Since I don't like Radiohead very much, I think we can pretty safely say that without the "name your own price" gimmick I wouldn't have bought In Rainbows. But given the gimmick I did buy it and I . . . still think they're "okay" at best. Which would be fine, except they have this legion of super-devoted fans who sometimes make me want to stake out bolder "Radiohead Sucks!" kind of claims. But that would be wrong, it's not Radiohead's fault that Radiohead's fan-base is too rabid, and we all owe them a debt for expanding the frontiers of digital music distribution.
« The Conscience of a Liberal | Main | Why The Second Wetsuit? »
In Rainbows
10 Oct 2007 05:29 pm
Comments (56)
Yup, the defection of two major bands is likely to lead to more.
If it picks up steam, the labels are in trouble. They'll be stuck with Britney and Jessica. The horror! The horror!
Now if the defecting bands will only clue in that live broadcast over the Net by subscription is the future. Cut down on the touring, while increasing the connection to your fans, direct marketing, ad revenue, it's all there for the taking.
Since we're on the topic, I'll mention that I saw a Celtics pre-season game on ESPN2 this afternoon, and these folks are going to win the Eastern Conference.
Seriously, barring injury, the Boston Celtics are your 2008 Eastern Conference champs.
Rajon Rando and Kendrick Perkins are two of the luckiest guys on the planet. Especially Rondo, who is the new Tony Parker - an average talent who is in precisely the right place at precisely the right time to make the hoi polloi think he's actually really good.
Pierce looked wildly off in today's game, and I do have to wonder a bit if he doesn't quite know what his role is at the moment. He's likely the one of the three who's going to have the most trouble fitting in.
Like them or not, radiohead has been a gamechanger for awhile. Kid A was a gateway drug into experimental/indie rock for literally tens if not hundreds of thousands. I'm sure what constitutes a success in this venture, but there's no doubt this has gotten people talking.
It's not that "Radiohead Sucks!" but their music is stuck in a rut.
I haven't listened to In Rainbows enough to really give a review. But... Thom Yorke's recent release was nowhere near as good as Hail to the Thief, which in turn was nowhere near as good as Amnesiac.
Maybe they set the bar so freaking high with the Bends/OK Computer/Kid A, that anything would sound like a let-down?
How much did you pay?
That's what I wanted to know. It would be great if the band would put out some statistics on how much people actually determined to pay.
"Now if the defecting bands will only clue in that live broadcast over the Net by subscription is the future. Cut down on the touring, while increasing the connection to your fans, direct marketing, ad revenue, it's all there for the taking."
I love how Richard Steven Hack can manage to be an idiot on all topics presented. It's perversely impressive.
Ithink the reason they have been so disappointing over the last half decade is that thematically they are a one trick pony. Their best work resonates so much because it perfectly encapsulates the late 90s dread of humans not keeping up with technology. As the major basis of existential fear switched to the so called war on terror, their poignancy faded.
I'm not a huge Radiohead fan at all, either, but The Bends is one of my favorite albums of all time.
I tend to agree that Radiohead, while an overall quality band, are made almost insufferable by their most devoted fans.
The biggest problem with their music of the Kid A ilk is that similar things have been done only so, so much better.
lh is correct (twice). But I am intrigued to know: what modern musicians would you say deserve fans that are, as you say, rabid? Are there any?
One of the marks of hipsterism, of course, is a disdain for rabid fandom of anything, since the now is ephemeral, and what is cool today will be passé tomorrow. Rabidness is attachment, which is bad. Given the nature of your favorite bands - all of which I like well enough myself, but few of which are earth-changing in any way - you strike me as quite ripe for this sort of attitude toward music.
Though I am a rabid fan of several musicians, I have found my own fellow fans really annoying and disproportionate on more than one occasion. Which is to say, I think a general anti-rabidness attitude is perfectly reasonable; I'm just curious.
Specifying a public amount for the music would seem to be cheating. A lot. It isn't how much someone else thinks it's worth. It's how much the buyer does. If Radiohead is individualistic enough to risk brain-dead low-ball prices, people who think of themselves as stand-up guys should pay them what they honestly think it's worth.
This seems perliously close to opposing Howard Dean because of all the dirty fucking hippies who support him.
Though, I sympathize. Lost in Translation supporters are just as bad.
Why would Hack welcome this when he thinks there's nothing wrong with downloading any copyrighted material without paying anything to anyone?
Matt, have you really listened to The Bends, OK Computer and Kid A?
You are perfectly entitled to not like them, but, say what you want, they're not "okay at best", they are milestones of modern contemporary music. And I'm not even a devoted, let alone rabid fan, since I'm barely aware of what they've done after that, I'm just convinced that these three albums are something very special.
If you don't like early Radiohead, well, you may be hopeless, MY. I'm willing to cut you some slack on the later stuff.
Is that insufferable?
The biggest problem with their music of the Kid A ilk is that similar things have been done only so, so much better.
Yes, yes - nothing new under the sun.
Well played, young man.
"Especially Rondo, who is the new Tony Parker - an average talent who is in precisely the right place at precisely the right time to make the hoi polloi think he's actually really good."
Radiohead is the Tony Parker of music.
similar things have been done only so, so much better.
Name names Freddie, I don't mean this in a bad way but am genuinely interested.
The problem with Freddie's comment of the Radiohead ilk is that similar comments have been made ... well, by everyone who's ever wanted to criticize something without actually contributing anything to the conversation.
Saying radiohead-esqe music has been done before is the music equivalent of the Bush is Truman argument. It is hard to argue with on the most basic level, but fails terribly in the details. When Freddie shows me another conceptual album about the first cloned human I'll change my mind.
Radiohead is famously unafraid of experimentation. And experimentation often yields crap. If you average out their best and their worst, you get to where you are with them: "okay". But most Radiohead fans judge them only by their very best work, which is awesome, and don't factor in the boring stuff. In fact, they give them extra credit for all the experimenting.
You are perfectly entitled to not like [Radiohead], but, say what you want, they're not "okay at best", they are milestones of modern contemporary music...
Well, don't get too hyperbolic here. Radiohead may be good, but they don't have the instant-classic profundity of Feist, and even their best work comes nowhere near the empyrean grandeur of the new Tegan and Sara disc.
Based on his past music posts, I'm sure Matt will back me up on this.
I'm not the most rabid of Radiohead fans, but come on, how many masterpieces in a row do they have to churn out? What other band's catalog can match the run of albums from OK Computer through Amnesiac (I'd throw The Bends and Hail to the Thief in there too, but I'm being conservative)?
That said, I was hugely disappointed by Thom Yorke's solo album, and while I've only listened to In Rainbows once, it definitely sounds to me like what it's reported to be--a roundup of odds and ends that for one reason or another didn't make the cut for previous albums.
I think Radiohead is in that tricky career spot where they are unquestionably past their peak, and haters have a point in a relative sense when they cry "overrated," but that peak was so lofty, and their current position so high on an absolute scale, that staking out the strong "they suck" position is kind of crazy. I'd analogize their situation to U2 post-Zooropa or REM post-New Adventures in Hi Fi.
Is there anything more boring than writing about music?
Shouldn't we at least phrase our answers in the form of some ILL RHYMES?
Just asking.
APS
Agree with Inceompetence Dodger-- they've fallen from their peak, but their current music is still quite good. OK computer is a classic. I will not accept any other opinions on that.
Lost in Translation supporters are just as bad.
A movie that begins with a shot of a female heinie substituting for Mt. Fuji is going to have its fans.
Once again, MY's taste in music is eerily similar to my own.
Radiohead is not bad, but not nearly as good as their fan[boys] think they are. Which makes me want to hate them, but I can't, because they're not bad enough to hate.
I loved OK Computer (I even got the Easy Star All Stars reggae/dub version), but I skipped out on the next three CDs because the band seemed more detached and less visceral. I paid about $5 for In Rainbows just because it seemed a decent price for an old sentimental favourite and I was willing to risk that amount of money for something I probably wouldn't like very much.
Well, now that I've played it a few times, I LOVE it. It's tricksy and heartfelt and languid all at once. But maybe this CD will only appeal to the diehards and lapsed fans/old farts like me.
"old farts like me"
that freaks me out. radiohead's glory days are now stuff for old people to talk about.
it's like the foo fighters concert i just went to -- most people there were 25-35.
Usually I am loathe to respond to challenges against my musical taste, but I find some genius in the "its not so much the band as their rabid fans" argument.
It pretty much disarms you straightaway, since you really can't defend Radiohead with any passion of verve without throwing yourself in the "rabid fan" category. In fact, the only person who can refute the argument is a member of Radiohead. (No - we are good. Our fans our just crazy) That's effective.
That aside, I think Thommy and Kevin Walker are pretty much right here. Radiohead has a marked fetish for experimentation, which can either create genius or utter crap. They may have gone through all their capacity for genius.
File this under genius for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7it1uF4dDk
My Radiohead theory:
Girls like Radiohead because Thom Yorke is a sexy guy.
Guys like Radiohead because then they can get with the girls who like Radiohead.
This is also why people like Coldplay, a much worse band with an even sexier frontman.
Thom Yorke is a sexy guy.
he is?
i always thought he looks like someone with a mild flu.
I've always thought Thome Yorke looks like a half-mature embryo.
On the other hand, I just paid over CD price for In Rainbows and, like all the others, it's worth it and very fantastic.
Since I'm part of Radiohead's army of super-devoted fans, I just want to say that In Rainbows is probably their best album in a while, but nothing they do will ever top OK Computer.
Name names Freddie, I don't mean this in a bad way but am genuinely interested.
Tortoise, Godspeed You Black Emperor!, Mogwai, Sonic Youth, Neu, etc....
The problem with Freddie's comment of the Radiohead ilk is that similar comments have been made ... well, by everyone who's ever wanted to criticize something without actually contributing anything to the conversation.
Struck a nerve, huh? Once again, people arguing against the claim confirm it in doing so.
As with any group of zealots, there are factions, and as a member of the moderate, prog-abhoring faction, I have to counter a bit of misinfo offered further up in the comments: Radiohead have NEVER MADE A FUCKING CONCEPT ALBUM! Certainly not about a human clone for fucks sake.
Unfortunately, Radiohead went the "free beer" route (which is fine in an d of itself if they so choose) instead of the "free speech" route. Apparently, it is still illegal to non-commercially share their music with others. Expensive music is not a social problem. All Rights Reserved is.
"I love how Richard Steven Hack can manage to be an idiot on all topics presented. It's perversely impressive."
I love how Petey can't put a verb and a noun together without insulting someone without any rational argument behind it whatsoever.
It's really not impressive, however - any moron can do it.
"Why would Hack welcome this when he thinks there's nothing wrong with downloading any copyrighted material without paying anything to anyone?"
See, here we see a nitwit who's incapable of basic logic.
While there is nothing wrong with downloading material without paying for it, this has absolutely nothing to do logically with downloading material AND paying someone for it.
It's not an either-or situation - except of course for the specific transaction involved. In fact, even that isn't necessarily true - a LOT of people, according to studies, in fact, those people who download the MOST, BUY the most music.
They download it first to make sure it's worth buying, then they buy what they like.
Nothing wrong with that at all. It's called "the free market" - another concept Mixner has probably never heard of.
"Girls like Radiohead because Thom Yorke is a sexy guy. Guys like Radiohead because then they can get with the girls who like Radiohead."
You could say that about just about any band except the Spice Girls and the Corrs and a few other bands that have a lot of women in them - and female bands already have rabid male fans for the obvious reasons.
They also have a lot of female fans, at least the Corrs do - because much of the music and most of the lyrics are written by one or more females in the band, which means the whole ambiance is different than a bunch of guys writing the music and lyrics. It's less likely to make guys like the band, but as I said, they already have other reasons for liking the band. Some guys even like the music...
RSH says:
"While there is nothing wrong with downloading material without paying for it"
I agree 100%. What's wrong is a law that stops people from freely sharing culture. Copyright law has room in it to allow non-commercial sharing yet reserve some rights for artists. All Rights Reserved is oppressively archaic in the age of global digital networks.
Hack,
While there is nothing wrong with downloading material without paying for it,
Why not? Do you also think there's nothing wrong with stealing merchandise from retail stores?
They download it first to make sure it's worth buying, then they buy what they like.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, that's right. All those people who illegally download mp3s of copyrighted music from Kazaa and Bitorrent are just trying it out, and if they like it they go and purchase it on iTunes or CD. You seriously believe that, do you?
Copyright law has room in it to allow non-commercial sharing yet reserve some rights for artists.
Sure. Copyright law allows you to quote a passage from a copyrighted book in a blog post, for example. That's an example of fair use. But I get the feeling you're not satisfied with that. What kinds of "non-commercial sharing" of copyrighted material that are currently unlawful do you think should be legally permitted?
Mixner says:
"Why not? Do you also think there's nothing wrong with stealing merchandise from retail stores?"
You've been listening to too many RIAA/MPAA anti-"piracy" propaganda ads.
"What kinds of "non-commercial sharing" of copyrighted material that are currently unlawful do you think should be legally permitted?"
What do you mean "what kinds"? Humanity should be free to share published works.
"radiohead's glory days are now stuff for old people to talk about."
It's like how "The Wonder Years" and "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" are now on Nick-at-Nite.
MY has adopted the perfect hipster pose here. Say you don't hate Radiohead, then complain they're over-rated. MY probably had an OK Computer poster growing up, but now has moved on to the Arcade Fire and Art Brut.
"I'm not the most rabid of Radiohead fans, but come on, how many masterpieces in a row do they have to churn out?"
One would be nice. Sorry I just really don't care for them.
I do like what they did with this new album though. Musicians generally make the real money performing music, not recording it. Might as well cut out any unecessary middle men at this point.
Tortoise, Godspeed You Black Emperor!, Mogwai, Sonic Youth, Neu
Have heard of but not consciously listened to Mogwai and Sonic Youth, the rest are new to me, will check them out.
Cheers
Mixner the moron, fresh from his trolling in the torture thread sayeth the following:
"Why not? Do you also think there's nothing wrong with stealing merchandise from retail stores?"
There is absolutely ZERO comparison between downloading a file and removing physical merchandise from a store. In the latter case, the merchandise is taken by coercion and the store loses a sale because it does not physically have the merchandise. In the other, the store continues to possess the merchandise, and only loses a sale - possibly or even probably - to the individual who downloaded the file - assuming that person ever intended or had the wherewithal to buy the item in the first place.
"Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, that's right. All those people who illegally download mp3s of copyrighted music from Kazaa and Bitorrent are just trying it out, and if they like it they go and purchase it on iTunes or CD. You seriously believe that, do you?"
What part of the fact that there are studies that establish this is true don't you comprehend? I will reiterate in case your reading comprehension is on the level of SLC's: studies have shown that the people who download the most are also people who buy the most CDs. In other words, they're music lovers.
Now I'm not sure these studies have shown that they NECESSARILY BUY the SAME CDs that they downloaded IN ALL CASES. But I believe the studies DID say that that is the case in some significant percentage at least.
So - wrong again.
Big surprise.
I soaked in OK Computer about, oh, has it been 10 years? Ten years ago. It was genius and I loved it. Kid A was genius, too, imo, in a different way. Amnesiac was pretty poor, though I Might Be Wrong remains one of my favorite RH songs. Hail to the Thief was pretty good, sort of a reconciliation between the rock and electronic music. This album, though... on first listen I was just totally bummed out. It's not very good. Sort of flat, too low-key, too minimal, it doesn't really do much. It's the first truly mediocre Radiohead album, unless you count Pablo Honey, which I really just pretend doesn't exist.
While listening I just wanted to go back to TV On the Radio.
i generally try to disapprove of whatever everyone else likes.
I can't hate Radiohead.
and it has nothing to do with Thom Yorke's alleged sexiness.
and I'm really sorry but comparing RH to *Tegan and Sara*?!?!??
thats like comparing a mildly amusing jingle writer to Leonard Cohen.
here's the rub: rh fans tend to think the band ranks with the best of U2, the beatles, other seminal bands. but rh has had nowhere near the dominance those bands had at various times. so they're not really on par.
personally, i really don't think rh is particularly experimental compared to, e.g., bjork, just compared to reactionary rockers like ben harper and such (not dissing ben at all). put another way, they don't seem relatively any more radical than u2 in the zooropa era. so they don't get props on that score, and the songs aren't really there to carry them otherwise.
Bodysnatchers!
Analyze!
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, that's right. All those people who illegally download mp3s of copyrighted music from Kazaa and Bitorrent are just trying it out, and if they like it they go and purchase it on iTunes or CD. You seriously believe that, do you?
Posted by Mixner | October 10, 2007 11:13 PM
Mixner, you have just described exactly how I bought music for over a decade...The only reason I stopped using kazaa to test-drive music was it's pathetic incompatibility with my new mac.
If the music was any good, I ordered the CD over the internet. If it sucked...I deleted it.
Yeah, a LOT of people do that.
Comments closed October 24, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
How much did you pay?
Posted by alkali | October 10, 2007 5:39 PM