Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
How silly you are.
his albums to be sold in HMV!
Maybe they should be releasing them online / self released boxsets.
Oh wait... that would be cynical or an empty stunt.
Whatever. They can't win. The snobs and the indie elite will always lash out at a band that some percieve as even vaguely 'alernative' who have the temerity to actually sell records, be known to a wider public.
because you seem to be a bitter twat. Lots of other people like them though, so I think a show of hands would get a fair few votes for Radiohead to stick around.
Why do you care about whether anyone else listens to them anyway? Aren't you just a sad little "look at me I'm an individual!", clinging on to how different you are to everyone else?
because you're an individual, aren't you?
It shows that you never once listened to the album.
until Kid A.
That haircut's bloody brilliant. Probably the best he's ever had.
... "radiohead to stop breathing" would have been one better, but you can't have everything.
even if it was only because of how it was released originally.
so your opinion gives little insight
hole in your theory there then
you didn't have to get it. It came with another albums worth of material (arguably better than the original album).
i certainly remember thinking "i'll get it free now and buy in on cd next year" when it came out.
it wasn't an evil conspiracy, it's okay.
I don't at all recall that word being used by anyone in the band. Could you provide a reference please so I can have a look?
hole in your silly bumface.
i took 2 minutes deciding what the hole should be in
presumably because they released it through XL and had to negotiate the deal, distribution etc. etc.
they made it pretty clear amidst all the download furore that a traditional CD would be released (see my link above), it was probably just hard to notice because of the way everyone jumped on the october release story.
there are a lot of things you could criticise them for, making a relatively tame album for one, but i don't understand why you're trying to imply they were tricking people..?
in rainbows was about milking it, there was no mention of a normal cd release at the time, rinse the fans for £30, mop up a few extra pounds from the people who would have got it for free anyway, cash in on all the free publicity, easily the most cynical band of recent times
the only people who didn't know that a cd was in the pipeline were people who couldn't read.
Please get off your high horse. Oh no! I can't get it on vinyl! What will I do? If I don't get it on vinyl then my reputation of being the coolest guy in indie town will be ruined! But its radiohead! I MUST buy it! Looks like I'll just choose (notice the word CHOOSE) to buy the boxset. Thats your conspiracy theory?? How many people in the world are really going to say 'shit I really HAVE to have this on vinyl but there's no mention of a traditional vinyl release, I'll have to cough up the extra £20'. Pretty terrible tactic. I wonder how much extra money they made from that... apart from the extra £20 from you of course.
dont know who told rolling stone but at the time it wasnt common knowledge just speculation
But lot's of people who aren't like 'we fine few' on here know about them and can sing some of their tracks (for goodness sake!), so apparently they're shit...
is a fucking idiot anyway.
because they are considered relevant and important, then it rather shows how sad every indie/otherwise scene in the entire world has become because every country (UK, USA, on and on and on) consider them relevant and important and generally probably the most accomplished 'rock' band of the past 15 years.
they just appropriate genres and causes in their desperate quest to be seen as credible
Doesn't address my point. Secondly, they already are seen as credible, more than any other rock band you could name. Point fail.
I took your post to be its a sad state of affairs when radiohead are seen as relevant and important. I know they are seen as credible doesnt mean they deserve it.
major magazine, web site, critic bla bla bla says they deserve the credibility that makes me think that you can by all means disagree, but without proferring so much as even a solitary argument, you're rather up against an incredibly strong concensus.
(and also ^ Biggest cunt on DiS)
if they only bring out EPs and individual tracks. For me, In Rainbows was so great because of how every track flowed almost effortlessly into the next. Playing two individual EPs back-to-back may not quite have the same cohesion and consistency.
chances are they will release one in liek 4 years time knowing them
brightonb to 'stop posting nonsense because he's bored'
fan baiter, bored and posting provocative shite to wind the indie kids up. Personally I don't really care, just an observation like..
This is your new home
to justify your criticism. Because it can only be considered empty-slagging at this point.
You are the one who chooses whether or not to listen to it. You wouldn't be any less ridiculous if you'd said you thought they should be killed.
Enough of this, I'm going home.
I think this is the only excellent suggestion in a thread full of dull bickering
i certainly don't think it's near their best (i accept that i'm in the minority here) and maybe they are on a slow creative decline but really even a mediocre record by Radiohead standards is still better than most... things.
plus, they're still wwwwonderful live. one of only a few acts that can make huge shows come alive.
saying that a band that loads of people like should give up because they're not as brooklyn vegan hip as they used to be just makes you look like a tool.
What's important in music is the shop you bought it from (and how spuriously independent from THE MAN it is); how many cool points you get for listening to it; how many other people have heard it; whether you got it in clear vinyl etc.
Let's not worry too much about what it sounds like eh?
pffft. it's all about ltd run cassettes and tea cosies w/ free digital downloads these days.
but I don't really understand the whole anti-album thing. For some bands yes, because releasing an album means having to promote several singles and touring, possibly taking up to two years. But it's not like Radiohead have to do this.
Maybe it's daunting for them having to go into the studio and produce an album that stands up to their previous releases and requires a big commitment...but surely there must be a similar amount of pressure on them in creating an EP. Apparently the digital revolution has changed how we listen to albums, now we apparently just rip the tracks we like off the album, the singles, but there can't really be much money to be made off download EPs.
Maybe there is a change towards a more spontaneous release of EPs via bands websites with less quality control. The Ash idea to produce 26 singles seems pointless, ultimately after a year you are left with a collection of random tracks. And then they'll start work on the next release. Hmmmmm
this is the first time any of my threads have gotten over 10 replies. Belter.
He should do. They would fit perfectly into his scoring indie cool points by attacking bands too large/long in the tooth to be considered cool anymore.
Brigtonb you really really do come across as a complete knob here you really do. There are lots of bands I don't like but I don't feel the need to post countless open every thread about them and post bile and vitriol, I just shrug my shoulders.
Why don't you start a thread about something you love instead eh?
Funny thread, if you want an internet free-for-all argument then including Radiohead in the title is a good start it would seem. Personally if they stopped releasing albums I would be concerned because they've surely got another great record in them, I'm not particularly bothered by anything they've released since Kid A (anymore) but I can hope.
they don't know if the album is gonna last so they're just gonna release tracks for now. We'll see another album one day.
This is my first post. This news has driven me to this.
Radiohead are shit and have always been shit. It's only due to some error in the collective psyche that they have ever obtained any album sales. They truely rape what ever scene is 'hip' to create their particular brand of filth. tom Yorke is a particular type of cunt and that is the bad kind. We can all deal with a good cunt not him though he is a bad man. Greenwood gets some leverage though because that soundtrack was less than embarrassing but more than pure shit. You fucks made them. You should be ashamed you pitchfork sucking monsters
It's been nearly two years since their last album. I thought they've been in the studio quite a bit since then, working on the new album. That's a drag.
If Thom didn't treat the whole album creation process that is him and a bunch of other musicians he's known for years taking their leisurely sweet time bouncing ideas off eachother and producing music they love...yeah, if Thom didn't treat this whole process as painful then...I've lost what I was saying again. I don't know why it needs to be like that. They make it sound like making an album is the hardest thing in the world. It just seems counter-productive.
I thought the new song was shit because of Thom's whining.
hardly toured really and can't be arsed to record an album so jealous of their luxury so essentially not do any work (afaik, in the classical "band" sense anyway)
love mid-period, really like the rest (not pablo honey)
warm, glowing centre of the universe from whence all beauty and aesthetic truth flow. Because we are all the centre of the universe?
at no point in the interview did he say they were going to "stop making albums". just that he wasnt into them.
the joy of the interview as a press release, eh.
which is thom yorke's incredible and enviable ability to twist his face into the most bizarre of ugly contortions in every photograph. their (inevitable) next album cover should definitely just be a collage of photos of his face
he's expressing an opinion which is what boards are for. the way some folk around here gleefully jump on what he says and call him a tool is getting a bit annoying now.
i've seen respected music journalists come out with far worse stuff than what he's said about Radiohead in this thread. and the 'publicity stunt' thing, it's not something i'd agree with, but i've heard some pretty convincing arguments to that effect all the same. again, from people who'd be widely respected.
But I also defend my right to call him a tool if he comes across as one.
And this isn't just a Radiohead issue, his HMV thread was a car-crash of the most embarrasing indie snobbery I've ever seen (and given the amount of time I spend on here, pitchfork and silent ballet, he's got some competiton). This is a guy who honestly suggested that I quit my job and leave my family so that I could move to a city with an independent record shop. He is almost certainly a Borat style parody account, I still don't think he's real.
ask the dubstep heads. the HMV thread was a spectacular fail, i'll give you that
I know it's just text on a screen but he really gets under my skin. I've just corrected his spelling on another thread for no good reason, he just winds me up. Now I'm the childish one :(
Thinking about it, I think it's because of the flak I get constantly from my friends who think I'm some kind of crazy obscurist snob loon because I listen to 'way out' bands like er... Sonic Youth. It's people like good ol' Brigtonb who create this Nathan Barly-esque picture of the 'indie' or 'alternative' music listner in people's heads.
Even when they're not doing something we still have to fucking hear about it!
Pretty sure it's not exactly like that. But if they release 1000 singles from now on...that still doesn't count as an album :D
They have marked their name on for ever. love'em/hate'em, they're like nothing else..