Can Someone Explain Radiohead to Me? Grammys

[Michael Johnstone]

There is no universal "good" or "bad."

There may not be a universal "good" but there's dam sure a universal "bad". If ya sing out of tune - it's bad.

As far as the Grammy thing went,amongst all the drek and drivel,I thought the chick who sang a song about "I kissed a girl...and I liked it!" was much less pretentious,more thought provoking...and plus she sang in tune.

[Tucker Jackson]

There may not be a universal "good" but there's dam sure a universal "bad". If ya sing out of tune - it's bad.

Well, not universally. I like Bob Dylan and he's been know to sing out of tune. And I still like him. Several singers I enjoy have a lot of character in their voice, but are also pitchy.

Seriously... all taste is in the eye (or ear or mouth) of the beholder. That's why it doesn't make sense for anyone to lay out standards in matters of taste.

Even if you are open to having your horizons broadened by asking others to help expand your taste, it still ends up being a very personal emotional reaction: either something rubs you the right way or it doesn't.

Having said that, I'm sure we've all had the experience of not liking some band or something -- only to have it grow on us over time. Sometimes, it's a matter of lack of exposure.

But I don't think this is the case with Chris not liking Radiohead. He seems to have listened enough to have made an informed judgement. And it's normal and fine to just not like them, even though others he really respects love the band. They may be able to tell him things they like about the group -- but their words will probably not change his emotional gut reaction.

I guess it's a little like romantic love and the chemistry between two people -- sometimes an attraction makes no sense if you look at it logically. But no amount of logic can turn off the chemistry. It's just the nature of the beast.

[Steve Norman]

Though Experiment:

explain why anything you like is good to a person from space who has never been exposed to your culture in any way, and has never heard any music at all.

[Michael Johnstone]

I'm old enough to have bought all the first 5 or 6 Dylan albums when they first came out and he sang pretty well in tune in those days. When I was 18, I was front row center at a great show on his 1966 tour with The Hawks(The Band)and and he was doing everything up to the Blonde on Blonde material. He did a 3 hour show and it was god-like. So later when he sort of lost his muse and his voice went south,I gave him a pass. I'm also old enough to have been playing in rock bands when the Beatles first hit and in that era there were bands who sang in tune,played good,had something to say and then there were "The Seeds". So sucking is nothing new in rock & roll. I've been there done that myself. At a certain point though after playing rock & roll for about 40 years,you are all garage banded out and all done with generation X,Y & Z's version of regurgitated suicidal teenage angst and out-of-tune wanking,strutting and self-aggrandizement passing for art. It's all been done - better - much better - decades ago. If one lives long enough,one eventually becomes more discriminating and requires something more than a stale corn dog - one needs gumbo. And gumbo's in short supply these days. I guess what I'm saying is that there's a definite intergenerational disconnect whereas nobody wants to stand on the shoulders of the masters and take it from there. Everyone wants to rebel against their parents' generation's music,cut things off at the roots and start over from scratch and that's where all this mediocrity comes from. It's been like that for so long now that we seem to be back in the stone age. When I was coming up young singers wanted to sing like Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin and play like Freddy King,Professor Longhair and all sax players wanted to play like Charlie Parker. If they had any talent,they copped as much of that as they could and by the time they were 25 they had 10 years of playing 6 nights a week,were pros with a style of their own based on deep roots and if they didn't have the drive and talent,they got laughed out of the music business. Now every mumbler with a guitar and ProTools thinks they're the voice of their generation. Case in point - Radiohead and their ilk. And Hip-Hop... Music for people who can't play music. I blame it on the advent of music videos. That's when rock finally lost it's stink,went corporate and fluff took over IMHO. YMMV,but that's what things look like from here.

[Jeff Agnew]

Everyone wants to rebel against their parents' generation's music,cut things off at the roots and start over from scratch and that's where all this mediocrity comes from.

That comment borders on the profound.

[Chris LeDrew]

Michael,

If it's okay with you, can I send the text from your last post to my musician friends? We are always trying to articulate such thoughts, but no one has quite nailed it like you have. This is something that a lot of people feel but cannot express. Thanks for taking to time to say it. I personally believe you are 100% correct.

[Chris LeDrew]

This is what I'd like to borrow, if that's okay:

I guess what I'm saying is that there's a definite intergenerational disconnect whereas nobody wants to stand on the shoulders of the masters and take it from there. Everyone wants to rebel against their parents' generation's music,cut things off at the roots and start over from scratch and that's where all this mediocrity comes from. It's been like that for so long now that we seem to be back in the stone age. When I was coming up young singers wanted to sing like Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin and play like Freddy King,Professor Longhair and all sax players wanted to play like Charlie Parker. If they had any talent,they copped as much of that as they could and by the time they were 25 they had 10 years of playing 6 nights a week,were pros with a style of their own based on deep roots and if they didn't have the drive and talent,they got laughed out of the music business. Now every mumbler with a guitar and ProTools thinks they're the voice of their generation. Case in point - Radiohead and their ilk. And Hip-Hop... Music for people who can't play music. I blame it on the advent of music videos. That's when rock finally lost it's stink,went corporate and fluff took over IMHO. YMMV,but that's what things look like from here.

[b0b]

"Case in point - Radiohead and their ilk."

I've been actively looking for other bands of Radiohead's ilk, and I can't find any. Who exactly are you talking about, Michael? I'd really like to hear them.

Someone suggested Cold Play to me. I can't hear anything interesting at all in Cold Play. Someone else sent me a Pixies CD. Yuck. As far as I can tell, nobody makes music like Radiohead.

For a long time I thought they were a studio-only band. I was surprised to learn that they actually perform concerts. I just assumed it would be impossible.

[Chris LeDrew]

I just want to say that my agreement with Michael's post doesn't mean I am discounting any talent that Radiohead may possess, but my feelings about why I can't connect with this type of music are most accurately reflected in Michael's comments.

[Marc Jenkins]

"Case in point - Radiohead and their ilk."

I've been actively looking for other bands of Radiohead's ilk, and I can't find any. Who exactly are you talking about, Michael? I'd really like to hear them.

Someone suggested Cold Play to me. I can't hear anything interesting at all in Cold Play. Someone else sent me a Pixies CD. Yuck. As far as I can tell, nobody makes music like Radiohead.

For a long time I thought they were a studio-only band. I was surprised to learn that they actually perform concerts. I just assumed it would be impossible.

Agreed. Radiohead are not, in my opinion, of anyone's ilk. I also find Coldplay quite bland. In fact, after OK Computer, a LOT of bands took Radiohead's basic sonic template, and many singers tried to emulate Yorke's voice as well. Brutal. Sigur Ros are the only other band that gets anywhere near Radiohead, for me. They were compared to Radiohead a lot at first, and it was Thom Yorke's support that led somewhat to their 'discovery';and subsequent record deal. Sigur Ros are, to me, less intricate in the layering of parts and instrumentation, and more about sheer emotion. My wife cried through several whole songs at their show in Vancouver in October!

Michael, I don't think that your experience in rock music makes your opinion carry more weight. If you don't care for it, that alone is good enough for me. No amount of musical experience, playing or listening or producing, could have prepared me for the onslaught of emotion I felt when seeing Radiohead live, or when I listened to OK Computer on vinyl on fancy-pants headphones on the living room floor the other night while my wife watched Coronation Street.

Jonny Greenwood's prowess goes WAY beyond the electric guitar, as well. Seen 'There Will Be Blood'? He composed the entire score (Minus the Arvo Part and Brahms piece, one each) on viola (which he's trained on)and hand-wrote the score for the orchestra. He's also one of the only living performers of the ondes Martenot.

For what it's worth, as a great admirer of their work, I liked the idea of their Grammy performance, but I thought Yorke's voice was on the weaker side of what I've heard. He was the only performer that night I heard who wasn't autotuned, either...

[b0b]

I just want to say that my agreement with Michael's post doesn't mean I am discounting any talent that Radiohead may possess, but my feelings about why I can't connect with this type of music are most accurately reflected in Michael's comments.

I know about "not connecting". For example, everything that was written about Genesis led me to believe that I would like them. But I don't. It just doesn't connect with me, in spite of the fact that I like complex, well arranged rock music.

I think it's probably easy to dislike Radiohead on the basic of the lead vocals alone. Yorke's voice is strange, and his melodies are even stranger. I can easily see why some people wouldn't like it - heck, it even grates on me at times.

[Chris LeDrew]

I did like their earlier stuff, as I stated before. That song, "You Do It To Yourself" (I'm sure it has a real, weirder name) is great, as is "High and Dry" and some others. They were "songs", in the conventional sense. But, as Marc mentions, there is a classical mindset creeping in there after a while, and I admit to a very limited knowledge of classical music. Therefore, I'm not feeling it on the later, more out-there albums, where a certain knowledge/appreciation of classical music might help.

And yes, Yorke's voice can be like a snowplow on bare asphalt.

[Brint Hannay]

As a 57-year-old who hasn't intentionally listened to contemporary-at-the-time "rock" music in decades, I have never heard Radiohead whatsoever before now. Running across this thread, curiosity made me get on Rhapsody and listen to some.

I listened to maybe eight selections all the way through. I think they're extraordinarily creative musically. I liked the OK Computer stuff the best. I really couldn't make out a lot of the lyrics, but I've never cared that much about lyrics anyway--for me, good lyrics are a nice plus in music, but completely unnecessary. The music has such a dark feel, and such an un-varied one, that it makes no sense to me to compare it to The Beatles or The Band brown album, but the imaginativeness of harmony, melody, and sonics appeals to me. Of course, given how I described myself biographically, I have no idea how they compare to other bands.

I don't mind dark--I'm a huge Richard Thompson fan--but I don't think I'd be in the mood to listen to Radiohead very often. That might well be an age thing; there does seem to be a certain pervasive alienated angst that goes more with being younger, or perhaps with being younger in today's world.

[Steve Norman]

there's 2 kinds of music

1 music you like

2 music you dont like


Just because you cant relate to it doesnt mean it sucks, It just means you dont relate to it. Its disappointing to see people cross genres and say one style sucks. Your music reflects the culture your from, not some universal truth. Music doesnt have a universal voice, it has a cultural one. This country is made up of urban, suburban and rural cultures. Hiphop comes from poor urban areas with a lot of anger and feelings of victimisation. It was a way for people to express their feelings. I dont listen to it because I dont relate to the culture that it originated from. Radiohead speaks (spoke, they are not cutting edge for awhile now)to a lot of depressed 16 year olds, and there are a LOT of depressed 16 year olds. If you dont relate to that maybe you should look at who you are. You are not the target audience.

There is another culture that gas been fostered since WWII ended, and that is the culture of mass marketed consumers. They have been trained to buy their culture from the mall, based on what TV says you should buy, Mall hiphop is marketed at white suburban kids who want to feel dangerous, and has very little connection to the culture that spawned "Real" hiphop. Mall country is aimed at the slightly older white soft suburbanite who wants to feel "rustic". Mall heavy metal is aimed at the kid who thinks his parents dont get him/her and gives him/her a way to lash out. Mainstream music sells to this mall culture in general, the affluent isolated suburbanite who doesnt have access to the areas that spawn real original music. If mainstream music doesnt appeal to you then you should count yourself as very lucky to be in contact with real artists who are trying to do something unique with little regard to the commercialisation of their craft.

These mainstream artists/groups are assembled in boardrooms by little fat guys in suits with charts and graphs and demographics in mind, based on the works of others.

Now to my point

Radiohead created a fairly original sound in the 90's that attracted the attention of suicidal kids with to much black hair dye. the fat suits saw this and made a mold, and most of your new indy bands are directly influenced. BUT at least the band itself can speak to their own creation unlike most of their peers today.

give this video a chance and see what you think at the end. Personally I would love to get in there on steel,


http://www.culturebully.com/radiohead-o ... nan-obrien

[Chris LeDrew]

I agree it would be fun to get in there on steel. However, the song is a bit repetitive and lacks cohesion. But then again I like traditional song patterns; there was some mention of sound scapes here on the thread with relation to Radiohead's appeal, so maybe a few more listens would reveal interesting things in that way. But song-wise, I'm not really getting it. I may search out a lyric sheet to see what it's saying. Thanks for the link. It is a lot better than the Grammy song for sure.

[Bob Hoffnar]

I would suggest listening to some Arvo Part to get an idea of how to listen to Radiohead. If you have a list of things that music needs in order to be valid such as song form, and narrative then don't worry about it. I look at Radiohead as a gateway to listening differently. Bjork and the Cocteau Twins have done some great stuff that gets lumped into the rock genre also.


I went to a Jon Hassell Concert last night and heard some beautiful soundscapes. I personally have not been so into song form these days and have been looking to other musics for sustenance.

[Michael Johnstone]

give this video a chance and see what you think at the end.

Sounds like the prelude to a 1969 Moody Blues track without the rest of the song. Seriously guys - that's some pretty thin broth.

[Steve Norman]

I hear you guys,,but the fact remains a lot of people are genuinely moved by it. The clip is aa bit boring to us, but the musicianship is high in the clip. I have heard horror stories about playing large television shows live, never done it myself, but I cant imagine the stage sound is good.

Good discussion btw, maybe we can get class credit for this thread....philosophy 101, cultural relativism vs absolutism as interpreted by steel players

[Marc Jenkins]

I've mentioned reading the 33 1/3 series book on OK Computer by Dai Griffiths in this thread. He mentions an interesting idea, which may partially be at the root of some of this discussion. He brings up a 'music versus song' argument that I've neared and approached in thought but never articulated. Basically, he describes 'song' as music that is to a large degree cover-able. While he greatly respects Radiohead's music, he is pretty sure that their songs will not survive independently; they will always sound like Radiohead. Their music is written without any consideration for convention (and maybe more accurately flying in the face of convention; for that matter, Thom Yorke abandoned the guitar for the laptop as primary writing instrument from 'Kid A' on, just in time for things to get weirder and more complex, and thus further removed) and doesn't really fit into most of our expectations of 'song'.

[Michael Johnstone]

The clip is aa bit boring to us, but the musicianship is high in the clip. I have heard horror stories about playing large television shows live, never done it myself, but I cant imagine the stage sound is good.

Those guys play at around the minimum chops level I'd ever use for a songwriter demo in my studio.
Also that clip was not live TV - it was filmed/recorded under optimum conditions in a London recording studio with excellent monitoring I would imagine and they probably had the opportunity to do a retake if they so desired. That said,I have played live on TV a few times and anyone I'd care to play with should be able to take it in stride and play at the top of their game if they're pros and have their $h!+ together. What they do is called ambient music around here and if you like that kind of thing I'd recommend The Vanduras or Chas Smith - both with copius steel guitar content I might add.

[Glenn Suchan]

By the time I saw this thread the Radiohead clip was removed. However, I found other live performance vids of them. Until I watched the vids, I was not familiar with them other than their name. Although I haven't become an instant fan, I do recognize their creativity as it applies to avant gard or experimental rock. One clip had a song done in 5/4 time. Not very many pop performers (any genre) use that time signature. In many respects they remind me of the audio challenges presented to listeners of Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart, and Moondog of the late 60's and early 70's... Some people liked it, others thought it was awful.

This thread reminds me of a date I had with a high school girlfriend. I had invited her to see a concert at the Chicago Auditorium. It was a double-bill of two personal favorites: Alice Coltrane with Pharoah Sanders on sax, Ron Carter on bass and Ben Riley on drums. They were followed by headliner act, Sun Ra and his Arkestra. At the time, my girlfriend was heavily into Rod McKuen (bless her heart ) Anyway, Alice was promoting music from her album Ptah, the El Daoud. Avant gard, but not too extreme. On the other hand, this is what Sun Ra was like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtHmqbnuZQs
I don't remember what I'd told her to expect, but, amazingly, she allowed that we stay until the show ended, and.... we still dated after that.

My point is, I think keeping an open mind about different performance concepts may allow one to see creativity otherwise missed.

Keep on pickin'!
Glenn

[b0b]

give this video a chance and see what you think at the end.

Sounds like the prelude to a 1969 Moody Blues track without the rest of the song. Seriously guys - that's some pretty thin broth.

I agree, but that's not typical of their work. Maybe songs like this are why someone thought I'd like Cold Play.

I hereby retract everything I said about Radiohead.

Seriously though, the comments about Alvo Pärt and Frank Zappa are spot on for most of Radiohead's music. I started listening to them with "Hail to the Thief" and worked my way backwards from there over several years. I wasn't aware that they were pop icons until very recently. It helps to explain some of their weaker material.

[Marc Jenkins]

Those guys play at around the minimum chops level I'd ever use for a songwriter demo in my studio.
Also that clip was not live TV - it was filmed/recorded under optimum conditions in a London recording studio with excellent monitoring I would imagine and they probably had the opportunity to do a retake if they so desired.

If this is going to degrade into a 'chops' argument, I'm out. Jonny Greenwood, while in possession of more chops on more instruments than most ever dream of, didn't display them on the Conan clip as the song clearly didn't require it.

If you don't like it, or it doesn't speak to you, or even if you don't get it (or it doesn't get you) that's fine. Great even. But saying that a band as influential, groundbreaking, competent, revered and emotional resonant as Radiohead is a flash in the pan, untalented or just another brick in the pop music wall is to a degree ignorant and closed-minded. Kind of sounds like 'Jimi Hendrix played out of time and out of tune, was a crappy singer, wrote silly and weird songs, and made a lot of noise. He sucked.'

Clearly, Jimi Hendrix did not suck.

[Earnest Bovine]

.. he is pretty sure that their songs will not survive independently; they will always sound like Radiohead.

Christopher O'Riley has got a lot of mileage out of playing Radiohead "songs" on the piano, and he too has fans who say the music is better than it sounds.

[Michael Johnstone]

Lots of bands are influential,groundbreaking, competent,revered and emotionally resonant without being very good. Pop music has always been rife with them - the list is endless. And that's OK. I've been a party to such goings on and I know whereof I speak.