HOLY CRAP - NEW RADIOHEAD ALBUM 10/10/07

Originally posted by kosmo:
me thinks radiohead fans should checkout The Hollies "The Air That I Breathe", would have to guess a young Thom Yorke heard this one…

Slightly creepy music video version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZMA5oRzMj0

TV studio band performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ru1rr8SwHw

oh come on, how old is that???

in fact, didnt Hammond even end up getting some of the royalties?

clever, kosmo but about 15 years late. (where's that ancient.gif?)

so Radiohead's biggest hit turns out to be ripoff of another song… nice :) it puts them in the same league at Vanilla Ice

Originally posted by kosmo:
so Radiohead's biggest hit turns out to be ripoff of another song… nice :) it puts them in the same league at Vanilla Ice

here we go with "biggest hit" now.


add that to the "930 board defines what makes a good band list":


1. sold out shows
2. hooks
3. melodies

anything else?

how about:

4. commercial endorsements.
5. appearances on SNL
6. superbowl halftime shows
7. rolling stone/spin cover shots
8. kids bop remake songs

i dunno. i mean, we've got real merit working here.

besides everyone seemed to like Radiohead when they were ripping of the Hollies and apparently U2. so we can add

9. ripping off other bands

it's a joke… I only in the last couple of years heard the Hollies song for the first time and then thought how it was interesting that it must have had some influence on Radiohead… aren't they a bit "hip" to having been influenced by the Hollies? Not that there is anything wrong with the Hollies, I quite like their material. It wasn't till today that I found out about the lawsuit and sharing of royalties for "Creep", apologizes for not being a scholar of Radiohead history.

Originally posted by kosmo:
it's a joke… I only in the last couple of years heard the Hollies song for the first time and then thought how it was interesting that it must have had some influence on Radiohead… aren't they a bit "hip" to having been influenced by the Hollies? Not that there is anything wrong with the Hollies, I quite like their material. It wasn't till today that I found out about the lawsuit and sharing of royalties for "Creep", apologizes for not being a scholar of Radiohead history.

i like the hollies a lot, too! go figure.

but for all the Pink Floyd references they always get, i dont see much floyd in their music at all!

Originally posted by le sonick:

Originally posted by kosmo:
so Radiohead's biggest hit turns out to be ripoff of another song… nice :) it puts them in the same league at Vanilla Ice

here we go with "biggest hit" now.


add that to the "930 board defines what makes a good band list":


1. sold out shows
2. hooks
3. melodies

anything else?

how about:

4. commercial endorsements.
5. appearances on SNL
6. superbowl halftime shows
7. rolling stone/spin cover shots
8. kids bop remake songs

i dunno. i mean, we've got real merit working here.

besides everyone seemed to like Radiohead when they were ripping of the Hollies and apparently U2. so we can add

9. ripping off other bands

Well all you gotta do say my name, playboy! It's TheDirector, homey. The. Director.

You can't say "Creep" wasn't their biggest hit. That's not even an argument. It's not their best song, just their biggest.

I believe I can speak for most people (except for Brain Walalce, as if anyone really quantifies his musical opinion, - who had the nerve to say Radiohead should emulate The Flaming Lips. Wow. Pause.) when I say I think the animosity/disappointment towards Radiohead stems from the fact that they are a ROCK band that has for years now, eschewed guitars. I don't necessarily need any hooks. Just leave the fuckin' ambient trance thing alone & fuckin' rawk already. Like I said earlier, I don't mind bands making "Fuck You" albums, but it's like they don't/haven't stopped. I don't mind when an artist pushes the envelope ala "Speakerbox/The Love Below", Dylan going electric, or something like that. Because it works. I actually like it when artists push the envelope. Had they stopped with Kid A, it'd be all good. But it just keeps gettin' fuckin' worse. This is simply opinion here, but I don't think they're going left in the name of artistry. It's like they're doing it just to fuckin' do it. They won't probably ever move platinum units again (not that that is a measure of greatness) but Radiohead full knows they got fanboys like you drinking that Jim Jones & the cult will follow regardless. If it weren't for what I've been told were their marvelous live performances, I doubt aside of this online marketing scheme anyone would give a fuck. They don't gotta give me anthems or hooks. Just leave the R2D2 blips away, get rid of the trance, & pick up some fuckin' guitars and rock. Please. Tell 'em The Director sent you.

P.S. Far as the Pink Floyd thing, it's because OK is kinda akin to a modernized Dark Side Of The Moon. Concept album, alienation, etc. I'm just saying.

Why does a band that was a rock band once have to remain a rock band? And why do you have to have a guitar in a rock band?

David Bowie was pretty successful at releasing a string of albums that sounded nothing like one another, and were pretty experimental in nature for the time they were released.

For me, Radiohead wasn't nearly as interesting when it was just OK Computer, The Bends and Pablo Honey. I think Kid A, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief, and now, In Rainbows, are what makes them as relevant and important as I believe them to be.

Its true it may make more sense in the live setting. At the Tower Theatre show I saw last year they played the Bends and it rocked . . . but the straightforward two-guitar rock song also felt quaint and provincial in the context. It felt somewhat out of place and I'd say songs like The National Anthem and Idioteque rocked harder and were more interesting. And all the new stuff sounded great.

Also, I think the 'I Might Be Wrong' live release displays more life to songs from Kid A and Amnesiac than is on record.

Haven't heard In Rainbows yet. But I think part of the perception that Amnesiac and HTTT were drop-offs were that they weren't unified wholes like Kid A, Ok Computer and the Bends. They both have a lot of quality songs, but don't tie together.

Originally posted by Mobius:
but the straightforward two-guitar rock song also felt quaint and provincial in the context.

From what province did it feel like?

Originally posted by Mobius:

Haven't heard In Rainbows yet.

No need to. This thread is more interesting than In Rainbows.

Originally posted by 6949:

Originally posted by Mobius:

Haven't heard In Rainbows yet.

No need to. This thread is more interesting than In Rainbows.

I'm six songs in, and not particularly in a hurry to finish hearing the other six. I believe I spent more time posting about the album once I actually started listening to it. Theory proven.

True story.
;)

Originally posted by TheDirector217:

Originally posted by 6949:

Originally posted by Mobius:

Haven't heard In Rainbows yet.

No need to. This thread is more interesting than In Rainbows.

I'm six songs in, and not particularly in a hurry to finish hearing the other six. I believe I spent more time posting about the album once I actually started listening to it. Theory proven.

True story.
;)

Interesting - my copy only has ten tracks on it. I like pretty much all of them. In fact some of them are superb in my view.

On a related note, I think that a lot of people on this thread need to lie back, have a deep breath and contemplate having a wank.

It might release some of the obvious pent up geekatonic tension that a four year wait for a new Radiohead record has caused.

I still want to know when the last time anyone felt that their enjoyment of a song that they were listening to was comprised by it being a mere 160kbps . . . don't criticize me, all i ask is that you convince me it makes a difference that it is 160 Vs say 320 or 128kbps Zzzzzzzzz

agreed.

Originally posted by TheDirector217:


You can't say "Creep" wasn't their biggest hit. That's not even an argument. It's not their best song, just their biggest.

my argument is who gives a flying fuckski what ppls bigget hit is!!!

who gives a shit, not me, sir, not me.

Fuck this pretentious bullshit.

Isn't 'All I Need' the BEST!?!

Seriously, I am in LOVE with it.

Radiohead are pretentious? :)

Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Fuck this pretentious bullshit.

Isn't 'All I Need' the BEST!?!

Seriously, I am in LOVE with it.

Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Fuck this pretentious bullshit.

Isn't 'All I Need' the BEST!?!

Seriously, I am in LOVE with it.

as i mentioned earlier, bodysnatchers and all i need are definite favourites!

well i find that 128kps encoded mp3s sound flat in comparison to 192kps… and wondering how much is actually missing in the encoding process, given that after listening to a 192kps encoded track several times then hearing the actual CD and noticing distinct differences between the two.

Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Fuck this pretentious bullshit.

you rang?

Originally posted by Fadger:
I still want to know when the last time anyone felt that their enjoyment of a song that they were listening to was comprised by it being a mere 160kbps . . . don't criticize me, all i ask is that you convince me it makes a difference that it is 160 Vs say 320 or 128kbps Zzzzzzzzz

There's a HUGE difference. 160 does nothing for me. I swear by EAC/LAME, as it's all I rip with or will listen to if I have a choice. The rips of these songs for In Rainbows are horrible. I don't tend to listen to anything in CBR either. Straight VBR for me. There's an extremely noticable difference. Rips in EAC/LAME have been proven to sound better than those God-awful 128 AAC ("lossless") rips that iTunes gives out. It's noticalble even on something like iPod with standard/factory headphones. But I'm something of an audiophile, so don't use me as a standard.

With that being said, "Weird Fishes", "Reckoner", & "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" are fuckin' bonkers. I'm lovin that.

Rest of the album . . . . .