RAdiohead

Here we go again.

I like Radiohead -- Amnesiac was my favorite release of last year, and Kid A was high up on my 2000 list -- but I'm not really the kind of person who hunts down mp3s of unreleased tracks. I'd rather wait for the record and hear the songs in their finished versions. (Yeah, I know... "Aren't you special?")

To listen to a new song live, to experience it, to watch it unfold, to hear it change as it is reworked is a magical, wonderful thing. It's one of the joys of following unsigned bands is that they lack the fear and/or resources so they are more likely to do it in public.

But to record a live song, distribute it and critique it before the artist has had the chance to stand back from the painting and go "There, OK, that's done" seems kind of unfair. Both to the artist, who is being interrupted, and to the song, which may or may not take a completely different shape eventually.

Listening to works in progress is wonderful, but trying to pin them down and dissect them seems, well ... I'm not going to say disrespectful, but it does seem kind of ... pointless? Self defeating? What's the word I'm looking for?

That said, no I've not seen Radiohead on this tour, nor heard any of the tunes.

I would hope so I really do.

you couldn't resist it could you melissa.

''Scatterbrain: Sounds like the physical act of crying. A dischordant ballad with no way out. The aftermath of a storm.''

this is such a cliched description I don't even know where to begin. Get your head checked melissa.

''Up On The Ladder: Starts poorly, Radiohead try the whole "rocking out" thing again. Fail. But the ending is beautiful, desperate, his voice over mournful synth chords. A song about immense disappointment.''

Pushing the 'sad chords' triggers again. Mournful, desperation, dissapointment. sob, sob, sob...all the way to the bank we go.

''Where I End and You Begin: The day the earth stood still. The Ondes-Martenot keens its unearthly cry. The song is a sentinel, a prison.''

''Wolf at the Door: Each word is a knife. An impossibly hurt, fearful song.''

er...more crying then. I'm beginning to think Thom Yorke wasn't breast fed when he was a baby.

''A Punch Up At A Wedding: The most seethingly angry song I've ever heard. On the surface, it's all insistent beat, slightly rollicking piano, and bass. But it's coming apart at the seams. It's ready to rip your throat out.''

yes but angry at what. Is it like an adolescent who is just angry for no reason or is it actually anger at something specific. This is all bullshit.

''Go to Sleep: Eastern-inflected roots rock song. Dull, really.''

b-but why is it dull? don't just leave it at that.

and on it fucking goes...I avoided the golden jubilee but there's too many institutions and you can't avoid it all.

There, There - bit of a homage to Adam and the Ants circa Kings of the Wild Frontier featuring Ed and Jonny on JAMC Bobby Gillespie style stand up drums with a top acending climax - a fitting opener

Scatterbrain - needs a lot of work and doesn't really go anywhere.

Up on the ladder - pretty rocky with thom doing his 'you and whose army' unfocused anti blair schtick

We suck young blood - slow and swinging with harmonies from phil and ed (phil was wearing an amusing madonna style headset during his backing vox)

I will - an old song, briefly featured in the 'Meeting people is easy' doc with lovely harmonies from Thom and Ed

Myxamotosis - fairly fast rocky number with Ed playing a les paul (surely a first).

going for some lunch now, will post my thoughts on the rest later

melissa, thank you putting up your descriptions.

Melissa couldn't resisit it and nor could I.

''(This is why I don't post on ILM.)''

ILM isn't a radiohead list. Or a keiji haino list. Or improv or free jazz, etc. fans and non-fans of everything to do with [x] are here and when a thread is opened by soemone and I feel the need to comment I will do so.

I'm not 'pissing', I'm just adding my thoughts on your descriptions. Sorry about the 'checking your head' line though.

when you describe a song as ''The most seethingly angry song I've ever heard'' then I want to know at what as well.

irony = julio's stance as radiohead hata being JUST as cliched and as ho hum as he wants (hopes?) the new songs to be. he HASN'T EVEN HEARD THEM and yet he took time out to bash the fecking DESCRIPTIONS. and why?

its one thing to be convinced that radiohead are inauthentic or overrated; its another entirely to pounce like a wolf on anybody else who sees something in them, especially when the crux of that fan-music connection is one borne out of vulnerability.

he (or anyone else) can take the sadness, confusion, anger, fear and deride it, mock it, HATE it all he wants. me, i'll take it (as well as the songs) and celebrate it all. not because i'm a sad moany bastard (really, i'm not) but because the alternative, to deny all of that, is too ugly and dark and boring to bear.

Jules: "Get your head checked melissa" constitutes personal attack with intent. But what's this claptrap about banning the guy??? Tell me that's a fucking joke. I thought what he said was valid ranting.

And right-on Mark P - you are on the money.

yeah. I've heard everything they've done up to this and when I saw the descriptions it just reminded of the past. Irony indeed.

''its one thing to be convinced that radiohead are inauthentic or overrated; its another entirely to pounce like a wolf on anybody else who sees something in them, especially when the crux of that fan-music connection is one borne out of vulnerability.''

i did not intend to 'pounce'. I didn't know it was borne out of some 'vulnerability'.

''he (or anyone else) can take the sadness, confusion, anger, fear and deride it, mock it, HATE it all he wants.''

I love or hate a lot of music with nothing in between, which is unfortunate sometimes.

melissa- hope you accept my apologies.

''"Get your head checked melissa" constitutes personal attack with intent.''

yeah, and I apologised for that.

Did it? I'm not a fan so can't claim deep knowledge but he seemed to hate the right wing of labour when Blair was in charge.

Actually think yelling at someone about dead children in the middle of their show isn't the right way to solve the horror of the situation, controversial an opinion as that may be. Not sure he's the most eloquent spokesperson either so I can totally understand preferring to keep quiet and write and sing songs and I reckon he's earned that by now. Plus surely anyone who thinks he is a keen genocide supporter is being disingenuous honestly - I don't think you can get less ambiguous than Tiptoe off that last Smile record, but maybe the problem is that doesn't fit easily into a TikTok soundbite or however people consume music these days?

Yeah dude should have picked one of the many right ways to solve the horror of the situation available to common citizens.

Yeah you're right let's bully the depressive artists and songwriters of this world, at the moment this world definitely needs more hate poured into it.

A single dude shouting atva successful musician in an arena where everybody is a fan of said artist is not in any way shape or form bullying.

he has been one of the most politically vocal rock stars of his generation, yet on this issue he has chosen to say absolutely nothing apart from one blanket "let's have a ceasefire and Hamas release the hostages" and continued opposition to BDS. For anyone who became a fan around HTTT this must feel like a betrayal.

Yeah you're right let's bully the depressive artists and songwriters of this world

Did you sign up here just to log in and be the Thom defender? Who will stand up for the millionaire rock stars?

Sorry, as a father there is no way I would respond well to be accused of murdering children in that situation, it's horrific and yeah it is absolutely an intimidating and bullying way of getting your point across. How does anything ever improve in that situation?

I was around during HTTT sure, Thom never made a public statement about the Darfur genocide in 2003 either but I am not going to go to his shows and call him out for it.

You cannot intimidate or bully soneone in a situation where the entire room is against you and the target of your ire holds all power, get real.

It is obviously an upsetting thing to hear yes, it is indeed upsetting that our govts make us complicit in the slaughter of children, not really the fault of the person pointing this out tho.

Did you sign up here just to

23 years ago.

i will defend part time posters

matt, first learn what bullying is (hint: it involves power dynamics) and then we can talk

Of course, maybe not the dictionary definition of bullying but there is something intimidating in "If you don't do X then you are Y" that I recognise that bullies have used against my kids, provoking someone then filming and broadcasting it on social media. It just feels so sad that with the rise of the fascists and the Right at the moment that it's the musicians and artists singing peaceful protest songs that we are trying our best to tear to pieces because they're the easiest targets. Of course I expect nobody to agree it just all feels so hopeless.

That's also just not true tho, there are regular gigantic protests around the world, good work is being done in pushing companies to divest, direct action against arms manufacturers, etc. The Radiohead concert incident is barely a blip on the radar of the larger struggle, ofc if you're a fan you're gonna hear about it more than the other stuff.

As for disrupting cultural events, it's not like that's some new social media thing, this has been a protest strategy for many many decades. Having been present at events that got disrupted in this manner, I can tell you that the immediate reaction from the rest of the audience is immediate animosity, and physical violence as a reaction is not unheard of. So it really rubs me the wrong way to describe it as bullying, it's a very brave thing to do, you are exposing yourself to the disapproval of the majority and I don't think some likes on social media assuage how terrifying that is.

matt, I'm sure Thom Yorke felt intimidated when he said "come onstage and say it" and then proceeded to storm offstage in a cowardly huff

fuck off already seriously

like, "peaceful protest songs", give me a fucking break!!! have you ever heard the expression "actions speak louder than words"

surely thom suffered no harm and heckling can be a fine way of getting your point across, but these are interesting times when not supporting BDS makes you a genocide supporter! Of course you can make a solid, logical argument for that, but as matt h reasonably states you're surely not in good faith suggesting that thom yorke believes it's a good idea to ethnically cleanse palestine (just as you wouldn't believe that paul simon was a white supremacist for breaking the cultural boycott against apartheid in south africa)

I mean, if you're not a vegan do you support animal cruelty? Not really, very few people, if any, do. People just fail to act in accordance with their beliefs

(just as you wouldn't believe that paul simon was a white supremacist for breaking the cultural boycott against apartheid in south africa)

If somebody at the time had interrupted a Paul Simon concert to confront him with that question I think that would have been 100% legitimate, even moreso than with the Radiohead thing. The very act of confronting an artist w/ that presupposes the target DOESN'T identify with the accusation, it's a rhetorical move to make the target live up to that denial.

But also, as I stated in another thread, the action is really far less about whatever the person onstage thinks and far more about confronting everyone else in the space about the issue.

matt h reasonably states you're surely not in good faith suggesting that thom yorke believes it's a good idea to ethnically cleanse palestine

I think Thom Yorke doesn’t much care.

Actually think yelling at someone about dead children in the middle of their show isn't the right way to solve the horror of the situation

― matt h

honestly, matt, i think you raise a really good point... i'd like to rephrase that in the form of a question:

Why on earth is somebody getting up in the middle of a Thom Yorke concert and yelling at him about how he's responsible for the deaths of children?

I do think that's a good, good-faith question, and it is one I'd like to answer. Unfortunately this will sort of be in the form of a lecture - academic, not disciplinary - because it's the best way I know to answer that question.

I think there are deeper questions inside that question. For instance: How do we react to atrocity? Thom Yorke has, historically had a very clear answer: He speaks out against it, in word and deed. I'm not gonna give cites - I'm gonna assume that you know his work and that this has historically been a strong part of his beliefs, speaking out against injustice.

So here's an injustice happening - Palestinian children are dying, and again, there is this question: How do we react to atrocity? There are all kinds of ways to react - words and actions. For instance, there is the boycott-divest-sanction movement, saying that people should not support the Israeli government, the government that is perpetrating these atrocities. Historically, this is the kind of action Yorke has supported. This time, though, he's not. This time, while so many other musicians, so many other people, are refusing to play in Israel as a form of protest, Yorke is very conspicuously playing there. Why? Surely there's no financial necessity for him to play there. Why would he refrain from doing something that would, be, well, so easy for him to do?

I'd say the same thing applies to speaking out. I, for instance, will very strongly stand up and say "What the Israeli government is doing to the Palestinian people is genocide." I mean, that's not much. I'm not doing much. Yorke has spoken out very loudly, very strongly against similar atrocities in the past. Yet here, he remains silent.

And it's really frustrating. It's really frustrating watching people you care about suffer and knowing that someone you love and respect _could be doing something about it_. Terrible things happen and so many people... Sometimes they just look away. Sometimes they just pretend that what's happening isn't happening. Minimize other people's suffering. Hide it away. Make it invisible.

And like I say, I'm not doing much. There's not much I can do. I can't get up in front of the Knesset and decry what the government is doing. Even if I could, you know, who'd listen?

Thom Yorke... I mean, if not Yorke himself, his fans! I was a fan of Radiohead in large part _because_ of how he spoke up. And here he is pretending like he hasn't change, like nothing's changed, and he _has_. He has, and most people don't know it, because he doesn't talk about it. That is why I talk about it, about what Greenwood and Yorke are saying and doing. If people don't listen to me, well, I can't make anybody listen to me, you know? Any more than that person standing up and yelling at Yorke about dead children in the middle of a concert can make people listen to him. People have the right to _know_, though. More than that - people _need_ to know. It's really important that we know not just who's standing against genocide, but who is conspicuously remaining silent. That's what I believe.

I just assume anyone whose default position is that protestors are ridiculous, childish, “not going about it the right way”, whatever, would absolutely have been saying the same about Rosa Parks, the suffragettes, supporters of the cultural boycott against apartheid (another thorn in the side of crybaby millionaire rockstars) &c &c

It's never truly about the methods, it's usually the message

I just assume anyone whose default position is that protestors are ridiculous, childish, “not going about it the right way”, whatever, would absolutely have been saying the same about Rosa Parks, the suffragettes, supporters of the cultural boycott against apartheid (another thorn in the side of crybaby millionaire rockstars) &c &c

― Heartbreaking: the worst novel you’ve finished has a staggering genius (wins)

it's a reasonable assumption! i'm just trying to not drink myself to sleep every night in despair :)

Well I did deliberately pick cases where enough of those ppl did come around (& no doubt pretended they were onside the whole time) because the protestors kept doing their thing regardless

I saw a screenshot of someone asking Thom Yorke's wife if she supported Palestine and she said "Of course I support Palestine". That may not reflect his views, I dunno.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fdajana-roncione-thoms-wife-on-palestine-v0-46xyoc7w8nzd1.png%3Fwidth%3D1080%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D7b255a9ea010eeda29ebbd54fa0ddea2e8b0adac

I don’t think my assessment of an artist’s worth should depend on their politics mapping onto mine

Sure. Trickier when an artist has made their politics a part of their artistic brand tho.

Did it? I'm not a fan so can't claim deep knowledge but he seemed to hate the right wing of labour when Blair was in charge.

According to The Globe and Mail, "Harrowdown Hill" resembles a love song with a sense of "menace" and "grim political showdown". The lyrics are about David Kelly, a British weapons expert who allegedly killed himself in 2003 after telling a reporter that the British government had falsely identified weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Kelly's body was found in the woods of Harrowdown Hill, near Yorke's former school in Oxfordshire. The 1990 poll tax riots were also an inspiration.Yorke felt "Harrowdown Hill" was a "poetic" name that sounded like the site of a historic battle.

Yorke was uncomfortable about the subject matter and conscious of Kelly's grieving family, but felt that "not to write it would perhaps have been worse". He told The Globe and Mail: "The government and the Ministry of Defence were implicated in his death. They were directly responsible for outing him and that put him in a position of unbearable pressure that he couldn't deal with, and they knew they were doing it and what it would do to him."Yorke said "Harrowdown Hill" was the angriest song he had written.

so this turned into a reddit thread

Radiohead's (well Thom's) incursion into politics has always been very shallow and vague tbh. He's good at tapping into certain generational anxieties and alienation but that's it. He is good at lighting the spark of how deep in the shit we are in but not good in showing a way out.

Even their "revolutionary" way of releasing albums like doing "kid a" with no singles or doing "in rainbows" a pay-what-you-want album feel in retrospective as performative gestures of possibilities and not really an answer to fight the monolithic structures they feed on.

I still value Kid A (and OKC to a lesser extent) as a formative album in my life but I don't expect much from them actually walking the talk. They've always seemed rather cynical and uninterested in it, and yet they think of themselves as being a political band. It's very hypocritical They've said they are also performing in the US despite being against the Bush and Trump administrations as a defense and in a simplified way it makes sense: if you're not performing in a country because the government is helping push evil agendas they'd have very few countries to perform in. But saying they do so because art is important is very naive and frankly gross when there's active genocides happening.

They've trapped themselves by being so overtly political while being very passive about their stance.

otm. I thought that was made very clear in the reissue campaigns for OK Computer and Kid A. Thom talking about how angry he used to be, and weirdly accepting compliments for presaging this miserable century. Stanley Donwood going on about the Kid A snow motifs being inspired by photography from "the ongoing conflict in the former Yugoslavia" (them not speaking about these things directly is nothing new). It's a relief that reissues and nostalgia didn't become their entire deal.

i don't see that this lad's politics are much different or more explicit than, say, Bono's tbh

pretty much. it was just cooler on account of being more full of dread

A version of The Bends without compression and dynamic ranges hitting DR10-12 across the album is out there. Haven't heard it yet, but will check it out and report back.

It is from this CDr

https://www.discogs.com/release/10464566-Radiohead-The-Bends

Just compared the first two tracks and yeah there's a very distinct difference! Crisper sound, vocals more evenly layered in the mix and immediate, drums don't bulge out in parts on the title track - the dynamics are cleanly layered with everything else, definitely a better overall sound. Sounds fantastic on good headphones or a stereo, especially when played loud. This should get a proper release, alas.

Intriguing! Any possible link to this or is it more the usual channels?

Looking for the no compression tracks led me to a Reddit thread and found this amusing one https://www.reddit.com/r/radiohead/comments/1gjdhdn/describe_a_radiohead_song_using_only_emojis_and/?chainedPosts=t3_17a2f2g

I'd love to hear it, but, ftr, I love the production on The Bends.

A wider range does sound interesting, a YSI or... if it's on slsk, suggested search keywords?

Dynamic range is for nerds

xp The folder name included "Blair" fwiw. Did not get this on slsk but a similar underground source.

thanks octobeard, i did find it, same tags as you mention

this is definitely one for nerds, but since i'm a nerd, well... i'm surprised as how much different it sounded! not necessarily _better_. just _different_. i don't know if there are mix differences either, my ears aren't that good. phil's drums sound _way_ punchier on the released version of "planet telex" - is that a difference that could result from just different mastering?

OK, did a quick A/B - definitely the same mixes. Like, I'm not exactly an audiophile, but this _does_ sound a lot different simply because of the greater dynamic range. Didn't realize how much of a difference it could make! A song like Sulk ... and I gotta be clear about my bias, I actually love Sulk. I'm a huge fan of the song. Can't tell you why. But damn, it just _shines_ on this master. It's the same album, but the Blair master has are a lot of small touches that get flattened out in the commercial release. God, I guess now I need to hear the OKNOTOK mastering of OK Computer.

Was "Planet Zerox" the original title for "Planet Telex"?

Yep. “Planet Xerox” was the first name and it was conceived by fooling around with a drum loop of “killer cars (mogadon version)”.

https://citizeninsane.eu/music/bends/planettelex.html

Can't find it on slsk :(

found it on t0rrent sites, have a look there maybe

Yep. “Planet Xerox” was the first name and it was conceived by fooling around with a drum loop of “killer cars (mogadon version)”.

https://citizeninsane.eu/music/bends/planettelex.html

― ✖✖✖ (Moka)

Seeing Thom talking about knocking off _Tago Mago_... I guess the song does owe a bit to "Halleluwah", doesn't it? Wonder how a mash-up of the two would work.

select people have the Blaaaaair
they swear it sounds like it has more AIIIIIIIIIR

this is definitely one for nerds, but since i'm a nerd, well... i'm surprised as how much different it sounded! not necessarily _better_. just _different_. i don't know if there are mix differences either, my ears aren't that good. phil's drums sound _way_ punchier on the released version of "planet telex" - is that a difference that could result from just different mastering?

― Kate (rushomancy), Tuesday, December 3, 2024 10:13 PM (two days ago)

That would be the compression. This mix seemingly lacks compression and 2 channel limiting, giving a more dynamic, yet less "punchy" feel. The drums pop if you play it loud enough, but that increases the volume of everything else. The way certain drum hits "take over" the mix, reducing the volume of the vocals and guitars in the process on the official release is the compression and limiting doing its job.

This is showing up on slsk now if anyone is still looking.