Jump to content

laire

Members
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by laire

  1. Someone said I looked like the male version of her when I saw her live.
  2. Re: Come to Your Senses, "country" seems to be a big part of the rhetoric around the song and maybe why a lot of people dismissed it, but it's actually better than people are saying it is. It's no less promising than a number of other songs that were first played live in flawed form and then ended up as classics like Lotus Flower or There There or whatever. The song is in an early state and we just can't tell what would have happened with it if they'd chosen to work on it more. Even if taken in that raw state, it's pretty good as is, and I'm not sure if this is a diss of AMSP or praise of CTYS, but it is similar in style AND quality to the weaker tracks on AMSP. Neil Young also made country music most of the time. So did Radiohead, with songs like The Numbers, Give Up the Ghost, I Will, Karma Police and Fake Plastic Trees. As usual, classist people who have never listened to things marketed as country have no idea what it actually sounds like. Jigsaw is sort of a country song as well. Skirting is indeed more promising tho, maybe cause it's more Joni than Neil.
  3. "The 'marginal' was only marginal in a conservative and reactionary definition, in how you simply measure it from a conservatively given 'centre.'... I began to think that the so-called marginal was a place that possibly only reinforced things, and didn't challenge things."
  4. I code switch depending on context but I guess I usually use caps on here. What do you think of Empress of's new songs from a few months ago btw?
  5. So you want them to make a sequel to AMSP with the same exact aesthetic? That aesthetic was not the norm of Radiohead, it was actually a betrayal of the band's core identity up to that point, which had entailed a rejection of nostalgia. To repeat what was already a retro aesthetic, some years later, would be an even further betrayal. AMSP, far from being assembled from diverse odds and ends by random chance, has the most unified aesthetic of any Radiohead album, with the entirety of the thing being recorded using old technologies and making use of late '60s/early 1970s style psych rock/baroque folk instrumentation. Jonny teased in initial comments that the project would mix very new and very old technology. This may have been the initial plan, but it turned out not to be true at all, much to penny's chagrin (remember his theory that this would be a Life of Pablo-style performance art piece where the actual album would be created in real time by live performances, and subject to listener choice). In fact, the album uses exclusively old music technology where it counts: what the listener hears. It might make use of some digital editing processes, but if so, they are designed to be completely inconspicuous and inaudible. Even Daydreaming's vocal effects still resemble what was achieved with analog means in the original Twin Peaks sound design, or numerous tape looped backwards effects in '60s-70s rock. I repeat my earlier challenge: please find a song, or even a moment on AMSP that sounds like it could not have been created before 1975-6 (at which point Thom was 7-8 years old). Such moments do not exist, such songs do not exist. When you set out to create, in 2015-6, an album that sounds more than 40 years old, evoking the music of your earliest childhood, and contains zero moments of production, instrumentation or songwriting that break the fourth wall to inform you in fact it is 2016 (the closest one is lyrical-- "strike up the tinderbox"-- but even that is vague enough to refer to the original meaning of tinder) that is a very clear aesthetic statement, possibly even an ideological statement. It is not simply a choice. It is a choice that requires immense, immense effort to realize, much as it requires immense effort to clear the streets of modern cars and paint out all instances of modern technology when making a period piece. It is very costly (check out the rates for La Fabrique studio) and it is very hard in practical terms to create such a bubble around oneself and live artistically in the past. No one undertakes such a choice accidentally, or sees such a choice through without fully intending the outcome. Even most of the supposedly "retromanic" albums that have been created by millennials have many more eruptions of the present than AMSP. Even Bruno Mars has some things that betray him as a modern artist (which actually makes his music more honorable than if it was purely pastiche). It's extremely rare to find an album that received such high acclaim as AMSP and is solely a pastiche of an earlier era. In a sense, critics gave Radiohead a pass for being reactionary, whereas they usually attack other artists for doing the same (even if the result is technically a perfect recreation, and is enjoyable). I understand that this forum contains some people older than the band, and if so, perhaps these posters stopped listening to new music as avidly around that time, and the music that existed in the early '70s when the band members were prepubescent, is simply the norm of what music should be. When new music returns to that exact sound, it is their Proustian madeleine, nostalgically appealing to a baby boomer or an older gen xer rock fan in much the same way as an '80s- or '90s-sounding modern album is nostalgic for millennials. I understand this. I also happen to like the early '70s sound more than perhaps any other rock sound, even though that's not even my generation. Feist's Metals is another example of a 2010s album that, like AMSP, relies on a very retro sound, and I consider Metals a near masterpiece. Why "near" though? Why is Metals never going to be comparable to For the Roses, even though it is arguably more consistent? Why is AMSP not deserving of comparison with Meddle? Because there is something wrong when it is considered in some way avant garde, alternative, independent and tasteful to offer a mere mimicry of what was fashionable 40 years ago, without any effort (as Lana Del Rey controversially, and admirably, makes) to engage with the present and the progressions and regressions that have been brought about by time. LDR is uncomfortable for many older listeners who remember the '60s/70s, because of the way her music foregrounds the way things have changed and not changed since the good ol' days they idealize. Rather than trying to convincingly recreate the '60s/70s (or to recreate the early '90s alt rock scene that produced Creep, for that matter) Lana does something more philosophically mature, calling intentional attention to the artifice of any such recreation and making music about the perils and pull of nostalgia. What Radiohead does on AMSP is more comfortable and therefore less artistic: they method-act the role of a 1970s classic rock band with such aplomb that most listeners painlessly absorb their new music as nostalgia, rather than as a critique of nostalgia. My suggestion for Radiohead's future development in this thread is predicated on the band's abdication in recent years from the role fans had once believed they occupied, as musical progressives. If they are not to be progressives, and indeed if their attempts at progression are to be greeted with sneers and jibes that it sounds like "a mechanic's garage" and isn't even music (as TKOL was greeted here and elsewhere, even still at the time of AMSP's release) then all that remains is to find the styles of the past that are best suited to Radiohead's instrumental skill set (which actual, improvised jazz and avant garde work, for example, is not) and which split the difference between the band's own sophistication and their more musically conservative listeners (which TKOL apparently failed to do, a sign that they certainly shouldn't try anything more "experimental" than that). The most complex yet satisfying style that can push their skills in new areas while still appeasing their middle of the road fans, lies in this area of smooth jazz/sophisti-pop/blue eyed soul. It's also something that might help Thom make some real improvements as a vocalist and songwriter (because it demands more vocal and lyrical character and specificity, as the music is unpretentious and professional to the point of seeming "boring" unless paired with strong, singular lyrics). Judging by their flirtations with these sounds on parts of the last three albums, this sound also seems to give the band members joy to play, which makes sense, considering they've spent decades wanting to play it before finally allowing themselves to. For some bands, there would be another way out of the corner Radiohead have painted themselves into, the opposite of smooth jazz/blue eyed soul: a punk record. This option was still open to Radiohead until last year. Punk, however friendly it has historically been to fascists within its midst, requires a moral authority (a belief by the audience that the singer is a credible rebel, whether or not they actually are) that Radiohead, fronted by a rich guy who breaks a picket line to play Israel, cheats on his dying partner and sells $130 reissues, no longer possess in the eyes of even their biggest fans. It isn't that we would spurn a punk record as a decent piece of music, but one measure of punk is whether it is taken seriously, and nothing of that nature could be. Who wants to hear Thom being angry on our behalf, let alone (another key part of punk) turning his anger on us? Who would enjoy that? Punk would be merely a pose, like prog folk or any other genre of the past to be excavated. As such, they might as well excavate other genres that better suit their role as musicians at the present time. No one should be under the assumption that being Everything But the Girl was as easy as they made it seem. The ease of soft and smooth sounds can be disarmingly difficult to create, requiring levels of musical skill and maturity and rigor and fearlessness that most musicians will never have and even the band members of Radiohead may only be approaching now in late middle age, and may yet have work to do. Such a sound may turn out to be unattainable, as well, especially given the weakened vocal instrument Thom has to work with. Even at vocal peak, he's never been a Tracey Thorn. If they pursue this direction to its end point however, I do have faith they will discover something there which we have yet to hear, or at least something we haven't heard from them, and maybe even something a lot of fans have difficulty imagining, so that's more exciting than rehashing their own past.
  6. Thom has never written anything this good. Some On a Friday/Radiohead is similar tho, which makes sense. Thom was (secretly, as he rarely mentions it) an EBTG stan growing up. Tracey Thorn also loved In Rainbows.
  7. How can they make jazz if, by the band's own admission, they can't and don't like to improvise? a consumer product designed to sell sell sell
  8. What songs on AMSP sound like they were made after the early '70s? Post rock is something that can only exist as a response to the post punk, modern form of rock-- a deconstruction of post punk, modern rock. If something is based on pre-punk, hippie-era forms of classic rock, like AMSP is, then even if that album was rejecting standard rock song structure, instrumentation or production (which AMSP isn't doing, anyway), it would be more appropriate to refer to it as prog rock. AMSP is a conservative record that might have deserved to be called mildly experimental or arty had it been released in 1971-4, but has nothing to do with any of the developments in music since the mid '70s. Whatever genre you can call the individual songs, the whole thing adds up to classic rock because it sounds identical to many rock records of the early 1970s that are now seen as classic rock (even if you can put them in subcategories like folk rock, psych rock, krautrock, art rock etc). Like all genres, "classic rock" isn't a real thing, but it's a shorthand to describe an aesthetic and social scene that AMSP era Radiohead fits into. Radiohead seemingly can't move past nostalgia for their childhood on AMSP, which sounds like the music that was new when they were toddlers. Just like the Brexit voting public whose politics they reject, they can no longer envision any future beyond the mostly-imagined and idealized past of their parents' generation. So it would at least be more exciting if they would move the horizon of their retromania forward and draw on the pop modernism of the mid '70s to the early '90s, the music of their own youth, the songs they secretly loved but had to pretend not to, because hypocritical punk "daddy" was watching and ready to discipline anyone for liking "sellouts" Everything But the Girl, Prefab Sprout and Scritti Politti, let alone George Michael. Even Joni Mitchell was considered unacceptable to like by post-punks for most of the '80s.
  9. My contention is that Radiohead not only have the required tastes and skill set, they have already been almost doing this kind of sound for over a decade and their reticence in unapologetically doing this sound (Present Tense aside) is merely a sign of bad faith, prejudice and cowardice, a relic of the post-punk god they no longer even believe in, and a hindrance to the progression of their work in the way it seems to want to go.
  10. You can also get more dancey in this "genre" than in early 1970s style classic rock like AMSP, so it allows them more freedom to merge their electronic and acoustic sides naturally.
  11. I'm not a fan of the term "sophisti-pop" at all, but it's a faster shorthand for the thread title than "musically/lyrically complex smooth jazz/folk/pop with soul and bossa nova influences and only the slightest dash of rock, usually made by British, Irish and Canadians who are late 20s or older and no longer care if the youth think they're cool, and are therefore cool." Edit: changed thread title to EBTG.
  12. This wouldn't be any more of a major shift in their sound than AMSP, TKOL or IR, and it's a natural progression from these records, rhythmically and harmonically. The thing that really would require a lot of change is Thom's lyrical style, which up until this point is rarely... sophisticated... enough to work with this genre. Like folk and jazz, from which it derives, this style is known for complex lyrics, often very personal, observational, specific and poetic. While musically layered and complex, it still centers lyrics rather than using them as vague placeholders in the way most alternative acts tend to.
  13. If Radiohead are going to continue without repeating themselves, they need to move towards something like this, this, this or maybe even this. They must kill off their abusive post-punk rockist superego once and for all. Smooth folk-jazz (aka blue eyed soul, but so authentically, overwhelmingly white it will never be accused of R&B appropriation) is their true roots and what they've always had in them, and they will only be able to advance if they stop running away from that. Solo Sting is the person who 2010s Thom Yorke often seems to want to be if only he would let himself, but if that's too uncomfortable to consider, think of post 1974 works by Van Morrison and Joni Mitchell, who first created the potential of English language "sophisti-pop" to exist and justify its existence in a world where punk also exists. Radiohead rejected punk long ago, and finally on the retrograde AMSP they rejected all forms of music created since the early '70s. But they still pretended to be something alien to themselves: a classic rock band. Anyone who heard the 1986 demo knows classic rock isn't Radiohead's true identity. They've always been afraid their natural inclinations were "too" jazzy and "too" feminine or queer in the eyes of the English and American masses. So they tried to blend in, they even fired their two "girl saxophonists" in their original lineup. They were ashamed of being cosmopolitan and tried to hide it for decades under a rock exterior but now it's time to embrace the group (not band) they've always been. Present Tense and its Brazilian influences are a map to where they need to go.
  14. Grimes just said Hail to the Thief is her fave Radiohead album in a twitch stream with Purity Ring while playing Bloodborne. She also said her favorite movies are The Handmaiden and The New World.
  15. There are WOC DJs who got their start posting on Atease and currently play Boiler Rooms and organize underground club nights that are safe spaces for women, LGBT and nonbinary. That's much cooler as a sign of TY's legacy in club music, if he has a positive one.
  16. Grimes is always right, so the fact she followed Thom does make me think there may be some things to the story that we don't know. Or else she really and truly is just a brilliant contrarian, that is to say, a punk, and she is supporting Thom only because many others are turning on him. I also noticed Thom liked an Ibeyi tweet (of one of their more Autotuned songs, no less) among his three likes on twitter (listen to Ash everyone, it was the AOTY). So I'm ready to give Thom the benefit of the doubt now, as long as this all resolves with Radiohead making the publisher cancel the stupid lawsuit and Lana keeping 100% of her song.
  17. I'd be fine with being part of a double ban too if that makes it easier to get rid of that user. I never insulted people here to anywhere near that degree but I did say some unproven things about Thom's personal life which I'm now questioning the truth of, and which aren't really all that relevant to the thread even if they were somehow true, so I could see that being ban-worthy on a Radiohead board. Even if I truly did believe these things at the time I wrote them, I admit to being a bit paranoid because I felt so blindsided and confused by this lawsuit coming from the band. I've also been banned from MT in the past for other reasons so I'm not really supposed to be here, nor would I regret not being allowed to return. I also think some of y'all should chill about this being "the end" of Radiohead, which isn't something that I even said. If anything, this thread has had a more active discussion than most others on MT lately, and (although my own account- and posting- actually precedes this thread and the lawsuit news) seems to be bringing a few old posters back out of the woodwork. I think it's not going to be the end of Radiohead's interest from the wider public just because they did a trashy thing, just like Trump being trash all the time isn't the end of Trump. It may be the end of any pretense of anticorporate ideology from Radiohead and the end of a few fans' ability to keep calling ourselves fans, but Radiohead still have support (or are even gaining support over this) from all the people who don't expect Radiohead to symbolize anything other than rapacious self interest in the first place, people drawn to the band because they are (in the words of some old poetically challenged fan) "towering above the rest" according to so many measures (higher sales, higher review scores, greater fame, more headlining shows at big festivals) rather than because they are more selfless or introspective or humble or self critical. Like Trump, they know how to win. They are loved for being "alphas", even if they pose as "betas". When Trump is more racist than usual, everyone sees by now that it doesn't hurt and may help his brand, whose main appeal to his supporters is based on appealing to and encouraging their own racism, which other politicians and the media make them feel guilty for. When Radiohead act more greedy and privileged than usual, and especially when they do that while targeting a younger, recently-woke, female "pop" artist, that may seem repellent to many people on social media but at the end of the day, maybe they too, are just giving their largely privileged, rockist, apathetic/right leaning and sexist core fans the show they want, and increasing rather than decreasing their support. In recent days Radiohead have also received new support from unlikely quarters, with Travis Scott (who Thom lowkey dissed last year by complaining about his autotune at Coachella) and Grimes (a fan and past opener for Lana Del Rey) both following Thom on social media. So I would say they are far from "over," it's just they are over as a symbol of the things many of us once believed they represented.
  18. Get Free was about recovering from addiction and depression and it was dedicated to specific people who died of overdose. Their names were originally part of the lyrics (like Names by Cat Power, one of her favorite artists and inspirations) but removed from the final song because she didn't want to put the focus on those people specifically, since they were famous people (as that is Lana's world) but she wanted everyone to see the message and not only focus on the names. An artist who once struggled with depression himself has no right to censor that expression, in the name of "protecting" a stupid pop song he wrote at age 18 about how sad he was that his unrequited crush wouldn't fuck him the way he felt entitled to. Lana has even stopped playing her deeply personal song live because of threats by Radiohead's lawyers that she might no longer be able to. Whatever legal justification can be invented for Radiohead's bullshit there is no moral justification. It's evil. I'm not trolling at all. (She talks about the song's meaning in that video.)
  19. http://www.telerama.fr/musique/plagiat-radioheadlana-del-rey-on-a-parle-au-coauteur-de-la-chanson-originelle,-albert-hammond,n5437364.php En 1993, étiez-vous à l’origine de la procédure juridique contre Radiohead ? Non, pas du tout, il s’agit, comme dans cette affaire avec Lana Del Rey, d’un règlement de comptes entre éditeurs interposés. Ce qui est d’ailleurs amusant à noter, c’est que la maison d’édition musicale Rondor Music, à l’origine des poursuites contre Radiohead à l’époque, était alliée de la même entité (Warner/Chappell) qui cherche aujourd’hui des poux à Lana Del Rey. Si je puis me permettre, il y a dans tout ça l’expression d’un certain... karma ! Selon vous, faut-il lutter contre de tels emprunts ou considérer qu’il s’agit d’une pratique consubstantielle à toute forme d’art ? Dans ce genre d’affaire, tout dépend de ce que l’on entend par emprunt. S’il s’agit de l’utilisation pure et simple d’un morceau, il est normal que ce ne soit pas gratuit. Mais si vous êtes inspiré par une œuvre qui vous nourrit émotionnellement, que vous vous l’appropriez et qui, in fine, aboutit à quelque chose d’unique, alors c’est légitime. Il est évident que les grands peintres et compositeurs classiques s’inspiraient les uns des autres, sans pour autant se copier. In that video, you see her process of drawing influence from many sources (when she puts things into the witches' cauldron). Washington Post review of Lust for Life is a good explanation of how her music (like Radiohead) makes quotations and references in order to express something distinct and new.
  20. If anyone questions that Thom has strong feelings about these things and is personally behind the copyright lawsuit, remember this performance, a very rare cover from AFP, which just so happened to occur when Blurred Lines was going on:
  21. Love, 13 Beaches, Cherry and Heroin are better than anything from A Moon Shaped Pool.
×
×
  • Create New...