma Police" was released as a video, most of the rock stations were playing "Let Down" instead. I don't think it was until much later in the year that there was any demand to add "Karma Police" to radio playlists.

I remember returning to the States from a year abroad (i.e., Germany by way of Glastonbury, etc.; circa 1997) and weathering a small, but insistent, chorus of naysayers characterizing Radiohead in general, and OK Computer in particular, as nothing more than Pink Floyd II.

I found and find (see above) this critique/characterization puzzling because, as a fan of Floyd in general, and WYWH, Meddle, Animals, The Final Cut, The Wall, and DSOTM, in particular -- I don't hear the sonic parallel(s). Sure, OK Computer is a 'concept' album and some Floyd albums are, too -- but sonically?

As I own the above (and then some) Floyd LPs, might one of the choir step forward and do some one-to-one matching for me? I'd love to make a back-to-back playlist of the allegedly infringing Radiohead tracks and their Floyd origins.

OK Computer is pretty close to classic. Since then, however, Radiohead has become one of those acts that people get religiously weird about which is pretty uncomfortable.

None of their other output is close in quality though.

(whoever said that 'lucky' is secretly the best song was otm, however it still isn't good enough for me to still want to hear it particularly ever)

i might just take some action and throw ok computer in the bin or something.

it will look nice next to all those Girls Aloud albums ;) ;)

xp

How do the OKC haters feel about the artwork and the visual themes generally? Before I heard anything I liked off the album, I had to admit the album cover was really appealling and interesting. Especially because I hated the cover art for The Bends with a passion. Pablo Honey's cover was bad, too. No one can argue that OK Computer isn't the first decent Radiohead cover art, right??

all radiohead cover art &c is kind of hilariously awful in its relentless confusing of cryptic nothingness with Big Meaningful Messages - ok computer no exception. i can't really remember what their other albums looked like.

mental note: lex owns a radiohead album

not as of...TONIGHT, bubba.

(btw the reason 'lucky' is tolerable and the rest isn't for me is because on 'lucky' there is this one great moment where thom yorke sings really low, and it turns out that when he does that his voice is kind of rich and great! but when he sings high, ie 99% of the time, it is a quite, quite disgusting noise.)

I cannot accept this.

Time to get off the computer for a while methinks ;)

I finally added this to my iPod and joy is mine.

Absolute classic. This is one of those records that has always and consistently been an undercurrent in whatever musical identity I've had at a given time. Not embarrassed to say.

It's got very pretty songs.

Tails off a bit towards the end. Maybe it's a sequencing problem 'cause the songs aren't actually bad - ok Electioneering is a bit weak and I've never liked The Tourist. 1-6 is unbeatable though. I find myself returning to Let Down more than any of the others.

Remains (so far) the only album I've ever defenestrated.

dud

PARANOID ANDROID WILL DEAL WITH ALL OF YOU

I own this but forget what it sounds like.

I'm totally happy when one of these songs comes on shuffle, except "Electioneering" which is lame.

Funny this should be revived today, I heard Lucky/The Tourist (I think) playing out of the window of an apartment I walked by today and was amazed at how, well, uninteresting and big-whooshy-melodramatic mega rock song it was. While the 14 year old in me died a little, nevertheless it's still classic.

I KNOW THE GODDMAN THING OF TONGUE-ISH Killng Joke or whatever

But seriously, I have got your back now.

Got your back.

Karma Police.

pfft. The Tourist is gorgeous.

I lost myself I lost myself

Can I also state for the record for those who remember old Radiohead threads here that I have just talked to the Reverend on the phone and we get along fine. And I told him to say hi to Timi Yuro & Brian in Seattle. And Matos too. I told him to say hi.

For a minute there
I lost myself

You lost yourseee-eeee-eeeelf

Classic, but overhyped and overrated. I prefer warm, luxurious Radiohead to cold, paranoid Radiohead, so I'll take In Rainbows over OKC almost anytime.

"Lucky"

Does OKC - Kentucky Fried Chicken?

Look, I've got some mother fucking Pat Beneatar with reggae shit man.
Oh yeah., bob marley go to hell

Yeah, though "Lucky" never mind. That was the first track on my live CD that would knock your fucking socks off.

Radiohead, baby.

LOOK I REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT RADIOHEAD IF ONLY THE GODDAMN
SONGS
ABOUT THE RADIOHEAD SONGS
ABOUT ALL MY LOVERS WERE THERE WITH ME ALL MY PAST AND FUTURE
THERE WAS NOTHING TO FEAR NOTHING TO DOUBT
IT'S THE GODDAMN RADIOHEAD I HATE YOU ALL

WHEN THEY PLAY HERE IN SEATTLE I WILL CRUSH YOU ALL WITH MY LITTLE FINGER

I'LL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU THEN

DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL
AUG 20TH

I DIDN'T MEAN THIS IN A BAD WAY FOR ILXORS BUT SHIT...
rECkoner mother fuckers

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rOoCixFA8OI&hl=en&fs=1";></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rOoCixFA8OI&hl=en&fs=1"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yes, I know, I'm drunk as hell. but please tell John D. I salute him. Thanks.

loooool

Look I don't give a fuk about this shit.

who wants to take me to Airbag? Because your little sister is a pansy.

I'm back to save the universe.

Fast german car

INTERSTELLAR BURST
BACK TO SAVE THE UNIVERSE

I don't care you all are pussies!!!
Oh yes you are fuck off@!!!
Pussies!

paranoid android

shhhhhhh

First two tracks = great, rest = oh well, whatever, nevermind.

Interestingly I know this because I've just been loading the iPod for our Zeppelin, and only Airbag and Paranoid Aandroid made it on there from this.

You really should give "Let Down" another go.

most of this album is crap, and the lyrics are just annoying and pretentious. the only standout track is "let down." Dud for the most part.

Ultraclassic, always will be. I love it as much now as I did 11 years ago. If I could only listen to one album for the rest of my life, it would be this one.

Answers like that scare me.

I can't listen to one album for an hour, let alone a lifetime.

very scary.

I'm not necessarily saying that I want to listen to this one album for the rest of my life, but if I had to choose, in a Desert Island Discs-type situation, I'd pick this. I'm sure there's people here who feel the same way about, say, Loveless or Laughing Stock.

If I could listen to only one album the rest of my life, it would definitely be anything by Tone-Loc.

I ruined both OK Computer and Kid A by playing them to death in the years following their releases. I haven't gone back to OKC in quite a while. When I was listening to it obsessively, I was 14-16 years old and messages of alienated cold detachment sort of struck a chord with me. Now that I'm an old wise man of 25 (lol), I'm not sure I'd hear it in the same way or like it nearly as much as I once did.

pfft. The Tourist is gorgeous.

-- Turangalila, Sunday, 10 August 2008 03:20 (12 hours ago) Link

Oh, I still very much think it is as well.

this and Kid A seem so big and important (and I do like them) but for some reason I listen to Hail to the Theif and In Rainbows a lot more.

Answers like that scare me.

Nick, what would you pick?

or since I'm sure you're resistant... what does your first instinct tell you to pick?

I'm not necessarily saying that I want to listen to this one album for the rest of my life, but if I had to choose, in a Desert Island Discs-type situation, I'd pick this.

Guys, has there been a thread on this? I'm sure there must've been but i can't find it in search...

Neither. I didn't like it for a few years after it came out. Too bombastic for my tastes at the time, too damn overrated. Then I shared workspace with a guy who only likes Beethoven, The Beatles and Radiohead. Oh god, I thought. But I could kind of see how their obvious styles meshed with his extremely limited scope of what constitutes greatness. In my desperate efforts to expand his tastes, I grew to appreciate Radiohead, in that I couldn't necessarily find anything else that did Radiohead better than Radiohead (at the moment though I kind of prefer Radiodread!). So neither classic nor dud, just a pretty good album.

I had this to say about it last year, in part:

I hate OK Computer. Not the album. I love the album. I hate what it has become. I hate what it stands for. I hate everything that has been heaped on it. I hate it as much as I suspect the band hates it. Ten years on from creating ‘the greatest album ever‘ would get a little frustrating after a while, especially when you’re doing better work.

....

I want to just hear this album again without thinking about how it’s been nailed up there now, crucified, used by everyone, those anthropophagi blood-drunk on their own idiot communion. FOR FUCK’S SAKE. How many bands stopped here, cloned it and made it awful precisely because they made it so dully tasteful? How many fans? How many writers? How many polls? How many of them listened to this album, had their breakdowns, thought rock and roll had come to save them again, then decided that when the later albums came out that all that could be done was to play this album again instead?

I can’t even hear “Let Down” again and my god do I adore that song. But it’s swathed in part of the whole mystique, its crystalline tones and pitch-perfect slow slide wrapped up in the gossamer of the salvation of the Entertainment Weekly/Q/Mojo/NPR nation. It’s the most beautiful mummy around.

It’s drained drier than everything from the sixties I was trying to escape from being forced down my throat at a certain point in the late eighties.

“Why can’t they sound like their old stuff?” the cry has continually gone up since then.

Yes precisely, dip the band in aspic as well as your copy of the album. Well done. THANKS.

(Now I know how people think about me going on about Loveless forever.)

Reading that was like looking at an optical illusion.

Hmm, now I'm singing the Chameleons.

Stephen; my first instinct tells me I can't pick! Right now I might, if forced, choose ///Codename:Dustsucker but only because The Black Meat came on the Zeppelin earlier and I loved it.

good choice Nick. if i had to pick a Bark Psychosis though, i'd go with Game Over -- you get a bit of Hex, a bit of Independency, a few other nice tracks... seems like a good career summary up til that point.

i understand you have a special connection with that later album though. :)

Sick Mouthy has been loading his iPod with Zeppelin. This is a wonderful development, this is wonderful.

Allowing context to spoil great albums is a shame.

Indeed.

The 'context' is precisely what has made it a 'great album' in a lot of eyes, though -- or at least given it that role. It may be a shame but it kinda helps to step back and ask yourself why it is considered to be what it is, and whether or not you have contributed to it, unconsciously or not. I brought up that reference to Loveless for a very good reason.

Allowing context to spoil great albums is a shame.

but "great" albums can't exist without context!

Yeah, but the greatness of a particular set of sounds can't ever be reasonably reduced to extramusical baggage. I guess in music it's just not easy for a lot of people to separate process from product/result, given the varying connotations.

Yeah, but the greatness of a particular set of sounds can't ever be reasonably reduced to extramusical baggage.

When is there an intrinsic 'greatness of a particular set of sounds' separable from context and interpretation? If that's not what you mean, though, it's not clear.

I guess what I'm saying is, in the same way a lot of people tend to agree on the attractiveness of particular phenotypes on other people, I don't find it hard to believe that a great quantity of people find a particular album's SOUND genuinely awesome, independent of extramusical baggage.

Never said it was separable from context and interpretation. Just saying the interpretation of sounds isn't always based on how cool others think it is.

But yeah, I get that the extramusical baggage of RH can be really grating.

Let me rephrase that:

I guess what I'm saying is, in the same way a lot of people tend to agree on the attractiveness of particular phenotypes on other people, I don't find it hard to believe that a great quantity of people find a particular album's SOUND genuinely awesome, independent of how cool/great others think it is.

I got into OK Computer around October 1997. Within a few weeks, I was pretty happy that I had discovered my favorite album of that year. What I had not counted on was the hype that would follow. I considered it a great album without really knowing anything else about Radiohead besides "Creep" and that the Paranoid Android video was one of the coolest things I had ever seen. That was pretty much all the context I needed to consider it a great album.

^Same here, except that I had never even heard "Creep". I had an empty musical childhood.

independent of how cool/great others think it is.

Yes, but how independent is a listener from that now? It's damn near impossible, a new listener can't *but* encounter that for the most part. Billstevejim's post is good because it shows a dividing line you can't ignore now -- something that happened early on before the hype (though I actually have to disagree even there to an extent, I was already reading encomiums for it before its release) versus something now inseparable from it.

Again, I invoke Loveless for a damn good reason. I was in the same boat. Now the thing is equally praised and pasted into the canon. Do you think it can be approached in quite the same way I did? Irrevocably, absolutely not.

Right. It's too absolutist to think that all, or even most, of the love comes exclusively from the hype that followed: trite dystopian interpretations associated to a "rock opus," etc. I can understand the aversion to THAT, though.

(oops, xpost)

It's too absolutist to think that all, or even most, of the love comes exclusively from the hype that followed

Folks, what magical wonderland are you all living in that somehow OKC -- or ANYTHING 'classic' -- didn't derive from some sort of 'hype' that created the context for you to receive it in the first place, whether it was the academic standard for 'great books' or because Mojo keeps running the picture of a band on nearly every cover of theirs? I can't believe I'm still arguing this point with people in 2008!

What if you're exposed to a lot of negative press and you STILL like something? Why do I like Germaine Tailleferre if all I read from her in the musical history books? is she's sub-Debussy drivel? You're assuming it's a one-way love-fest. In a lot of more pretentiously self-serious circles of academic music, I've read nothing but negative things about this album. Also based on an aversion to people's love for this, by the way.

You're turning this into semantic quibbling when I guess I interpreted billstevejim's post to mean that it would be a shame that a lot of people dismissed this album purely borne out of an aversion to the hype it's gotten.

When, you know:

the hype it's gotten =/= the music

what magical wonderland are you all living in that somehow OKC -- or ANYTHING 'classic' -- didn't derive from some sort of 'hype'

The magical wonderland in which we don't automagically & certainly assume people's intentions for being drawn to something. Somewhere where we don't feel particularly compelled to define soundwaves and musical structures out of existence & strictly through their interpretations in rock magazines.

Have you ever heard a sound and thought to yourself "fuck, that's BEAUTIFUL" without following it with the question of what, say, MOJO thought of it? Does MOJO exist in everyone's life in this magical wonderland?

Bimble; I'm not loading an iPod WITH Zeppelin; I'm loading one FOR A Zeppelin - the weird squashed oval speaker dock on the left here - http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v208/135/62/223304663/n223304663_4438074_7453.jpg

Em hates Zeppelin and the Zeppelin is hers, so... no Zeppelin. There is some Hendrix, though.

What if you're exposed to a lot of negative press and you STILL like something?

Then it means you and I are agreeing on something more than maybe we both realize. Namely, that standards are artificial, and that presumptions of what is 'great' and what isn't comes down to individual decisions within larger contexts, and that those larger contexts are ultimately unavoidable because however much the music (or piece of art or whatever) is not the hype/discussion/debate about it, there is no other way to situate it -- to call something a 'classic' or not -- without it, even to yourself.

Can we agree on that at least? You want to call this quibbling, fine, but I prefer to think of it as a necessarily distanced view on one's own judgment, and I don't see how it contradicts billstevejim's post.

Somewhere where we don't feel particularly compelled to define soundwaves and musical structures out of existence & strictly through their interpretations in rock magazines.

At no point did I define anything out of existence, thanks very much. I apologize if you feel that is the case.

As for your last Mojo question, could you please stop missing the forest for the trees? My complaint is about the ease in which objets d'art can become fetishized and sterile as a result of their elevation in collective judgment. *That*, I think, we can agree on.

I think my problem with Radiohead in general, and particularly OK Computer, is that emotional they;ve never hit me all that hard, and aesthetically I think people have done similar things with more... oomph, in almost every area that R'head have moved in. Thus the general reception (a literate proclamation of "OMG!" by people who, often, don't listen to that much music besides) leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. In 1997 it was a pitched fight, for me, between OKC, Ladies & Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space, and Urban Hymns. Jason wins by several lengths.

I was being a jerk with that last MOJO question, obv. Ok, we can agree on those points, Ned.

Scik Mouthy, love your Erte poster.

Ok, we can agree on those points, Ned.

It's all good, thanks.

i saw them last night at the all points west festival in jersey. best show i've ever been to.

In 1997 it was a pitched fight, for me, between OKC, Ladies & Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space, and Urban Hymns. Jason wins by several lengths.

Obviously to me though, Radiohead and Spiritualized are going for very different moods on those two albums. In no way does OK Computer approach the hazy, narcotic splendor of Ladies & Gentlemen, nor does it try to do so. In the same way, Ladies & Gentlemen is not going for a creatively leftfield take on Britpop and stadium rock. There's no way I could compare these albums and choose a favorite.

And that Verve album really really blows, in retrospect.

How many of them listened to this album, had their breakdowns, thought rock and roll had come to save them again, then decided that when the later albums came out that all that could be done was to play this album again instead?

I strongly agree with this, though.

A corollary to this is how I felt about most reviews of Jonny Greenwood's soundtrack to Bodysong when it came out: they seemed to be stuck in this sort of dull, rock crit ontology, never getting over the idea that Jonny --- an integral part of the RH monster --- wrote the music; never really reviewing the music qua music. Just describing ways in which the music didn't really fit into their rock crit schemes. In fact, many of them complained about the "lack of guitars". Heh. And yes, this was post-Kid A.

i saw them last night at the all points west festival in jersey. best show i've ever been to.

My friends who attended felt the same way. I was a little jealous. But $100 buys me a lot of beer.

In fact, many of them complained about the "lack of guitars". Heh. And yes, this was post-Kid A.

Great grief.

You know, from the perspective of a girl and someone who bought OK Computer when she was 13 years old after hearing a thirty second sample of Paranoid Android on the radio that just said "Radiohead - OK Computer: buy it this Tuesday", I'm finding this thread kind of hilarious. I know all y'all old male music geek types read a lot of rock crit, but newsflash: you aren't the world. This idea that everyone is steeped in rock crit (particularly of the MOJO variety) is pretty ridic. I can't remember the last time I actually read an album review for anything more than a brief skim of a description of what the music sounded like so I could potentially add it to a list of things to check out, nor was reading reviews *ever* really part of my routine.

Melissa OTFM

you aren't the world

I'm not the children?

More seriously -- not questioning your experience at all, Melissa, it matches with billstevejim's. But compare it to, say, a 13-year-old now 'getting into music' in the broadest sense of the term. (Personal experience being its own bias but that was around the age that I first gave in.) OKC isn't some new thing for that person, it's essentially classic rock, for better and worse (I'd argue for worse).

It is and it isn't. The thirteen-year-old also understands, through interviews and press clippings, that Radiohead is also "iconoclastic," despite the Number One albums.

Clearly we need a thirteen year old. Someone risk arrest and get one here.

Once again, this is from my perspective as a girl who's never been into that side of music geekery, but the classic rock canon means very little aside from the fact that that album will be easier to find in a record store or more likely to go on a list of things to check out. Doesn't sound any different, doesn't change my reaction. I have the same ears whether I'm listening to The Beatles or something that came out of a record label run out of someone's living room.

I enjoy the same chord progressions, the same textures, the same harmonies.

Which is great, Melissa, but then let me ask you this -- how do you seek out new stuff to listen to? What are the channels, the tools, again, the context? There's *something* -- so what is it?

It is and it isn't. The thirteen-year-old also understands, through interviews and press clippings, that Radiohead is also "iconoclastic," despite the Number One albums.

This assumes that the 13 year old gives a shit about interviews and press clippings again, though.

And again, how do you think said putative *current* thirteen year old is hearing this stuff, and what perspective are they bringing to bear? They do not exist in a vacuum!

Yes, but the opposite of a vacuum isn't necessarily ONLY rock crit.

There is no magical process in which those chord progressions, textures & harmonies acquire strictly sociopolitical/cultural/canonical connotations---with the same intensity.

Not even colors or more imaginative evocations as a response to something as abstract and wide as sound? Just weird rankings? How fucking boring. Almost autistic, really. Strikes me as very far from reality.

I just check out stuff! Scroll through new release schedules on record labels and sites, skim a review here and there looking for key words that catch my interest, look out for recommendations from like-minded musicians and people, and check out soundclips on places like Amazon and Aquarius Music. Just a hodgepodge of sources. Sometimes people just emailing me albums out of the blue. I don't really know what the hype is the same way I don't know what the sports scores are.

Yes, but the opposite of a vacuum isn't necessarily ONLY rock crit

Quite right of course. I was actually thinking about how many bands -- most of whom are unsurprisingly dullards but hey -- have sent me random Myspace invites over the years, and how many of them put Radiohead in their influences list, more often than not rubbing up against other even more well-established names like U2, REM, etc., and tracking back to the Beatles and the like. An anecdotal story, obv,. but I'd say suggestive of the way orthodoxy rapidly becomes a closed loop.

I just check out stuff! Scroll through new release schedules on record labels and sites, skim a review here and there

...and you're saying you've never been into that side of music geekery? ;-) (I'm not trying to be mean, but clearly you're engaged with the discourse -- hell, with the language! -- to a strong extent.)

I like it fine, but "Airbag" is the best song on it - it never rises to that height again. It really does sound to me, now, like the Last Great Classic Rock Album, and I think its reception by its public - by the substratum of the public that came to love and embrace it - bears that out: the songs can be played around campfires on acoustic guitars without much harm to their structure and rhythms, etc. If you have grievances against classic rock, then this album is kind of a goad in your side.

Many of the other songs are great too, mind, but "Airbag" is something special - just confused enough, just brave enough.

Not even colors or more imaginative evocations as a response to something as abstract and wide as sound? Just weird rankings? How fucking boring. Almost autistic, really. Strikes me as very far from reality.

Very. I've rapidly grown to hate lists. My best-of votes over the last couple of years are essentially pro-forma and this year I'm not even sure I'll do that.

I also consider Bjork, whose work is often loved by Radiohead boosters, a maker of Classic Rock Albums.

You hate Björk, though, right?

haha "Radiohead boosters"

I watched a bit of that doco, meeting people is easy the other night. It's about them touring this album. Fuck it's awful.

It's not in the same way though. I literally just maintain a list of things to check out, once I've read about the existence of an album that sounds like it's something I might want to hear (or heard soundclips from it that sound interesting), I'm done reading about it. It's on the list, I'm not going to engage farther than putting it on that list and checking it out when I get to it. And the key words that I look for are not "good" or "classic", but things like, I dunno, "minor key" or "haunting". The rating/amount of slobber means exactly zip to me.

And again, how do you think said putative *current* thirteen year old is hearing this stuff, and what perspective are they bringing to bear? They do not exist in a vacuum!

Once again, from the only perspective I can provide, which is me 11 years ago, I was just entirely divorced from music crit in any sense at all. I read no interviews, had no idea what most of my favorite musicians looked like. I honestly found most of my favorite artists through "if you like PJ Harvey, check out _______" type recs.

that was a huge x-post

And the key words that I look for are not "good" or "classic", but things like, I dunno, "minor key" or "haunting"

More than fair! But that acts as a kind of filter, a series of signifiers. It's no different from my own (hello 'shoegaze' or 'psych' or whatever), and even if the word 'good' isn't used, we're looking for stuff that could be 'good' -- by our standards.

Well, that's kind of obvious, but irrelevant, since we're talking about the effect or lack thereof of someone else's hype, not someone else's adjectives and how I choose to filter them.

8===D

That's a really fine line to draw, Melissa! Could you explain that further, because I admit I don't see that distinction as functional.

xpost -- Amazing!

It's the difference between going to a restaurant because everyone says the chef is the best in the world and that everyone who is anyone has to go, and going because they're serving tuna steak and happen to be three blocks from your house.

xposts galore

Ned and Melissa both otm really. 13-year-olds now getting into Radiohead may not be swallowing music crit/reviews no, but Radiohead get plenty of press and even a one or two paragraph article on In Rainbows will usually say "critically-acclaimed rock band Radiohead..." or "experimental rock band Radiohead" and it's this sort of thing that feeds that classic-album-status train of thought when it comes to Radiohead, and OK Computer in particular. and as far as the artist recommendations go, they're still often mentioned in the same line as "If you like Coldplay... " or "If you like Muse..." :P

i like meeting people is easy. thom yorke said in an interview that there was just as much footage of them having fun on the tour, but the miserable stuff made a better movie.

very large x-post.

...yeah, Melissa, but tuna steak surely isn't an adjective. :-D

(Yes I am beating this into the ground. But the question of language and reception interests me. Also I admit I am far too tickled by the idea of haunting tuna steak.)

re meeting people is easy. It is totally boring and they all whinge the whole time.

Well, very few writers tend to write about music purely in objective terms, so I have to take "haunting" as "usually indicates tuna steak".

And Roz puts it better than I could. If I've made it seem like the whole idea is simply that of 'what rock critics say' -- perish the thought -- then that's my mistake, but as I've been saying, maybe not very well -- there's a big *big* world of context out there that's shaped how any number of acts are received, and Radiohead's a stellar example of one such act.

ned if you could only take one type of steak with you on a desert island, which would it be??

I have to take "haunting" as "usually indicates tuna steak"

I intend to use it in this sense from now on. ("Dragging" will indicate "will only provide water when asked.")

ned if you could only take one type of steak with you on a desert island, which would it be??

Salmon, lightly braised for its acid-folk qualities.

"The Tourist" alone gives me more pleasure than all but maybe one tuna steak I've ever had, and maybe not even that one.

there's a big *big* world of context out there that's shaped how any number of acts are received, and Radiohead's a stellar example of one such act.

While I wouldn't argue that context plays no role at all, I guess I do feel pretty absolutely that there's no context in the world that could get me to enjoy or not enjoy the taste of a meal.

And thus with Radiohead, and thus with music in general.

My enjoyment of particular chord progressions and textures, etc. is far too visceral for that.

I want to just hear this album again without thinking about how it’s been nailed up there now, crucified, used by everyone, those anthropophagi blood-drunk on their own idiot communion. FOR FUCK’S SAKE. How many bands stopped here, cloned it and made it awful precisely because they made it so dully tasteful? How many fans? How many writers? How many polls? How many of them listened to this album, had their breakdowns, thought rock and roll had come to save them again, then decided that when the later albums came out that all that could be done was to play this album again instead?

-- Ned Raggett, Sunday, 10 August 2008 17:22

This is really what I think is getting your goat the most, though, isn't it? Not the hype or the loss of appropriate context, but a great album spoiled by terrible imitations.

I mean, Bob Dylan gets a similar amount of hindsight hype, but without the cheap imitations, there's no loss of the original classic album's impact.

Also, I'm right with you, John, Airbag is the winner. I like Paranoid Android but could live without the rest.

I'd say the biggest effect of context/hype for me is the annoyance I feel when someone assumes that just because, say, OK Computer is my favorite album of the 90s, that means I haven't heard a lot of music and it comes from a position of ignorance or mere parroting.

yeah I would say it comes from a position of ignorance tbh

Oh, fuck off.

this fuckin guy

wilter has not yet been all the way around the block.

This is really what I think is getting your goat the most, though, isn't it? Not the hype or the loss of appropriate context, but a great album spoiled by terrible imitations.

It gets my goat, certainly, but not as the sole or prime point. If anything John's observation -- "If you have grievances against classic rock, then this album is kind of a goad in your side." -- is more apt, and this has less to do with the perceived quality of classic rock as music (or its terrible imitations) than with its suffocating nature as a concept.

this album was exciting, because prior to it i'd written them off as being in the same minor leagues as bush. people do remember "creep," right, and thom's died hair? around the same time a friend told me about on avery island (a way more inventive album), he insisted i check out okc, and, well, "paranoid android" is still as thrilling as, say, a kansas song, and "let down" is like a 90s "dust in the wind." it's strange though that people front like what's great about ok computer, kid a etc is how innovative they are, like they've never heard magma, harmonia, and aphex twin or whatever

hahaha

I adore Dust in the Wind, btw.

Ah ha! I see. Honestly, I thought y'all was talking about classic rock, like Lynyrd Skynyrd.

... and now, it seems, we are.

in what wierd universe are people still pimping for this record? i thought kid a was the one that "changed everything"

I've never heard a connection b/w Magma & OKC! Interesting point.

in what wierd universe are people still pimping for this record? i thought kid a was the one that "changed everything"

no, Kid A was the one that set new benchmarks for fail

xxpost the same universe where Q readers vote OK Computer "BEST ALBUM OF ALL-TIME" god knows how many years in a row.

What is it with this stupid premise that one day the voice of History will tell us how "wrong" or "right" our musical tastes were?

oh, britishes universe. it was a sincere question
xpost

in what wierd universe are people still pimping for this record? i thought kid a was the one that "changed everything"

-- velko, Monday, August 11, 2008 3:41 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i know that before i'd heard kid a, based purely on the discourse, i was expecting something muuuuuuuch more *out* and experimental. When I finally heard it I was really disappointed! I'd been expecting Ornette Coleman on a laptop, instead I got a poppy Aphex record (in hindsight what I really wanted was this)!

I say this to say that (to me at least) the discourse about Kid is still that it's very *experimental* and *out there*, not a *bona fide undeniable accessible rock classic* like OKC.

Music is pretty.

i am young enough to have been the type to absorb rock crit as a young teenager ca. 'kid a' release so i see a lot where ned's coming from. at the time i was very much steeped in the tradition of liking Serious Records Made By Great Artists and music was as much about reverence as it was about enjoyment (in a lot of cases, more of the former than the latter).

i think radiohead (kid a in particular) was a good transition for me cos i listened the shit out of that record so i definitely had some genuine pleasure but it still fit in with the notion of Great Artistry that was important to me at the time. i revere 'kid a' a lot less than i did, obv, but i think i appreciate it more now that i've heard a lot of the influences. like i can listen to them as songs that i love and that have flaws and not as part of some trajectory of era-defining music.

Very. I've rapidly grown to hate lists. My best-of votes over the last couple of years are essentially pro-forma and this year I'm not even sure I'll do that.

Going back to this thought... Ned, I think you're on the right track by creating your year-end lists based on number of listens. So pretty much you're not creating the list, it just comes together on its own. Instead of "here are my favorite albums," it's just "here is what I played the most" -- which is really all that interests me these days, to be honest.

"Played the most" is always a big influence on my end-of-year best-of lists, and dissatisfaction with what even that reveals about wider listening habits is what lead me to write this - http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/staff_top_10/top-ten-most-listened-to-in-2007-not-from-2007.htm

Another thing with Radiohead (agree massively with Ned & John re; classic rock, btw) is that... associates of mine who like music...

Argh, let's give a direct example. Guy called Steve who I went to school with, not seen him in years, know from his facebook that he's still really into music, played in bands, DJs locally occasionally, he was always 'cooler' and I was always 'more knowledgeable" or something about music. Anyway, randomly bump into him in a pub the other week and have a drunken conversation about music. (I've outlined in the past how much I HATE talking about music - http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/soulseeking/i-hate-talking-about-music.htm) and somehow the conversation gets to a point where Steve is saying "no band has ever progressed / changed / developed and remained good", which I think is ridiculous. Especially when he says "except Fugazi". Now I like Fugazi, but he's saying something mental about them going from instrumental to not instrumental or something. Correct me if I'm wrong, but... wtf? I throw out lots of examples. He dismisses The Beatles and Talking Heads and Talk Talk and several others because "it's not during our lifetime [of being music fans]". So I suggest Orbital and he dismisses that because they're "not a band". So I suggest lots more. He's not really aware of Wilco. I think basically he only likes Deftones. But at the end, the only two bands he'll accept as contraries to his position are Radiohead and Blur, and he kind of doesn't want to accept Radiohead because he doesn't really accept much of what they've done from Kid A onwards as music. To the kind of person who professes to care about this kind of thing but who will take it on received wisdom, Radiohead are not just, or even, "the MOST classic" classic rock with OK Computer, they're also "the END of experimental rock", because why go further? And for the people who can then get past OK Computer, a lot of the time Kid A becomes "the MOST EXPERIMENTAL record EVER". And if you disagree, you're just being weird and obscurantist and pig-headed because that other stuff's not classic rock enough to actually be experimental, it's just weird noise, or something, and it's all just opinion anyway so it doesn't matter (and I know it doesn't but it DOES too), and so then I might say something about how OKC is mixed and mastered too coldly and I get "but it's MEANT to be cold" and I'm like "yeah but this isn't in a good way" and then I'm like "Kid A just sounds like any modern mainstream mega-huge rock record but with the choruses sawn off and some bleeps added in and there's no depth too it" or whatever, striving for an objective reason that they might understand as to why I dislike it, and nothing is accepted because, again, I'm "just being weird, and it doesn't sound anything like Bon Jovi" or whatever and ARGH.

My opinions haven't really changed in the past four years -- I still love the singles but could do without the rest.

The speed at which this album became canonized (practically upon release) was pretty shocking, and I've never understood exactly how and why it happened the way it did. The "classic" tag was applied so early and so often, and persisted long enough to thoroughly squash its own backlash. People are commenting here on how they discovered the record rather randomly and didn't care about rockcrit, but without the insta-canonization, the chances that you stumble across a review of the album or see it displayed prominently in a record store are a lot lower. Critics did a big part to create the impression that the album was a Big Deal, and that filtered down to the way music shops, smaller newspapers, MTV, etc. treated it. So people were susceptible to the rockcrit influence on "OK Computer" whether they wanted to be or not.

Would it be going too far to say that "OK Computer" was the last album to be canonized moreso by "old media" (print, TV, etc.) than by the internet?

That seems pretty fair.

if hip hop doesn't count, maybe

Sadly it doesn't, in the (British rock crit) canon.

Y'all are crazy, you know that?

Here's my view on Radiohead: they made a string of fantastic albums from The Bends through Hail To The Thief. FIN

I don't like his voice and they remind me a bit of U2

Exit Music for a film is really good though

Dan, what's wrong with In Rainbows?

http://alittlefurtherdowntheriver.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/arcade-fire.jpg

In Rainbows has a bunch of really good songs on it that, to date, have never actually cohered together as an album for me. Whenever one of those songs pops up on shuffle, I think "Oh yeah, this is great! Why don't I ever listen to this?", then I play the album front to back and think "oh that's right, I hate this as an album" and go back to playing "L.E.S. Artistes" and "Machine Gun on endless repeat.

Fair enough. I think I enjoyed (note past tense) it more as an album than I have anything else by them. That said, my affection / enthusiasm for it has now waned considerably. But I expect that with Radiohead anyway.

wtf Arcade Fire, btw?

It's a stadium rock album that became instant classic in a way that filtered from rock crit to everyone in a similar way, I don't think OK Computer could be considered the last of these by any means.

Interesting idea, except that Arcade Fire are nowhere near as big as Radiohead, and will probbaly not have anywhere near the longevity, either.

Really? I thought they were. Scratch that then.

They might be in the States, I guess, but over here Radiohead releasing a new album for choose-your-own-cost download was a main feature on BBC Breakfast News that morning; last Arcade Fire album got the lead review in the specialist broadsheet culture / review / music & film sections, kind of level. It's like... I bet Neon Bible sold about 300,000 copies in the UK, perhaps. I pet the Radiohead sold 3 million. Easy.

I was basing this on them being the band everyone likes in Ireland from what I can tell. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just thought they were huge, I don't really care much about them so I don't know.

"Is this it?"/"De Stijl"/"White Blood Cells" are way more insta-classic American rock albums than "Funeral", no?

I do think "OK Computer" was the last to be instantly-canonised solely by the old media giants though and "Kid A" probably the first when new media started to have an impact... it think it was the first album where the "best album ever" talk started even before its release because of online leaks, and then it went to number one on the back of one blurry video and no singles.

it think* = i think.

It didn't have a particularly good review in NME, I seem to remember. 7/10, I think.

something about OKC seems so unnatural and forced, not at all like the very voice of God speaking to me through my stereo, which is kind of how I hear good music.

Unnatural how?

If God ever spoke to me through my stereo, I'd hopefully wonder if it was George Clinton before returning it to the shop.

too lazy to search for the In Rainbows thread but: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/144559-radiohead-pony-up-extra-for-video-contest-victors

I mean really, these guys are way too nice.

"... Is my stereo George Clinton? I'd better return it."

Fair enough. I think I enjoyed (note past tense) it more as an album than I have anything else by them. That said, my affection / enthusiasm for it has now waned considerably. But I expect that with Radiohead anyway.

The songs in In Rainbows have held up remarkably well for me. This gets said about a lot of albums, but for me, the songs on In Rainbows really revealed themselves over time, and I still find fresh nuances that I didn't hear before. Swaping the MP3 version for the better sound quality of the physical disc made a big difference, in that regard.

As I said above, I like the individual songs a lot. Put them together as an album, however, and they somehow half-cohere into something less than the sum of its parts.

Unnatural how?

for the most part the chord progressions seem labored over and smack of a studied effort rather than being a natural expression of thought or innate melodic sense. there's this weird sort of showmanship in the writing that reminds me of the calculating obsession of gearheads, as well as the self-conscious bombast of musicians who feel they need to prove themselves with odd time signatures and by forcing the music into unexpected directions so as to not be accused of being run-of-the-mill. The whole album just reeks of effort. And I don't mean to say that effort itself is a bad thing. I just don't want to notice the effort. I notice it nearly every second of this album, with just a couple of exceptions.

The one thing that struck me about "Paranoid Android" the first time I heard it was how effortlessly all of its disparate parts hung together; one thing flowed directly into the next without a hitch or false step, zooming through a semi-proggy musical soundscape without really making a big deal out of it until the crescendo into the slow section. If you found that "labored over" and "a studied effort", I don't think I'll ever understand where you're coming from on this album.

Dan OTM about RH albums failing to cohere. When they DO cohere, as on Kid A, the songs aren't very interesting.

I don't think that captures the spirit of what I actually said, considering that the statement right before I started complaining about In Rainbows was "all of their albums from The Bends through Hail To The Thief are fantastic"...

Right....which is where we part company.

I'm fasincated that people are talking about the coherency of their albums. That's an interesting topic. I don't really think of them that way, the coherency...

I've only got 9 days left before I see them live and I'll be so happy.

xpost

I mean, you just complimented and insulted Kid A in the same breath. That's crazy stuff. But it sure is interesting.

But you're right though...I can't parse Kid A. I can't break it apart in my head. "Idioteque" nearly manages it, but still can't break it apart into separate songs, but I can do that with OK Computer.

If you found that "labored over" and "a studied effort", I don't think I'll ever understand where you're coming from on this album.

yeah, probably not. I don't hear it in the way you do at all.

I think the problem I have with Radiohead somehow has to do with the tastefulness with which they are invariable presented and present themselves. There never seems to be any sense of humour or play or even curiosity outside a certain brand of sophisticated stadium rock. Their position as latterday representatives of the great rock canon is maybe somewhat attributable to their apparent steadfast refusal to embrace all but the most tasteful of references. The pain in their music is the pain of Ian Curtis, Kurt Cobain, Nick Drake. Heavy, humourless boy pain. It's never Joe Meek, Karen Carpenter, Dusty Springfield. Sorry if this is a daft criticism, I can only say why I don't really care about them, it's just that their pathos feels so abstracted and heavy, the pain of someone who reads too much Benjamin and doesn't get the jokes. It never winks at its own histrionics.

Thom Yorke's lyrics are so extreme in their portentousness, they feel completely unlike anything I can relate to. "Exit Music (for a film)" is a rare exception, unlike the doom laden dystopias of "Karma Police" or "Fake Plastic Trees", it feels like the real world; small actions seem to matter and there's a genuine tenderness to the urgency ("breathe, keep breathing"). It works because it implies a bigger world through the daft swelling strings but maintains an intimacy you rarely get with his voice close against the mic.

Did that make any sense whatsoever?

It's not a daft criticism. It's just that there's room for both kinds of pain and emotion in music.

I don't think it makes any sense. I don't see how you can criticize them for being stadium rock in funny clothes if you are then going to compare them to Ian Curtis and Nick Drake (or hell, even Kurt Cobain, who only really became "stadium rock" because of a right-place/right-time bubble); in fact, the only way that criticism is even halfway tenable is if you pretend that most of the music they produced between OK Computer and In Rainbows never happened.

Also, holding up "Karma Police" as an example of how they have no sense of humor doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.

I think they have a very overt sense of humor. Whether or not that's taken on board is up to a listener, I think.

Xpost with Dan, unsurprisingly.

I also don't think of "Fake Plastic Trees" when I think of lyrics that are "extreme in their portentousness" or "doom-laden dystopias" but I listened to a LOT of industrial.

"gravity always wins" -- extremely dry humor, given the subject

Well it's a personal thing. I'm not really criticising them as much as stating my reasons for not really being interested in them. It just feels to me like the world of their music is emotionally remote from me largely due to it seemingly coming from a closed set of references, that is their music, for me, never exists in relation to the real world, but to a pre-negotiated rock history, I would argue that the "coldness" referred to by so many posters upthread is as much a product of this as it is of the production.

Ned, I know that explaining jokes makes them not funny, but could you point me to this sense of humour because I genuinely don't see it. This (as with everything else I've said) might be a product of how radiohead are framed for me, being 10 when it came out, the whole thing passed over my head so I have come to them as pre-cannonised rock monsters (similarly Drake and Cobain, hence my particular perspective), and it is pretty debatable how much of my impression of them is a result of a failure to overcome the initial ways they were presented to me through my own experience of actually listening to the music.

"karma police, arrest this girl, her Hitler hairdo is making me feel ill".

I think the gloom may be in thom's singing rather than his lyrics cause i always think his lyrics are more than often sardonic rather than woe-is-me gloom.

Who's in bunker?
Who's in bunker?
Women and children first
And the children first
And the children
I'll laugh until my head comes off
I'll swallow till I burst
Until I burst

Karma police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge, hes like a detuned radio
Karma police, arrest this girl, her hitler hairdo, is making me feel ill
And we have crashed her party
This is what you get, this is what you get
This is what you get, when you mess with us

Karma police, Ive given all I can, its not enough
Ive given all I can, but were still on the payroll
This is what you get, this is what you get
This is what you get, when you mess with us
And for a minute there, I lost myself, I lost myself
And for a minute there, I lost myself, I lost myself

For a minute there, I lost myself, I lost myself

I find most of this song incredibly sardonic; seriously, imagine someone saying "Arrest this girl, her Hitler hairdo is making me ill!" That's not really a straight-faced comment to make!

(xpost: HA Roz OTM)

The music between OK Computer and In Rainbows is still geared predominantly towards a mainstream stadium audience.

I suppose you could read like that. It just feels a bit unintentional to me.

The music between OK Computer and In Rainbows is still geared predominantly towards a mainstream stadium audience

Might just be me but I kinda find it hard to believe they all sat down together one day and said, "Let's gear our music predominantly towards a mainstream stadium audience."

I'm not saying that, Ned. I have a meeting to go to now but will try to explain later.

(xp)

Some of the lyrics ARE dark and depressing ("Idioteque" being a good example) but contrast that with "yesterday I woke up sucking a lemon"/"there are two colors in my hair" (uh, waht) or "You can try the best you can/The best you can is good enough" (lol fakeout). Everybody imposes their own perception upon art but there are certain artists who invite monochromaticism from their critics/audience; Radiohead is definitely one of those artists.

Also their music has been geared towards a mainstream audience since day one! hi dere they did "CREEP"

oh sorry missed the word "stadium"...

I've never seen them in concert so I can't really speak to that other than point out that they were playing stadiums at the time, ergo anything they were going to do would be de facto for a stadium audience.

Radiohead are a band that those of us who are not overly in love with, feel a need to rationalise our feelings. For whatever reason.

To my mind, and Dan can back me up here I'm sure, their music often at that stage felt like Depeche Mode's after 1988 or so when it came to being 'stadium-friendly' -- in that while Depeche more obviously rely on anthemic singles, both bands in their calmer, quieter modes recorded and released songs that seem like the total antithesis of mass-audience rabble rousers, quite literally in terms of sound as much as anything else. Close, 'across the room,' intimate -- consider "Dream On" in Depeche's case, and that was a lead single! That many of these songs were then performed in concert in cavernous stadiums is, as Dan notes, a measure of the bands' popularity rather than some sort of specific sonic intent.

I love to read but the last week's discussion is too long even for me. Anyway, someone upthread said they saw Radiohead this week and it was the best of their life - I have to say that their Toronto show was fantastic as well. I have never been further away from a band (except for SARStock) in my life but I enjoyed the show immensely. Even their few recent albums which I never got into really came to life in the outdoor arena setting. I've seen them 4 times before and they never disappoint, but my boyfriend never had and he was absolutely mesmerized. Yaydiohead!

I think Dan's line about "Creep" kind of nails my point, only from the opposite direction, I suspect. R'head probably never did sit down and say "let's make a stadium rock album" because they didn't need to. They also (I assume) never sat down and said "let's make a genuinely freaky experimental album that alienates our fanbase", ergo the material from Kid A through HTTT kind of IS stadium rock in funny clothes' stadium-rock isn't just Bryan Adams and Foreigner, it's also Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Depeche Mode (as Ned illustrates).

My objection to the stadium rock point wasn't because I really don't think that Radiohead can be considered stadium rock; it was because that was then followed up by comparing them to Jeff Beck and Joy Division! It's a little bit like "uh pick a rhetorical line or at least flesh out what you're trying to say a bit more". If the point was "Radiohead is the Joy Division of stadium rock", I can see that as a coherent, cogent argument.

Are New Order stadium rock? Had JD continued, NO never existed, JD done two more albums and then split, would they be able to reunite now and sell-out arenas?

I think that hints at what I was originally trying to get at. I never said I wanted to knock radiohead down, (although I do resent them being pushed in my face so much as a "great band") I just cannot relate to them at all because I feel like their world view is always filtered through a very self concious way of how a "great band" is supposed to behave (by behave I don't mean their demeanour or publicity I mean behave through music and following up OKC with KidA).

I just don't feel like they live in my world, I feel like they live in a very constructed world made of all the "right" touchstones.

i mean xp

I feel like they live in a very constructed world made of all the "right" touchstones

What, and we don't?

I don't want to anyway

I think I pretty much agree; I don't 'get' R'head like many do, and that causes problems because they're a very useful shorthand for a lot of people, a very assumed like. If you're 'into music' without a caveat of opera or country or something very specific and genre-focused, i.e. 'rock' 'indie' 'pop' whatever mainstream, the you MUST think R'head are THE BEST at what they do, and that what they do is also THE BEST thing TO do.

It's not exciting, even their keraazyness seems so obvious

Thanks for making Radiohead sound like Coldplay, guys.

I feel like their world view is always filtered through a very self concious way of how a "great band" is supposed to behave (by behave I don't mean their demeanour or publicity I mean behave through music and following up OKC with KidA).

This, btw, is kind of a classic example of hating a band because of its fans.

It so isn't btw

Yes it is. That is the critical and fan reaction to Kid A parrotted back almost to a T.

I think the problem I have with Radiohead somehow has to do with ... tastefulness... The pain in their music is ... heavy, humourless boy pain. ...<T>heir pathos feels so abstracted and heavy... It never winks at its own histrionics.

-- i know, right?

I just cannot relate to them at all because I feel like their world view is always filtered through a very self concious way of how a "great band" is supposed to behave... I just don't feel like they live in my world, I feel like they live in a very constructed world made of all the "right" touchstones.

-- I know, right?

I feel like their world view

I was just trying to put voice on the haters perspective

ie me

And even I'm not a complete hater and have enjoyed a small amount of their music (see above)

Yes it is. That is the critical and fan reaction to Kid A parrotted back almost to a T.

^ this.

I'd enjoy their (2000s) music more if it was constructed and delivered less for a mainstream radio / tv / internet audience.

Yes it is. That is the critical and fan reaction to Kid A parrotted back almost to a T.

someone please elaborate on this because I don't understand what you mean by this at all.

x-post -- "Nigel, can you record us throwing a bunch of rocks down a stairwell and then loop our farts over it?"

that's a horrible way of disagreeing with what he said (which I also do)

I love Radiohead and don't mean to endorse the above complaints. But I can see where the self-important claim comes from. Lots of big alt-y bands in the 90s (e.g. REM, Pearl Jam, Nirvana) complained about being famous, and also complained about social and political ills. So the complaints end up getting conflated (I'd say by unsympathetic listeners/critics), but the bands don't help when they make documentaries like Meeting People Is Easy, and interviewing like "this record almost destroyed the band/my sanity". The reason I mention the 90s is because this kind of attitude was common then but isn't now; but Radiohead is one of the few bands to be huge during the whole span.

I'd enjoy their (2000s) music more if it was constructed and delivered less for a mainstream radio / tv / internet audience.

-- Scik Mouthy

I wouldn't rope in the bands external behaviour (by which I mean interviews unless they very specifically referred to the music) because it's a bit of a strawman argument so I hope nobody thinks that's what I'm basing what I'm saying on (although I admit to being possibly subconciously influenced by this)

wrt condenderizer

I think, of all bands, I always feel like Radiohead are a very self conscious band.

They feel like their sound is very much an idea of what a modern rock band should sound like. The whole thing is just so servicable to me. They don't feel like a band that are going to surprise you in any way.

someone please elaborate on this because I don't understand what you mean by this at all.

The statement you made ("they were doing what they think great bands should do") is almost word-for-word what critics said about Kid A when it came out ("this is what great bands do; follow up their most ambitious album to date with something that is a stylistic detour and also a total masterpiece omg spooge"). You are taking the hype that enveloped the album after it came out and attributing it back to the band.

They don't feel like a band that are going to surprise you in any way.

wau you are young

I'd say In Rainbows is the first album they've released since Pablo Honey that I found unsurprising.

Might just be me but I kinda find it hard to believe they all sat down together one day and said, "Let's gear our music predominantly towards a mainstream stadium audience."

-- Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 13:52 (2 hours ago) Link

It's not as cut-and-dried as a "let's go stadium rock" band meeting. It's subtler. Once a band does a stadium tour, there's a tendency to consider that venue while writing their new songs.

except I don't think Kid A is stylistically that different from Ok Computer

In fact I'd agree with you on the hype around Kid A being entirely critiic constructed, because I really don't think the music bears it out. It is just a be bleepy compared to the other one.

Once a band does a stadium tour, there's a tendency to consider that venue while writing their new songs.

Which leads to roffles when the next album bombs and they're back to playing smaller places. (As I've seen happen plenty of times.)

Thinking on Depeche again, I remember one time Dave Gahan talking about how he would use a rehearsal studio set up to simulate a massively packed stadium or arena -- thousands of cheering voices, etc. -- so he could figure out how best to sing songs in that kind of environment, and how the folks at the studio who didn't know who he was thought he was kinda insane. I thought that too when I first heard the story, then I thought, "Well, wait, that's actually a GOOD idea if you're where you're at." And Depeche have regularly played that level since 1988/1990, so there you go.

They feel like their sound is very much an idea of what a modern rock band should sound like. The whole thing is just so servicable to me. They don't feel like a band that are going to surprise you in any way.

-- I know, right?

Yes it is. That is the critical and fan reaction to Kid A parrotted back almost to a T.

-- HI DERE

Also, for comparison's sake, what bands are likely to surprise you?

FWIW, critical and fan reactions aren't necessarily wrong, and one can share them without parroting them.

This is true, but when you enter an argument by saying "I came to them after the fact and I never saw them as blah blah blah; they just seem like they're trying to be <whatever everyone who was there initially said about them>" it is going to be very difficult to shake the impression that your opinion has been formed by the environment surrounding the band.

Or, as James Murphy would say, "I WAS THERE"

I think that this is a bit of a cul de sac anyway because it's not like I'm sitting around waiting for all music to surprise me.

xp, I've said that this is a contributor several times

Also, for comparison's sake, what bands are likely to surprise you?

I don't know if answering this is such a good idea

It'll destabilize the conversation, but maybe that's what's required.

No it just becomes some lame way of showing how my taste is so shit so what do I know, which I know is not why you're asking, but that's what this shit turns into.

^^surprisingly defensive

this album has some joints. i liked 'let down' a lot. airbag. never got why ppl hated 'electioneering'. i never 'got' paranoid android. too proggy or something.

obv the praise for a pretty MOR rock album is out of hand.

Been coming home since my last post, so many man XXXXXs - Ned, i don't mean the music, the melodies, the lyrics, the arrangements (well, maybe the lyrics, a little); I mean the sonic presentation, the recording, the mixing, the mastering. I don't like the way Radiohead's records SOUND on a physical level; I think it's a very targeted, stadium-audience sound.

^^this is partially why I like Exit Music so much, I think it's genuinely interesting sounding.

Like, lots of the 00s Radiohead music IS radical and weird and shocking BUT it comes at you in a way that feels, physically, like Coldplay, like Stereophonics, like whoever - "Morning Bell (Amnesiac)" for instance is a lovely tune but it just fucking sounds HORRIBLE, his vocals are nasty and corrupted and spread too thin like butter on too much bread.

Well, the Kid A version of "Morning Bell" is way way way better.

Yes, it is, but it's still more like Coldplay than it is like Scott Walker or Robert Wyatt.

See, I couldn't possibly care less about Scott Walker, Robert Wyatt or Coldplay.

(I also can't think of any Coldplay tunes that are in 5/4 or actually feature a decent rhythm section.)

the way the field recordings comes out of the acoustic guitar is really nice, and the choir bits just don't fit in a really good way, also the vocal performance is really subtle and I like how elements get grouped together, such as how the guitar swells under his voice towards the end.

Yes, it is, but it's still more like Coldplay than it is like Scott Walker or Robert Wyatt.

more like a band than a solo artist, you might say

If we're going to talk specifically about the way their music sounds, I think "Idioteque" is probably my favorite thing of theirs by a huge margin; those harsh metallic gated drum machine noises paired with those warm-sounding sine wave synths mixed in with Thom's escalating-in-intensity vocal performance... just fantastic.

Which is entirely fair enough. I'm not that bothered about any of them particularly, but Scott Walker's last two records, sonically, in terms of the phenomenology of listening to them, are absolutely fucking extraordinary and outlandish and weird and freaky and confusing; whereas Radiohead's are not, to me, but could be if they sounded different. It's the difference between how New Grass sounds and how Reckoner sounds; Reckoner definitely, defiantly comes from the same stalk as New Grass, but its beefed up, polished, EQ'd and made palatable for a big, half-listening audience, in the car or on the radio or via the iPod; it's made to sound like a record, like any common or garden major-label big modern rock record, rather than a piece of music, and that really negatively effects it for me.

XXXPOST - it's NOT ABOUT 5/4 time or a decent rhythm section!

I'm not talking about band vs solo artist, maybe it was wrong of me to choose them. I don't feel as if anyone is understanding what I'm saying.

I feel your pain

XXXPOST - it's NOT ABOUT 5/4 time or a decent rhythm section!

Yes it is! That is about 70% of what makes "Morning Bell" exciting to listen to, the rest being the way the vocal line lies over more super-warm synth sounds. The main reason I think Coldplay sucks ass is because I don't think they can mix their drums or bass for shit; half of their songs would actually be fun to listen to if they had some type of foundation that didn't make them feel like plodding trials. Radiohead had this problem a lot on Pablo Honey but figured out what they were doing on The Bends and never looked back.

I think he means, that's not what he's objecting to.

I think I mean "this is the biggest distinguishing factor I see between Radiohead and Coldplay".

obv the praise for a pretty MOR rock album is out of hand.

^^^^^ I agree with this.

So do I

"I'll take the quiet life/ A handshake of carbon monoxide"

I think this is a really good example of a Radiohead lyric in that it is really really good and really beautiful and so abstract and yet really so abstract, like what does it actually mean? This is how I feel a lot of the time about Radiohead in general, I can see why they're supposed to be good, but it feels so remote.

Also, complaining that Radiohead are boring because they sound like all the bands that have tried to sound like Radiohead seems like a terribly unfair critique. (That re: Colplay and the modern rock sound.)

What happens if I suggest that the recent Scott Walker records might owe something to Radiohead? <ducks>

I think I lie closer to Dan than Nick on this issue.

i dont have a problem with MOR records at all. "Some of my best friends are MOR." But a lot of the talk around this record, whatever Mel W wants to pretend, is about how forward thinking and exceptional and sui generis it is, which imo is pretty bullshit

xxp, I thought this when Drift came out

I don't subscribe to deej's viewpoint at all.

Although I'd like to make it plain that I believe these guys NEVER stopped catering for a popular rock audience, and didn't perhaps do anything that elevated them to the position of revelatory sonic pioneers. They're great songwriters above everything else.

I'm not talking about things that distinguish Radiohead from Coldplay; I'm talking about things that make them sound similar.

Scott Walker, when asked around the time of The Drift, if he liked Radiohead, said "they're alright, but they use too much compression on their records, they sound like everyone else".

re: music being "remote": this is not an insult imo

I really can't get as worked up about that as you

xp

OK Computer was a giant curveball after The Bends, which I would say still stands as their most "traditional" album (followed closely by In Rainbows). No one was expecting the budding darlings of modern rock radio to prog out.

I'm not saying RADIOHEAD are boring; I'm saying "they records sound like records, which is a sound I do not like".

yeah but like, remote from my imagination too, remote from being excited about it, it just feels like it has nothing to do with me.

I'm not talking about things that distinguish Radiohead from Coldplay; I'm talking about things that make them sound similar

And you can see why, logically speaking, someone who likes one band but not the other would bring up where they feel the similarity breaks down, yes?

Several of my friends' first reaction on hearing Paranoid Android's debut radio play in 1997 - "it's alright, it sounds just lie Radiohead though". ======== PEOPLE ARE MENTAL BUT IT ILLUSTRATES MY POINT.

X-posts - yes, Dan, of course, but I don't disagree that thet similarity breaks down there, I agree it does - I think Radiohead are MASSIVELY better than Coldplay, in a different universe of talent and ability and ideas, BUT they're still, at the same time, just another big modern rock band.

i dont have a problem with MOR records at all... But a lot of the talk around this record ... is about how forward thinking and exceptional and sui generis it is...

-- deej

I'm not going to argue that they aren't a big modern rock band! That would be ludicrous. I feel like you're being overly reductive here.

Nick, speaking of big modern rock bands, you prefer Elbow to Radiohead, dontcha? Although Radiohead might be more ingenious innovators and songwriters, Elbow have a certain feel for sound and ambience that you kinda dig.

Me, I love both.

But it's my point, Dan, I have to be reductive towards it because it's the thing that bothers me - Louis' kind of got it there. I prefer Elbow to Radiohead on a sensual sonic level, the songs to me are about the same (maybe Elbow's more emotive to me personally but that's a subjective thing).

i feel more or less the same about this album as i do Dark Side Of The Moon, maybe a bit more supportive just thru being able to identify with it more directly. bear in mind i appreciate both OKC and DSOTM now more than i ever have before.

Actually Exit Music is probably the most Elbow-ey song radiohead have, on Ok Computer at least.

hmm maybe I should pay attention to Elbow

Can't something be forward thinking, exceptional and (to some extent) sui generis while also being catchy, radio-friendly, anthemic, family-pleasing? If not, why not? I think you can fairly compare O.K. computer to Dark Side of the Moon and Sgt. Pepper's without denying the MOR qualities they all share, and also without faulting them for those qualities.

-- contenderizer, Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link
we
i think saying that ok computer is a 'bit of a curveball after the bends' is fine, but the sort of omg album of a generation changed the way i listen to music in the halls of valhalla with the beatles and pink floyd-type shit is very unfair to pretty much every non-rock album that was even more radically changing the face of pop music around this time, never mind unfair to radiohead themselves

its a little bit of a twist on a long rock tradition, but its really not that much of one. i dont see it being that much more 'radical' than dr dre switching styles from the chronic to the chronic 2001, for example

radiohead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pink floyd

btw

pretty much every non-rock album that was even more radically changing the face of pop music around this time

Do we have to talk about Oval? Oh, go on then.

The problem, deej, is that regardless of the actual quantitative difference of OK Computer to the music around it, enough people reacted to it as if it was a full-on sea change to the music scene (a reaction that was magnified with Kid A) that that became the historical context. You can't divorce the music from the context in which it appeared and "get" why people say what they say about it; it would be like hearing Nevermind for the first time in 1998.

this is why people shouldn't listen to the press bullshit because really, ok computer is just a really excellent example of a particular type of album and and might only be groundbreaking to the band themselves and not music overall. music writers like to make grandiose statements about albums and exaggerate all of these interesting qualities into something not just interesting, but universe-changing. i don't think that ok computer is much different in terms of pushing boundaries than U2's music in the '90s, but then again U2 was moving in a dance/rock direction at this time and radiohead was going proggy and one of them is more critic and core audience-friendly. i always liked both moves just about the same.

whoa

was this album any more important or effective an attempt to bridge gaps between the cutting edge and stadium rock as U2's 3 90s albums?

U2 were going in a really shitty, obvious direction, and radiohead were incorporating subtle uses of electronic instrumentation and post-production into a genuinely explorative new means of producing popular rock, the two aren't even comparable IMO

hey louis what does what you just posted actually mean in concrete terms

What U2 was doing was perfectly fine, IMO. The only album of theirs that I understand people disliking is Rattle And Hum, and that's because they make a horrible blues band.

omar beat me to u2 comparison

there was nothing particularly obvious about 'Numb' at the time. it was probably as big a curveball as they could throw while still maintaining some semblance of their established aesthetic.

Making it pop counts for a lot, and that's why invoking Oval doesn't diminish what Radiohead's accomplishments. Radiohead changed the way a generation heard and made music not by inventing every single sound they produced, but by incorporating a lot of interesting ideas (both their own and those of others) into compelling, successful, radio-friendly pop.

(that aesthetic having only been established with the previous album mind you) xpost

i don't think passengers or zooropa were obvious at all! pop maybe a little more but even then only on a couple of tunes. regardless we're talking about two different bands with two different styles attempting to embrace what were at the time so-called "modern" sounds and i don't actually think they were trying to do the same thing at all.

The problem, deej, is that regardless of the actual quantitative difference of OK Computer to the music around it, enough people reacted to it as if it was a full-on sea change to the music scene (a reaction that was magnified with Kid A) that that became the historical context. You can't divorce the music from the context in which it appeared and "get" why people say what they say about it; it would be like hearing Nevermind for the first time in 1998.

-- HI DERE, Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:29 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yah but something has to actually come from that for it to mean something; like from the velvet underground came a whole vein of rock that existed in parallel to mainstream, but what did radiohead produce? I'm not sure I see their existence being so key to how fans interact with music today

whatever, I just love 94 Diskont

They weren't going for the same thing. But Radiohead's thing was more original and fluid IMO. Many of U2's songs from the Passengers/Zooropa period come off as genre exercises. Not that there aren't some good'uns; "Your Blue Room" and "United Colors of Plutonium" are the best things they ever did IMO

how were they being more original?

i don't think that ok computer is much different in terms of pushing boundaries than U2's music in the '90s, but then again U2 was moving in a dance/rock direction at this time and radiohead was going proggy and one of them is more critic and core audience-friendly.

more inventive, subtle, wide-ranging use of sound! i can't go into every example ffs, we'd be here all night xpost

lol and what do you have to do on a Tuesday night?

i really have to question the idea that radiohead's cultural influence was larger than U2's in the 90s - never mind how you could even measure such a thing, it just seems to defy logic

"music writers like to make grandiose statements about albums and exaggerate all of these interesting qualities into something not just interesting, but universe-changing"

from the velvet underground came a whole vein of rock that existed in parallel to mainstream, but what did radiohead produce?

-- deej

many many xposts

I understand what Nick is saying about the production - obvs he's not saying that Coldplay = Radiohead. For lack of better terms, Radiohead records sound too slick, too radio-ready even if the songs themselves will never be played on pop radio. fwiw, the band admits as much but acknowledge that they can't help themselves - it's a result of their tendency to overthink and rework their music until it's completely perfect and flawless, which dulls the spontaneous energy of their songs. all those interesting rhythms and melodies - they're still there and they're why Radiohead remain interesting but it comes out on record sort of... muted, I guess? like, Kid A didn't make sense to me at all until I saw them live and was all WHOA and it wasn't like they fucked with the arrangements or anything. I sometimes wish they'd switch producers once in a while but their one attempt to do so failed so Godrich will prob be producing their albums forever.

anyway, production isn't really a big deal for me as it is for Nick but I get where he's coming from.

i mean im trying to get an idea of what exactly it is that radiohead's impact meant in a real sense - musically, what did they do differently, what was the big sea change they caused, what did the bands that follow do differently as a result, or what DIDNT they do, or why is OK Computer's 'subtle' use of electronics such a big deal? isnt it a bigger deal that other artists were less subtle with it? or that U2 was willing/unafraid to embrace the hedonistic/dancefloor/populist aspects of 'electronic music' while still being all detached and pomo about it?

now when did i say radiohead was universe-changing ffs, they made some good albums, that's all! i'm not saying they did anything to music except enrich it with their own contributions

perfect and flawless is a good idea and i wish bands did it more, you can still sound fresh and spontaneous if you get it right

we should set up a poll or something of "OK Computers"

ill go along with the idea that this album is 'classic' but i cant get behind the notion that they changed the game in any significant way

'set the stage for coldplay' is about the best i can come up with

i really have to question the idea that radiohead's cultural influence was larger than U2's in the 90s

is anyone here claiming that they changed the game at all? I think the reaction to this album surprised the band more than anyone else.

U2 were going in a really shitty, obvious direction, and radiohead were incorporating subtle uses of electronic instrumentation and post-production

wtf does "post-production" mean in terms of making a record? I think what you mean is "production."

post-modern

I'm not sure perfect & flawless and fresh & spontaneous (or alive, I might say) are possible to combine - I can't think of many who manage it, and certainly not in a mainstream context. Notwist, as I've said before, might get close for me, but they're a little minor concern indie band.

Also, U2 are just (generally, and definitely currently, although not always) just really really really fucking horrible.

"post-performance" is what Louis means I think.

deej, here is my controversial opinion on Radiohead's "influence":

If you look at where rock music went after Radiohead saturated the American music scene, you start seeing previously-quirky bands popping up as mass-market hits (The Flaming Lips, Modest Mouse) along with a bunch of newer quirkier-acts getting commercial props (Death Cab For Cutie, Fall Out Boy, Panic! At The Disco). I think you can directly or indirectly tie all of these back to Radiohead bending what people would accept on their radios from a rock band (despite their radio play falling off dramatically after OK Computer).

Dud.

Just completely humorless. I can't stomach it.

was gonna say about U2, I really fucking hate them

What did Radiohead create? They projected this haunted, exquisitely soulful (but somehow debased and defeated) humanity onto/into the mechanical apparatus of their superslick arena rock. At the same time, they dragged in a universe of textures and a way of experiencing sonic texture as an aspect of pop music that clearly owed something to electronic music (and also to pop-prog in the vein of later Pink Floyd). Separated from one another, these things might not be remarkable, but they fused the two elements – delicate injury and music as a primarily textural experience – in a may that made them seem like one thing. Humanity is a ghost in Radiohead’s music, but it’s an incredibly rich, lush and tangible non-presence. Their electronic interpolations aren’t there for contrast, but to highlight and illustrate the terribly fragility of the human. This theme, the essential failed-ness of the human, an almost sickeningly sentimental embrace of the remains of the human, like a baby cradled in the wake of a terrible blow, is present at every level in their music. The point to my mind isn’t that they went all electronic-y or proggy or something, but that they made these things part of how their music addressed and embodied the human experience. And it’s not like they invented the endearing qualities of being a tiny flesh-blob smushed inside the apparatus-world, but they gave those qualities a LOUD and unique pop voice, a voice that’s so strong and so intrinsically right that it now seems inseperable from the experience it conveys, perhaps even from the experience of (post) modern life.

There are many, many great passages in Kill Your Friends by John Niven (American Psycho transposed to London music A&R in 1997) where the narrator goes on about having heard Radiohead's new record and how it's "unlistenable, unmarketable prog shit".

If you look at where rock music went after Radiohead saturated the American music scene, you start seeing previously-quirky bands popping up as mass-market hits (The Flaming Lips, Modest Mouse) along with a bunch of newer quirkier-acts getting commercial props (Death Cab For Cutie, Fall Out Boy, Panic! At The Disco). I think you can directly or indirectly tie all of these back to Radiohead bending what people would accept on their radios from a rock band (despite their radio play falling off dramatically after OK Computer).

-- HI DERE

Jesus fucking do you realize christ, I mean.

None of the quirkiness of Death Cab or Flips or whoever is really much AT ALL compared to such big 60s radio hits as Good Vibrations or, god, any Beatles song post-1965. Radiohead might have made it OK to play Flips on the radio or something but that ought not to have a been a big deal.

Yeah, because one thing that current rock stations are playing to death right now is "Good Vibrations".

Also lots of hip hop and chart music still being fucking mad radical and bonkers and only purist whiteboy indieguitarfuXXors being nasty little conservative meat&potato little shits by comparison.

contenderizers long post is making me totally change my mind, stop that.

I'm not talking about right now, Dan, 1997 isn't right now either, but... Karma Police vs Missy Elliott.

me too, i'm selling my radiohead cds now xpost

Contenderizer's post is nice and good and all but at the end of the day I'm not going to feel Radiohead the way he does. Cop Shoot Cop vs The Tourist; I know what blew my mind more in 97.

I was just joking'!

I'm not talking about right now, Dan, 1997 isn't right now either, but... Karma Police vs Missy Elliott.

... I kind of don't see how that changes my point at all (namely who cares if "Good Vibrations" was more radical for its day when its day was 30 years prior to what was happening when OK Computer came out and therefore under even more of the hindsight pooh-poohing than OC is now).

by which I mean, great post, and I think I really understand why you like this band, I only wish I could articulate why I don't so well

fwiw "Cop Shoot Cop" IS way better than "The Tourist"

You need to work on yr timign then, IKR.

Contenderizer's post is nice and good and all but at the end of the day I'm not going to feel Radiohead the way he does.

-- Scik Mouthy

Loved Cop Shoot Cop back in the day, but they seem MUCH sillier than I remember when I try to listen to 'em now. I say this 'cuz I picked up a used copy of Consumer Revolt a few weeks ago. Foetus' Nail holds up better 'cuz he's more inclined to admit/embrace the silliness.

timign?

xp, sorry what?

Foetus is hilarious

er pretty sure we're talking Spiritualized here (tho Cop Shoot Cop and Foetus are also both awesome, probably more awesome than any other bands mentioned on this thread including Radiohead)

Okay, that makes MUCH more sense. Was getting a little dizzy there.

Aye, I've never heard Cop Shoot Cop the band; should I?

I advocate hearing them but I will not guarantee at all that you'll like them.

Push It Out >>>>> everything on OK Computer.

Now that I've got my mind right, Spiritualized is a really good reference point, and a decent way to challenge the idea of Radiohead's single-handed game-changingness.

Spiritualized is the one I always use (and generally get shot down for).

The big three progressive Britpop/rock albums of 97 in the UK were Radiohead, Spiritualized and The Verve; while I now pretty much dislike The Verve's effort, at the time I ranked the Sp, Verve, RH. Now Sp, RH, Verve. I think BSS does something RH have never managed.

mark s is a monumental douchebag and this thread is as good an exhibition as any.

Reckoner would be beautiful but there's no intimacy to it, it's fake. I can't buy into it. I don't think that Yorke means anything, I don't think the band care. It's like a beautifully designed car that no can ever drive.

It's like they got all these elements together that I love individually and would like to see sitting next to each other, like Louis' idea of how music ought to take in EVERYTHING, express and progress and performance and production and all at once, and Radiohead DID IT but when they hold it out in front oif me I just go "oh" instead of "wow" because it's like a big impressive equation that I can respect because I could never manage to make it balance myself but that i also, simply, really, deep down, just do. not. give. a. fuck. about.

I remember my mate Adam... bumped into him in WHSmiths just before Kid A came out, there was a review in Uncut or something, and he was all like "wow, look at this" and read out the description and said "doesn't that sound like the best record ever?" and yeah it kind of did when you broke it down but then you actually listen to it (I actually listen to it) and, no, I still prefer Drawn From Memory by Embrace, which is a vastly inferior and massively less popular record in many ways, but which moves me and excites me precisely because it's broken and short-sighted and wrong-headed. You like people for their talents but love them for their failings, maybe.

it's fake. I can't buy into it. I don't think that Yorke means anything, I don't think the band care. It's like a beautifully designed car that no can ever drive.

-- Scik

You like people for their talents but love them for their failings, maybe.

-- Scik

Radiohead are about being in love with failure, but they're too perfect to love.

Are we talking about a band or a mid-life crisis?

Aye. They're not just singing about Fake Plastic Trees, they ARE fake plastic trees.

Yorke's vocals on Videotape are fucking horrible, the way they're mixed. He sounds like clogged sinuses feel. He makes my sinuses ache. Uergh.

Not having emotional resonance to the music is perfectly valid, but I’m not so sure how valid it is to try to make liking their music seem disingenuous.

Thus the general reception (a literate proclamation of "OMG!" by people who, often, don't listen to that much music besides)

What I find particularly condescending and arbitrary, though, is how a lot of music critics tend to base their invective toward RH exclusively on some Extramusical Straw Man Radiohead --- emphasizing attributed "intentions" or "true colors" (not only RH's, but also their fans'). This is not only just a really severe case of missing the point, it’s offensive in its assumption that the necessary premise to liking their music is musical ignorance.

So you've got a Big Cock Record Collection, good for you. Not everyone listens to music like it’s a dick-wagging contest. Just sayin'.

What I find particularly condescending and arbitrary, though, is how a lot of music critics tend to base their invective toward RH exclusively on some Extramusical Straw Man Radiohead... So you've got a Big Cock Record Collection, good for you. Not everyone listens to music like it’s a dick-wagging contest.

-- Turangalila

Strawman Radiohead vs. strawman critics FITE!

Radiohead aren't damaged, schiz or playful enough (on the whole) to fit into my roster of very favourite bands. I'm glad Foetus got a mention because his later stuff (concurrent with RH) goes to places Radiohead haven't touched, for all their super songcraft. In these respects I'm with Nick. They still give me a buzz of excitement, though. Hail To The Thief, I maintain, is the record where they come closest to a damaged, schiz, playful reinvention of themselves as popular rock harlequins.

radiohead is just about as good as it's possible for a very popular major label type rock band to be in the current climate. (i know they are not on a major anymore but they are a major label band always have been)

overall they are good. they are sort of underrated and overrated in a way.

What's weird is that I don't see any connection between how good I think an album or band is and whether or not the album/band is classic. Fish vs. fowl.

I do, because I rule the universe and you must all agree with me.

Radiohead aren't damaged, schiz or playful enough (on the whole) to fit into my roster of very favourite bands. I'm glad Foetus got a mention because his later stuff (concurrent with RH) goes to places Radiohead haven't touched, for all their super songcraft. In these respects I'm with Nick. They still give me a buzz of excitement, though. Hail To The Thief, I maintain, is the record where they come closest to a damaged, schiz, playful reinvention of themselves as popular rock harlequins.

-- Just got offed,

what the fuck?? this reads like 'theyre just too pop for me' but with a lot more words. like theyre 'damaged/schiz/playful' but with an emphasis on 'super songcraft' & somehow thats inferior in your eyes, which seems retarded to me

I think JGO is just saying that Radiohead aren't to his/her tastes. And that's always okay, whatever the justification might be.

Yeah, I don't really see an issue with that. LEAVE LOUIS JAGGER ALONE! :)

his/her

Yeah, not like I've been saying how much I like them. Also, deeznuts, please learn to parse.

'their songcraft is just too good for my tastes'

XP

Actually, contenderizer, you have a point in that they're not EXACTLY to my tastes, but then very very few bands are, whatever those tastes might be, which is a whole lotta murk in itself. For the most part, they ARE to a broader "taste" defined by "do I like and listen to this music". Argh, STFU me already.

all the people of the world have the right to like radiohead the amount that is appropriate for them. if you're a teenager and feeling confused, we suggest you consult your school counselor or clergyman. they might be able to help you sort out your feelings.

Not having emotional resonance to the music is perfectly valid, but I’m not so sure how valid it is to try to make liking their music seem disingenuous.

Thus the general reception (a literate proclamation of "OMG!" by people who, often, don't listen to that much music besides)

What I find particularly condescending and arbitrary, though, is how a lot of music critics tend to base their invective toward RH exclusively on some Extramusical Straw Man Radiohead --- emphasizing attributed "intentions" or "true colors" (not only RH's, but also their fans'). This is not only just a really severe case of missing the point, it’s offensive in its assumption that the necessary premise to liking their music is musical ignorance.

So you've got a Big Cock Record Collection, good for you. Not everyone listens to music like it’s a dick-wagging contest. Just sayin'.

-- Turangalila, Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

I didn't so much mean 'fans' with this comment as, literally, mainstream non-music media; i.e. BBC Breakfast News getting music journalists (who I've never heard of) on TV at 7.30am to go "omg Radiohead new album omg" at millions of people.

Sorry if this is a daft criticism, I can only say why I don't really care about them, it's just that their pathos feels so abstracted and heavy, the pain of someone who reads too much Benjamin and doesn't get the jokes. It never winks at its own histrionics.

if you've ever seen "You and Whose Army?" performed live, then maybe you'd think differently. the most heavy, serious & unwinking of Radiohead songs is turned into something subtly hysterical... and quite literally, winking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQwsB_Aonmg

though to be fair, that (you and whose army) schtick is new, and radiohead's attitude is much more affable now than it was a decade ago.

You can't get much cooler than dissing Radiohead

That's true. I diss Radiohead primarily because it's cool, and only secondarily because they suck.

I only refer to them these days as Gaydiohead--but I do this out of a deep-seated affection for them, as though they were a younger brother. This is probably an unnatural way to feel about a band.

I get on my friend's nerves by calling them "The guys that sound a lot like Coldplay"

though to be fair, that (you and whose army) schtick is new

wrong! i saw it live in 2001... as well as in 03 and 08.

2 disc deluxe edition, disc 2:
1) polyethelene (parts 1 & 2)
2) a reminder
3) pearly
4) melatonin
5) meeting in the aisle
6) lull
7) climbing up the walls (07 mix)
8) climbing up the walls (fila brazilla mix)
9) palo alto
10) how i made my millions
and a bunch of live shit

i like paranoid android a lot, even the 'heavy' section. karma police is excellent too, except the high parts. not sure about the rest. i think there's a good slow song between those two though.
― ethan, Monday, May 7, 2001 8:00 PM (7 years ago)

lol

I think somewhere in "Meeting People Is Easy" they play part of this slower sounding demo version of "Paranoid Android".. does anyone know where to find that?

I was listening to the deluxe disc 2 material yesterday. The stuff that was on the Airbag/How Am I Driving? EP still holds up pretty well. I remember that "Lull" used to be sort of a fan-fav b-side back in the day, but listening to it again it sounds like the last gasp of Bends-era Radiohead, in a not very good way.

The "bunch of live shit" kamerad mentions is pretty much totally worthless imo. For reference the live tracks are:

Airbag (live in Berlin)
Lucky (Live in Florence)
Climbing up the Walls (BBC Radio 1)
Exit Music (BBC Radio 1)
No Surprises (BBC Radio 1)

I remember that even back in the day the Airbag & Lucky tracks were disappointing because they sounded like mediocre audience recordings. The BBC stuff is a tad better but doesn't really differ that much from the album versions, apart from the wicked bass fuzz in Exit Music.

meh the only track i love on that list is How I Made My Millions.

Yeah.. that might have been cool if they included a few songs that weren't b-sides.. unless there's nothing else I guess..

singlehandedly redefines the genre of "dud"

that second disc might be better than OKC but then I am an Airbag EP stan

i have all these songs already and i'm not fussed about live shit.

There's a version with a DVD also.

The OKC DVD has six live on TV tracks, of which 2 are repeated songs.

The Bends one has loads.

I didn't play OKC much when I got it. It only became interesting to me after Kid A, which I love. So then I go back and see it as a stepping stone to a favorite album.

Here's some other interesting three album progressions.

Talking Heads - More Songs, Fear Of Music, Remain In Light
Wire - Pink Flag, Chairs Missing, 154
Magazine - Real Life, Secondhand Daylight, The Correct Use of Soap
Simple Minds - Real To Real Cacophony, Empires And Dance, Sons And Fascination
Orchestral Manoeuvres In The Dark - Organisation, Architecture & Morality, Dazzle Ships
Martha and the Muffins - Metro Music, This Is The Ice Age, Danseparc
Gary Numan/Tubeway Army - Replicas, The Pleasure Principle, Telekon

This is a brilliant thread.

Dud.

Satans favorite album.. I couldn't even get 10 seconds into this mess without pressing my hands into my ears. This album is a disgrace to America and all that we stand for. Tonight I will say a special prayer for this band.

uh

15 years old today. Happy birthday, you beautiful album.

still think this album sucks except for 2 songs. can't understand at all why this was considered so brilliant. some tuneless guy moaning about dehumanizing world while breaking into unappealing falsetto every 2 seconds, punctuated by unmemorable guitar noise, prog-rock chord structures, and ugly drumwork.

bravo nate.

did you have this thread on standby ?

(no sarc intended .. just genuinely amazed at how a thread like this appears out of nowhere on stroke of midnight .. )

xpost -- Never knew you hated Goyte that much.

news update :

ned makes me laff out loud in my kitchen.

They're on tv right now and I knew OKC came out in the summer of 97, looked on Wikipedia and what do you know.

pretty sure Poliopolice had fun. in mind

have never listened to this, what's it like?

a thousand angelic choirs singing thee to thy rest

i.e. average.

I always forget that moment in "Exit Music" when the drums pound in and it goes from being comfortably gloomy to satirical and dangerous.

I love this record.

This makes me feel old. But not as old as Pablo Honey turning 20 next year is gonna make me feel.

Poliopolice arrest this man.

Can't believe I never contributed to this thread. Was I away on tour when it was started, or something?

Happy Bloomsday everyone!

bloomsday comparer

I still love this album. People talk about Kid A being their big leap forward into experimental realms but as far as I'm concerned OKC is an experimental rock record, a huge advance on The Bends.

Denying this is one of the best albums ever made is pure challops IMO.

surely if someone were implicitly to deny that by saying

'OK Computer is a good album....it is one of the best popular rock albums of the late 1990s'

it would be one of the least challenging opinions ever?

I really like about four tracks. The rest I can leave.

Challops

Seriously though, this blew my mind on first hearing it (had just finished my gcse's). I'd been a fan since creep and bought it the day it came out. I just remember how satisfying it all felt.

its alright i guess but i dont really go back to it like i would 'kid a' or 'in rainbows' tbh

"Challops" meaning "it's so obvious it doesn't need to be stated" ?

I guess it was on the Sandbox I stated my opinions on OKC. Not even the best RH release they put out that year. Talented group of people in a lucky time and place that caught a zeitgeist (they didn't invent) but nowhere near as ground-breaking as ppl like to make out. And yeah, I say that as an obsessive RH fan so you can't say it's just hateration.

This strikes me more and more as the best Radiohead album with every passing year. Not exactly groundbreaking but not really like anything else either, including other Radiohead albums.

There is no "best" with Radiohead. There is only "favourite."

I v. much loved and love the album and I would be happy to never hear anything from it again, live or studio recording.

Now...had we heard about this yet?

http://www.discogs.com/Various-Musikexpress-April-2012-Nr-0412/release/3671605

Do keep up, the fangirl thread was way ahead of you on that.

I only learned from DJP the other night, my brain being otherwise pickled in brine.

Yeah he found out about it from the fangirl thread!

(and he only barely made it out alive without mascara and Pablo Honey style blond hair extensions)

For me, Radiohead albums come out and are eagerly and deeply consumed but for some reason don't call to me over the years.

Agreed that "The Bends" is a bit played out, albiet excellent. OK-Kid A-Amnesiac is a fantastic, compelling set of sounds but lately I've been way into the Live From The Basement versions of the last two albums. The studio does them no favors it seems.

have never really been a fan, though i did go hot & heavy w kid A for a while there. feel sort of lucky because i'm not yet tired of radiohead and still get to "discover" great new songs every now and then.

I think the US release for this was two weeks later, because I remember driving to the record store the day it came out (on July 1) and hearing about Britian transferring sovereignty back to Hong Kong that day on the radio.

The track that first grabbed me, and still does, is Let Down, the way the beat shifts about amid those sparkling guitars

Seems to be a micro-generational divide at play, perhaps, on who likes this album best?

If you distilled this album verbally--"LP rock in the grand tradition," I guess--it wouldn't seem to suit my tastes nearly as well as 'Kid A'. My sympathies generally lie with more unusual, less sweeping stuff. But I can't deny that I like the stuff Radiohead were listening to making 'Kid A' a lot better than 'Kid A'. Whereas for what it is, nothing tops 'OK Computer' for me. I feel bad for Thom Yorke, because his real talents are in melody-based rock music, but his interests are clearly more eclectic. 'OK Computer' was the best work they did, then succumbing to thinking what they are really good at just wasn't cool. After 'OK Computer,' they want to be Can or Kraftwerk, but they're just not able to pull it off.

I adore Airbag and Paranoid Android but most of the rest leaves me cold. Let Down and Climbing Up The Walls are really good. Karma Police is a nice single, if clearly Sexy Sadie at one point. It's a very... well done... album. As evidenced by the way people go gaga for it.

Radiohead were supposed to play tonight in Toronto but the stage just collapsed and killed a tech. Cancelled, obviously. How very sad. :(

:(

So glad Melissa is okay. This is so fucked up.

Shit! That's awful! What a thing to happen, especially on an anniversary.

It's weird to talk about this now, but I just got the covers album today.

I know I'm an overemotional tearbag who cries if I drop a fork - given recent events - but it really did reduce me to tears about halfway through Let Down.

Hearing these new versions of the songs really is doing something pretty special for me. Like looking at an over familiar landscape from a different angle, it's brought back so much love and beauty for an album I thought I never needed to hear again in my life.

I guess it's really well curated - and the artists they chose have been really sensitive in their interpretations - going for sparse and thoughtful rather than the sometimes overblown bombast of the original. Taking things back to the bare bones so you can see how graceful the lines really are. This was something I needed, especially today.

What covers album?

What covers album?

― Gerald McBoing-Boing, Sunday, June 17, 2012 3:04 PM (45 seconds ago)

http://www.discogs.com/Various-Musikexpress-April-2012-Nr-0412/release/3671605

http://www.musikexpress.de/news/meldungen/article302527/teil-4-a-tribute-to-ok-computer-unsere-cd-zum-juli-heft.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqlxr0IKPPQ

http://soundcloud.com/pmwtumblr/school-of-seven-bells

etc

(those are the only two non-snippet tracks I can find - curious to hear the Ada/Anika/Emika tracks when they surface)

I v. much loved and love the album and I would be happy to never hear anything from it again, live or studio recording.

i'm with ned on this one. i lived inside okc for a couple years when it came out via that kind of obsessive listening that's only possible when you can't drive yet or have a job. i listened to it every single day, often multiple times, for over a year, and then even after that i kept listening to it obsessively. the only thing that really broke the streak was Kid A coming out. sigh. but yeah, there's no reason to listen to it because every sonic detail is already there in my head, every lyric (even though i'm terrible at remembering lyrics).

this is a load of bollocks isn't it? less convincing than the Floyd/ Wizard Of Oz thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cEOct6CEidc#!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEOct6CEidc

i should say

Oh, come on, Gary Numan? "Cars" sounds like it was written by a nitwit child with a synth (and not in a good way), with lyrics written by his older brother who just read 1984 in tenth grade English class. And you can go on all you want about how it was an amazing bit of paranoid futurist chart pop, but between "Cars" and "No Surprises", which is/will be more dated?

Heh heh heh...

― Dave M., Tuesday, 8 May 2001 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

Hi there from 14 years in the future. I can confirm with absolute certainty that 'No Surprises' is more dated than 'Cars'.

lol