Eric is an old friend of mine and a first-rate composer of experimental music. I queried him on the musical importance of Radiohead, and he wrote me the following:
I think Radiohead has
everything going for them except their music. Radiohead initially came
to my attention after they sampled Paul Lansky’s "mild und leise" (an
excellent early computer music composition, available on Lansky’s
website) for their song Idioteque. Paul likes what they did with his
sample much more than I do. I find the drum track weak in comparison
with DnB practice which was so much further along by the late 90s, and
the voice is plaintive, thin, lacking all conviction. Radiohead looks
good on paper, a fusion of modern techno-derived computer music
techniques with rock music, but in practice, the tunes are
uninteresting, and the sound production is unexceptional. Another one
of many post-MBV disappointments that understand the ideas but not the
spirit of My Bloody Valentine. I don’t enjoy criticizing Radiohead
because they clearly mean well, and their music is carefully and
thoughtfully assembled. But they just don’t deliver brilliant musical
goods, and I’m somewhat puzzled by their mass success. But I am pleased
by it. It’s nice to see rock intellectuals getting serious attention.
And their recent Internet marketing experiments deserve attention, just
for trying something different. But I’d take the Pale Saints’ fully
realized "The Comforts of Madness" over any Radiohead album, by a very
large margin.
Radiohead is successful because it’s catchy. I didn’t like HttT the first couple of plays, but it grew on me (Myxomytosis). I own both the Pale Saints album (through emusic.com) and Loveless (CD) and haven’t given either a listen in several years. People don’t buy albums to see how many keystrokes the artist logged into his DnB machine. People like radiohead because it’s catchy post-rock and they can tolerate Thom’s falsetto because their friends can too.
Without hearing Lyon’s songs, I will predict that he tolerates “experimental” music to a much greater degree than most of humanity.
They don’t play Fennesz on the radio.
I think a lot hinges on Yorke’s voice – if you don’t like it, the songs won’t have nearly the same impact as if you do. I don’t agree that his voice is thin, although it’s true he rarely uses his full power, and its plaintiveness is a strength, not a weakness, given the themes of the songs. I can’t imagine liking Radiohead nearly as much if I didn’t think Yorke was a gifted vocalist, but to each his own.
I am sometimes disappointed with Radiohead’s use of the studio (strange since their producer Godrich is so hyped). Their live performances seem much more full of life; their studio versions often come out languid by comparison (e.g. “dollars and cents”, “arpeggi”, “I might be wrong”, “like spinning plates”, “motion picture soundtrack”). I agree that Thom often does not put much conviction in his voice. Sometimes the style works (“Reckoner”, “All I need”, “Lucky”) and sometimes not.
I simply disagree that the tunes are uninteresting, especially (again) on OK Computer.
I agree that their drum programming is not as sophisticated as e.g. Squarepusher or Aphex or Autechre. But technical proficiency is not Radiohead’s forte.
If you think Thom lacks conviction in Idioteque, find their live performance of Idioteque on SNL. I disagree that the drums are uninteresting, at least live. They change the samples in every performance, and Phil’s lines contrast nicely.
Early live performances of “I might be wrong” also put the lie to the notion of lacking conviction. But I will agree that studio versions often don’t have the same oomph.
Finally, My bloody valentine released two albums. I’d put OKC and The Bends and Kid A (pick any two) up against Loveless and Isn’t Anything any day.
The posts about Radiohead are not up to the usual standard of this blog. They are just the usual irrelevant loved it/hated it that makes up 95% of the blogosphere, masked in erudite words to give the impression that knowledge is actually being conveyed. Could it be that making frequent reference to Radiohead is also a way to convince readers that the author has fashionable and edgy tastes, lest we associate him with mundanity based on his profession? He doesn’t just know Radiohead intimately, he’s over them. Notice the commenters dropping reference to their own obscure bands to demonstrate the musical authority behind their comments.
I think what you all are missing with Radiohead is the lo-fi aspect to their music. For me, it is like the difference between Otis Redding and contemporary R&B. There is a rawness that radiohead has that seems to make their music stronger then you give them credit for.
The impact of OKC is visceral. It’s not mediated by any kind of intellectualism, except maybe the intellectualism of an angry teenager.
Paul’s critique of Eric Lyon’s critique has some merit, but the most important thing is to focus on songs. I do that, and I like all the crap you think is boring. So, to each his or her own.
Paul N,
apparently it’s all about the songs, until it’s jazz and then everyone who’s not a snob must despise it because ‘intellectuals’ think it’s cool? wtf. you are just as biased as the people you criticize, except you exclude what u think is ‘their’ sacred genre. listen to some jazz and u might find u like some of it. its not all modal arhythmic ‘avant garde’ stuff.
Am I the only one who suspects that this “review” is actually the output of a Markov text generator?
The hardest thing of all must be to write lots of great songs. You skip 80 years from Schubert to Tin Pan Alley, then another 40 to Bacharach, Beatles, Jimmy Webb, Paul Simon. It is not a talent that is constantly in evidence.
Radiohead has created a few great rock anthems, which cannot be easy to do: “Bones” (The Bends,) “Let Down” (OK Computer,) “There There” (Hail to the Thief.)
“Let Down” has a loud polyrhythm in it by one of the guitars; this is very rare for popular music. The band Yes got away with it in the break on “Perpetual Change.”
On the same album, “Exit Music (for a Film)” uses a 3-second walla sample as a rhythmic element — a unique idea and perfect for the lyrics. If you turn up the volume and listen very carefully you can hear it, especially at the end.
for myself, as a fan of Ockheghem, Tallis, Brahms, Gershwin, Porter, Schoenberg, jazz hot and cool, Cage, Feldman, Ligeti, Beatles, Bonzo Dog Band, Lionel Richie, Springsteen, N.W.A., Sean Kingston, mariachi, Madonna, Birtwistle, Saariaho, etc. etc., I pretty much love it all. Anybody who can do it is doing something I can’t do. In terms of experimental music, perhaps Radiohead’s greatest limitation for me is that pop demands that they stick with a constant rhythm, a constant dynamic (i.e. loudness,) and a constant sound color, within each song. It’s hard enough to make music for a living anyhow. The popular audience is to blame, more than anything: most people couldn’t hear their way out of a paper bag, and so they prefer a beat — or else you must be totally ambient or New Age. Look at the huge amount current experimental music and N.Y. downtown “classical” and that is rock-orientated.
P.S. I think the greatest musical/sound inventions of our time are in pieces such as “Hidden Voices” by Ingram Marshall; “Lichtbogen” and “Maa Part 5: Windows,” both by Kaija Saariaho;”The Good Book’s Accurate Jail of Escape Dust Coordinates Part Two,” a.k.a. “Good Book” by David First; and lots of astounding stuff by James Tenney, the composer’s composer who died last year. If I had to pick a few: these pieces are all easy on the ear and do things and take you to places that no one really has ever been before.
One of the great things about Radiohead is that on the one hand there are those who criticize them for being too “grating” or experimental while others contend that their pop sensibilities are too pronounced.
My initial reaction to In Rainbows was that it is their “Meddle” (Pink Floyd, 1971); pastoral and soothing rather than pushing sonic boundaries. Not a sell out (they’re giving it away after all) but rather a statement about how they feel and the music they want to make.
I also don’t understand the MBV comparison; I tried with all sincerity to enjoy it since so many of my modern favorites are “derivative” thereof, but I just didn’t find it sonically pleasing. Why is the MBV comment apt?
Finally, “Idioteque” is supposed to be satirical rather than an attempt to be on the cutting edge of DnB technique, I think it’s an unfair characterization.
I don’t have the nerve.
I don’t know whether you can make value judgements about art people need to be trained to appreciate and art they don’t. This post reminds me of Finnish architects who consistently build structures that are no doubt great to the 0.1% of the population that are trained to appreciate them but are ugly to the rest of us. No doubt your friend hears differently to the rest of us but I’m not convinced we should value his judgement any more because of it. In gaining the ability to hear one thing he seems to have lost the ability to appreciate what the rest of us enjoy about Radiohead.
Much as I love My Bloody Valentine and The Pale Saints, this guy comes across as a high brow nitwit. Radiohead also have low brow appeal. Catchy tunes are not to be sniffed at. Any idiot can be experimental.
Btw, if you like this sort of music and do not own The Pale Saints, I highly recommend the album Comfort of Madness.
If I may just disagree with one sentence in Paul’s paragraph:
It’s nice to see rock intellectuals getting serious attention.
No, it’s not.
if you’re sitting there when bodysnatchers comes on and you don’t hit up the volume you’re just not hooked up right.
Eric, you reading this? Regards from me! I wonder if Mrs. Dans remembers us??
NE 1 said:
Radiohead is successful because it’s catchy. I didn’t like HttT the first couple of plays, but it grew on me (Myxomytosis). I own both the Pale Saints album (through emusic.com) and Loveless (CD) and haven’t given either a listen in several years. People don’t buy albums to see how many keystrokes the artist logged into his DnB machine. People like radiohead because it’s catchy post-rock and they can tolerate Thom’s falsetto because their friends can too.
Without hearing Lyon’s songs, I will predict that he tolerates “experimental” music to a much greater degree than most of humanity.
They don’t play Fennesz on the radio.”
Id just like to say that I think this is an excellent post and I agree with much of what is said within.
“Creep” is not only their best song, it’s one of the best 10 songs of the last 20 years – IMO. I had the nerve.
It’s like you’ve shattered these people’s worlds by telling them that Radiohead is not as great as they thought it was.
MK: “I am sometimes disappointed with Radiohead’s use of the studio (strange since their producer Godrich is so hyped). Their live performances seem much more full of life; their studio versions often come out languid by comparison…”
I can see what you mean, though I have never been able to see them live, their live material is better than their studio material. Of course, this is true of nearly all great performers. Studio work and live performance are very different animals, and it’s difficult (and often undesirable) to imitate one too much with the other. The studio is great for more polished, layered renditions of a song, and Nigel Godrich does very good work with Radiohead in this environment. However, studio recordings almost never have the same level of energy as live performance. It’s just unrealistic to even expect it. Radiohead are very good at making great records, and are also good at performing live. These are not the same skill, though they are related.
Michael G.: “I will say it. Creep is radiohead’s best song. I always think of radiohead as “the merlin band” because merlin lived his live backwards and radiohead started out great and every album is worse than the last.”
Knuckle-dragger
Apparently, the fans feel duped by the low but rate MP3s. I was a bit surprised to learn that the band had management. But maybe they were doing this to give something back just like the band. Not.
you can tell radiohead’s not as great as its fans think, because they protect too much. if someone says the beatles weren’t all that, you just ignore them (and btw, that was real experimentation). same with someone who claims not to like early stevie or prince or whatever. and when people make such claims, they usually say “i know X is great but they just don’t do it for me.”
put another way, if radiohead were as great as its fans seem to think, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. (note: doesn’t mean the fans don’t really love the radio, shouldn’t, are misguided, etc.)
Neutral Milk Hotel
Wow, they are/were so good …
Eric says “Radiohead initially came to my attention … for their song Idioteque”.
If Radiohead only came to Eric’s attention with the release of Kid A (i.e. post The Bends and OK Computer), there seems to be more reason to discount his opinion rather than put special weight on it.
Tyler’s statement to the effect that “Kid A was their best album” seems to be the source of most people’s strong reactions. It’s worth emphasising that “best” is a meaningless concept in this instance; Tyler would have been more accurate and less provocative to say “Kid A is the album I like most”.
It seems like many commenters are implicitly placing irrational stock in Tyler’s ability to assess musical worth. If Radiohead doesn’t do the job for his ears, there is no apparent reason why anyone else should care.
How can an unimaginative re-write of “The Air that I Breathe” by the Hollies be a band’s best song?
Good job on bringing Hitler into it! Now we know the thread is truly finished.
Comments on this entry are closed.