Listened to the whole thing and bless me...

Is this that mysterious shit? I listen to albums that people actually play. And you actually hear it. You know, driving your car you hear another car playing it. Go to the barber shop, you hear them playing it. You know, turn the radio on, and you hear them playing it. It's playing everywhere - it's called great music. It's called albums that you actually hear the songs. Not no mysterious shit, and you never hear it.

Then OK Computer (1997) happened and the word "chic" took on a new meaning. The album was a masterpiece of faux avantgarde (of pretending to be avantgarde while playing mellow pop music). It was, more properly, a new link in the chain of production artifices that changed the way pop music "sounds": the Beatles' Sgt Pepper, Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon, Fleetwood Mac's Tusk, Michael Jackson's Thriller. Despite the massive doses of magniloquent epos a` la U2 and of facile pathos a` la David Bowie, the album's mannerism led to the same excesses that detracted from late Pink Floyd's albums (lush textures, languid melodies, drowsy chanting). Since thee production aspects of music were beginning to prevail over the music itself, it was just about natural to make them "the" music.

They're not kidding. The Bono impersonation especially on the closer track is comical.

>Since thee production aspects of music were beginning to prevail over the music itself
Oh, does this reviewer know music theory?

No, I didn't say he was a bad songwriter because there are not enough memes about his lyrics, but that can be interpreted as evidence suggesting that. If you had an autistic friend who referenced memorable lyrics from his favorite music all the time, and he listened to Radiohead a lot but never quoted them, you could probably assume that there were no good lyrics in their music.

Thom isn't a good lyricist but his voice, poor enunciation, and knack for melody lets him get away with it.

>lyrics need to be memey to be known as a good songwriter
I've seen retarded posts around here, but you're beyond retarded you fucking retard. Radiohead's songs are never about quotables. It's about the whole song and the overall themes

>HEY LIL TOMMIE, TRY WRITING A HOOK ONCE IN A WHILE, SOME MELODY MIGHT BE NICE TOO

They're passable ambient background music I guess.

I would say autistists have a poor concept of good vs bad music since they lack a very basic human emotion

Radiohead fans keep references these deep themes that the band's music is supposed to be addressing but I still have no idea what their music is "about," other than modernity bad

>Hurp I can only appreciate songs if they have ultra-catchy pop hooks
Why are plebs like you people even allowed on Yea Forums?

>I don't understand it, therefor there's no meaning

No, I understand it, it's simply not as profound as you make it out to be.

Hooks are unironically important in popular music. I would be more lenient on the lack of hooks if the band had something worthwhile to say, but as I alluded to before, they don't.

^This. The review above is correct in that the album is an exercise in showing off cool studio effects and there's very little actual content there.

>Listened to the whole thing and bless me, I can't remember anything

Attached: 550.png (207x243, 7K)

>No, I understand it,
No, you just said
>still have no idea what their music is "about,"

Make up your mind

Fuck off Zoomer

This album came out the same time when the Spice Girls were ruling the charts. I can remember basically every word in Wannabe with my eyes closed but can't recall one phrase in a 53 minute album.

It's possible to understand an art piece completely and still be unable to draw conclusions about what the author is trying to communicate. It's called bad (or underdeveloped) art.

>the album is an exercise in showing off cool studio effects
Not really. The album was recorded live
>there's very little actual content there.
Do you know theory? I don't think you do.

>It's possible to understand an art piece completely
But you haven't done this yet, as you just admitted.
>It's called bad (or underdeveloped) art.
Perhaps you're a poor listener?

By the way, I'm aware of the irony of using the latest studio wizardry in order to decry it so don't bother pointing that out.

The reason I have no idea what their music is about is because there is nothing substantial to grasp.

Nice circular logic

Poptimists like this guy are the cancer killing Yea Forums.

Nobody that says Radiohead is garbage knows shit about production or music theory

>Nah, dude, it's not bad art with a poor premise and bad execution, you just don't get it maaan
You could use that same defense on virtually anything

>poor art
Why?
>bad execution
Why?

Use music theory to form your answer.

or they’re just realistic. it’s really obvious rockists are hanging on for dear life shilling shit like Radiohead and Mac Demarco constantly (ie trash) to stay relevant. I would say let your genre bow out gracefully but it’s way too late for that.

Attached: 0321DED5-C886-4D9D-BC83-9BD84CB51F75.jpg (768x514, 70K)

Why?

I wouldn't exactly call Radiohead or Mac Demarco "rock".

argumentum ad populum

Why what?

literally false you insufferable pseud

Probably why i see a lot of Kid A favoritism, it's hookier in a more abstract kind of way that tries to get an idea on your head rather than hook you with a chorus. Intro, conclusion, optimistic, and how to disappear have the repetitious hooks while a lot of the rest of the album is harder to tell what he's saying i.e. title track. Just my thoughts. I personally like Kid A more as well but mostly because I find it's excitement to be more uniform and I Motion Picture Soundtrack is my favorite radiohead song.

>It sucks because it's not popular
Literal definition of argumentum ad populum
Are you retarded?

Why do I need to explain my semantics to you? Why do I need to answer you in a particular way?

when did I say that? learn english or kill yourself

See If you make an argument, you need to back it up. Otherwise it's bad (or underdeveloped)

Here's the problem: you can perpetually discard my conclusions by requesting further clarification. No matter how much evidence I present that Radiohead is bad, it would never be enough to persuade you.

>No matter how much evidence I present that Radiohead is bad, it would never be enough to persuade you.
Except you haven't presented ANY except
>nah dude, they aren't as deep as you think they are lol

That tells me you simply didn't put much thought into Radiohead. Which is OK, intelligent music isn't for everyone.

It's hard to provide evidence of there being no depth in Radiohead's music. There's simply none there. Since you have the burden of proof, perhaps you should write a short essay explaining how Radiohead is demonstrably intelligent music.

>Since you have the burden of proof
Incorrect. You made the initial claim, *you* have the burden of proof

I'll wait.

>perhaps you should write a short essay explaining how Radiohead is demonstrably intelligent music.
Well, how long have you been studying music theory?

Again, I can't prove a negative. Furthermore, the initial claim was that Radiohead was intelligent music, which I called into question by noting the lack of depth.

If Radiohead's intelligence is as self-evident as you claim, then it should be easy to prove me wrong. I encourage you to use music theory and whatever you deem necessary to make your case.

>I can't prove a negative
It isn't a negative. You could prove superficiality or musical simplicity. Go ahead.
>the initial claim was that Radiohead was intelligent music
Where was that?
>then it should be easy to prove me wrong
I agree, of course it is.
>I encourage you to use music theory and whatever you deem necessary to make your case.
Is there any other way?

So, you didn't answer my question: how long have you been studying music theory?

one is obviously yesterday I woke up sucking a lemon. what's the other one?

Most cringe thing i've read in a while.

Why do people fall for such obvious bait every single time? Is it just boredom?

no idea.. so many good and memorable ones...
but if going for just a single lyric, I'd guess "I'm not living/I'm just killing time"

ANYWHEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>god i hate this album there's no soul behind it and they're clearly ripping off this other band
>buuuut it's better than this other album that's a bit boring
>B- (still an 80-84, which is a score for great albums)

Literally read comments on any Radiohead subreddit post. I'm not sure if things have changed, but I was reading some thread about TKOL release info when that was happening and every comment was just song lyrics.

>I understood it completely but i didn't understood it
...what

You clearly hate it because you want to hate it, i can see that because all of your arguments up to now are devoid of logic, and can be said about every artist who leave their ideas for the listeners to interpret. You are the type of person who will shit on an album because it doesn't have a "clear idea", and then a couple days later, praise another album because it's "idea" is open to interpretation, and even tho someone doesn't understand it, you personally do by your own interpretation.

He chickened out, what a colossal faggot. Absolutely based.

popular ≠ good
Thats the most basic truth in any form of Art you faggot

>Listens to The same Pop songs everyday for months
>Listens to 53 Minutes of Music he has never heard before once

Attached: neville.jpg (709x804, 111K)

Ask me where the hell I'm going at a thousand feet per second

THE RAINDROPS

this album is so fucking overrated