quote:Also, I'm curious as to what it is about Radiohead that you dislike -- or what it is they lack that makes you indifferent.
Meaningful lyrics, decent hooks, and songs that don't drag on interminably while the lead singer warbles over what may as well be electronica (i.e. crap). Radiohead manages to combine electronica with nasal whining AND jam bands, which are like the three forms of musical kryptonite to me.
That's actually pretty interesting. I didn't know much about your taste in music before and that clarifies a lot. Thanks.
Re: electronic music, I used to be a card-carrying member of the electronic = crap club, but I've been exploring electronic music for four or five years now and groups like Boards of Canada, M83, Venetian Snares, and autechre have completely changed my opinion. [Added: I think you'd hate autechre and dislike Venetian Snares, but M83 have some fantastic hooks. The album Dead Cities, Red Seas, and Lost Ghosts might be worth your while.]
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oddly, I like the Decemberists quite a bit, despite the above list of dislikes. So clearly there's something they're capable of doing that Radiohead is not. Not sucking, I suppose.
That's interesting. I actually dislike the Decemberists. They're... well, bland.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bands/musicians/songs do you like Orincoro?
And when people say they don't like electronic/a, is it music that's just made with synths or whatever or is it some sort of basic electronica style. I always thought electronica was a record store term to house all the different sorts of dance music, but correcting me if I am wrong.
Edit: of
[ February 29, 2008, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: The Flying Dracula Hair ]
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Also, I just discovered M83 and now have a playlist of them. It's great for background music for writing.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just think they're popular with people who like pretentious things that suck.
I'm definitely in this camp.
Though, to take the defense: I don't care about lyrics, "decent hooks" mean much less to me than things like orchestration, tone color, and harmonic creativity, and Thom Yorke's voice is like 5/10 on the scale of whininess. Any pop-punk band out these days makes Thom Yorke's voice seem like Dean Martin.
"Electronica" is very misleading, too. Radiohead is anything but "dance" music. Definite elements of minimalism, but having electronic sounds in your mix doesn't automatically equal "suck". Almost all radiohead songs work acoustically, too. Check out the studio and live versions of "Like Spinning Plates".
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The studio version of "Like Spinning Plates" is backwards. The live version is not backwards. Putting the backwards version on the album struck me as ruining a perfectly good song.
I like Yorke's acoustic renditions of the stuff on his (electronic) solo album, but IMO the best example (as I noted on the last page) is the live version of Idioteque versus the studio version.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
In fact, since seeing Radiohead live, I hardly ever listen to the album versions of Kid A or Amnesiac songs -- I listen to the live recordings of those songs that I have from the show I attended. I think Radiohead are an incredible live band and you've really sold them short in that regard -- presumably due to not having seen them live.
Idioteque is a great example. I liked the album version -- I liked Kid A -- but the live version was really remarkable. Very different, and I liked the changes. Admittedly, I don't know that I'd like the live version to be the studio version, but I'd love a well-recorded live EP with Idioteque on it, for example.
Allow me to clarify then, because I think they are a great live band, but they are not, and certainly Kid A is the prime example, a stage-writing, or live-oriented band when it comes to albums.
KidA/Amnesiac were recorded without any regard for and live performance- they were made primarily through additive and granular synthesis, essentially a process were the musician composes and records many of the parts seperately. In Radiohead's case, who parts of the albums and the music was developed on different platforms by the different members, and then mixed together and Thom York's voice was added. The band, at least for those albums, never came together and learned the songs and played them together- they're just not that kind of album. None of the songs from Kid A were premiered live, and Amnesiac was only because the band had begun learning the songs after the release of Kid A
In that particular situation, Radiohead was as much a composition group or collective with different focuses, and this was by most accounts a very tense period for the band. Especially considering that when they toured, they had to arrange and learn to play all of their songs together after they had already been made. That can be difficult considering each member then exerts their influence on music that they did not create themselves.
So it hasn't always been a stage-oriented band, even though the band is good on stage, maybe great on stage. The songs aren't really written for the stage, and maybe that's why you enjoy the arrangements that they do end up performing- you like the style of a stage-band better than a studio band, but they are different disciplines.
Edit: No, I don't like live concerts anyway, but I've listened to a lot of their recordings and seen many utube videos of performances.
One album I have is called "A Smell of Recognition," which is an amalgam of live acoustic radiohead songs performed by the band. Some are ok, but actually many of the tracks are GOD AWFUL. Specifically "I Might be Wrong" ends up sounding like a steaming pile of musical crap. My opinion.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I disagree, I think Tom might actually like Autechre. Who knows? I have been a fan since I first heard them, but it's not music to listen to over and over again for me- once in a while because it's interesting stuff.
They are also huge innovators with recording and generation, especially helping to popularize Max/Msp in more dance oriented music- although Autechre is not a techno group, they just have leanings toward that particular sound.
See the thing is, you have to remember that just because a band uses sounds that remind you of a different genre, that doesn 't place the band in that genre. Autechre uses alot of the sound material you might find in house music, but the textures of their pieces are completely different- so at first blush it looks like techno, but if you listen, you'll find it's definitely not techno.
Also Autechre's sound applications, recording fidelity and production is so top notch, a discerning ear can tell when they have produced a particular track- it just sounds better no matter how you listen- more clarity, well defined sounds, crisp and precise editing. It's pretty impressive stuff for the technical elements alone.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The studio version of "Like Spinning Plates" is backwards. The live version is not backwards. Putting the backwards version on the album struck me as ruining a perfectly good song.
I like Yorke's acoustic renditions of the stuff on his (electronic) solo album, but IMO the best example (as I noted on the last page) is the live version of Idioteque versus the studio version.
Again, the reversed song is the original choice of the band, for whatever reason. It was not a song developed on the road and then "ruined." In my view, what happens to a song or a piece before it is debuted is under the purview of the composer or creator alone. There is not ruining something that doesn't exist in public site, I guess is my opinion. Once it's out, you can say that it is improved by the live performance, but I don't think it's right to suggest that the song is ruined in its original rendition, because when it was introduced, the band did not provide you the opportunity to compare the two.
It's just a semantic thing, but the composer type in me clings to the right of the creator to decide when a piece is "done." What you say brings up the idea of "fixing" the song or "correcting" it, and I think historically that has led us down a difficult path with all kinds of art. You should try to approach a first version without an eye for what it should have been- because then it's just good art that got screwed up, which applies to everything that is bad, essentially. I guess I just think you should take their studio albums on their own terms, and separate your image of the live band from that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [You will find their older stuff is so different from their current stuff it's almost a different band...almost.
Think The Beatles' "Happiness is a Warm Gun" Vs "Obla Di Obla Da."
You know that those are on the same album, right? Might be better to go with "Baby's in Black" and "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" or something.
Actually yes I did. I think the White Album was a smattering of classic Beatle sound and what would be coming had they kept releasing albums. Although it is fair to note that Obla Di was by McCartney and Happiness Is A Warm Gun was by Lennon.
It's an apt comparison to say OK Computer. Or even My Iron Lung EP.
Also I cannot locate where exactly Tom created his 30,000th post.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:None of the songs from Kid A were premiered live
Quick note, this isn't true. How to Disappear Completely was performed live well before Kid A was released. I even heard a recording of one such live performance.
quote:t was not a song developed on the road and then "ruined."
It clearly had to be recorded forward first before being mixed in reverse. Perhaps it wasn't developed "on the road," but it had to be written and recorded (even in pieces) forward before it ended up on the album in reverse.
I'm absolutely entitled to think that they ruined it by doing that. [Added: When I initially heard it on the album I disliked it; when I heard the forward version live I thought it was pretty good.]
My feelings about autechre are similar to yours, but that doesn't mean I think Tom would like them. When I suggest music to people I don't start with what my favourites are, I start with what I think they would like. That was the basis of my hypothetical Radiohead list for Icarus, for example.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
twink- I stand corrected- but a majority of kida/amnesiac was created in the studio. Besides, the versions of HTDC that they played lived were very different, and had no strings. According to the band, Johny Greenwood masterminded the entire recording mostly on his own or with Godrich, and did most of the work in the studio.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, is the phone the thing I play scrabble on?
quote:When I suggest music to people I don't start with what my favourites are, I start with what I think they would like.
You know, you're actually quite good at matching music recommendations to what a person would like. I know you recommended stuff to me before and were right on the money.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I suggest music to people I don't start with what my favourites are, I start with what I think they would like.
You know, you're actually quite good at matching music recommendations to what a person would like. I know you recommended stuff to me before and were right on the money.
Aw, shucks. I like introducing people to new stuff they they like about as much as I like being introduced to new stuff I like. Which is to say, a lot.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
This is the ultimate version of Canon Rock: 40 different YouTube Canon Rock videos stitched together to create a medley. I'm not particularly enamored of the Canon in D, nor am I overly fond of the Canon Rock phenomenon, but I do think it's fabulous that someone has taken the time to knit together a Canon Rock medley of joy. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't know whether to think it's crazy someone did that, or that it was really just a matter of time.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's this new feature in browsers that allows you to not click on links you think are a waste of time.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world's longest Ibanez commercial? (not surprisingly, there were a staggering number of Vai and Petrucci signature models in there)
Back to Radiohead for a sec (if I'm not pointless in bringing it back up) I can't stand them, but, oddly, a whole bunch of my favorite musicians to play with really dig them. So I have to presume they have *something*, it just doesn't work for me one bit.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Really? Really? Is there a tool for getting you off my case? Is there? IS THERE?
I don't know. Is there a tool for getting you to stop bitching about the kind of music other people like?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should mention that it's also possible to ignore Orincoro.
You don't have to keep complaining about a one-trick pony; you are completely free to smirk and walk away.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: The world's longest Ibanez commercial?
Yeah. I've been contemplating buying a decent guitar, and a couple of Ibanez models have been on my short list for a fair while, but I'm kind of torn.
I want a guitar that can produce a robust, meaty metal texture, but I also want one that can produce more of a snarling texture, as well as one that can produce a crunchy blues texture. (All distorted, of course. ) Ibanez is the obvious choice for the first, a Les Paul for the second, and a Les Paul for the third as well unless I keep my current no-name Strat around for that purpose (which it serves fairly well).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But now that you do, all that remains is to help you understand why you SHOULD.
No, all that remains is for you to accept the fact that we differ on what forum behavior is worthy of comment. I mean, you clearly think some forum behavior is worthy of comment, else you wouldn't have commented on mine.
Well, you've stated your opinion that I should adopt your standards. You just don't seem to have bothered to say what those standards are or why they are preferable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But now that you do, all that remains is to help you understand why you SHOULD.
No, all that remains is for you to accept the fact that we differ on what forum behavior is worthy of comment. I mean, you clearly think some forum behavior is worthy of comment, else you wouldn't have commented on mine.
Vanity, vanity...
I was commenting on ElJay's post. But yours works, too.
quote:you've stated your opinion that I should adopt your standards. You just don't seem to have bothered to say what those standards are or why they are preferable.
I have said what those standards are-- ignore Orincoro when he behaves snottily.
I did not explicitly state the reason those standards are preferable.
Ignoring semi-rude posts is preferable it avoids contention, which exacerbates a hostile attitude. A hostile attitude is damaging to the forum because it discourages open and clear conversation and promotes personal judgment over topical, direct, and pertinent debate.
I allow that ignoring trolls may not be the best way to get them off the forum. I allow that confronting them may do more to preserve clear conversation than ignoring them
I do not grant that Orincoro has been a troll in this thread. Therefore, I think your and ElJay's reaction is not warranted.
quote:Ignoring semi-rude posts is preferable it avoids contention, which exacerbates a hostile attitude. A hostile attitude is damaging to the forum because it discourages open and clear conversation and promotes personal judgment over topical, direct, and pertinent debate.
Posts like the one I originally responded to generate the same attitude. Why are you opposed to my addressing such posts, for pretty much the same reason as you have addressed mine and ElJay's?
quote:Clear enough?
Clear. Except for the part where you explain why this doesn't apply to you.
You're wrong.
But you're clear.
quote:I was commenting on ElJay's post. But yours works, too.
Regardless of to whom the first post was directed, it is clear that you did comment on at least one of mine.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Can you show where your insistence to NOT ignore someone has produced a better atmosphere on the forum?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you show where your insistence to NOT ignore someone has produced a better atmosphere on the forum?
Perhaps you like a forum where one free shot gets to go commented, and then someone goes after the person who responds rather than the original shooter.
I don't.
Has your insistence to not ignore the comments here produced a better atmosphere on the forum?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the very least, it's helped me understand some of your more vocal detractors' points.
Look, Dag-- if it was someone whose behavior was consistently trollish everywhere, on every topic, I could agree with the way you've handled this situation. Like I said, if he'd been acting trollish rather than snobby, your reaction, IMO, would be warranted. (It might or might not be how I'd react)
I don't see his behavior as warranting the snarkiniess you've pushed his way. In fact, I see your snarkiness as less conducive to a good atmosphere here than his snobbishness. Thus, why I'm pointing it up.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see his behavior as warranting the snarkiniess you've pushed his way. In fact, I see your snarkiness as less conducive to a good atmosphere here than his snobbishness. Thus, why I'm pointing it up.
I thought you weren't addressing me originally.
I disagree with your assessment. You haven't done anything to convince me otherwise, since all you've done is restate your opinion without providing any meaningful distinction between what I did - respond with minor snark to someone's post I thought wasn't conducive to a good forum atmosphere - and what you did - also respond with minor snark to someone's post you thought wasn't conducive to a good forum atmosphere.
The only distinction you've made is your still-unexplained opinion that what I responded to wasn't as bad as what you responded to. That's not going to cut it with me.
So I ask again, given the standard you've articulated - which seems to be whether one's insistence in not ignoring particular forum behavior one dislikes produces a better atmosphere on the forum - are you justified in calling me out on this?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I'm definitely in this camp. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I like introducing people to new stuff they they like about as much as I like being introduced to new stuff I like. Which is to say, a lot.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
