Radiohead's new CD has leaked

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 4/4/2003, 4:39 pm

Wow, I'm sorry, but Radiohead needs to go back to the "OK Computer" and "The Bends" kind of style, or at least give hints of it. I didn't like Amnesiac that much, and I don't want to buy that again and all....

Mechanical Thought · Post by **Mechanical Thought** » 4/4/2003, 5:14 pm

i definately agree! i'mnot a huge Radiohead fan, but from what i've heard, i like "the Bends"

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 4/4/2003, 5:47 pm

You can only do the "progressive computer rock" thing so many times before you go from cutting edge and amazing to hackneyed and barely worth listening to. I remember when rock bands could make rock music without sythesizers, voice filters, and instruments no one has ever heard of. Whatever though, I still hope Radiohead will go back to having guitars, bass, drums, and vocals be the most important part of their music, not how fucked up they can make a song sound before they song is completely lost in all the filters and extra instruments. I will keep buying their cds no matter what, so I guess they pretty much own me.

Post by **faninor** » 4/5/2003, 5:30 pm

I don't think the new album is trying to be another Kid A or Amnesiac. I read a quote somewhere, about a year ago, that said their plan for the next album was to try not to use computers, and it sounds like there are plenty of songs in which they stuck to that plan.

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 4/5/2003, 7:13 pm

I'd like to know whatever happened to writing songs like Fake Plastic Trees and No Surprises? I mean, what they do now is alright and all, but what happened to writing good, strong rock songs that were still catchy? I guess asking for something normal is too much to ask, right?

the android · Post by **the android** » 4/5/2003, 8:41 pm

I love Radiohead to death, don't get me wrong.

But it seems like they try too hard to be completely unique, and that's not always good. I only like about 5 songs off of Amnesiac and Kid A PUT TOGETHER. There was nothing wrong with that they were doing.

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 4/5/2003, 10:22 pm

Thank you Andrea, I thought I was the only one that didn't really like Amnesiac.

the android · Post by **the android** » 4/5/2003, 10:48 pm

teelow · Post by **teelow** » 4/6/2003, 4:07 am

I'll wait.

Bananababy · Post by **Bananababy** » 4/8/2003, 10:42 pm

Kiss me once in the snow wrote:You can only do the "progressive computer rock" thing so many times before you go from cutting edge and amazing to hackneyed and barely worth listening to. I remember when rock bands could make rock music without sythesizers, voice filters, and instruments no one has ever heard of. Whatever though, I still hope Radiohead will go back to having guitars, bass, drums, and vocals be the most important part of their music, not how fucked up they can make a song sound before they song is completely lost in all the filters and extra instruments. I will keep buying their cds no matter what, so I guess they pretty much own me.

Yeah, I agree some songs on Amnesiac were ridiculous.. but others I really like..like Pyramid Song, You and Whose Army, Knives Out, Life in a Glass House..I think I left out some. overall I think OK Computer was the best album altogether. Have you heard any from their new album? I don't think it's like Amnesiac at all.... It's pretty good. and yeah I wouldn't like it if it was just another continuation of amnesiac.. because amnesiac was like a continuation of kid a, so it's time to move on. I like Radiohead.. people say they try too hard to be different, but maybe they like their music that way and it isn't just to make a statement. Maybe they have some quirky hidden meaning behind that random/bad interlude songish thing on Amnesiac(I don't even know what it's called) and we just don't know. Or maybe they just think it's cool sounding. The thing is, they don't really care; they just make music because they like it, and I appreciate that.
Oh yea, and anyone hear any of the new Blur album? I have and it's kinda bad... :neutral:

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 4/10/2003, 3:22 pm

Radiohead is to the point where if they put out anything, and I mean anything, they'll be huge. After OK Computer and Kid A, they got to the legendary status, so like 20 years from now they can put out anything they want, and it would at least go platinum. They're the next Aerosmith/Rolling Stones/Bruce Springsteen type. Anything they release is gold after a week. Thank God Radiohead is better.

So they can do whatever they like, and it will be huge, but I just want a decent rock album, you know, like a continuation of The Bends or something. I am not asking for much, just normal sounding music....

Bananababy · Post by **Bananababy** » 4/10/2003, 7:35 pm

Oh, it is closer to normal sounding.. :nod:

Odin · Post by **Odin** » 4/10/2003, 9:24 pm

Kiss me once in the snow wrote:You can only do the "progressive computer rock" thing so many times before you go from cutting edge and amazing to hackneyed and barely worth listening to. I remember when rock bands could make rock music without sythesizers, voice filters, and instruments no one has ever heard of. Whatever though, I still hope Radiohead will go back to having guitars, bass, drums, and vocals be the most important part of their music, not how fucked up they can make a song sound before they song is completely lost in all the filters and extra instruments. I will keep buying their cds no matter what, so I guess they pretty much own me.

But at the same time you can only go so far with simple guitar, bass, drums and vocals. The reason why I still listen to Radiohead, Matt Good, Massive Attack, Portishead and Bjork is because of their continuous growth. OLP went back to traditional sounding rock music with Gravity, result? Gravity is the worst thing that ever came out from OLP and I don't even listen to them anymore. The important part IS their music, are you now saying Kid A and Amnesiac is not about the music but it's about Radiohead being pretentious and try to be experimental? Yeah I remember when bands can just make great music with the four core instruments, but I don't think I wanna hear Pearl Jam NOW, in case you haven't noticed, it's 2003 not 1993.

And as for your other post, it's true that Radiohead can put out anything and still be huge. It's true, I browsed a couple other message boards and they often say that "I don't like Hail to the Thief that much, but it's a grower". How in the fucking way would you know it's a grower until it grew on you!! When Radiohead became a trademark of making experimental and inaccessible music, people just say whatever they make as good. This would eventually lead up to the "pop" music debate that I'm often tangled in. Remember one thing, artists don't make art for an audience, they do what they're doing for themselves per se. Radiohead makes music THEY like and why should they care if I think it's gold, at least the band is still trying to prove a point and attempting to exceed their last effort and bands like Tool and Radiohead are still doing that.

Maybe 20 years later Radiohead can do whatever, but I think 20 years later we won't hear from them any longer.

Solidarity 9-6347 · Post by **Solidarity 9-6347** » 4/10/2003, 9:38 pm

i agree with odin. experimental sounds open up new doors for music and since radiohead has proved themselves over and over to be musical genuises, i think they will be able to take that and use it to advance music to new levels. i think it was ed who said in an interview about the band using computers "the permutations are endless". guitars, bass, drums by themselves can be very limiting. its kind of like using a common general word to describe someting when a "big" word will describe it much more accurately, even if some people may consider it to be superfluous. i admire them for being leaders in the music industry...yay for them for finding a new path that will lead them to god knows where. as much as i like ok computer, i dont think i'd want a continuation of that, or of any other album for that matter. i think we may group the synthesized albums together because its a new kind of sound. one could conceivably say that the "real sound" albums sound the same in comparison to the "synthesized" ones. it all depends on your point of view.

odin wrote:Remember one thing, artists don't make art for an audience, they do what they're doing for themselves per se.

at least that is the ideal for an artist...if only they all could be like that

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 4/10/2003, 9:50 pm

It's not 1993? What? You're kidding, right? I thought I was still in the 4th grade.

I am sorry if I got burnt out by music like this. You can use computers only so much before it gets so far out of hand that you can't really tolerate it anymore. I am sorry if the face that I don't like the Radiohead of today bothers you that much, but it's my choice to want to hear less made up music than that. Maybe if they killed off some of the odd noises they have going on in their music, it would be fine. Feel free to use more than a guitar, bass, and drums, but there is a limit to how many different tweaks you can do to a song before it goes from amazing to tolerable and eventually to "skip the track."

Solidarity 9-6347 · Post by **Solidarity 9-6347** » 4/10/2003, 9:56 pm

for me, one of the best things about listening to radiohead is being able to frantically go back and forth between part and whole. the more parts, the more fun it is to listen.

i dont think some of the songs would have the same effect if it werent for the noises, im sure they're not random...they probably serve some kind of purpose and im sure that the band dosent really care whether or not the listener has any idea whats going on. hence the lack of an abundance of hooks.

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 4/10/2003, 9:59 pm

I like listening to music where I don't have to be completely dumbfounded by what's going on. There's too much of a, for lack of a better word, clutter in the songs. Maybe I don't see pure genius by an overuse of instruments and sounds, and like power chords and songs that speak to me better. Who knows?

Solidarity 9-6347 · Post by **Solidarity 9-6347** » 4/10/2003, 10:07 pm

for me, if i can have complex cords, lyrics that mean something to me in several ways, emotional vocals, relevant rythm, an original bass line, and a minor, uniquely intervaled melody then that would be perfection...it would strike a much deeper chord in me (no pun intended) than say something with only one or two of the above mentioned aspects. like i said, the part-whole thing is what makes a song interesting to me...maybe thats just part of my ADD

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 4/10/2003, 10:13 pm

You don't have ADD :lol:

Anyways, I don't need complexity for my music to mean something to me. And if I did, I am sure Alkaline Trio can pull it off. I still can't play some of Dan's songs on the bass, so obviously he's got some original and tough basslines, where as I can play Radiohead rather easily.

And this is a serious question. What do you mean by relevant rhythm?

Solidarity 9-6347 · Post by **Solidarity 9-6347** » 4/10/2003, 10:21 pm

i do have clinical ADD actually

what i meant by relevant rythm is rythm that was made for the music, not some recycled drum part thats been circulating the music industry since the beatles. a relevant rythm would add to the flow of the song, not make it sound conventional. not to be cheap or anything, but for those of you who have read "the fountainhead" it talks about roark refusing to borrow from old styles because his philosophy entailed letting the area the house was to be built on to decide the aspects of the house. therefore it would look like an extension of the land instead of just a house sitting on a lot. the rythm of a song is like the foundation of the house, the only difference is that the melody is usually thought of first. nevertheless, the rythm is the foundation of a song.