Originally posted by who?-kid
I doubt it 😉I still like Radiohead, I respect them, but imo they are becoming a bit boring. And so freaking serious !
I don't expect Tenacious D songs or Monty Python songs from Thom Yorke, but come on, in every song he sings like he carries the weight of the world on his shoulders.
It used to be a great band, not anymore however.
(It's okay right ? To say Radiohead isn't all that ? Am I banned now ? Probably lol. There are some things you just don't do on a music forum, and that's saying Radiohead is boring at times 😄 )
Boring only applies to those who, as I said, don't appreciate what they're doing with their later albums, or understand it.
Now, the typical defensive reply is "I get it! What's not to get?! I'm not stupid!". Yet, you have to realise, you are a human, you don't "get" everything. There are some things that are just above everyone, some things that are above some but not others. Maybe it's because you just can't see what it is, but as I said, they're a better band now than they've ever been. They get better with each album, really.
I maintain that whilst it's opinion what you do and do not like, those who dislike later Radiohead albums just don't "get" them.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Boring only applies to those who, as I said, don't appreciate what they're doing with their later albums, or understand it.Now, the typical defensive reply is "I get it! What's not to get?! I'm not stupid!". Yet, you have to realise, you are a human, you don't "get" everything. There are some things that are just above everyone, some things that are above some but not others. Maybe it's because you just can't see what it is, but as I said, they're a better band now than they've ever been. They get better with each album, really.
I maintain that whilst it's opinion what you do and do not like, those who dislike later Radiohead albums just don't "get" them.
-AC
That's a very debatable point of view. I bet there are people and bands I like and you don't. So why can't I say exactly the same thing about these bands ?
Originally posted by who?-kid
So basically you're saying in a polite way that everybody who doesn't like Radiohead (anymore), is a dumb ass, too stupid to "get it".That's a very debatable point of view. I bet there are people and bands I like and you don't. So why can't I say exactly the same thing about these bands ?
Not too stupid, not at all. I'm just saying that different people pick up on different things. You either pick up on the things that make them better albums, or you don't. Though there is such a thing as musical intelligence.
I'm not saying it's anything to do with who I like and who you don't like, it's this specific band and the music they make. It wasn't until after The Bends that they really started becoming their true self, and the fact that you sort of went off them from OK Computer onwards suggest that you, like many others, don't understand what they're doing. They've gone in a better direction, it just might not be a direction that appeals to you.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not too stupid, not at all. I'm just saying that different people pick up on different things. You either pick up on the things that make them better albums, or you don't.[B] Though there is such a thing as musical intelligence.I'm not saying it's anything to do with who I like and who you don't like, it's this specific band and the music they make. It wasn't until after The Bends that they really started becoming their true self, and the fact that you sort of went off them from OK Computer onwards suggest that you, like many others, don't understand what they're doing. They've gone in a better direction, it just might not be a direction that appeals to you.
-AC [/B]
That comment has me amused.I'd like you to elaborate on that bit. What is the definition of 'musical intellect'? Is it the inherent musical talent possesed by and bestowed to a select few naturally? If so does that mean only artists and composers are ones with the capacity to be enlightened by all music has to offer? Or is it the idea that only those who can afford to spend all of their time and resources scouring through all that the musical world is made up of are the people who have any hope of grasping this..."musical intellect"?
Originally posted by Punkyhermy
That comment has me amused.I'd like you to elaborate on that bit. What is the definition of 'musical intellect'? Is it the inherent musical talent possesed by and bestowed to a select few naturally? If so does that mean only artists and composers are ones with the capacity to be enlightened by all music has to offer? Or is it the idea that only those who can afford to spend all of their time and resources scouring through all that the musical world is made up of are the people who have any hope of grasping this..."musical intellect"?
First off, let me give you a hint: Instead of diving into a reply with paragraphs constructed in a way that you clearly intended to make you look smart (failed, by the way), try reading my actual post and then you'd realise that half (or all) of your reply was simply not necessary bar the initial question.
Secondly, someone who listens to Britney Spears, Ashlee Simpson and Justin Timberlake whilst looking upon these people as musicians worthy of critical praise, or anything other than shit, is someone without musical intelligence. Don't confuse the issue, it's up to them what they like, and preference is subjective, but there are such things as givens or what I like to call "borderline facts".
I.E: I can't scientifically prove Ashlee Simpson's music is worst than Radiohead, but it is, isn't it? Anyone with musical intelligence (there's the phrase) can tell that. Them having the right to like whatever they want doesn't remove the notion that they might choose shit. It's their choice to watch Pop Idol and think it's great, but then they have thrown away any chance of being looked upon as having a good perception of artistry.
The only people who have a problem with the idea of musical intelligence are those with little or none of it.
-AC
I've said it before and I'll say it again,i think claiming people don't like music because they "don't get it" is a cop out.
music doesn't have to be about noticing every little thing the band do, about observing every subtle nuance about the sound and extracting 100% of the meaning. Its about you enjoying yourself listening to something you like.
After saying i don't like all of Tools stuff (which i stand by) i was told it was because i "don't get it." What? I don't like it because the sound doesn't appeal to me, if i sat down and went through the music layer by layer, dissected the sound until there wasn't a beat, bar or underlying melody I'd missed, i still wouldn't like what i heard.
Its like if Alpha said "I don't like Hanson" and the 13 year old turned around and said "Its because you just don't get it." Their point would be just as valid as if he said it about Tool or Radiohead or any band.
Just because a band have technically become "masters" of their instruments doesn't mean everything they do and play is a deep and meaningful piece of art to be appreciated from a billion angles and read into over and over. Sum 41 have great Lead and Rhythm guitar but you don't have to "read into it" or "get it" if you like the music, you just listen and appreciate it.
And that's what grinds my gears, back to you Tom
The thing with Radiohead is that the more music (in general) that you listen to, the more you appreciate how exceptional Radiohead are. I think that's an astonishing realisation once you grasp it.
They have progressed with every album, which is amazing considering some of the songs on 'Pablo Honey', 'The Bends', 'OK Computer', and 'Kid A'. 'Hail To The Thief' is their greatest album so far, which bodes well for the next...
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not too stupid, not at all. I'm just saying that different people pick up on different things. You either pick up on the things that make them better albums, or you don't. Though there is such a thing as musical intelligence.I'm not saying it's anything to do with who I like and who you don't like, it's this specific band and the music they make. It wasn't until after The Bends that they really started becoming their true self, and the fact that you sort of went off them from OK Computer onwards suggest that you, like many others, don't understand what they're doing. They've gone in a better direction, it just might not be a direction that appeals to you.
-AC
Not the first time btw lol.
I respect the fact that Radiohead is not making easy listening music. They don't give a hoot about getting airplay and hits, and just write music like they think it should be written. That is cool.
But it doesn't appeal to me anymore. I worship "The Bends" because every single track on it rocks or just is beautiful. The other albums... well yeah... a few good songs here and there... (Karma Police, No surprises, Pyramid Song) but - oh oh now I'm gonna get bashed - also a lot of arty farty music.
They remind me of dEUS, Julian Cope and other experimental bands/musicians : they HAVE the talent, but apparently they have become so afraid to become "predictable" or to become "elevator music" they focus less on the music itself, but more on the experiment.
The moment music needs an explanation, it's not that good anymore.
Originally posted by who?-kid
But it doesn't appeal to me anymore. I worship "The Bends" because every single track on it rocks or just is beautiful. The other albums... well yeah... a few good songs here and there... (Karma Police, No surprises, Pyramid Song) but - oh oh now I'm gonna get bashed - also a lot of arty farty music.
This is precisely my point. You got their music when it was easier to grasp, when it wasn't, you labelled it artsy fartsy music. Which is incredible ignorant. That would imply they gave a shit what people thought about their music or how it came across.
I still don't understand how it's artsy and fartsy, that's one connection I never got.
Originally posted by who?-kid
They remind me of dEUS, Julian Cope and other experimental bands/musicians : they HAVE the talent, but apparently they have become so afraid to become "predictable" or to become "elevator music" they focus less on the music itself, but more on the experiment.The moment music needs an explanation, it's not that good anymore.
It doesn't need an explanation, but you either click with what it's purpose is or you don't. You don't, that doesn't mean it doesn't have one.
-AC
Originally posted by tabby999
music doesn't have to be about noticing every little thing the band do, about observing every subtle nuance about the sound and extracting 100% of the meaning. Its about you enjoying yourself listening to something you like.
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.
Originally posted by tabby999
After saying i don't like all of Tools stuff (which i stand by) i was told it was because i "don't get it." What? I don't like it because the sound doesn't appeal to me, if i sat down and went through the music layer by layer, dissected the sound until there wasn't a beat, bar or underlying melody I'd missed, i still wouldn't like what i heard.
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.
Originally posted by tabby999
Its like if Alpha said "I don't like Hanson" and the 13 year old turned around and said "Its because you just don't get it." Their point would be just as valid as if he said it about Tool or Radiohead or any band.
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.
Originally posted by tabby999
Just because a band have technically become "masters" of their instruments doesn't mean everything they do and play is a deep and meaningful piece of art to be appreciated from a billion angles and read into over and over. Sum 41 have great Lead and Rhythm guitar but you don't have to "read into it" or "get it" if you like the music, you just listen and appreciate it.
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.
Some people are too stupid for Tool and Radiohead, some aren't.
-AC
Originally posted by tabby999Its like if Alpha said "I don't like Hanson" and the 13 year old turned around and said "Its because you just don't get it." Their point would be just as valid as if he said it about Tool or Radiohead or any band.
Not really. A Hanson song reveals itself on a first listen like a cheap date.
Tool and Radiohead require an input of time and attention. To say someone mightn't yet have grasped those bands isn't the same as saying that of Hanson. Let's not be silly.
That's a fact. It doesn't mean that Tool and Radiohead are factually 'better', but they do require much more work.
Originally posted by who?-kid
But it doesn't appeal to me anymore. I worship "The Bends" because every single track on it rocks or just is beautiful. The other albums... well yeah... a few good songs here and there... (Karma Police, No surprises, Pyramid Song) but - oh oh now I'm gonna get bashed - also a lot of arty farty music.
'Hail To The Thief' is full of great songs with tunes and melodies. You are -obviously - just not hearing them.
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.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Not really. A Hanson song reveals itself on a first listen like a cheap date.Tool and Radiohead require an input of time and attention. To say someone mightn't yet have grasped those bands isn't the same as saying that of Hanson. Let's not be silly.
That's a fact. It doesn't mean that Tool and Radiohead are factually 'better', but they do require much more work.
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.