The everyone LOVES radiohead thread!

[Norah]

Really isn't the genius of Radiohead the very fact that at least 6 of their 9 albums are somebody's favorite? Their weaker albums would be many other bands' best albums.

Listen, it's dumb when people say it about Pearl Jam and it's dumb when people say it about Radiohead.

[matt reeder]

Really isn't the genius of Radiohead the very fact that at least 6 of their 9 albums are somebody's favorite? Their weaker albums would be many other bands' best albums.

Listen, it's dumb when people say it about Pearl Jam and it's dumb when people say it about Radiohead.

Why is it dumb? There aren't many bands who are consistently great.

And in the case of Radiohead, I'm not sure anybody over the past 20 years has a better case for this.

[Norah]

Really isn't the genius of Radiohead the very fact that at least 6 of their 9 albums are somebody's favorite? Their weaker albums would be many other bands' best albums.

Listen, it's dumb when people say it about Pearl Jam and it's dumb when people say it about Radiohead.

Why is it dumb? There aren't many bands who are consistently great.

And in the case of Radiohead, I'm not sure anybody over the past 20 years has a better case for this.

Because if Pablo Honey is anyone'e best album, then they're merely an OK band.

[LoathedVermin72]

Hail to the Thief
Kid A
OK Computer
Amnesiac
The Bends
The King of Limbs
Pablo Honey
A Moon Shaped Pool
In Rainbows

[Kevin Davis]

Really isn't the genius of Radiohead the very fact that at least 6 of their 9 albums are somebody's favorite? Their weaker albums would be many other bands' best albums.

Listen, it's dumb when people say it about Pearl Jam and it's dumb when people say it about Radiohead.

Why is it dumb? There aren't many bands who are consistently great.

And in the case of Radiohead, I'm not sure anybody over the past 20 years has a better case for this.

Because if Pablo Honey is anyone'e best album, then they're merely an OK band.

I don't think "Pablo Honey" was intended to be one of the six...

[Norah]

Really isn't the genius of Radiohead the very fact that at least 6 of their 9 albums are somebody's favorite? Their weaker albums would be many other bands' best albums.

Listen, it's dumb when people say it about Pearl Jam and it's dumb when people say it about Radiohead.

Why is it dumb? There aren't many bands who are consistently great.

And in the case of Radiohead, I'm not sure anybody over the past 20 years has a better case for this.

Because if Pablo Honey is anyone'e best album, then they're merely an OK band.

I don't think "Pablo Honey" was intended to be one of the six...

He said "their weaker albums would be many other bands' best albums".

[Norah]

I took that to mean the other 3.

[Kevin Davis]

Oh yeah, I missed that. Then I totally agree with you.

[matt reeder]

Really isn't the genius of Radiohead the very fact that at least 6 of their 9 albums are somebody's favorite? Their weaker albums would be many other bands' best albums.

Listen, it's dumb when people say it about Pearl Jam and it's dumb when people say it about Radiohead.

Why is it dumb? There aren't many bands who are consistently great.

And in the case of Radiohead, I'm not sure anybody over the past 20 years has a better case for this.

Because if Pablo Honey is anyone'e best album, then they're merely an OK band.

I was more specifically talking about Hail to the Thief and The King of Limbs than I was Pablo Honey. I think most people tend to accept that their debut was flawed; it could have been much better. I'll give them a pass on it. Sometimes I even forget that it exists.

My point is that you can make an argument that even albums considered to be weaker are still excellent. Can you really say that about most other bands, or singers? For a band that's been around for 25 years to have maybe one mediocre record is remarkable.

[Kevin Davis]

Their track record is great. Equally impressive is that for as long as they've been around, they don't really seem to retread much familiar ground -- I mean, there is a pervasive mood that infiltrates all their records, and a couple of formal templates they return to maybe once per record or so, but there is a remarkable lack of repetition across their catalog, and I'm not someone generally bothered by repetition. But when I look at the hundreds of different bands on my shelf, there aren't many of them whose best album I'd say is inferior to Radiohead's seventh-best album. Radiohead are great and I like them a lot but even after all these years I think the pedestal people put them up on is a little exaggerated -- in the end they've got a great stuff/good stuff/stuff-I-don't-care-about ratio that is comparable to dozens of other artists I like.

[epilogue]

Their track record is great. Equally impressive is that for as long as they've been around, they don't really seem to retread much familiar ground -- I mean, there is a pervasive mood that infiltrates all their records, and a couple of formal templates they return to maybe once per record or so, but there is a remarkable lack of repetition across their catalog, and I'm not someone generally bothered by repetition. But when I look at the hundreds of different bands on my shelf, there aren't many of them whose best album I'd say is inferior to Radiohead's seventh-best album. Radiohead are great and I like them a lot but even after all these years I think the pedestal people put them up on is a little exaggerated -- in the end they've got a great stuff/good stuff/stuff-I-don't-care-about ratio that is comparable to dozens of other artists I like.

I basically agree with this except that I would argue that their level of repetition is about on par with any of my favorite bands. It's better than many, but it's nothing special.

[matt reeder]

Their track record is great. Equally impressive is that for as long as they've been around, they don't really seem to retread much familiar ground -- I mean, there is a pervasive mood that infiltrates all their records, and a couple of formal templates they return to maybe once per record or so, but there is a remarkable lack of repetition across their catalog, and I'm not someone generally bothered by repetition. But when I look at the hundreds of different bands on my shelf, there aren't many of them whose best album I'd say is inferior to Radiohead's seventh-best album. Radiohead are great and I like them a lot but even after all these years I think the pedestal people put them up on is a little exaggerated -- in the end they've got a great stuff/good stuff/stuff-I-don't-care-about ratio that is comparable to dozens of other artists I like.

I basically agree with this except that I would argue that their level of repetition is about on par with any of my favorite bands. It's better than many, but it's nothing special.

We just hold them in a different regard then. I think there are plenty of artists who have been consistently great but I just cannot find another example of a band that I love that continues to be great for this long. I guess this also has something to do with how much I love A Moon Shaped Pool; I know that not everybody here holds it in the same light. I think it depends on how much you like late-period Radiohead, or if there's ever been a point where you think their quality dipped in the past 22 years. I don't remember a point since 1997 where I didn't think they were the best band in the world.

Obviously, I think they're one of the greatest bands ever and I think they're leagues better than any band over the past 20 years. I rate them higher than a lot of classic rock acts generally regarded as the greatest ever.

[Rangi Guy]

I kinda lost interest with Radiohead after Amnesiac, In Rainbows sparked my attention again, but it was A Moon Shaped Pool that got me loving this band again

[LetMeSleep]

I kinda lost interest with Radiohead after Amnesiac, In Rainbows sparked my attention again, but it was A Moon Shaped Pool that got me loving this band again

Close to my history with the band except I'm yet to hear AMSP. One day, someday, sometime soon.

[epilogue]

Their track record is great. Equally impressive is that for as long as they've been around, they don't really seem to retread much familiar ground -- I mean, there is a pervasive mood that infiltrates all their records, and a couple of formal templates they return to maybe once per record or so, but there is a remarkable lack of repetition across their catalog, and I'm not someone generally bothered by repetition. But when I look at the hundreds of different bands on my shelf, there aren't many of them whose best album I'd say is inferior to Radiohead's seventh-best album. Radiohead are great and I like them a lot but even after all these years I think the pedestal people put them up on is a little exaggerated -- in the end they've got a great stuff/good stuff/stuff-I-don't-care-about ratio that is comparable to dozens of other artists I like.

I basically agree with this except that I would argue that their level of repetition is about on par with any of my favorite bands. It's better than many, but it's nothing special.

We just hold them in a different regard then. I think there are plenty of artists who have been consistently great but I just cannot find another example of a band that I love that continues to be great for this long. I guess this also has something to do with how much I love A Moon Shaped Pool; I know that not everybody here holds it in the same light. I think it depends on how much you like late-period Radiohead, or if there's ever been a point where you think their quality dipped in the past 22 years. I don't remember a point since 1997 where I didn't think they were the best band in the world.

Obviously, I think they're one of the greatest bands ever and I think they're leagues better than any band over the past 20 years. I rate them higher than a lot of classic rock acts generally regarded as the greatest ever.

Sure. And I think a lot of people agree with you. Which is why Kevin said "Radiohead are great and I like them a lot but even after all these years I think the pedestal people put them up on is a little exaggerated." And I think you're proving his point for him. I'm Team KD here. Radiohead are great. But, frankly, and I certainly don't expect ANYONE let alone you, Matt, to agree with me on this --- but just for my own tastes, a band like The Decemberists is just as brilliant and consistent. And I prefer them. You'll think I'm nuts. But take that feeling and try to flip it. As absurd as you think it is that I would say The Decemberists are just as consistent and fresh and non-repetitive and interesting as any of the best bands out there. That feeling you have? That's the same exact feeling I have when people piss themselves over Radiohead. And I fucking adore Radiohead! I think they're brilliant.

[epilogue]

I kinda lost interest with Radiohead after Amnesiac, In Rainbows sparked my attention again, but it was A Moon Shaped Pool that got me loving this band again

Close to my history with the band except I'm yet to hear AMSP. One day, someday, sometime soon.

It's a great record, I think.

[matt reeder]

Their track record is great. Equally impressive is that for as long as they've been around, they don't really seem to retread much familiar ground -- I mean, there is a pervasive mood that infiltrates all their records, and a couple of formal templates they return to maybe once per record or so, but there is a remarkable lack of repetition across their catalog, and I'm not someone generally bothered by repetition. But when I look at the hundreds of different bands on my shelf, there aren't many of them whose best album I'd say is inferior to Radiohead's seventh-best album. Radiohead are great and I like them a lot but even after all these years I think the pedestal people put them up on is a little exaggerated -- in the end they've got a great stuff/good stuff/stuff-I-don't-care-about ratio that is comparable to dozens of other artists I like.

I basically agree with this except that I would argue that their level of repetition is about on par with any of my favorite bands. It's better than many, but it's nothing special.

We just hold them in a different regard then. I think there are plenty of artists who have been consistently great but I just cannot find another example of a band that I love that continues to be great for this long. I guess this also has something to do with how much I love A Moon Shaped Pool; I know that not everybody here holds it in the same light. I think it depends on how much you like late-period Radiohead, or if there's ever been a point where you think their quality dipped in the past 22 years. I don't remember a point since 1997 where I didn't think they were the best band in the world.

Obviously, I think they're one of the greatest bands ever and I think they're leagues better than any band over the past 20 years. I rate them higher than a lot of classic rock acts generally regarded as the greatest ever.

Sure. And I think a lot of people agree with you. Which is why Kevin said "Radiohead are great and I like them a lot but even after all these years I think the pedestal people put them up on is a little exaggerated." And I think you're proving his point for him. I'm Team KD here. Radiohead are great. But, frankly, and I certainly don't expect ANYONE let alone you, Matt, to agree with me on this --- but just for my own tastes, a band like The Decemberists is just as brilliant and consistent. And I prefer them. You'll think I'm nuts. But take that feeling and try to flip it. As absurd as you think it is that I would say The Decemberists are just as consistent and fresh and non-repetitive and interesting as any of the best bands out there. That feeling you have? That's the same exact feeling I have when people piss themselves over Radiohead. And I fucking adore Radiohead! I think they're brilliant.

I understand this. I know people who feel the same way about The Decemberists. Or Wilco. Or The National. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't feel the same way and that's fine. I think there are plenty of groups / singers who have been consistently great for a long time. So I'll concede that point. I just think that Radiohead is better than all of those bands, and that's probably because they hit almost all of my musical sweet spots.

I saw Colin Meloy play a set in February (he was sandwiched between Stephen Malkmus and Sleater-Kinney) and I didn't dislike him as much I once did. It just isn't ever going to do anything for me, I don't think. He was pretty good. And that's okay.

[epilogue]

I understand this. I know people who feel the same way about The Decemberists. Or Wilco. Or The National. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't feel the same way and that's fine. I think there are plenty of groups / singers who have been consistently great for a long time. So I'll concede that point. I just think that Radiohead is better than all of those bands, and that's probably because they hit almost all of my musical sweet spots.

I saw Colin Meloy play a set in February (he was sandwiched between Stephen Malkmus and Sleater-Kinney) and I didn't dislike him as much I once did. It just isn't ever going to do anything for me, I don't think. He was pretty good. And that's okay.

Absolutely. That's exactly it, man. You hit the nail on the head all the way around. I will never begrudge a person for loving a band. Especially one as fantastic as Radiohead. There are a tons of great bands. And everyone is different, obviously. We all respond to different things. And that's fucking awesome. I'm glad Radihead speaks to you the way they do. That's a fucking amazing thing. Not something to take for granted or apologize for, by any means. You're absolutely right.

[Kevin Davis]

Radiohead, Wilco, and the Decemberists are three good examples of bands that occupy a similar space on my listening spectrum. None of them have had quite the long-term personal relevance of a first-tier favorite, but I am well-versed in and on some level either like or appreciate or can easily forgive all the records in their moderate-sized catalogs, and can think of one or two albums by each band that completely defined a period of my life.

Thinking about it, I wonder how much that "moderate-sized catalog" thing may have contributed to my list of favorites over the years. With the exception of Pearl Jam (and the Beatles, I guess), all of my top-tier favorites (Dylan, Waits, Costello, Young, Miles, Coltrane, Springsteen) not only have discographies that are 2-5 times the size of Radiohead et al., but they had those discographies (or close) when I discovered them, meaning a greater volume of music to process during that initial wave of excitement (either that or the extra music to digest prolonged the initial period of excitement, which in hindsight seems more accurate).

[Kevin Davis]

Just in time to render WCT and Brad's comp obsolete:
http://www.oknotok.co.uk