Radiohead In Not-A-Bunch-Of-Black-Guys Shocker!

What's with that "Radiohead are no Nirvana range-wise" line? WTF, has he ever listened to either band?

I think he's saying exactly the opposite of what someone would normally mean with that sentence (ie, Radiohead has a wider musical range than Nirvana).

(I may be exaggerating for rhetorical effect here.)

I'd say its fairly similar up to OK computer.

james i think "tune" is not to the point here: the sound r'head make if you screen out yorke has a wide sonic and emotional range is what i'm saying

i don't know the names of hardly any of their songs so i can't back this up with a graph sadly

if you do it as contours you get rilly nice shapes ;)

Thom Yorke is a white guy from England. He sings like a white guy from England. He's being himself, basically. Why is that a problem? Why is that not a good thing? Oh, right. White people should be ashamed of their very existence. I forgot about that.

The notion that there is something wrong with the guy because his voice is indicative of his race and background boggles my mind. It's unfair, it's ridiculous, it has nothing to do assessing with the quality of the music on its own terms. It's like saying "I guess this apple is no good because it doesn't have a little Florida in it, like an orange."

"Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors"
"Pyramid Song"
"Electioneering"
"I Might Be Wrong"
"Lucky"
"There There"

no no he is an opera singer that is why Dan likes him ;-)

However, I hope when I get as old as Christgau, I don't still care this much about music.

Or maybe I do.

I'm unconvinced of Radiohead's emotional range, to be honest: possibly I'm not as adept as Mark at "screening Yorke out," but none of their sonic diversions manage to change the tone very forcibly. I think the singularity this creates around them is a big part of why they're popular in the way that they are: they look like "the only rock band that matters" because they're one of few rock bands to pick such a not-ingratiating path and follow it so single-mindedly.

Point of comparison: Disintegration. The tone of Radiohead since Kid A reminds me of parts of this record, with two major differences. The first difference is a good one: Radiohead can get cranky and frantic in ways Disintegration rarely attempted, and the Cure has never sounded as ominously or excitingly spazzy as anything like "National Anthem." The second difference is the one that bothers me: Radiohead remind me of Disintegration, but stripped of every moment of earnest or even hopeful beauty. They will not, from what I can tell, ever again do anything like a "Plainsong" or a "Pictures of You." (And even when they did do them, they didn't turn out so well: "High and Dry" / "Stop Whispering...")

Or maybe they will, and they'll just hide it away: last week on M2 I caught Yorke playing "True Love Waits" and was satisfied for the first time. This was the range, the shift, the relief, that was missing from the past three records -- of which I liked Amnesiac best probably because its odd-and-ends format actually lent it that sense of topography. Radiohead sometimes do sound to me like one long moan, albeit a pretty glorious one with some immaculately assembled music; all I ask for is the occasional moment of hitting land or breaking down or seeking peace, no matter how undercut or troubled or complicated it might be. (Which is basically a repeat of what I said here however long ago about Radiohead doing tension with no release: let them bubble up bright or dream pretty for thirty seconds, even, and I'll be on board.)

James: Music should be assessed on its own terms out of fairness and common sense, basically. I think that anyone who should consider themselves to be a decent and professional critic should consider each work of art on its own terms as well as how it relates in the context of the culture at large. Ultimately, I believe that the larger context is much less important, and when writers focus on that (as Christgau certainly does) it ceases to be about the piece of art and more about how that art relates to their set of biases and their limited understanding of something much larger than themselves.

Too much of this review is spent trying to contextualize Radiohead within a world that exists entirely in the head of one man, informed mostly by other people who have a similarly skewed and myopic view of culture and art.

So I say: fuck context. Trying to fit things into a percieved context of the world reveals only the biases, ego, and limited understanding of the critic, and are not very helpful in the long run.

Radiohead don't cover every emotion that a person can have, but they do cover a lot of nuances within their limited emotional palette, which I think is a major part of their appeal. I think that they are good at capturing lots of in-between emotions, which isn't always easy. Think of it like you're mixing paint - it's like they've got a knack for mixing very specific obscure shades and hues of green and blue.

Because Kurt taught us how to feel, man. *sob*

[it's so cute when people defend Buffalo 66!]

well i'm glad that's settled ...

they don't have a rhythm guitarist to save their life

Oddly enough, Myxomatosis has elements in common with some African folkloric music in that it basically feels like a triple meter and a duple meter at the same time (two speeds of duple time really, since it has that 2:3 polyrhythm going through it).

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Jul/2003751903893294663221.jpg

in fact, if you do a GIS, you can find a lovely pic of him with a roll of toilet paper on his head.

this leads me to believe that the japanese are the greatest people on the planet, except for that whole "gang-rape as a popular fixture of hentai anime/porn" thing.