Author Topic: U2 vs Radiohead  (Read 25178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,027
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #165 on: October 28, 2014, 12:13:05 PM »
I've seen them four times.  The performance I saw after Kid A/Amnesiac is one of the best concerts I've attended, period.

Offline THRILLHO

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,361
  • The sun won't melt our wings tonight
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #166 on: October 28, 2014, 12:19:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hail to The Thief and In Rainbows are great. Radiohead are 1 of the few bands I really want to see live that I haven't yet seen. King of Limbs was a bit of a flop though was it not? None of it really gathered my attention, and anything I read on forums about it was lukewarm.

King of Limbs is my least favorite album, too much like Amnesiac for me. After In Rainbows which I feel is very much in the vein of Ok Computer, there are some songs on that album from the Computer sessions too, I was hoping for a more "traditional" album from them.

Still got good reviews though over here in the UK did the Kings album though.

i wish it was like Amnesiac. Amn. has an AMAZING first half but not much happening on the back side.

What songs besides The Reckoner were from the OKC sessions?

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,731
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #167 on: October 28, 2014, 04:40:15 PM »
As soon as you accept that radiohead don't write 'songs' anymore, it's easier to appreciate their work. Or not.

But the most predictable thing ever is the music press reviewing radiohead. 5 stars. Every time. No one wants to be 'that reviewer' who didn't 'get' the genius.

Offline Doc_Holiday

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 543
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #168 on: October 28, 2014, 05:11:02 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But the most predictable thing ever is the music press reviewing radiohead. 5 stars. Every time. No one wants to be 'that reviewer' who didn't 'get' the genius.
Very true... It's gotten boring already

Offline THRILLHO

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,361
  • The sun won't melt our wings tonight
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #169 on: October 28, 2014, 05:25:35 PM »
It only got boring with KOL. IR wasn't thrilling but it wasn't unlistenable or forgettable like KOL is.

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,731
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #170 on: October 28, 2014, 05:47:09 PM »
I much prefer KOL...

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,027
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #171 on: October 28, 2014, 08:04:30 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But the most predictable thing ever is the music press reviewing radiohead. 5 stars. Every time. No one wants to be 'that reviewer' who didn't 'get' the genius.
Very true... It's gotten boring already

Well, ok, but being a U2 fan, it's not really any different than the expected 5 star reviews from Rolling Stone...

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,731
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #172 on: October 28, 2014, 08:08:31 PM »
Indeed, nor the guaranteed bad reviews from every other piece of non-Q press.

Offline DK46

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 271
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #173 on: October 28, 2014, 10:32:45 PM »
Not to be a nag, but these threads are sort of pointless, I mean, can't you just enjoy both bands?  I am a huge fan of both, albeit, I do find Radiohead to be the more interesting of the two (at least in the last 15 years).  While U2 were adventurous in the 90s (and I love that era), they then reeled it in because Pop wasn't received the way they wanted it be (at least in my eyes).  However, OK Computer was a critically acclaimed success for Radiohead and they still chose to reinvent themselves with Kid A as opposed to resting on their laurels and milking the guitar rock of their 90s records and all their records sound different I might add.

Also, I just really admire and relate to Yorke as an artist/person and love hearing his opinions on things.  I know that Radiohead (atleast Thom, Jonny & Ed) all respect U2 and have complimented them in the past and U2 has reciprocated the love.  All that said, both of these bands are incredible live (especially Radiohead) and they are both responsible for having some of my favorite albums and songs ever. 

Offline THRILLHO

  • Holy Joe
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,361
  • The sun won't melt our wings tonight
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #174 on: October 28, 2014, 11:06:14 PM »
Thom said of his friendship with Bono "i'm the one at the piano in the corner of the room playing for anyone who will listen...Bono is on stage demanding your attention" paraphrased but that was the jist of it.

Offline DEX

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 207
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #175 on: October 28, 2014, 11:38:34 PM »
Radiohead - probably just makes my top 500 bands of all time.

Offline scrittoresabino

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 246
Re: U2 vs Radiohead
« Reply #176 on: October 28, 2014, 11:41:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's a fair assessment, sorry for misinterpreting. Of course they would love to, but there's no doubt that it's art before commerce as far as Radiohead are concerned (and that's no reason for them or their fans to look down their noses at anyone; Twilight soundtrack anyone?) they would love U2 figures but without compromise. If Kid A had sold 25 million then I'm sure they'd be delighted, but it wasn't a record designed to do that, it was first and foremost a record they wanted to make based on what they were inspired by and listening to at that time, I say kudos for that because their stock was sky high at the tail-end of the 90's and they easily could of put out another guitar based record out that may very well of put them in the big leagues. 
 
Being successful in the mainstream isn't proof of anything other than you were in the right place at the right time.

that last sentence.  I am not certain if I interpreted it correctly, so feel free to correct me if Im wrong or if you care.  It appears you mean to say, that this is not worth much at all, to reduce its worth.  Yet what you described is in many ways the epiphany of connection and the root of the goal of art.  Art is a form of communication and connection.  It is meant to capture something and connect to an audience.  That sentence is in fact a simple version of:

zeitgeist
n.
1848, from German Zeitgeist, literally "spirit of the age," from Zeit "time" (see tide ) + Geist "spirit" (see ghost ).

Just as zeitgeist is not the only measure of worth, potency, relevance or esteem, neither should it be belittled or shirked. 

And by the way, being highly successful in the mainstream does show more, it shows that your work is able to connect with a diverse cross-section of people, cultures, groups, ages etc., and not just a niche group or subsection of the same likeminded people.

Disclaimer: This is coming from someone who has often disliked what is popular (not due to it's popularity, just due to preference of sound) and who primarily listens to indie, modern rock. alternative, classic rock, and some electronic and hip hop... yet my favorite band by far has continually been one of the most popular and biggest bands in the world, and I agrees that that most of the indie scene is filled with the idiotic ultra fascist and conformist mentality  left over from punk scene roots, that you must dress a certain way (they all look a like and wear the same uniform), love the same music and bands, and dislike and ridicule a prescribed list of bands. This same group also unanimously prescribe to the notion (often with huge hypocrisy) that subtlety is automatically superior, as a fact (not a preference, as noted in their reasoning as to why one band is better than the another).  The same goes for "darkness".  They largely unaware of this idiot notion and they they are descbiing a mood as superior, not preference.  Yet bring up Iggy Pop or Ramones to them, and suddenly they are stumped, often back tracking to say..."well they are the exception"... An open honest untainted and unpretentious ear never needed that exception. 

...more on the actual topic later.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2014, 11:58:49 PM by scrittoresabino »