Radiohead...

Originally posted by who?-kid
If I have to choose between a catchy, brilliant song that immediately captures your heart and a song that slowly unfolds itself after having listened to it 22 times - yes yes, I think I hear a melody, right there ! Did you hear it ? No ?- I choose the first one.

It's true you can discover new, great music when you give it more than one try. For example, I learned the hard way that Pearl Jam (I hated them at first), Chet Baker (boring jazz), Nine Inch Nail (too pretentious), Tenacious D (they're a joke) are actually great bands or musicians. And now I'm quite fond of them.

You can't keep trying though. That's the thing you guys don't understand.

The thing is, that's irrelevant. Preference is irrelevant in this debate, Kid (Shortened name). It's not about what you prefer, it's proving that some music takes more work, effort and a certain degree of intelligence to grasp it.

Whether you can or can't keep trying doesn't remove from the fact that there is some music you have to "get". It's not an insult, it's a fact, but human nature forces people to take it as such. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN I DON'T 'GET' IT?! I GET EVERYTHING!".

On an unrelated note, Nine Inch Nails are the opposite. They're a very simple band that disguise as something extra. I discovered this after, ironically, massive extensive listening.

-AC

Originally posted by who?-kid
I have the feeling this is becoming a pointless and redundant debate...

- I don't like Radiohead anymore.

- You don't get their music.

- That has nothing to do with it, I just don't like their music right now.

- That's because you don't listen enough.

- I listened all right. It just isn't my thing.

- Maybe you are too stupid to appreciate it !

- And maybe you are hearing things that aren't there !!

- Maybe you couldn't recognize a great song if it bit you in the ass !!!

- Really ? And maybe you are a creep ! (creep - got it got it ?)

And so on.

Maybe it's not your thing because what they are trying to do isn't your thing, or you haven't seen what it is they are trying to do. Why is that not an option?

-AC

I just listened to "Hail to the thief"... words can not describe it... it's so beautiful... I can't believe I was against it at first but now I feel... enlightened... like a whole new musical world has arisen...

... never knew music could make me feel one with the universe... I can see the notes of each song floating around me, laughing, dancing, whispering in my ear, telling me the secrets of the eternal cosmic song...

So I'm finally "getting it" after all...

Originally posted by who?-kid
If I have to choose between a catchy, brilliant song that immediately captures your heart and a song that slowly unfolds itself after having listened to it 22 times - yes yes, I think I hear a melody, right there ! Did you hear it ? No ?- I choose the first one.

It's true you can discover new, great music when you give it more than one try. For example, I learned the hard way that Pearl Jam (I hated them at first), Chet Baker (boring jazz), Nine Inch Nail (too pretentious), Tenacious D (they're a joke) are actually great bands or musicians. And now I'm quite fond of them.

You can't keep trying though. That's the thing you guys don't understand.

Why not? You develop the ear to know when something is eventually going to bear fruit- that's why you keep listening.

The problem with something that's 'catchy' first time is that the experience will never change after that- it's all downhill from there. There's no anticipation of future listens, no belief that something else might catch your ear, or you might hear the song in a completely different manner. That doesn't happen to me anymore with Radiohead, but it did for a good while. With say, Green Day, the first and second listens are all you need for development's sake. Further listens are just repeats.

Although it depends what one wants to glean from their listening experience.

Originally posted by who?-kid
I just listened to "Hail to the thief"... words can not describe it... it's so beautiful... I can't believe I was against it at first but now I feel... enlightened... like a whole new musical world has arisen...

... never knew music could make me feel one with the universe... I can see the notes of each song floating around me, laughing, dancing, whispering in my ear, telling me the secrets of the eternal cosmic song...

So I'm finally "getting it" after all...

Funny, but a case of reductio ad absurdum.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That doesn't mean the opposite is non-existent. If I want a simple, great rock band to listen to, I listen to AC/DC or something, not to Radiohead or Tool. I enjoy music more if I feel there was thought and effort behind it, if there's a reason behind it.

Good for you. That doesn't mean that John Doe off the street wont listen to Tool or Radiohead and think "that sound is good" or "that sound isn't good." All music has a "reason" behind it, even if the music isn't multilayer intellectual epics.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is an assumption and from it, I can only assume that you haven't actually done that, so it proves my point. Secondly, it takes years to get everything out of music like Tool, it doesn't take a day to get anything out of Hanson. Hence why a Hanson fan claiming it would have no credibility.

Proves your point how? I never said i had, hence the "if." How many "die hard" fans have gone through their Tool/Radiohead/Sigur Ros etc records. stripped it down layer by layer and listened to them individually? And even if you did, would it give you anymore insight into what the bad are doing? And how do you know after years of listening to Tool you've gotten everything out of it? There IS no way, either your reading into it far too much or missing the point entirely while telling others they "don't have the musical intelligence to appreciate the music."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No it wouldn't. If they said "Hanson's music is better", then that's a subjective claim that can't be proven right or wrong. If they are talking about content, then it's not subjective. Tool music contains things that you don't get in Hanson songs, subjects you would have to have A) Been interested in or B) Actually studied to have any knowledge of what they're talking about. They write songs with meaning, and Maynard writes lyrics with intelligence. There is nothing about Hanson to "get", and to compare them to Tool in such a way is stupid..

It wasn't a direct comparison, it was an EXAMPLE. Say it with me now, E-X-A-M-P-L-E. So, by your logic, the only way to appreciate the music that Tool make, you would need to go and study every different subject Maynard writes about. So unless I have a dozen Ph.ds in a range of different areas, when i listen to Tool I'm automatically on the outer because I'm just not clever enough to like the music? I listen to the music and if the SOUND doesn't appeal to me, i don't like it. It may have the most deep, meaningful, intelligent lyrics ever written, doesn't mean i HAVE to like it or that i "don't get it"
it means i don't like the sound they made. Bizarre concept isn't it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who said it was about instruments? I never said that. I said it's above overall music. Tool have various in-depth and vague spiritual, scientific and alike themes in their songs, the average Joe on the street who listens to 50 Cent isn't going to have the musical intelligence to sit down and grasp such an album, is he? No, so let's drop this whole "We're all equal" bs and realise that no, we are not.

So they write songs about various "in-depth and vague spiritual, scientific and alike themes"...big deal. Bob Dylan wrote amazing songs with a range of topics but his fans didn't run around telling people they were "too stupid" to like the music or appreciate the lyrics. My point, from day one, wasn't that Tool and Radiohead make shit music, i love Radiohead and do enjoy some of Tools cds, I'm saying that people don't have to "grasp" an album to like it, and just because someone doesn't like the music doesn't automatically make them musically stupid, thats just eletisim and snobbery at its pinical, they just don't like the sound.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Some people are too stupid for Tool and Radiohead, some aren't.

-AC

If it helps you get through the day, go with it

Originally posted by tabby999
Good for you. That doesn't mean that John Doe off the street wont listen to Tool or Radiohead and think "that sound is good" or "that sound isn't good." All music has a "reason" behind it, even if the music isn't multilayer intellectual epics.

What are you talking about? You can't appreciate Tool or Radiohead albums on first listen, let alone playing some random person a quick snippet. That's a fact.

Nobody is saying they will or won't like what they've heard, but the fact is that it takes time to appreciate those bands.

Originally posted by tabby999
Proves your point how? I never said i had, hence the "if." How many "die hard" fans have gone through their Tool/Radiohead/Sigur Ros etc records. stripped it down layer by layer and listened to them individually? And even if you did, would it give you anymore insight into what the bad are doing? And how do you know after years of listening to Tool you've gotten everything out of it? There IS no way, either your reading into it far too much or missing the point entirely while telling others they "don't have the musical intelligence to appreciate the music."

No, I'll tell YOU what YOU'RE doing. You are taking the idiotic view of "Everyone can appreciate anything", and running with it, that's all you're doing. I'm not reading too much, you're reading too little.

Different people listen to things in different ways. I've met people who like Tool on a very basic level, it's not impossible to be a casual fan of the band. However, it's a fact, an undeniable fact, that you will not get more out of the music on casual listens than someone who has dedicated time to the albums.

Not everyone has the intelligence and musical perception to appreciate Lateralus or Aenima for what they truly are, just like not everyone is smart enough to appreciate Shakespeare. You are ignoring the fact that music can be multi-layered, like Tool. I'm not putting those layers in, they actually exist.

Originally posted by tabby999
It wasn't a direct comparison, it was an EXAMPLE. Say it with me now, E-X-A-M-P-L-E. So, by your logic, the only way to appreciate the music that Tool make, you would need to go and study every different subject Maynard writes about. So unless I have a dozen Ph.ds in a range of different areas, when i listen to Tool I'm automatically on the outer because I'm just not clever enough to like the music? I listen to the music and if the SOUND doesn't appeal to me, i don't like it. It may have the most deep, meaningful, intelligent lyrics ever written, doesn't mean i HAVE to like it or that i "don't get it"
it means i don't like the sound they made. Bizarre concept isn't it.

No, that's A logic twisted and applied to mine. I said previously, I know fans of Tool who like them on anything from a basic level to an "I really like them" level, some of which are on this site. I appreciate Tool more than an average guy because I'm not the casual, flip-on-the-radio type music fan. The greater degree to which you love and study music, the greater degree to which you can understand what you are listening to.

I know people who like a couple of Tool songs. However, not everybody who likes Tool, understands Tool. Not even lyrically, just in general. There IS such a possibility as liking any band passively, but the fact of the matter is, some people have additional knowledge that helps them appreciate things more than others. E.G: If you enjoy sitting through speeches, then you and I can sit through a speech on Geography and both enjoy it. However, if we both like speeches, yet only one of us likes Geography, one of us will gain more from it and have a better understanding OF it than the other. The same applies to Tool.

If you and I like rock music, we may both like Tool. Since I have a greater love and interest for what Tool achieve and aspire to specifically, both musically and lyrically, I will have a better understanding and appreciation of it than you will.

It's just common sense. Those who know more, know more.

Originally posted by tabby999
So they write songs about various "in-depth and vague spiritual, scientific and alike themes"...big deal. Bob Dylan wrote amazing songs with a range of topics but his fans didn't run around telling people they were "too stupid" to like the music or appreciate the lyrics. My point, from day one, wasn't that Tool and Radiohead make shit music, i love Radiohead and do enjoy some of Tools cds, I'm saying that people don't have to "grasp" an album to like it, and just because someone doesn't like the music doesn't automatically make them musically stupid, thats just eletisim and snobbery at its pinical, they just don't like the sound.

You don't appreciate Tool albums like I do, though, do you? You haven't taken the time or effort with the albums that I have, and since it's a fact that these albums do require more work and effort than your average band, it stands to reason that I have gotten more out of them than you have. I'm not saying it's impossible to like them on a lesser level, I'm saying it's stupid to like them on a passive level and assume there is nothing more. If you don't like them enough to find it, or let it find you, then obviously it won't seem like there's anything more.

Originally posted by tabby999
If it helps you get through the day, go with it

It's a fact.

-AC

Somewhat off the topic,

Any news on the new Radiohead cd? Release date?

Originally posted by tabby999
It may have the most deep, meaningful, intelligent lyrics ever written, doesn't mean i HAVE to like it or that i "don't get it"
it means i don't like the sound they made. Bizarre concept isn't it.

Some sounds you just don't like. I don't like a tuba horn, I hate the sound it makes. No matter which song you play with it, no matter the lyrics, the musical layers, I'll always hate the song.

Irrelevant to the point, though.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Irrelevant to the point, though.

I don't like that combination. That is of course my problem, but it's a fact I don't like that particular sound that comes from that combination. There is nothing to get. There's nothing to debate.

When you don't like a certain sound, you don't learn to like it by listening to it a few more times. It doesn't work that way.

Another thing, I've become tired of Yorkes mournful singing, it's like he's dying in each song, and like he's been to hell. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love sad songs - Johnny Cash, Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen, Chet Baker, Eels, Jacques Brel to name a few.

But in almost every single song of Radiohead the last ten years, he sings like he's carrying the weight of the world, like he's seen death in the eyes a couple of times, like his whole family died from a horrible disease and he's gonna be next.

I like sad lyrics. I like sad songs. I don't like "rich worshipped pop stars sings one complain song after the other " however. I hope he doesn't think he has a hard life...

Originally posted by who?-kid
Absolutely not. In "Kid A" Radiohead combines electronica with a more or less (soft) rock sound, and hopes a few erm "songs" will be remembered by the listener.

I don't like that combination. That is of course my problem, but it's a fact I don't like that particular sound that comes from that combination. There is nothing to get. There's nothing to debate.

Of course it's irrelevant. You're going on about liking something, the whole debate is about whether or not you have to "get" certain music, and it's a fact that you do. There's no debate there.

I just proved that in my reply to Tabby. If some music factually reveals more on each listen and you don't give time to it, you won't get it anywhere near as much as someone who has. Furthermore, if you know more about what they're trying to convey both lyrically and most importantly, musically, then you will get more out of it than someone who doesn't.

You, like a typical human, just refuse to accept that anything might possibly be above you. Whether you like Radiohead or not, the reasons why do not matter, the fact is, if you haven't given time to their later work then it's ignorant of you to claim there's nothing there, because they reveal themselves over time.

Originally posted by who?-kid
When you don't like a certain sound, you don't learn to like it by listening to it a few more times. It doesn't work that way.

Of course it does, how long have you been listening to music, 5 minutes?

There's a difference between hating certain music such as Ashlee Simpson's and just not liking/being into certain music such as later Radiohead. When I first heard Converge, everything seemed way too jarring, but once I kept at it, my ear had become used to the harsh impact of the music and all the things that came with it revealed themselves to me, when they otherwise wouldn't have, because I'd have not gave it time to grow.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Another thing, I've become tired of Yorkes mournful singing, it's like he's dying in each song, and like he's been to hell. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love sad songs - Johnny Cash, Tom Waits, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen, Chet Baker, Eels, Jacques Brel to name a few.

But in almost every single song of Radiohead the last ten years, he sings like he's carrying the weight of the world, like he's seen death in the eyes a couple of times, like his whole family died from a horrible disease and he's gonna be next.

How completely ignorant. Just because he's singing like that, doesn't mean that's what it's about, and furthermore, that proves my point. You listen on a surface level and judge, because that's what the general public perceive Radiohead as. You're doing nothing but further merging with the common stereotype of people who don't really like Radiohead post-OK Computer. OK Computer was accessible ENOUGH for loads of people to love it, hence it's success. Kid A wasn't, hence the mass exodus of fans, but it doesn't mean they got worse. It means they stopped making music you could grasp, be that intelligently or simply preference.

It doesn't mean we're seeing things that aren't there, it means you either aren't seeing them or simply don't like what you have seen. To deny that there might be more just because you can't see it is stupid/

Originally posted by who?-kid
I like sad lyrics. I like sad songs. I don't like "rich worshipped pop stars sings one complain song after the other " however. I hope he doesn't think he has a hard life...

Thom Yorke is a rich, worshipped pop star? I knew it'd be a matter of time before you dropped the act and revealed yourself as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill, outside-looking-in Radiohead critic.

What an idiotic view. He's rich, therefore he should be happy and not complain. The only people who "moan" more than Thom Yorke are the people who don't get his music, but secretly wished they did, like you clearly.

Furthermore, if you actually read the lyrics and listened to the songs in context, you'd know that he's not necessarily moaning about anything at all, expressing distaste for certain things, maybe. People take his lyrics at face value and then pass judgement, and the whole pop star remark has just erased any credibility you have on the issue. I know it bites that this "rich, worshipped pop star" might actually know more than you, and be capable of writing lyrics and music that are above you, but that's no need to burst in the opposite direction out of spite.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Of course it's irrelevant. You're going on about liking something, the whole debate is about whether or not you have to "get" certain music, and it's a fact that you do. There's no debate there.

I just proved that in my reply to Tabby.

If some music factually reveals more on each listen and you don't give time to it, you won't get it anywhere near as much as someone who has.

You, like a typical human, just refuse to accept that anything might possibly be above you. Whether you like Radiohead or not, the reasons why do not matter, the fact is, if you haven't given time to their later work then it's ignorant of you to claim there's nothing there, because they reveal themselves over time.

Of course it does, how long have you been listening to music, 5 minutes?

You listen on a surface level and judge, because that's what the general public perceive Radiohead as.

What else do you want me to do ? Take courses "How to like Radiohead" ? Reading "Radiohead for dummies" ?

You're doing nothing but further merging with the common stereotype of people who don't really like Radiohead post-OK Computer.

Thom Yorke is a rich, worshipped pop star?

It's pretty obvious he's not a pop star like Britney Spears or Eminem or Shakira. You won't find many posters of him hanging in some teen girls bedroom.

Pop stars come in all kinds you know. I know what I'm talking about when I say that Thom Yorke is one of the most respected and even worshipped singers of the last five years. Every newspaper, magazine or even website praises him. Colleagues envy him.

I think that's great for him. But that doesn't mean I have to like his current music.

Again, pop stars come in all kinds. Is Tom Waits a pop star ? Before you say no : yes he is.

You do know the definition of a "pop star", right ?

I knew it'd be a matter of time before you dropped the act and revealed yourself as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill, outside-looking-in Radiohead critic.

What an idiotic view. He's rich, therefore he should be happy and not complain.

The only people who "moan" more than Thom Yorke are the people who don't get his music, but secretly wished they did, like you clearly.

Sorry, but this is pathetic.

Furthermore, if you actually read the lyrics and listened to the songs in context, you'd know that he's not necessarily moaning about anything at all, expressing distaste for certain things, maybe.

But unlike you, I realize this is only my opinion. Shakespeare would probably have appreciated it.

People take his lyrics at face value and then pass judgement, and the whole pop star remark has just erased any credibility you have on the issue.

I know it bites that this "rich, worshipped pop star" might actually know more than you, and be capable of writing lyrics and music that are above you, but that's no need to burst in the opposite direction out of spite.

Radiohead is more or less good. Was great, now just good. Most of the times even boring these days, and always dead serious. Next !

Originally posted by who?-kid
Nope. "Getting certain music" and "liking certain sounds" go hand in hand. Do you like every single instrument, sound, genre or voice there is ?

No, you're not getting it. It's a fact, an undeniable truth, that some music takes more effort than other music. Radiohead's music takes more effort than a Britney Spears record. That's a fact. There isn't as much to a Britney record than there is to a Radiohead one.

Denying this is stupid, and makes you look stupid.

Originally posted by who?-kid
You proved nothing.

You've certainly proven that when proven wrong, you throw yourself into blissful ignorance. I've proven, factually, that I am right. You are wrong. That's about all there is to it.

Originally posted by who?-kid
So if music is complicated and unpredictable, it just has to be good, right ? Because if somebody thinks it sucks, he just hasn't listened good enough ?

Where did I say that? Stop being a fool. I said if we both listen to a Tool album, I listen to it regularly for three years, you listen to it 5 times in a single year. I will have gotten more out of it than you, because it is an album that reveals more over time, this is an actual fact. You can't deny fact.

Originally posted by who?-kid
There's nothing to reveal.

There is, to those smart enough and patient enough to give it time. You're obviously not one of those.

Originally posted by who?-kid
6 minutes. And I want those minutes back ! 😄

It wouldn't surprise me.

Originally posted by who?-kid
That's partially true. I really tried listening to Kid A and Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief, but I found it boring. Some time later, I gave it a new try - maybe my expectations were too high the first time ? Could be - and I almost fell asleep.

That's a stupid exaggeration isn't it? It didn't literally make you fall into a sleep, music can't do that, literally.

However, like I said, it's not for everybody. Namely the stupid or the impatient, or both. Either/both apply to you, clearly.

It's not even a question of you having gave them time and then not liking what you found, it's the fact that you have the sheer idiotic believe that all music requires the same amount of attention and effort.

Originally posted by who?-kid
What else do you want me to do ? Take courses "How to like Radiohead" ? Reading "Radiohead for dummies" ?

No, I'd rather your kind didn't listen to Radiohead. I like them being looked at as you look at them, it keeps the bandwagonning down. I know what their music is, so it pleases me this way.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Make that post "The Bends" lol

Man, even OK Computer wasn't too far over a lot of people's heads. I think I've given you a bit too much credit. I can understand being bitter though, the "moany bastards" left you in the dust. It happens.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Yes of course he is. What do you think he is, a used cars salesman ?

You believe Thom Yorke is a pop star? This makes you a complete and utter idiot.

The difference between him and say, a Britney Spears, he doesn't try to get the attention, at all. Someone on live Q&A actually said what you did, they said "I don't want to hear a rich man whining about life", so he said "Don't buy our albums, don't come to our shows, please.". I think you're just bothered that he doesn't think enough of your kind to try catering for you.

Originally posted by who?-kid
It's pretty obvious he's not a pop star like Britney Spears or Eminem or Shakira. You won't find many posters of him hanging in some teen girls bedroom.

He's not a pop star because he doesn't make pop music. That's why he's not a pop star.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Pop stars come in all kinds you know. I know what I'm talking about when I say that Thom Yorke is one of the most respected and even worshipped singers of the last five years. Every newspaper, magazine or even website praises him. Colleagues envy him.

So? How does this make him a pop star? Popular doesn't mean he's a pop star in a pop genre (which is beyond "POPular"😉.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Again, pop stars come in all kinds. Is Tom Waits a pop star ? Before you say no : yes he is.

No, he's not. If you're so overly anal about using an age old term that has died, then do it, but it's non-applicable. Pop once meant popular, but now it clearly has a sound of it's own, in a genre of it's own, neither of which Thom Yorke is involved in.

Originally posted by who?-kid
You do know the definition of a "pop star", right ?[/b]

Yes, it doesn't apply to Thom Yorke.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Tsss... if you can't handle criticism - which is only my opinion by the way - you don't belong here on a forum. I said a lot of good things about Radiohead.

I can handle criticism perfectly, I deal with it all the time on this forum. However, your criticism is flawed because it's backed up by even more pretentious views than you claim I have, that...plus the classic "All music is the same" kind of view.

Originally posted by who?-kid
I never said that. You're misquoting me in order to prove a thing.

You implied it by saying "I don't like "rich worshipped pop stars sings one complain song after the other " however. I hope he doesn't think he has a hard life... ". Why do you hope he doesn't think he has a hard life? Is he not entitled to because he has money? Do you have any idea the kind of gruelling work it takes to actually make an album, tour on it, deal (or not deal) with press, deal with everything on top of that? I wouldn't say he feels his life is bad, but he might think life in general is bad. He's more than entitled to.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Sorry, but this is pathetic.

I only read good lyrics. "Yesterday I woke up sucking a lemon" is not my idea of great lyrics.

...and you took it to mean a man literally waking up sucking on an actual lemon? Thought so. No imagination whatsoever. Who's your idea of a good lyricist then? *Anticipates name-drop-arama.*.

Originally posted by who?-kid
But unlike you, I realize this is only my opinion. Shakespeare would probably have appreciated it.

You'll never hear me claim that music taste is anything other than subjective, but this isn't about "better", this is about some music being less accessible than others, due to who makes it and what it contains. You deny this, so by your logic, Tool have all the depth of Britney Spears. This means your opinion is no longer credible.

Originally posted by who?-kid
You really hate it that I said Thom is a pop star, don't you ?

No, why would I "hate" or even dislike it? I know he's not, I know it's you being overly stick-up-ass literal.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Yes yes yes, you already said that. It's above me it needs time to grow I am too dumb don't look at the surface needs time to appreciate blah blah blah.

Finally getting it.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Radiohead is more or less good. Was great, now just good. Most of the times even boring these days, and always dead serious. Next !

Nah, they're the best British band, possibly ever. This is, of course, my opinion.

Yet with such remarks as "There's nothing to reveal.", your opinion holds as much water as an incontinent bullet shield.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
...this is an actual fact. You can't deny fact.

-AC

Seems like an opinion produced through time to me, there is no right or wrong answer with music.

oh god this debate is still going on?

AC, he doesnt like radioheads newer stuff. get over it.

Originally posted by StinkFist462
oh god this debate is still going on?

AC, he doesnt like radioheads newer stuff. get over it.

Read the thread, then comment. What's being discussed is his idiotic view that all music requires the same amount of effort.

Don't like reading it? Leave the thread. Nobody asked you to read.

-AC

Originally posted by exanda kane
Seems like an opinion produced through time to me, there is no right or wrong answer with music.

Yes, there is, actually. We're not arguing taste, I.E: The only subjective area in music.

-AC

No, you're not getting it. It's a fact, an undeniable truth, that some music takes more effort than other music.

Radiohead's music takes more effort than a Britney Spears record. That's a fact.

There isn't as much to a Britney record than there is to a Radiohead one.

Denying this is stupid, and makes you look stupid.

This is your way of reasoning => You don’t like it ? Are you sure ? Remember it’s Radiohead we’re talking about. Have you tried ? Really tried ? Really really tried ? Trie harder. More. Much harder. It will come. I’m sure of it. If not, it’s your own fault or you’re just too stupid.

That's a very narrow minded point of view. You are almost making me feel guilty for not liking them anymore. Almost...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Read the thread, then comment. What's being discussed is his idiotic view that all music requires the same amount of effort.

It's true you can discover new, great music when you give it more than one try. For example, I learned the hard way that Pearl Jam (I hated them at first), Chet Baker (boring jazz), Nine Inch Nail (too pretentious), Tenacious D (they're a joke) are actually great bands or musicians. And now I'm quite fond of them.

You can't keep trying though. That's the thing you guys don't understand.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Of course. I know that probably longer than you. I never argued about it by the way.

Underestimate me if you wish, it'll only come back to get you.

Oh and you did, you said "Nope", regarding my remark. Make your mind up.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Again true. You surprise me.

Then why deny it?

Originally posted by who?-kid
Again true. You're becoming a good debater.

You're remaining a poor one, even in your attempt at humour I'm still ahead.

Originally posted by who?-kid
What is there so hard to understand that I don't like their lyrics, I don't like the voice of Thom Yorke anymore and I don't like the excuses for songs ?

A) They're not "excuses for songs".

B) Nothing is so hard to understand. I don't care if you like them or not, the whole point was you not agreeing that you might not have given them enough time, as this music takes both time and effort. Then you went back on yourself, then back on yourself again.

Originally posted by who?-kid
This is your way of reasoning => You don't like it ? Are you sure ? Remember it's Radiohead we're talking about. Have you tried ? Really tried ? Really really tried ? Trie harder. More. Much harder. It will come. I'm sure of it. If not, it's your own fault or you're just too stupid.

You're such a sharp learner. Although not verbatim, it's true that I believe people who dislike Radiohead's later work (and it's not just them, it applies to a lot of bands) either don't get it or haven't gave it the time and effort.

You obviously can't handle the fact that I believe you're one of those, and your comments have proven me right.

Originally posted by who?-kid
That's a very narrow minded point of view. You are almost making me feel guilty for not liking them anymore. Almost...

If you're too open minded people can throw shit inside. Probably why you initially disagreed with me saying some music takes more work than others.

-AC