Originally posted by Brian Wallace:You know, when faced with an actual 14 year old, I feel the need to retract any comments likening Sonick to one. My apologies.
Radiohead? The Smashing Pumpkins? Both are in love with the smell of their own farts.
HOLY CRAP - NEW RADIOHEAD ALBUM 10/10/07
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:Your post was awesome. I made it awesomer.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:You know, Brian has a NAME!
You're like one of those 14 year olds who defend Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy with arguments consisting of "yer gay!"
And here it is,
Brian
And here it is again,
Brian
P.S. Radiohead? The Smashing Pumpkins? Brian? All are in love with the smell of their own farts. As is Brian.
With love,
Brian
Brian
Originally posted by Relaxer:I don't mean to imply that something is wrong with not liking it. I just think that music as a unifying factor is part of the fun of it - it is a way of finding some common grounds with people. The ability to share the experience is something that is very powerful. Yes, that can also be true when people vehemently disagree about something - strong reactions generally provide for the best discussions. But finding you have something in common with other people that you might otherwise never identify with? That's a powerful thing, and for me, music is often where I find that commonality.
I wouldn't exert to much energy pitying us who "don't get it." I could just as easily say, I feel sorry for anyone who thinks THAT is great.
Hey, did you see the thread on the other new releases that came out yesterday? There's lots of them! Lots and lots and lots of new records, of which Radiohead's is one. If Rainbows was the only record released in 2007, I might be a little disappointed. But it wasn't! Yay! Choice! No need for lockstep agreeance!
I don't understand why people aren't ejaculating over the Gallows, Jay Reatard and Witchcraft records, but I make a big mess over those things all day every day. Do I feel sad? Hell no! Slightly superior and a little hungry? Hell yes!
And besides, when me and my music buddies all agree on the merits of a record, that conversation lasts about a minute and a half. When we disagree on a record, that conversation will drag on for months and months, and to me, that's more fun and stimulating.
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.
And again, I don't mean to imply there is a NEED for "lockstep agreeance." But aren't the albums that everybody can admit are great the best? For example, I've said before that I'm not a Velvet Underground fan, but I can admit the importance and greatness of an album like their debut.
I don't know. Maybe it is campy to wish for a piece of art that listeners can unanimously appreciate on some level. But I feel like the one band right now that is capable of that is Radiohead.
Originally posted by Relaxer:It's only Wednesday, & we may have a post of the week.
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:Your post was awesome. I made it awesomer.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:You know, Brian has a NAME!
You're like one of those 14 year olds who defend Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy with arguments consisting of "yer gay!"
And here it is,
Brian
And here it is again,
Brian
P.S. Radiohead? The Smashing Pumpkins? Brian? All are in love with the smell of their own farts. As is Brian.
With love,
Brian
Brian
Originally posted by callat703:Damn. I see the greenery around your way is SUPER high grade, fam. Your connect must make a fuckin' fortune . . .
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.
Originally posted by TheDirector217:Call it as I see it. I think in terms of global reach and appeal across genre and age, Radiohead is pretty universally intriguing to people.
Originally posted by callat703:Damn. I see the greenery around your way is SUPER high grade, fam. Your connect must make a fuckin' fortune . . .
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.
You seen any other album releases lately that made the front page of the Drudge Report, CNN, Time, etc?
Originally posted by callat703:Besides Britney Spears?
You seen any other album releases lately that made the front page of the Drudge Report, CNN, Time, etc?
And when did it becomes acceptable to list Drudge next to CNN and Time?
Originally posted by vansmack:Related to the actual music, as opposed to the celebrity.
Originally posted by callat703:Besides Britney Spears?
You seen any other album releases lately that made the front page of the Drudge Report, CNN, Time, etc?
Drudge is pretty well respected, like it or not. And he also has one of the largest news sites in the world.
Originally posted by callat703:Oh really? And not the method of distribution?
Related to the actual music, as opposed to the celebrity.
Just finished listening to it
I was kind of distracted but nothing jumped out at me. Some things are nice, but like most albums I need to listen to it a few more times.
Jigsaw Falling Into Place was a bit $$$ though.
I was kind of distracted but nothing jumped out at me. Some things are nice, but like most albums I need to listen to it a few more times.
Jigsaw Falling Into Place was a bit $$$ though.
Originally posted by vansmack:Sure - method of distribution is still about the music itself. 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.
Originally posted by callat703:Oh really? And not the method of distribution?
Related to the actual music, as opposed to the celebrity.
Originally posted by callat703:By whom, Newt Gingrich? No one who has ever even considered – even for a second – voting for a Non-Republican considers Drudge a "reputable" source.
Drudge is pretty well respected, like it or not.
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. [/QB]I'll agree with that. SP's freebie was on yahoo news and a few others, but nowhere near the media blitz In Rainbows has caused.
Originally posted by callat703:How on earth does anybody make that connection?
Sure - method of distribution is still about the music itself.
Well, you did call Drudge respected, so it makes a little sense.
Originally posted by vansmack:I think that's a pretty elementary connection.
Originally posted by callat703:How on earth does anybody make that connection?
Sure - method of distribution is still about the music itself.
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.
I think the point that Smackie is making is that if it was released as a normal in stores CD, none of those places even mention they have a CD out. The newsworthy element of the story is not "Radiohead's music" but "Radiohead's marketing plan."
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:That's a debate for another thread.
Originally posted by callat703:By whom, Newt Gingrich? No one who has ever even considered – even for a second – voting for a Non-Republican considers Drudge a "reputable" source.
Drudge is pretty well respected, like it or not.
Originally posted by callat703:I think the definition of "itself" is fairly elementary.
I think that's a pretty elementary connection.
"with respect to its inherent nature"
So how deoes the ditrubution of the music relate to the inherent nature of the music? At all?
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:Yes, I understand that. But without the relevance and global impact of Radiohead's music, Radiohead's marketing plan is not newsworthy.
I think the point that Smackie is making is that if it was released as a normal in stores CD, none of those places even mention they have a CD out. The newsworthy element of the story is not "Radiohead's music" but "Radiohead's marketing plan."
EDIT: To further clarify, the only reason that Radiohead is newsworthy, I'm contending, is due to their music. They aren't celebrities, they don't make a great deal of public commentary, they aren't dating models…they're just a band putting out a record.
Originally posted by callat703:Without the relevance and global impact of Britney's back catalog, Britney's antics are not newsworthy.
Yes, I understand that. But without the relevance and global impact of Radiohead's music, Radiohead's marketing plan is not newsworthy.