Sign In:
Login with Facebook
46382

"Play 'Creep'!" – in fond remembrance of the Radiohead Guitar Wars



"This will without doubt be remembered as their worst album, their Spaghetti Incident... art for art's sake, devoid of purpose"

That, dear friends, is the conclusion ex-Drowned In Sound scribe Graham Reed reached when casting a critical ear to Radiohead's Kid A upon its original release. Though the suggestion that Guns N' Roses' wretched covers album may have constituted art of any form is certainly a controversial one, Reed wasn't exactly alone in his animosity towards the Oxford band's fourth album.

"Are they having a laugh at the pseuds' expense before they go 'not really!' and release the proper album of rollicking great pop songs next spring?" frothed Melody Maker's Mark Beaumont in his delightfully shrill 1.5/5 slagging. Bearing something of a grudge against the 'Head anyway, Beaumont was in all likelihood their harshest UK critic, but less extreme variants on his view were the norm. The typical review offered a 3/5 or 7/10 score, generally accompanied by the sage opinion that while the writer could definitely see what the band were trying do (make a DJ Shadow album, was a frequent consensus), it hadn't quite worked out, and that all in all it would be a relief when "proper album" Amnesiac made itself known next year.

What was implied – but left to readers' letters to actually state – was that Radiohead's abandonment of guitar as chief medium was quite clearly the musical equivalent of the type of 'moment of madness' that occasionally grips married Tory MPs in prominent cruising spots of an evening. A lot of Brits were ANGRY with the band; angry, but willing to forgive just as soon as they stopped fumbling around with the avant garde. 'Amnesiac' and 'Hail To the Thief' were duly hyped by the same press as the return to guitar albums they patently weren't. NME actually became a little scary in its passive-aggressive obsession with whether or not 'Creep' had been played in concert or not. Many a gig goer would be solely there for the old material, often giving every appearance of bafflement at the fact favoured Pablo Honey album tracks weren't getting a live dust off.

 

Video: Radiohead 'You' (Live at The Astoria 1994)

 

And so it continued in some form or other, right up until In Rainbows came out of the blue, a bit like a pay-what-you-choose version of that comet that wiped out the dinosaurs, cheerily half-inching the zeitgeist and leaving the guitar partisans a dying breed. If you want a perfect illustration of this, you only have to try and track down poor Mr Reed's review: around the time of In Rainbows' digital release, the powers that be at DiS deleted the entire thing replacing it with an apology, the original 4/10 score the only remnant of the once-mighty edifice left standing.

This is a shame. Soon, like people who fought in the Great War, there will be no Radiohead fans left who loathe and despise everything bar the original trilogy of albums. Our culture will be diminished. So on the week EMI reissues those first records, here's a final, last ditch defence of the guitar partisan.

 

It's not like OK Computer was an Oasis album

The way the more haughty indie snobs talk about Radiohead's 90s output these days, you'd think they spent the decade writing mono-chord anthems about chicks and beer. No sir: you could probably mount a pretty good case for OK Computer being the most leftfield album to ever go triple platinum in this country, while the presence of guitars doesn't really stop 'Paranoid Android' from still being the weirdest single the band ever released. If you like this record but not Kid A you are hardly a Luddite.

 

Video: Radiohead 'Paranoid Android'

 

Different strokes for different folks

Some people would have it that if you don't enjoy latter Radiohead then you really never 'got' the early stuff. Those people are dicks. Radiohead's whole sonic approach quite patently altered drastically, and if people felt the band they turned into wasn't for them, then that's fair enough, like.

It's not just the music that changed

Non-specific fear of the 21st century hidden under machine treated vocal effects and forests of alien glitches and dissonant brass is AWESOME. But so were those moments when Thom Yorke just opened up totally and blasted us: _"I used to fly like Peter Pan"; "The head of state has called for me by, but I don't have time for him"; "God loves his children... yeah". It was the emotion as much as the music that hooked people in originally, and those emotions are now buried.

Nowt wrong with being able to sing along

These days Radiohead's 1997 Glastonbury performance is generally accepted as the best thing that happened to anybody, anywhere, ever. If Thom had done that thing where he asked for the lights be switched on and then declared "this one's called 'Treefingers', yeah?", things might have turned out... differently.

 

Video: Radiohead 'Climbing Up The Walls' (Live @ Glastonbury 1997)

 

Times were different, lad

Though Napster was enjoying its brief moment in the sun around the time of Kid A's release, the fact is that back in 2000 people didn't, as a rule, listen to music online, meaning the only real way to maintain eclectic and wide-ranging tastes was to buy an absolute tonne of records. A lot of indie kids had never heard a non-guitar, non-verse-chorus-verse record before. It was like when early man first saw snow, or lighting. They were scared. Times were grim.

Guitars are awesome

It's political correctness gone mad to say otherwise.

Oh come on

Guitars are RUBBISH.

Ok, guitars are alright, but Kid A is probably my favourite Radiohead record.

good lord, just, good lord :(

and why does every stupid article have to have the the word sonic in it this year?!

I awarded it 3/10

for the publication I was writing for at the time and I stand by it.
I'm not a fan, never really have been bar 'The Bends' and the odd track here and there and probably never will be.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion at the end of the day, surely...?

Hah, brings back the memories

I remember NME writing a fairly large article slagging the whole thing off as some kind of pathetic self indulgent sub-warp knock off (although the 7/10 review was actually quite positive). I don't think the 'head would give the NME an interview at the time.

The strange thing is, the album's not even that difficult with the exception of maybe Tree Fingers and Kid A. How to Disappear and Optimistic are both feature guitar prominently. You had people like Nick Hornby slagging it off on radio 1 for being too experimental. Times were odd indeed.

As an album it's a really good, coherent mood piece. It just works. Amnesiac and AHTTT have their standout moments but always felt a bit tossed together for my liking. Maybe the solo album helped form the less schrizophrenic nature of In Rainbows.

...

Critics: They know the way, but can't drive a car.

I still think there's a fuck of a lot of the Emperor's New Clothes about Kid A.

I'm sure a lot of people genuinely like it but I'm also sure a fuck of a lot of people like to feel there's something to "get" and that stating a preference for it as their favourite Radiohead album proves they truly appreciate music as "art".

It's obviously fair enough if people's favourite Radiohead album genuinely is Kid A but you do come across people with this evident sense of smug self-satisfaction that they enjoy the album and you don't and feel they're smarter than these plebs who just don't "get it". Personally I'm pretty sure get what they're trying to do but I far prefer OK Computer and I do detest the snobbery certain Radiohead fans have towards it.

This utterly vile indie snobbery is nowhere worse showcased than on the "apology" that's now replaced the original review. It's easily the most embarrassing and unpleasant thing DiS has ever done. For fuck's sake, you accepted and printed the review at the time. Re-review it with a more balanced review later if you want but it's shocking, unprofessional and despicable behaviour to

a) slag off your own reviewer for stating an opinion

b) rewrite your publication's own history due to embarrassment in hindsight

c) Claim there's something wrong with someone for not liking an album.

i don't even think it's that difficult an album

maybe i'm just a whippersnapper who didn't see the initial wave of devotion around ok computer but i heard idiotheque and karma police around the same time (at 12/13 i think) and i loved both, i think i may have even leaned towards the former.

It was never difficult for me either

I never found Kid A hard to get into in any way, it had dynamic disturbed tracks like national anthem and seductive slow burners like HTDC. I loved the pre Kid A stuff as much as anyone but the left turn was welcome, much preferable than releasing an OK Computer clone.

I love this band and so will slap with a kipper anyone who says owt different.

Besides, it's not like 'Kid A' was completely unexpected. They'd already hinted at abilities beyond the alien rock they'd been making before - 'Talk Show Host', 'The Amazing Sounds of Orgy', etc, so to say it was shocking is a bit daft.

Kid A also features loads of guitar. There are guitars on the following songs:

How To Disappear Completely

The National Anthem

Optimistic

In Limbo

Morning Bell (not particularly audible, but it is there)

I think they're what bands should be. Critics piss and moan about how nobody 'changes' or 'progresses', and then when somebody does, they piss and moan about how band X's new album is 'impenetrable' or 'difficult' or 'pseudo-intellectual.'

I'd love to transplant the Beatles in their transition from Rubber Soul to Revolver (read: The Bends to OK Computer) to the present day. They would get absolutely slaughtered for it.

Fuck the critics. If they knew anything about music, they'd have platinum selling albums, wouldn't they?

It's not about the guitars

it's about the quality of the material.

It's almost impossible to deny that although they had hinted a change was in order, at the time Kid A was a mindfuck purely because no-one expected it to be that different.

Guitars or no guitars it's still brilliant though. They pretty much nailed the formula straight away. The problem for me is the slippery slope after that. In Rainbows almost rescues the slump in form, but there is very little to be redeemed from Amnesiac or Hail to the Thief.

So really it's not about the guitars, it's about the quality of the writing. For me it's Radiohead up to 2000 vs Radiohead after that, and apart from the odd track I can't see much that the latter day 'head have done that comes anywhere near the colossus they were up til then.

'sonic' sort of makes an allusion to sound

which music is a form of, hence occasionally cropping up on DiS.

If you're a bit hazy on the exact context for this article, DiS is having a mini-Radiohead week, partly tieing in with the reissues of the first three records, partly leading up to the unveiling of the long-threatened new Kid A review.

I'm not sure who was responsible

but it doesn't seem like the smartest move, does it?

Definitely not - no.

It wasn't even a badly written review (Alc**k reposts it in the course of the discussion thread if anyone's interested).

Sure, he's wrong about how it's going to be remembered and of course he has (in hindsight) gone against the grain of popular opinion but he actually gives a thought-out and well-reasoned critique of the album before concluding he doesn't think it's very good. Obviously many people'll disagree with him, and that's fine if they want to do so (for my part I certainly think Everything in It's Right Place, Idiotque and How to Disappear Completely are very good songs even though I don't think it a great album on the whole) but certainly DiS has published far less considered and far worse written reviews in its time and its ludicrous to single this one out for historical revisionism.

What I find especially depressing about this is I distinctly remember either Sean or Mike Diver proudly boasting about how DiS differs from NME in that it doesn't have an dictatorial editorial policy and there's no "magazine official line" that writers are obliged to follow and this action makes an utter mockery of that claim.

In Rainbows...

Is hands down their best album.

yeah, well that's the thing

I just took all those quotes from Alc**k's post... I honestly don't know what happened (I would guess from when it was deleted that it was maybe Mike), but I doubt editorial policy was involved as such, DiS honestly doesn't work like that, and a considerably more effective cover-up could have been carried out quite easily. I'd call it a flippant gesture that wasn't necessarily thought through journalistically.

i am very familliar with the meaning of 'sonic' thank you very much

but seriously it is massive buzz word this year, and it's an annoying bandwagon to be jumping on. it seems that anyone manipulates sound using even mildly unorthadox effects has a "sonic approach", or shows "sonic mastery", or is MGMT* in disguise *Animal collective. i have other issues with this article, that's not really one of them, i just happened to mention it the sonic thing here.

true, the main bootleg live songs that were floating around in 1999 were guitarier ones

like 'knives out', 'how to disappear completly and never be found', 'Big Boots (Manowar)', 'Don't get any big Ideas', and the old acoustic version of 'Motion Picture Soundtrack' even the piano based 'Egyptian Song' didn't feature any of the "Oh so out there" instruments and effects that graced Kid A

^ what the hell?

A very half-baked pointless article that inevitably goes down a blind alley.

^ this

hilariously amateur article

that live video of "you" is great

almost makes me want to give pablo honey another chance.

Kid A

I bought it without having heard anything from it but having read a few not very positive reviews about it. I thought that the people who wrote these reviews were sure to be sadly mistaken; how could a Radiohead album ever be rubbish? I listened to it. I loathed it. Still do. I dust it off every now and again, just to see if maybe my tastes have changed a little and allowed me to like it. Maybe my tastes have changed since this album was released, but I still hate Kid A, I think it's not just a bad Radiohead record, but a bad record by any standards. Utter rubbish, in my opinion.

Add your comment

Reply


 or Abandon