ClumsyMonkey.net

has officially been in stores for an hour and 10 minutes.

somebody please tell me what the current single is because i knew "there there" was the first single and then a few days ago i heard "a punch up at a wedding" on the radio followed the next day by "2+2=5"

they all sound the same anyway.

areusad831 wrote:they all sound the same anyway.

Obviously you haven't heard any of the 3 songs.

Idealist wrote:somebody please tell me what the current single is because i knew "there there" was the first single and then a few days ago i heard "a punch up at a wedding" on the radio followed the next day by "2+2=5"

Not sure what the American/Canadian first single is but its 'There There' in the UK.

Also I highly recommend everyone go out and buy Hail To The Thief right now, awesome album.

Tis a great cd. I am glad I just bought it. I got a free 7" with it too.

Steph, you turned on 89X, no? They were playing the entire cd that day, and you just happened to turn it on for some of the other songs on the album. There There is the single, and there's no plans on releasing a new one quite yet. It was a part of a contest to win their new cd a couple days early.

Radiohead have gotten too repetitive and boring with their last 3 albums. There There is the only song off the new album that I like. Thom Yorke moans throughout the entire record and that can get VERY annoying to someone who wants to enjoy good music.

Give me a break. It takes a long time to get into Radiohead songs. I bet if you listen to it a few times, you'll like it.

what was the name of the C.D.

I've got every Radiohead cd and the last 3 which were hailed as masterpieces are horrible for me to listen to. OK Computer and The Bends were genius. Kid A, Amnesiac, and the new one sound like they have no ideas so they just bullshitted their way through the process by making them weird.

I saw the There, There video today. It's an awesome video, but I wasn't impressed by the song. :ohwell:

isnt he just running through some trees in the video, it was too long to watch the whole thing.

It was kind of weird. When I came in, he was walking through the trees into a clearing, where a jacket was floating. He put on the jacket, then found some shoes. He then got chased by some birds until he turned into a tree himself. It was really weird, but well done. It kept my attention long enough to sit through the song that I didn't like.

Yeah, I must say, Amnesiac is my least favorite Radiohead cd, but the new one is an improvement. I like it already, and it took me 6 months before I could get into Pablo Honey, and five months before I liked Kid A. The Bends and OK Computer are pure genius on cd, so yeah, I liked thos instantly.

For my money, their music doesn't get much better than Fake Plastic Trees, The Bends, Just, High and Dry, Electoineering, Let Down, and No Surprises.

ahhh... radiohead!

although technically i'm just starting to get into them, i really do like them. some of their songs, however, have been taking a while for me to get into, but i think they're really inspired. i'd give anything to meet Thom Yorke he's idol-worthy. -nods-

i can't wait until they come to vancouver. i hope i can go see them.

'there there' is one interesting video. radiohead videos are. my favourite is 'fake plastic trees' though. i love that one so much.


-emo

Is taking 5- or 6-months to get into a record really a sign of a good album? I'm not only referring to Radiohead with this comment, but in my opinion, exceptional music shouldn't need to grow on you. There are plenty of songs out there that can be amazing from the first listen and continue to be forever, so not being likable at first seems like a weakness to me, not a sign of a great song/album.

im sorry but i think needing time to sink your teeth into an album is a good thing. usually if i hear a song and instantly think that its the greatest song i've ever heard it gets increasingly boring in subsequent listens. every time i hear a radiohead song, i hear something different or it strikes me in a differnt way. that, my friends, is mature, developed music. how interesting would you be if you recieved a kindergarten education and never learned anything after that or just simply stayed the same until the day you died? just the simple fact that all of the albums are incredibly different signifies that the band has grown and evolved. nothing genius stays the same. i really seriously cannnot pick a favorite album because they all mean something different to me. kid a and amnesiac may be extremely abstract but that only lends to their dynamic abilities. i personally love how the new album is more beat driven because it really gives phil a chance to shine. i really can't put into words why i love the band because my explanation would fall far short of the truth. it just makes me sad to see the ignorance of people who dismiss something that doesnt incorporate as many hooks into a song as possible to make it catchy and "radio friendly".

Being able to like something right off the bat does not signify it as catchy and "radio friendly," just good. I agree with you that a song without staying power (ie. a song you like at first which you then lose interest) is also not a sign of a truly good song or album. Similarly, a song which you dont like at first and then grows on you is the same way, although not as bad as something built on catchy hooks. True genius is a song you like the first time you hear it and never get sick of it. That doesnt mean you cant discover new things each time you hear it. True genius blends "catchiness" and abstraction perfectly, resulting in a truly genius song. Any musician can make a totally whacked out abstract album and some people are bound to label it as "genius"... I personally don't like Radiohead, save for High and Dry and Fake Plastic Trees, but I think I'm far from ignorant. I just hate hearing people claim that taking time to develop a liking for a band is a sign of truly good music.

If that's the definition, The Bends, OK Computer, Kid A, and Hail to the Thief are all truly genius (or near to it) for me.

cor3y wrote:True genius is a song you like the first time you hear it and never get sick of it.

if thats the way you think of things, i bet you're missing out on a lot

making a song "catchy" for the sake of being "catchy" would be a violation of integrity in music for some people.

if a song isn't catchy, it doesnt mean it sucks, thats not the only element of the song. if you just blow it off because it doesnt catch your attention, it only shows how superficial your appreciation for music is

It has nothing to do with being catchy. You're completely misinterpretting what I'm saying. I simply think if a song is truly good, its good the first time you hear it and continues to be good every time you hear it. And I'm not missing out on anything. I like plenty of songs and albums that I don't like the first time around and they grow on me, I just dont think of that music as being anything revolutionary and worthy of being called genius. My problem is when people claim that to be a sure sign of music Godship, when an artist's music is too complex to grasp the first time around. It makes the musician a master of complexity, but not neccessarily music. I guess I'm just not as much of a music elitist as you are. I'll go back to my 'Nsync album now.