Maybe I can do it again. Oi!

If this was something like "Who Do You Think Sucks" saying Radiohead might not be cool, but I will gladly join the voices that say they DON"T GET Radiohead. Only time I like their music is when Brad Mehldau is covering it. They write some interesting compositions, and are no doubt ground breaking, but I like a little more... um...
I don't get post Barrett Pink Floyd either. Or Coldplay. I guess I'm just more of a Stones guy, with a real Beatles jones. That art-rock thing doesn't do it to me.
I'm a giant Wilco fan, and often hear more recent Wilco compared to Radiohead, but I just don't get it. I can hear the Americana in Wilco- and a ghost is born was just too Beatlesy to be considered as strange as it's rep. seems to be.
Of course, a lot of people feel exactly opposite. I'm ready for the I LOVE Radiohead, I don't get Wilco posts.
Bully for y'all.

I LOVE Radiohead AND Wilco. I don't see the point in distinguishing them, except that to my Beatle-bruised ears, the Head sounds even closer to GOD than Tweedy & Co.

Maybe it takes something like my gathering with friends to listen to the "World Radio Premiere" of Kid A at least a week before the release to turn one into a gibbering idiot, but it easily achieved that effect on me and mine. Kid A is wonderful.

Anybody who has a problem with Radiohead: Please listen to "How to Disappear Completely" one to three times, and tell me that you don't hear God talkin' to ya. Peace.

Yes, art must be self-indulgent to some degree, but the degree varies. It's fine, as long as your audience understands and appreciates what you're trying to communicate. If not, that's when it's fair to deride a band or album as "self-indulgent." If this isn't clear, just try to enjoy the new Fiery Furnaces album. Or the new Dandy Warhols.

I don't think that a musician's sole purpose is to entertain me, but that is part of the job. Music is art, but it is also entertainment. I guess my argument is moot because 98% of music fans think Radiohead is not just the greatest band ever but the best thing ever to happen in recorded history. As for me, I think OK Computer is pretty sweet, but even when that came out you could tell they weren't going to keep cranking that sort of album out (See "Fitter Happier"). I know what you're thinking: "So you just wanted them to release another OK Computer every two years." No, of course not. But I liked that Radiohead incarnation a lot more than Amnesiac. Personally, I just think Radiohead put out one phenomenal album (rightly named the best of the last 20 years by Spin) and then started making either really weird or really mediocre albums and people went along for the ride because they had more cred than anyone since the Beatles. If there had been no OK Computer, Radiohead would be a small band with a cultish following.

I'll go ahead and shoot for all-out pariah status: if I heard YHF in a vacuum, I would think, "That's a nice album with some catchy songs, maybe a 7 or 8 out of 10." I never understood why it was a revolutionary album. On the other hand, that's not a genre I really love all that much.

I'll tell you who I don't get: All those who posted perfect "10's" regarding the latest album from Andrew Bird. Admittedly, I bought this album solely on the comments and scores of "regular people"- I can't recall anyone posting anything other than a "10." Again, just like how I thought Wilco's YHF was a good but not great album, Andrew Bird's album was good, 7-ish type album. But no way was this a perfect, which everyone seemed to think. I always thought a "10" meant perfection. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.

I know this is just opinion, but a 10 for me doesn't mean perfection. I don't think any album or film is perfect. At least I haven't heard/seen one. But I do give out occasional 10s.

I've never known an album to be completely perfect, yet I'd hand out my fair share of 10s. It's hard for music, or any medium of art for that matter to be perfect, since art is so subjective to person, time, mood, etc. I'd give an album a 10 if it could transcend all its imperfections and become something greater than its individual parts.

I really like Andrew Bird's new one, although I wouldn't give it a 10. User reviews are incredibly hyperbolic and it's hard for any album to live up to "Instant classic masterpiece"-type praise. I don't remember the last time I've ever trusted a user review, let alone one promising something like that.

Last time I heard G-D speak to me in music it was through Louis Armstrong's trumpet.

quote:

Personally, I just think Radiohead put out one phenomenal album (rightly named the best of the last 20 years by Spin) and then started making either really weird or really mediocre albums and people went along for the ride because they had more cred than anyone since the Beatles.

funny.

many people really love post-OKC Radiohead, I'm among the people who much prefer the post-OKC stuff. OKC is ace, but astonishingly overrated.

going back into the thread, The Mars Volta...I really like 'Intertiatic ESP', and a track from Francis the Mute that I can't recall the name of...the rest of their oeuvre does absolutely nothing for me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: headinsand,

Joanna Newsom. I'm all for voices that aren't exactly normal, but I just hate her voice with a passion. I knew she had a Lisa Simpson like voice beforehand and was ready for it before I listened to her, but I just couldn't take it after ten seconds.

I don't get the following, and perhaps someone can help me understand:

-post '70s Rolling Stones.
Forgive my vitriol but I must say it: Please guys, just stop. And if you continue, let Jack White produce your albums instead of Don "Walk the Dinosaur" Was. He's killing you. Tattoo You (1981) was the last decent album they put out.

-My Morning Jacket.
I listened to "Z" and found it lazy and a bit boring. Where is the rock? I think I have an aversion to the lead singer's voice as well. Someone compared the album to the Beatles' White Album and I just don't see it. The songs seem laborious.

-Fiery Furnaces.
I like about 20% of what I hear from them...but I really like that 20%! The rest of it seems like they are making it up as they go along. I head the song "The Gardenia El" yesterday and was like "huh"?

quote:

Originally posted by emptyset:
I don't get the following, and perhaps someone can help me understand:

-post '70s Rolling Stones.
Forgive my vitriol but I must say it: Please guys, just stop. And if you continue, let Jack White produce your albums instead of Don "Walk the Dinosaur" Was. He's killing you. Tattoo You (1981) was the last decent album they put out.

-My Morning Jacket.
I listened to "Z" and found it lazy and a bit boring. Where is the rock? I think I have an aversion to the lead singer's voice as well. Someone compared the album to the Beatles' White Album and I just don't see it. The songs seem laborious.

First of all, a Jack White produced Stones album is a great idea.

I didn't like My Morning Jacket upon first listen, but I've said before in other threads, it grows on you.

Jim James probably has the best pure singing voice in rock today. At least, by a male. There's a lot of bad ones, even in bands I really like, so a good one is refreshing.

It seems to me like most of the critically acclaimed "indie" musicians that are lauded here and elsewhere...I just don't get! I listened to a couple of Sufjan Stevens tunes last week and was mortified! I can't believe people are into that hippie-whining crap!?! Blech...another one for my list.

Sufjan Stevens, sun kill moon, new porno., kaiser chiefs, etc. doesn't make bad music but aren't genius too. I listened to some Josh Rouse and BRMC and it's the same thing : kind of 6.5/7 out of 10 for me. It lacks of sincerity and sounds sometimes too pretentious that they get on my nerves. (BRMC, new porno, kaiser chief)

quote:

Originally posted by dubs:
Jim James probably has the best pure singing voice in rock today. At least, by a male. There's a lot of bad ones, even in bands I really like, so a good one is refreshing.

Off topic but i fully agree with this statement, he has an awesome voice.


I don’t get a lot of artists/bands that lot of people seem to enjoy. It would be too tedious to name all so I will name some I didn’t “get” from 2005:
Broken Social Scene- is it just me or does this music just sound like a jumbled mess? Not in a loud manner, but there is just a lot of “fluff” happening. I really don’t get this band.
Sleater-Kinney- Exact same thing as the aforementioned but this band is too loud and it’s too much.
Okkervill River- I tried listening to it, over and over, but I just don’t see what is so great….maybe I need to listen to it more.
Wolf Parade- a lot of people like this band but I don’t see what is so special
The Decemberists - same as Wolf Parade
Death Cab for Cutie- These guys are rather mediocre and seem to think they are cool just because few people like them
The National- Truly tried to get into this band and album, but again what is so special?
Coldplay- Again, this music is less than mediocre. They unjustly mimic music that has already been perfected, and then add fused guitars and grand pianos forcedly creating bad music.

With the exception of the last band, the rest fit into the whole “indie” scene. In my eyes, what is so special about all of these bands to deserve number 1 spots on many lists? Many of these will never be heard of ever again and there albums in 2005 weren’t anything special. Maybe someone could shine some light.

I'm not sure if it's just unreasonable bias or actual opinion, but Jim James' voice annoys me to no end. My bias would come from when i saw him open for bright eyes. Every song of his sounded exactly the same, and it was such a boring formula. It was like "I'll play some folky guitar, then sing unintelligably (sp) in a whiney voice with more reverb then God would have." Seriously, his voice sounds flawless because with that much reverb, even Roseanne's National anthem would have sounded like Whitney's.

I don't understand how people don't "get" a band like the New Pornographers. Their music, to me, exudes so much fun and personality. Yes, they're considered an indie, but, unlike a lot of other indie-type bands, the New Pornographers don't take themselves nearly as serious and aren't pretentious at all. They're probably the most accessible indie band out there.

quote:

Originally posted by purple:
I don't understand how people don't "get" a band like the New Pornographers. Their music, to me, exudes so much fun and personality.

Some of us don't like fun, Purple.

Yeah, I hear you, RavingLunatic