Radiohead doesn't want to release full lengths

[myguiltysecret]

Hey, this could be good news, it might mean we get new material more often, just not as much each time.

Harry Patch (In Memory Of) is a pretty sweet song.

Yes I agree.

RH sucks the big one. Sorry.

+1

+2

-1

Radiohead is leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream bands from the past 20 years.

You're right. Which illustrates how bad 'mainstream' music has been for the last 20 years.

Doesn't 'mainstream' mean popular? Funny, I never hear Radiohead on any radiostation or on MTV... at all. Less 'Creep'.

I agree with the second poster... Radiohead sucks. Big Monkey Balls at that.

And it disgusts me when they're compared to Pink Floyd. That's just plain old ridiculous.

Seriously.

Out of curiosity have you actually listened to OK Computer, Amnesiac and In Rainbows? And not just the songs that get played on the radio, but the entire albums?

I LOVE In Rainbows. You just reminded me, I have to go and download the second CD!

[chevelle]

RH sucks the big one. Sorry.

+1

+2

-1

Radiohead is leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream bands from the past 20 years.

lol

Name one band in that category that fits what I said, then. Past 20 years, mainstream.

[stacks on deck]

lol @ dad rockers and radiohead stans duking it out in this thread.

[LightningBolt]

RH sucks the big one. Sorry.

+1

+2

-1

Radiohead is leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream bands from the past 20 years.

lol

Name one band in that category that fits what I said, then. Past 20 years, mainstream.

I don't think any modern mainstream band of the last 20 years is really leaps and bounds ahead of all the others, but whatever, I don't really care, and I DEFINITELY don't think it's boring ol' Radiohead.

lol @ dad rockers and radiohead stans duking it out in this thread.

lol cuz modrn muzic is so much coolr then old stoopid muzic, dood

[chevelle]

RH sucks the big one. Sorry.

+1

+2

-1

Radiohead is leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream bands from the past 20 years.

lol

Name one band in that category that fits what I said, then. Past 20 years, mainstream.

I don't think any modern mainstream band of the last 20 years is really leaps and bounds ahead of all the others, but whatever, I don't really care, and I DEFINITELY don't think it's boring ol' Radiohead.

So, basically you can't?

[ARC]

For anyone who's interested - I'm not a Radiohead fan but I'm currently studying at Oxford and Thom Yorke lives two streets away from me. I've walked past him in the street twice, and seen him in a pub once. I think I've figured out which is his house too and I quite want to knock on the door and say hello, but I don't have the courage (and I don't wanna come across as a crazy stalker fan..)

[chevelle]

For anyone who's interested - I'm not a Radiohead fan but I'm currently studying at Oxford and Thom Yorke lives two streets away from me. I've walked past him in the street twice, and seen him in a pub once. I think I've figured out which is his house too and I quite want to knock on the door and say hello, but I don't have the courage (and I don't wanna come across as a crazy stalker fan..)

Haha, maybe you could just say something to him next time you pass him in the street.

[LightningBolt]

RH sucks the big one. Sorry.

+1

+2

-1

Radiohead is leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream bands from the past 20 years.

lol

Name one band in that category that fits what I said, then. Past 20 years, mainstream.

I don't think any modern mainstream band of the last 20 years is really leaps and bounds ahead of all the others, but whatever, I don't really care, and I DEFINITELY don't think it's boring ol' Radiohead.

So, basically you can't?

Oh, I can definitely name craploads I think are better than Radiohead, I just assumed you meant name another band "leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream artists of the last 20 years", which I said I didn't think there was any. But anyways, for the last 20 years, I can name The Black Crowes, Guns N' Roses, The Stone Roses, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, Audioslave, Soundgarden, Faith No More, Muse, RHCP, and Temple of the Dog, who I feel are all vastly superior to Radiohead (in my opinion, of course), but none are "leaps and bounds" ahead of the others that I listed.

Edited August 10, 2009 by LightningBolt

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

I love how people feel the need to shit all over Radiohead. You can stay out of the thread and go enjoy music that doesn't make you think at all, like Motley Crue & Poison. God forbid Radiohead do something unique & interesting...

EDIT: and to the guy who told me to prove him wrong that people would disagree about Radiohead sucking- they have sold A LOT of albums, and I'm sure those people would disagree. On Last.fm GNR has like 1.3 million listeners, Radiohead has 2.2 million.

So, therefore by your logic..since Hannah Montana and The Jonas Bros, Britney Spears, etc are "good" artists since they sell loads of records, have tons of hits on YouTube and are extremely popular??

And it disgusts me when they're compared to Pink Floyd. That's just plain old ridiculous.

Seriously.

So true. When people compare the epicness that is Pink Floyd with the shittiness that is RH, I just lose it... It is repulsive.

RH sucks the big one. Sorry.

Well that's a useful post, congratulations.

Thanks. I like to post things like that since it gives me a chance to stroke my ego and whatnot. Really makes me feel better about myself.

RH sucks the big one. Sorry.

+1

+2

-1

Radiohead is leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream bands from the past 20 years.

You're right. Which illustrates how bad 'mainstream' music has been for the last 20 years.

Doesn't 'mainstream' mean popular? Funny, I never hear Radiohead on any radiostation or on MTV... at all. Less 'Creep'.

I agree with the second poster... Radiohead sucks. Big Monkey Balls at that.

And it disgusts me when they're compared to Pink Floyd. That's just plain old ridiculous.

Seriously.

Out of curiosity have you actually listened to OK Computer, Amnesiac and In Rainbows? And not just the songs that get played on the radio, but the entire albums?

I have, and it's just wrist-cuttingly bad...Really, I just can't get into it at all. Overwhelmingly trite and dull.

[ARC]

For anyone who's interested - I'm not a Radiohead fan but I'm currently studying at Oxford and Thom Yorke lives two streets away from me. I've walked past him in the street twice, and seen him in a pub once. I think I've figured out which is his house too and I quite want to knock on the door and say hello, but I don't have the courage (and I don't wanna come across as a crazy stalker fan..)

Haha, maybe you could just say something to him next time you pass him in the street.

You know I nearly did once...

First time I saw him I didn't immediately realise who it was, so I kinda stared right at him for about 30 seconds! Eventually he gave me a sort of worried, paranoid, 'why the fuck is this guy looking at me' look... so I mumbled 'hi' as if he was some acquaintance and then I walked the other way.

[chevelle]

RH sucks the big one. Sorry.

+1

+2

-1

Radiohead is leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream bands from the past 20 years.

lol

Name one band in that category that fits what I said, then. Past 20 years, mainstream.

I don't think any modern mainstream band of the last 20 years is really leaps and bounds ahead of all the others, but whatever, I don't really care, and I DEFINITELY don't think it's boring ol' Radiohead.

So, basically you can't?

Oh, I can definitely name craploads I think are better than Radiohead, I just assumed you meant name another band "leaps and bounds ahead of most mainstream artists of the last 20 years", which I said I didn't think there was any. But anyways, for the last 20 years, I can name The Black Crowes, Guns N' Roses, The Stone Roses, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, Audioslave, Soundgarden, Faith No More, Muse, RHCP, and Temple of the Dog, who I feel are all vastly superior to Radiohead (in my opinion, of course), but none are "leaps and bounds" ahead of the others that I listed.

I'm actually a big fan of almost every band you listed. But Radiohead still managed to make one of the most succesful and critically acclaimed albums ever, and then make a 180 and completely change genres, and still manage to keep that success and acclaim. And now they're helping change the music industry itself, by popularizing the "name-your-price" distribution. Of course comparing bands musically is nearly impossible, but when people put down such an important band, it irks me. I feel like I came off as a bit of an asshole, so I apologize.

[stacks on deck]

radiohead are both good and important. if you deny that, you're buggin'. and i don't even fuck with their music like that.

[myguiltysecret]

For anyone who's interested - I'm not a Radiohead fan but I'm currently studying at Oxford and Thom Yorke lives two streets away from me. I've walked past him in the street twice, and seen him in a pub once. I think I've figured out which is his house too and I quite want to knock on the door and say hello, but I don't have the courage (and I don't wanna come across as a crazy stalker fan..)

Cool! I wouldn't if I were you, I've read he's notoriously unfriendly or something, unless you're lucky enough to catch him in a good mood or something.

I had a friend once who went to school with Thom in Oxford and even auditioned for his band when he was starting out - but he was really crap and didn't get in, lol. He did say that Thom was really nice though.

Edited August 10, 2009 by myguiltysecret

[Guest floyd the barber]

radiohead are both good and important. if you deny that, you're buggin'. and i don't even fuck with their music like that.

lol :lol:

radiohead, good, and important in the same sentence

[kevdo242]

For anyone who's interested - I'm not a Radiohead fan but I'm currently studying at Oxford and Thom Yorke lives two streets away from me. I've walked past him in the street twice, and seen him in a pub once. I think I've figured out which is his house too and I quite want to knock on the door and say hello, but I don't have the courage (and I don't wanna come across as a crazy stalker fan..)

Haha, maybe you could just say something to him next time you pass him in the street.

You know I nearly did once...

First time I saw him I didn't immediately realise who it was, so I kinda stared right at him for about 30 seconds! Eventually he gave me a sort of worried, paranoid, 'why the fuck is this guy looking at me' look... so I mumbled 'hi' as if he was some acquaintance and then I walked the other way.

If on the next Radiohead album theres a line about being stared at, I'm blaming you.

[ARC]

For anyone who's interested - I'm not a Radiohead fan but I'm currently studying at Oxford and Thom Yorke lives two streets away from me. I've walked past him in the street twice, and seen him in a pub once. I think I've figured out which is his house too and I quite want to knock on the door and say hello, but I don't have the courage (and I don't wanna come across as a crazy stalker fan..)

Haha, maybe you could just say something to him next time you pass him in the street.

You know I nearly did once...

First time I saw him I didn't immediately realise who it was, so I kinda stared right at him for about 30 seconds! Eventually he gave me a sort of worried, paranoid, 'why the fuck is this guy looking at me' look... so I mumbled 'hi' as if he was some acquaintance and then I walked the other way.

If on the next Radiohead album theres a line about being stared at, I'm blaming you.

Well, he's a pretty funny-looking dude... I bet he gets stared at a lot...poor guy... probably what made him so paranoid and reclusive in the first place.

[Estranged Reality]

lol :lol:

radiohead, good, and important in the same sentence

You may not like them, but Radiohead are one of the most impacting and respected bands of their generation. Important? They've consistently topped more critics' lists and international listener polls than any other band since The Beatles, and have achieved unprecedented levels of respect amongst their peers, ranging from the titans -- including ex-Beatles -- to the underdogs. I'd say that's important. And it's ironic to see someone bash Radiohead, then turn around and assert Muse to be a superior band -- for obvious reasons...

That being said, I'm not a huge Radiohead fan. But to deny their relevance and impact -- and to claim that people compare them to Pink Floyd (!) as some sort of bizarre criticism, evidently because you have nothing more worthwhile to say -- is, as that guy from The Wire might say, some shameful shit.

So, therefore by your logic..since Hannah Montana and The Jonas Bros, Britney Spears, etc are "good" artists since they sell loads of records, have tons of hits on YouTube and are extremely popular??

That is not what he was saying at all. He claimed that many people would disagree that the band was poor, and when you challenged his claims, he used their worldwide sales as an indication of how popular they are. He never argued that popularity was relative to quality. However, when you consider their consistent popularity (i.e. not flash-in-the-pan bullshit like Jonas Bros.), and throw in the fact that they've consistently won critical and listener praise for more than a decade, then it's probably safe to say that a majority of listeners disagree with your claims that they "suck."

Edited August 11, 2009 by Estranged Reality

[LightningBolt]

And it's ironic to see someone bash Radiohead, then turn around and assert Muse to be a superior band -- for obvious reasons...

Yes, it's so ironic for someone to say they like a band better than another. Har har har, how ironic.

[Estranged Reality]

And it's ironic to see someone bash Radiohead, then turn around and assert Muse to be a superior band -- for obvious reasons...

Yes, it's so ironic for someone to say they like a band better than another. Har har har, how ironic.

It's ironic because Muse were originally hyped by UK press as "the next Radiohead" and were acknowledged by many critics -- and listeners (Google "Muse vs. Radiohead" and see how many topics pop up) -- for capturing an almost identical sound. The bandmembers have repeatedly cited Radiohead, and the brand of alt-rock they came to define in the late '90s, as a primary influence on their music; and there's been considerable backlash towards the band after becoming popular, to the point where there are even groups that parody the controversy.

It's a bit like arguing that Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones suck, and then -- when being asked what your favourite bands are -- naming Whitesnake and Guns N' Roses. There's nothing wrong with those bands, and maybe you don't have to like the Stones to like GN'R, but I can't imagine many people actually arguing that the Stones suck and denying their impact and then using one of their biggest protégés as a defense of your claims. By citing Muse, you're only reinforcing the OP's point that Radiohead have been highly influential. And it just so happens that most of the artists they directly influence tend to be pretty damn good -- like Muse.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Estranged Reality

[LightningBolt]

And it's ironic to see someone bash Radiohead, then turn around and assert Muse to be a superior band -- for obvious reasons...

Yes, it's so ironic for someone to say they like a band better than another. Har har har, how ironic.

It's ironic because Muse were originally hyped by UK press as "the next Radiohead" and were acknowledged by many critics -- and listeners (Google "Muse vs. Radiohead" and see how many topics pop up) -- for capturing an almost identical sound. The bandmembers have repeatedly cited Radiohead, and the brand of alt-rock they came to define in the late '90s, as a primary influence on their music; and there's been considerable backlash towards the band after becoming popular, to the point where there are even groups that parody the controversy.

It's a bit like arguing that Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones suck, and then -- when being asked what your favourite bands are -- naming Whitesnake and Guns N' Roses. There's nothing wrong with those bands, and maybe you don't have to like the Stones to like GN'R, but I can't imagine many people actually arguing that the Stones suck and then using one of their biggest mentors as a defense of their taste.

I dunno, Muse's music offers much more to me than Radiohead's ever have. And I definitely disagree that their sound is identical. And naming those bands wasn't a "defense" of my taste, I was just naming bands from the late 80's - now I feel are better than Radiohead, as was being asked of me to do, is all.

You really feel their music is that similar? I can see some similarities of the two, but there are similarities with tons of groups, often times not even within the same genre of music, so I dunno. And I'm not the biggest Muse fan in the world, I was just naming any ol' band that I felt was a better band.

[Estranged Reality]

And it's ironic to see someone bash Radiohead, then turn around and assert Muse to be a superior band -- for obvious reasons...

Yes, it's so ironic for someone to say they like a band better than another. Har har har, how ironic.

It's ironic because Muse were originally hyped by UK press as "the next Radiohead" and were acknowledged by many critics -- and listeners (Google "Muse vs. Radiohead" and see how many topics pop up) -- for capturing an almost identical sound. The bandmembers have repeatedly cited Radiohead, and the brand of alt-rock they came to define in the late '90s, as a primary influence on their music; and there's been considerable backlash towards the band after becoming popular, to the point where there are even groups that parody the controversy.

It's a bit like arguing that Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones suck, and then -- when being asked what your favourite bands are -- naming Whitesnake and Guns N' Roses. There's nothing wrong with those bands, and maybe you don't have to like the Stones to like GN'R, but I can't imagine many people actually arguing that the Stones suck and then using one of their biggest mentors as a defense of their taste.

I dunno, Muse's music offers much more to me than Radiohead's ever have. And I definitely disagree that their sound is identical. And naming those bands wasn't a "defense" of my taste, I was just naming bands from the late 80's - now I feel are better than Radiohead, as was being asked of me to do, is all.

You really feel their music is that similar? I can see some similarities of the two, but there are similarities with tons of groups, often times not even within the same genre of music, so I dunno. And I'm not the biggest Muse fan in the world, I was just naming any ol' band that I felt was a better band.

I don't think their sound is identical, but they're definitely very similar at times. Black Holes & Revelations, in particular, owes much of its approach to the band, particularly the Bends-era material.

You have a right to enjoy any band you want, and you certainly don't have to defend your taste to me or anyone else. The only reason I called you on your comment was because you were bashing Radiohead and then citing one of their more obvious influences in the same topic. It doesn't mean you have to like them, I'm just sayin'...

[mr. orangestone]

Thank you Estranged Reality. Not for agreeing with me, but coming in and actually saying something with some thought behind it.

[chevelle]

http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/generalarti...&fid1=40466

A new Radiohead song leaked, and it's possible that they may release an E.P. on Monday.

[bluesy]

It bums me out, but it's probably a wise decision on the band's part to pump the breaks at this juncture in their career. I mean, every time they step into a studio to write an album, it's a huge deal because of what they have to live up to. They've created a monstrous legacy that rests on a reputation for pushing things forward at all costs and anything less would likely induce tons of critical scrutiny. I mean, after In Rainbows they've pretty much exhausted their ability to fuse the unique sounds of OK Computer and Kid A. Continuing in that tradition - within that now familiar musical framework - could put any potential new album in jeopardy 'cause the public may pass it off as more of the same. It's a tough predicament and I can understand their sudden unwillingness to invest everything they have in a completely different vision and sound, which is something Thom himself believed was absolutely necessary after the last outing.