NZGuitars.com

Aging like a fine wine.

thehenderson wrote: But as a guy making music, I find most strongly opinionated 'music journalism' pretty awful, especially when it's web based and listening to the album yourself is just a click away

Just thought I'd put that out there though, usually albums that top big lists like that are worth listening even just to see what all the fuss is about

That's exactly how I see pitchfork; scathing and completely biased. Each review seems to scream either "This is so good your pathetic ears are unworthy of hearing it" or "This band makes me want to puke and die, and is SO not my flavour of the month"; there's no middle ground or objectivity. That's my broad brushstroke though.

It's not to say Kid A is a bad album at all. Radiohead fans seem to either choose Kid A or OK Computer as the best album. Kid A was music I'd never heard before, OK Computer was the pinnacle of a type of music, and for me the best of the familiar won out. In Rainbows is pretty freakin' awesome though.

Depending on the day, OK Computer or In Rainbows for me. The Bends is where I started with them too - great album.

Kid A and Amnesiac never really spun my wheels. Probably should give them another outing.

Kid A was eaily the most important Radiohead album for me, I loved OK Computer beforehand, but never really listened to it much after KId A came out... Amnesiac seemed like Kid A part 2 to me (which I guess it is) but I still think Pyramid Song is the best song Radiohead ever put out (closely followed by There There)

I'm surprised so many people are into Pablo Honey.. I mean, if you're a big 90s rock fan it's good fodder, but the whole point of Radiohead (imo) is that they're pushing boundaries in terms of arrangement and strange harmony/melody combos. Pablo Honey is just a boring record in retrospect, I can't hear anything on it that pops out as "Oh, that's where that whole trend began", instead it's just a pretty bog standard indie rock album made in the 90s, like a British Nirvana or something. Nothing wrong with that of course! Just that I don't think that that's what makes Radiohead different to other bands

thehenderson wrote:I'm surprised so many people are into Pablo Honey..

2 is "many" wow..

thehenderson wrote:I mean, if you're a big 90s rock fan it's good fodder

exactly why it's good.. good is good.. music need not 'challenge' me, nor does it need to set trends.. it need only be 'good'.

Of course man It's just that if you want to understand why they're such a 'critically acclaimed' band then you definitely should listen to their more challenging stuff, it's their combination of electronic and 'rock' instruments that make them different to other bands imo. Not that understanding that is even worthwhile... The first time I heard radiohead I thought they were really boring though, Creep is such a boring song

But creep sums the band up in one single ... Thom Yorke does allthe important bits, and the guitarist is bitter so he makes angry chika - chikachika sounds in the chorus

I am kinda not so into the middle albums, computer, kid a, amnesiac, but do like the good tracks off those albums.

They cover really well which is a pretty good sign of quality music to me.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfYg1ZJfEWY[/youtube]

thehenderson wrote:I'm surprised so many people are into Pablo Honey.. I mean, if you're a big 90s rock fan it's good fodder, but the whole point of Radiohead (imo) is that they're pushing boundaries in terms of arrangement and strange harmony/melody combos. Pablo Honey is just a boring record in retrospect, I can't hear anything on it that pops out as "Oh, that's where that whole trend began", instead it's just a pretty bog standard indie rock album made in the 90s, like a British Nirvana or something. Nothing wrong with that of course! Just that I don't think that that's what makes Radiohead different to other bands

Whoa. Can't believe I agree with Henderson on something, but fully agree - they are leaders in their field, not followers.

Leaders in Prog-Rock Revivalism

I hope they start wearing capes and maybe do a performance on an ice rink.
Is Rick Wakeman their manager?

badmotor wrote:
Whoa. Can't believe I agree with Henderson on something, but fully agree - they are leaders in their field, not followers.

+1 haha

There are some great tracks on The Bends and it's probably a good starting point as it is pretty much the most accessible album they've done.

Kid A and Amnesiac take a lot of perseverance but are well worth the effort, I only really started loving them after hearing some live tracks off them on the I Might Be Wrong - Live Recordings CD.

In Rainbows was an enormously pleasant surprise as I thought their best days had passed with the slightly patchy HTTT but I was really wrong, it's brilliant.

Here's a super cool clip, it's a bluegrass band covering Radiohead. First time I saw it I was in disbelief!!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjL9BQQKlks[/youtube]

^that was really cool & well done... I thought this one man cover of The National Anthem was pretty cool too...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkIbo9VdGkg[/youtube]

I like the old radiohead more :p but then I never really got Kid A. I like a couple of tracks, but I doesn't get much air time in the CD player.

The Bends is my favorite album, in particular My Iron Lung and Just, and I like OK Computer and Pablo Honey about the same, but I'm a fan of the grunge era, in particular the british stuff from round there, so that probably makes it easy for you to put me into which ever pidgeon hole you find appropriate.

I think they're awesome, and make no apologies! They're the only I have found whose repertoire covers almost the entire range of my musical taste. Grunge/rock/alternative/indie goes right through to symphonic/classical, and crosses jazz, electronica, experimental and most other styles I can think of.

I also think an important note is that they're even more fascinating to listen to in a non-linear sense. Yep, definitely good to listen to each album and see where they were, where they're going and such, but the playlisting options across all of their albums, singles/B-sides and collections are endless. Their live setlists reflect this; they're just as likely to bust out Bends and OK Computer-era stuff as their later stuff, which makes for a really diverse concert. I think a lot of bands tend to perform their newest stuff almost exclusively, and chuck in some old favourites for shits and giggles and crowd reaction, but Radiohead's back catalogue allows for a lot more experimentation.

Bends to In Rainbows in a playlist, on random. Awesome.


Though it must be said: they have released some dreary crap, particularly on Kid A, Amnesiac and Hail To The Thief. My favourite thing about those albums are that they exist as a change point - something as brilliant as In Rainbows isn't just a freak occurrence; its origins can be traced back to those. But that doesn't make them great albums...