Quote:
i'll put it to you in food terms, radiohead and most of pink floyd is pretty much like mcdonalds. mcdonalds sells s**t tons of product but would you say what they make is good?
No. That's teen pop. I don't know what hipster bands do you listen to but Radiohead is the intellectual cream of the crop among critics, not just hipster 90's teenagers as you said. Now I don't listen to people's opinions but I would rather listen to top critics on acclaimed websites even Wikipedia lists as credible sources, then just a random guy on the Internet. Really, your opinion is among the minority so I really have no reason to listen to you. Guys like Justin Bieber are hated by half of the world, but I find Radiohead the one mainstream band with the least hate. If not, then you name some?
Quote:
also only those who dont make music have the opinion of what radiohead did with their pay what you want was just fine. it didn't neuter the music industry or anything and caused the music industry to slowly collapse under the weight of millions of people who pay what they want [nothing] for disposable music like radiohead.
Disposable as in "I don't like it, so no one should". I don't find anything wrong with pay what you want for any artist because every music to me is disposable enough (just 50 minutes of audio at the end of the day) to be free. I'm not saying making music is easy, but it's ridiculous to see musicians walking around with millions of dollars while our parents have to work 100x harder jobs just to survive. Maybe music shouldn't be free but it should definitively be cheaper. I even support piracy.
Quote:
i'm not arguing the point to be a d**k with you i'm arguing the point because radiohead is objectively bad.
No. Just no. Just no. No. Are you really that smart to think that what all of these experienced music critics praise is objectively bad? One guy. One guy says this against everyone I've ever heard talk about Radiohead outside forums and YouTube comments (There's no band without hate these days)
Quote:
it's marketed to half thinkers,teenagers,and late 90's hipsters as a means to keep emi going.[which they dont even do that since they left emi to be completely unproductive]
Way to contradict yourself here about EMI. And your statement about who this music is marketed to is complete baloney. Radiohead isn't teen pop, and they never were, regardless of their sound. I don't think a band with music that serious would be attracting just teenagers and half thinkers. Just LOL. Their lyrics are praised, mention nothing about its market audience, are deep (Even I can't understand them sometimes, and trust me, I've been around the corner a few times) and I don't think morons would listen to something other than pop. And overall, their sound is just too good for me to believe your s**t anyways.
Quote:
now they dont even really tour or focus on music as a craft they just piddle around in uninteresting side projects and maybe one to five shows a year.
Eh, so? Their choice. They stated they've done everything they could in music and are sick of the industry itself.
Quote:
like i said the only talent in the band was greenwood and lo and behold all he did was rip off minimalists and other classical composer's for his movie scores and arrangements with his wash-up main band radiohead.
Talented as in "musically educated" Those guys wrote better songs than some bands whose members are all about that. Talent in music is related to the subjective opinion of the listener. And yours is unpopular. That's all. You're not bashing on Kesha that has haters all around here.
Quote:
i mean when you think about it all that band ends up being is some accending/decending melodies with thom yorkes mewling over the top of with while the lead guitarist fiddles with a computer more than his guitar. "oh wow,look at their light show they look so cool and avant futurist" when bands who have big stage setups like that they are only over compensating for a lack of musical depth.
This leads me to my main point: Don't think all of this is objective. Well, you can think that if you want, but it's a fact that it's all subjective. You can be Slash playing technical death metal which no one can play, but the thing is, if your music doesn't sound well to the ears, it's nothing. I'd rather listen to white noise, or nothing for that matter. I think ambient is one of the best music genres out there, and I think even I can release a record like that. It's all about what's pleasing to the ears. The band can do everything they want outside of their music, they can be the biggest douchebags in the world, I don't really care about that, I'd just listen to their music because I can't and don't want their personal life on my iPod while I'm chilling in my garden, listening to just music.
When it comes to their sound, why yes, that's music to me, and way more. I'm not even a big fan of Thom's vocals, but that's the music that brings out the most emotion in me, which music should do. Like the example I posted with ambient: The artist doesn't have to be talented.
You mostly described their music with their 00's albums, while OK Computer didn't have half of those things and that was the pinnacle of music, the greatest album of all time to me. Their last album was alright, but their worst one to me because of all the electronica and non-rock stuff I'm not into; and on that I can partially agree with you, but when Radiohead was full rock, up to OK Computer and partially until In Rainbows, their sound to the ears was best thing ever, and millions of rock fans agree.
So still, main point: Yes, this is all subjective. Yes, your opinion, opinion, is unpopular. You can think what you want but facts and popular opinions still stand.
300
250
200
