HOLY CRAP - NEW RADIOHEAD ALBUM 10/10/07

Originally posted by vansmack:
I just wasn't approving of your dismissive attitude towards the thought of the Pixies being an add-on to the great life altering event that was Radiohead at Coachella.

Since then, the organizers have made a point to have reunited bands on every bill of Coachella culminating in constant reunion rumors about the only broken up band that still matters - The Smiths. I think the reunion think worked for ticket sales more than you're alluding to.

I do know 2 people who went to that Coachella almost entirely for the Pixies. Not that they're representative of the entire group there, but I'm sure the Pixies did alot for ticket sales.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by le sonick:
read my whole post next time smackie.

I read it. I just wasn't approving of your dismissive attitude towards the thought of the Pixies being an add-on to the great life altering event that was Radiohead at Coachella.

i mentioned it, i dont know what more you wanted. personally, i thought more ppl came for Kraftwerk than the Pixies. you were there werent you? you couldnt even get into the Kraftwerk tent and i went to the restroom and came back to my exact spot, pretty close to the stage..all during "here comes your man" which was the ONLY song anyone anywhere near me seemed to actually know the words to.

only the Talking Heads reunion will ever get me back to the cali-teen festival that coachella has become.

i felt so old typing that. but if JAMC didnt get me there, i dont know what will.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by callat703:
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world.

Bigger than U2?

Ummmmm . . . Fuck no.

Originally posted by callat703:
This goes back to the argument that Julian was having - sure, bands have done it before, but NEVER anybody with the reach, market power, or reputation that Radiohead has. If it isn't Radiohead, that story isn't on the front page of ANY of those news sites.

Before I proceed to berate you, I will state that I like Radiohead & when it's all said & done, they're a lock for a legendary band. Even in spite of the incorrigible bullshit they've released for the past 7 years. Now I will proceed to give you what you need . . .

You must be out of your fuckin' mind. The reason Smashing Pumpkins didn't get as much hype for releasing their online LP is two reasons & two only:

1) This was 7+ years ago, when file-sharing wasn't ANYwhere near as big as it is now & online sales & bootlegging were more or less nonexistent

AND

2) We did not live in the 24-hour information era that we live in now. That era really dawned upon us roughly 2-3 years ago with more homes having access to high-speed internet & the explosion of blogging.

I respect that you love your band, & Radiohead are true artists. But please get your head out of your ass.

Originally posted by callat703:
I think that's a pretty elementary connection . . .

I'm not saying its an article about what the music sounds like, but how they are going to distribute the music is pretty inextricably linked to the music itself. You can't write that story without talking about the album at length, as opposed to a story about Britney Spears where you can get through the entire story about her kids, life, party experiences, etc and there is a tag at the end about her new album.

How about you write that she has the #1 selling song on iTunes two weeks running prior to her even having a video out & following the most disastrous performance in MTV VMA history???

In no way am I articulating as to the artistic merit of Britney Spears, but SOMEone's buying the bullshit she's shoveling.

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I just find it ridiculous the levels some of you are taking some of this. Radiohead is not the biggest band in the world, nor does media coverage over a detail only tangentially related to their musical output constitute an affirmation that they're the modern day Beatles. If I ever said any of this nonsense, I'd get flamed so quickly your head would spin. [/QB]

Furthermore, for you to even claim that Radiohead is ANYwhere near the level of the Beatles is completely fuckin' asinine. And, for the record, I:

1) Think The Beatles are overrated
2) Listen to Radiohead more than The Beatles

With that being said, it may do Thom Yorke some good to take actual SONGwriting tutelage from Lennon & McCartney's back catalog because Thom will NEVER be as great a songwriter as either one of them. I'm not even a Beatles fan per se, but cot damn you're trying to compare Sprewell to Jordan. Please. Seriously.

Originally posted by le sonick:
do you think more aspiring musicians are trying to emulate Thom Yorke or Bono?

You don't read enough magazines/artist interviews. Bono. By far. The man had a fuckin' tribute to him by The Roots (If those aren't musicians, I don't know what is) at the fuckin' NAACP Awards, man. That's waaaaaaaay outside the rock dempgraphic, fam.

Furthermore, U2's DNA is so in Radiohead it's ridiculous. Hmmmmmm. Sweeping, atmospheric guitars over ambiguous lyrics questioning religion, the existence of man, & alienation. Does it sound a little fuckin' familiar??? Nah. Not at all. Never been done.

It's like pre-OK Computer they were making versions of Achtung Baby. Post-OK Computer, they were trying to make hybrids of Zooropa & Pop. U2 did it once & moved on. Unfortunately, Radiohead didn't fuckin' stop.

Originally posted by callat703:
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.

What the fuck are you smoking??? U2's Vertigo Tour just broke the record for highest gross ever, only to be broken by The Stones Bigger Bang Tour which just ended in August. This for 2 reasons:

1) The Stones had higher average ticket prices
2) U2 underplayed EVERY market they went to. WITHOUT a corporate sponsor, I mind you. They did 2 dates here in D.C., when they EASILY could have done 5. And I think 8 total dates @ MSG, when EASILY would sold out 15 on both North American legs, if not 20.

Furthermore, Radiohead has NEVER been a big-selling band. OK was their biggest seller (U.S.) which Soundscanned under 2 million. No album since that passed platinum. And it was Kid A by the way. Hardly, barn-burner numbers. Unfortantely, bands (I use that term loosely here) like Limp Bizkit & Poison have outsold Radiohead leaps & bounds. That's WITH UK numbers by the way. Now in NO way does that speak to Radiohead's unquestioned true artistry - but I reiterate. Get your head out your ass.

Originally posted by le sonick:
U2 aint playin Stadiums anymore either, though.

Wrong again. I was AT the closing Vertigo tour show in Honolulu. There's NO way Radiohead would sell that out. 50,000 people were there. Radiohead's not on that level anywhere outside the U.K. And it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Radiohead wouldn't sell out Wembley, O2, or any of those other stadiums around there unless it's part of a festival package.

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
Post-OK Computer, they were trying to make hybrids of Zooropa & Pop.

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
And it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Radiohead wouldn't sell out Wembley, O2, or any of those other stadiums around there unless it's part of a festival package.

These are the only two sentences I disagreed with.

Originally posted by TheDirector217:

It's like pre-OK Computer they were making versions of Achtung Baby. Post-OK Computer, they were trying to make hybrids of Zooropa & Pop. U2 did it once & moved on. Unfortunately, Radiohead didn't fuckin' stop.

although there are like 20 pointless comments in your post. i'll take this one to discredit everything else in it.

you sir, need your head out of your ass!!!!!

and would everyone quit talking about fucking concert sales = musical talent!!!!!!!!!!!

ITS

NOT

RELEVANT

if ticket sales meant shit in the grand scheme of ART, then the Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols, Ramones and countless other timeless acts would be seen less worthy than Blink 182.

just stop it.

U2's nothing but a super bowl halftime show anymore!

Radiohead kicks U2's ass and until Thom Yorke makes friends with Oprah Winfrey, you won't be able to change my mind!

Originally posted by callat703:
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention.

Nothing personal, but that's just such a stupid fucking statement (not that you are the only one to make it).

The Beatles were not only a massive cultural phenomenon (to which Radiohead does not even come approach), but they also shaped the way other bands recorded and produced their albums. Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music.

If you want a good analogy, try Lemmy's take on Motorhead: "We may not have had a huge amount of fans, but those that we had would murder for us. And that's saying a lot."

and FYI


Bonnaroo DID sell out the year Radiohead played.

in case you were still wondering


but as Vansmack will point out, they werent the only band to play that year….

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music?

Travis. Coldplay. Keane.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by callat703:
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention.

Nothing personal, but that's just such a stupid fucking statement (not that you are the only one to make it).

The Beatles were not only a massive cultural phenomenon (to which Radiohead does not even come approach), but they also shaped the way other bands recorded and produced their albums. Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music.

If you want a good analogy, try Lemmy's take on Motorhead: "We may not have had a huge amount of fans, but those that we had would murder for us. And that's saying a lot."

so we've finally stopped the Coldplay comparison?

thank god!

Originally posted by le sonick:
so we've finally stopped the Coldplay comparison?

thank god!

Spoke too soon! ^^

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:

Originally posted by le sonick:
so we've finally stopped the Coldplay comparison?

thank god!

Spoke to soon! ^^

i hate you.

and you better stop posting or this thread will be longer than the pumpkins thread, and you dont want that do you?

well, at least the Pumpkins thread was first! :)

Originally posted by le sonick:

well, at least the Pumpkins thread was first! :)

Well, yeah, but Radiohead is the only thread that matters!

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by callat703:
I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention.

Nothing personal, but that's just such a stupid fucking statement (not that you are the only one to make it).

The Beatles were not only a massive cultural phenomenon (to which Radiohead does not even come approach), but they also shaped the way other bands recorded and produced their albums. Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music.

If you want a good analogy, try Lemmy's take on Motorhead: "We may not have had a huge amount of fans, but those that we had would murder for us. And that's saying a lot."

Because the Director's post is so long that I haven't had time to properly look at it or try and respond…I will try and get back to that.

Great Lemmy quote.

I have no way of backing this statement up with fact, apart from saying you could troll MySpace pages and look at that little "influence" section, but I think you'd find a HUGE number of musicians who have been influenced and shaped by the way Radiohead has chosen to make records and define themselves as artists. I honestly do think that they have a level of artistic influence that justifies a Beatles comparison.

Please also note I have never said that Radiohead is as influential as the Beatles, or as important as the Beatles. My direct point was:

"I think Radiohead is as close as we'll ever get to a band like the Beatles, where the world essentially stopped when they put out a new album. Everybody took an hour and listened to it to see what they thought. Everybody is paying attention."

I still don't think this is untrue. No, its not the same as it was for the Beatles - but I do think Radiohead proves to be the best comparison.

Quick point for the Director - I'll rescind my speculation that Radiohead could match U2 in ticket sales. You're certainly correct on that point.

But I'm not ready to concede on those other points yet…

And you know, with the exception of Brian Wallace, I have yet to treat any of these discussions with some of the vitriol that you all seem to. It isn't that hard to disagree and still be polite.

Originally posted by callat703:
It isn't that hard to disagree and still be polite.

I have pure battery acid running through my veins! I spit alkaline and alcohol! I sweat lighter fluid! And you don't even want to know what my ejaculate consists of!

I haven't read all 200 posts, but I haven't seen anyone mention Wilco. YHF was a free release that got coverage in all the big press and, the album itself was a huge critical darling.

Sorry, I fell asleep listening to the new Radiohead album. What were we talking about again?

Originally posted by le sonick:
and would everyone quit talking about fucking concert sales = musical talent!!!!!!!!!!!

ITS

NOT

RELEVANT

You made it so. You said earlier that Radiohead is AND I QUOTE, " . . . the best fucking band in the world." Fine. As a man, it is your God-given fucking right to believe that. Believe it. Just remember, you can't get a chick pregnant standing up as well.

Seriously, had you stopped there I have no issues with that. 703's comments were completely erroneous, though. But you chose to concur. Don't take my word for it. Here:

Originally posted by le sonick:

Originally posted by callat703:
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world.

I agree. wholeheartedly.

I sure didn't post that. And my name is The Director - not David Blaine.

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Other than Muse - who are a joke - and perhaps Clinic, what other bands have really been shaped by the way Radiohead makes music?

Coldplay.

I file that under wrong. Please note below quote by none other than Chris Martin, frontman of said band who whines in front of a piano & has a child named after a fruit:


I don't buy weekend tickets to Ireland and hang out in front of their gates, but U2 are the only band whose entire catalog I know by heart. The first song on The Unforgettable Fire, "A Sort of Homecoming," I know backward and forward – it's so rousing, brilliant and beautiful. It's one of the first songs I played to my unborn baby.
The first U2 album I ever heard was Achtung Baby. It was 1991, and I was fourteen years old. Before that, I didn't even know what albums were. From that point, I worked backward – every six months, I'd get to buy a new U2 album. The sound they pioneered – the driving bass and drums underneath and those ethereal, effects-laden guitar tracks floating out from above – was nothing that had been heard before. They may be the only good anthemic rock band ever. Certainly they're the best.

What I love most about U2 is that the band is more important than any of their songs or albums. I love that they're best mates and have an integral role in one another's lives as friends. I love the way that they're not interchangeable – if Larry Mullen Jr. wants to go scuba diving for a week, the rest of the band can't do a thing. U2 – like Coldplay – maintain that all songs that appear on their albums are credited to the band. And they are the only band that's been around for twenty years with no member changes and no big splits.

It's amazing that the biggest band in the world has so much integrity and passion in their music. Our society is thoroughly screwed, fame is a ridiculous waste of time, and celebrity culture is disgusting. There are only a few people around brave enough to talk out against it, who use their fame in a good way. And every time I try, I feel like an idiot, because I see Bono actually getting things achieved. While everyone else is swearing at George Bush, Bono is the one who rubs Bush's back and gets a billion dollars for Africa. People can be so cynical – they don't like do-gooders – but Bono's attitude is, "I don't care what anybody thinks, I'm going to speak out." He's accomplished so much with Greenpeace, in Sarajevo, at the concert to shut down the Sellafield nuclear plant, and he still runs the gantlet. When the time came for Coldplay to think about fair trade, we took his lead to speak out regardless of what anyone may think. That's what we've learned from U2: You have to be brave enough to be yourself.

- Chris Martin, Lead Singer Of U2 Tribute Band Minus Guitars Plus Piano - Coldplay (another band that sells far more than Radiohead)


Back to Sonick. Comb over my statements. Sales of tickets & records will never speak to Radiohead's place in history. That e-avalanche occured because of you agreement they're the biggest band out. As I said, they are true artists & future legends. But for you & 703 to say they are the biggest band in the world is completely erroneous. Also, drawing a parallel between The Pixies & Velvet Underground with Radiohead in terms of influence is off as well. Pixies & Velvet were special & earned a place in rock's pantheon, in the fact they:

1) Were waaay ahead of their time, and had MANY bands emulate them. i.e. The Pixies quiet-LOUD-quiet song format (Nirvana, anyone?)

2) Those 2 bands sold very few units, but the ones that did buy them pretty much all went out & started a band.

Radiohead has their own lane, I will concede, & I respect that to the utmost but their sphere of influence does not stretch nearly that far. They've been making "Fuck You" albums for years now, & only get a pass on that because of Pablo, Bends, & OK. Remember, that's the same shit that sunk R.E.M.'s boat post-New Adventures In Hi-Fi. They went from (arguably) best band out to "Who gives a fuck?", which I'm quite sure Radiohead knew hence "genius" marketing/distribution campaign. Credit though, cause my dissertation length posts are proof it's working.

That's all for now, cause I personally am quite tired of talking about Radiohead. I'll give their new album a chance. Again. Before I decide if their new album's yet another audio equivalent of getting first date head without a swallow (disappointing & unmemorable).


Again. :D

Originally posted by TheDirector217:

Back to Sonick. Comb over my statements. Sales of tickets & records will never speak to Radiohead's place in history. That e-avalanche occured because of you agreement they're the biggest band out.

ahh, see but because you only chose to read some of my posts and not all is why you are feeling this way.

once vansmack responded to the biggest band comment, i said that …wait let me quote

"well, thats what i am saying, i think "bigger" has more to do with album sales, commercials, merchandising sales or concert ticket sales.


but to be honest using "big" to describe a band isnt something i would ever really do."

heres 2 points, bro

1) i wouldnt use the word "Big" because i dont think the word "Big" addequately describes the goal of any artist, nor is it really a tangible thing….just something you can argue about, and some bands are bigger than others for different reasons, yadda yadda yadda, so big, is too vague. but since someone already said it, and they are , to me, better than every band who ever plugged in an instrument…i agreed.

2) did you see the "i think" in that quote.



this whole thing goes back to opinion, not fact, there are not "big band" stats…..so for you to call my and calla703's opinions "completely erroneous" ….well, is just completely erroenous.

dont geek out on me man, my favourite band just ripped out a new record, and imma be happy about it and say that Thom Yorke could kick John Lennon's ass…..and you can play with Bono.

but remember, next time U2 releases another album, or Ipod commercial, whichever comes first, i'll be the first to piss on the parade :)