I don’t mind the band Radiohead (I’ve really only heard their ‘radio play’ songs: Creep, Just, Street Spirit), but I have noticed in the past coupkle of years there have been a few “best of” lists released in the UK and Europe.
And Radiohead is usually always at the top of the list. They were even named band of the century? I’m sorry, but how could they beat the Beatles.
MtM
By what poll? You usually have to consider the audience in those kind of things, and they always skew toward the current anyway.
I imagine you started this thread to ask people who aren’t me, since my feelings on the subject are clear. But yeah, I do think they’re that good; not a lot of other bands push the envelope as much as they do (none of their albums sound alike), and despite those tendencies, they actually know how to rock as well. So I’d say they skillfully blend things in a way few others do.
Anyway, please don’t blame the band for silly poll results. It’s not their fault except that they’ve done some excellent work.
They’re a great band–one of the best working today–but “Band of the Century” my ass! Polls like that tell you more about the times they were written than anything else.
I would have to agree with ** Vibrotronica ** in so far as these types of polls are, from a big-picture point of view, pointless. However, in my humble opinion, Radiohead are one of the all-time greats - never a bad album. You can’t say that about The Beatles…
They’re clearly one of the best (more-or-less) mainstream rock bands of the last decade, hence their well-deserved presence of many of those lists. Though “band of the century” is clearly going too far.
One thing I’ve never understood, though, is their reputation for being wildly innovative. Even their “experimental” albums, Kid A and Amnesiac, fall squarely in a tradition of angsty amelodic studio rock that stretches back thirty years or more. (Joy Division, to take one example.)
There’s not a lot on there I’d call rock, Wumpus. What made the album unusual was its abundance of electronica (what happened to ‘techno,’ is the term unpopular now?) and its minimalism. Compared to OK Computer and The Bends, it’s almost guitar-free.
I’m unaware of anybody previously blending those two types of music to such a degree - they were very successful with it (Kid A debuted at #1 on the charts), and it was a major switch from a three-guitar band who had made it big with an ‘alternative’ song, and just sold several million copies of its last album, which was hugely acclaimed and centered around vocals and guitar. Instead of following on that blueprint, they made a rather large left turn. That’s what they’ve always done, really, and it’s a big part of why they have the reputation they do.
That said, Radiohead don’t think the album is that experimental or amelodic. And the electronica stuff is definitely present, just to a smaller degree, on OK Computer. But what made Kid A ‘experimental’ is that it was a big gamble for a “mainstream rock band” to make on those levels.
Ok this is a hijack(hate to piss anyone off), why do people think the beatles were so good? I mean, I like them and all, and maybe I had to be “there”, butI can’t see it. I listen to oldies alot and find I enjoy other bands of that era just as much…Were they overblown hype or really that good is my question…
as far as radiohead, Hell,I don’t know. I enjoy them as well.
You probably should’ve started your own thread, Govindha. But anyway:
You’re gonna make a lot of Boomers cry if you call the Beatles ‘oldies.’ 
No, they really were that good. The thing you have to keep in mind isn’t just their singing and playing skills and songwriting ability - which are formidable - it’s the unbelievable amount of ground they broke.
Popular musicians didn’t normally write their own songs before The Beatles. They took experimenting in the studio to new heights, dabbled in Eastern music and culture in a way mass audiences hadn’t seen before, and - well, like I say, they broke all kinds of ground and spearheaded the musical and, in many ways, social movement of their time.
None of that requires you to like them, of course. But you can’t find a rock band today that wasn’t influenced by The Beatles. Perhaps I overgeneralize, but I think you just plain can’t find them. That says quite a lot, doesn’t it?
Regarding your highjack, Govindha - there are plenty of Beatles-related threads here in Cafe Society that speak to whether they were important and if so, how important. Do a search on threads with their name in the title and I am sure you will come with something.
IMHO, yes, they are that influencial for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was they legitimized rock n’ roll bands as artists who can write their own songs and progress in a developmental arc, not just crank out catchy pop tunes. And they pioneered the concept of the studio-produced album as a cohesive artistic statement that was an end unto itself (i.e., couldn’t necessarily be reproduced live - used innovative studio techniques without regard to traditional sounds, touring). YMMV.
As for Radiohead, I think Marley23 got it - they seem to be willing to take risks and explore new sounds at a time when they could be producing records that sound only incrementally different from their last offering.
FWIW, I say about Radiohead what I say about Neil Young - I respect them more than I like them. I really, really respect their willingness to push boudaries, but for the most part I don’t find myself drawn to their music…
[hijack]
Nice simul-post, Marley23 - we do find ourselves together in music threads pretty often! And I see that you and I appear to be on the same page regarding the Beatles…
[/hijack]
Maybe Radiohead is the band of the century but we’re only three years into this century so that doesn’t really say a lot.
But if they’re talking about the century just gone…no way!! Radiohead would be a little bit further down the list I think.
I’ve listened to a very wide variety of music since I was very young and I’ve liked all sorts of stuff from different genres, but Radiohead is one band that I just can’t bear to listen to. I liked Creep but everything else just sounds whiney and depressing to me, which is weird because I’ve listened to plenty of other depressing stuff. Musically I guess they’re very competent but vocally they just don’t appeal.
Pixelle hit the Nail dead-on the head. If the polls mean the best band currently active in th 21st Century, then Radiohead probably is it. If you only include stuff released in this 21st Century, then I can’t think of any other band even close. That said RadioHead seem so much more inovative than older bands only because the innovations of old bands are now the stuff of mainstream music.
I just wish Radiohead music wasn’t so damned depressing:(
OK. Here’s my two cents. Radiohead is just…boring. I’ve tried to listen to all of their albums but I always end up putting something else on. Its not that I think they suck, cause I dont. Its not that they’re dark and brooding or whatever…I love Joy Division. They just don’t inspire any feeling at all in me, other than boredom.
I just don’t understand how they’re at the top of every critics list. But then again, I don’t understand the White Stripes worship thats going on either.
Jon
Just to clarify, the list where they were band of the Century was release in 2001 and they were competeing against all musice released in the 20th century.
If I recall it was a list in a European version of an American magazine (Billboard maybe?)
MtM
I have to say that I’m endlessly surprised at how Radiohead is widely interpreted as depressing… I don’t find their music downheartening at all. They certainly tend to write about very dark subjects (for example, paranoia and loneliness having been significant themes in all four of their last albums), but I wouldn’t say their work is gloom-and-doom at all. Songs like “Pyramid Song” and the new “Sail to the Moon” are gorgeous and hopeful in tone, while songs like “2+2=5” and the older “Just” or “My Iron Lung,” while addressing issues in a more morbid way than your average alternative band, are as rocking and energetic as anything produced in the last ten years.
Radiohead are a group of excellent musicians and songwriters as well- “Sail to the Moon,” for example, changes time signature just about every other measure, but simultaneously contains an memorably fragile, soaring melody. Then there’s the sheer range of their repertoire… from the techno dance beats of “Idioteque” to the furious guitar rock of “Electioneering” to the ambient wash of “How to Disappear Completely” to the New Orleans jazz influences that crept into Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief. They have demonstrated the willingness to constantly push past their old boundaries, and the skill to pull this off time after time without feeling more “experimental” than “musical.” That is what, in my opinion, makes them one of the great bands of our time.
Er… that should be “disheartening,” not “downheartening.”
Tarrsk, you and I are of a mind there. I was wowed by OK Computer the first time I heard it, but eventually put it away because it DID depress me. (I’m not surprised people find it depressing, though.)
But when I got back into the band last fall/winter, I didn’t experience the same thing, and really haven’t since. And the more I look into it, the more I realize that it’s not ALL depressing, even if Thom has made an art form of singing the word “lonely.” Pyramid Song is just haunting and beautiful to me - yes, it’s a dream, but that doesn’t make it depressing. Sail to the Moon is delicate and full of hope for his young son. And there’s humor to be found, even most of it is of a dark variety (that’s not the same as being depressing anyway).
And hey, even if there’s depressing stuff, there’s always survival.
I really didn’t (and still don’t, actually) know much about the band, but I heard a couple of their songs from OK Computer in a movie and was intrigued. I borrowed a friend’s copy and was hooked on that album. I find it challenging and genuinely moving.
However, like I said, I don’t know anything else about them (except I too see them pop up high in these polls). For someone who (a) loves the album he has, (b) hasn’t heard anything else by them, and © doesn’t really listen to modern music at all, can anyone make any recommendations on what I might try next?
Pushing envelopes is great and all, but I just can’t stand to listen to them. Creep and Street Spirit are good, but everything else is too whiny and… I wouldn’t say depressing, but pessimistic and self-pitying.
I must say, though, I heard their latest album and it sounds like they might have stopped sucking. Hopefully they can keep it up.
The genre of electronic music has expanded. To the electronic music enthusiast, “techno” brings to mind a very specific sound, separate from “house”, “drum and bass”, “hardcore”, etc. Kid A is not techno (it reminds me more of Philip Glass), but it is electronic.
I came across a web site a while ago that identified around 50 subgenres, with samples and descriptions of each. I wish I could find it again.
Which two types, electronica and minimalism? Listen to some Aphex Twin.
The term “techno” is too basic to describe the widely varied genres of electronic sound; usually the people that use that word today are referring to the thump-thump music they hear at clubs or on the radio (which is usually trance or drum & bass). It would make my forehead crinkle if someone were to call, say, Boards of Canada or Global Communication “techno” just because it’s all electronic.