Jump to content

What if Radiohead hadn't gone independent?


Fröken Keke

Recommended Posts

Would we've been better off? I mean, two albums in ten years isn't exactly a flood of albums. Compare to their much more active years prior, which ofcourse might've been because of their desire to get off their contract, but still.

Would we've gotten more albums and material if they were still under a mayor label, or would they've created the same output? Is In Rainbows and The King of Limbs the result of long thorough work only possible when working independently? Would that mean we're currently getting quality over quantity, or would we be more satisfied fans if they produced more albums?

 

(We all know they like being independent way more than under a mayor label, this is besides that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since OK Computer, or after they stopped touring it, Radiohead were in a position to do pretty much what they wanted and Parlophone would basically have to suck it. There were rumours of label discontent around the time they heard Kid A, but it didn't seem to affect anything. I vaguely remember the band complaining about artificially long waits between recording and releases, so if anything the label probably delayed things back then (a bit). I suppose it's possible that the band were eager to burn through the contract when it came to Amnesiac/HTTT, but that would seem a bit cynical/unlikely. If there had have been a new contract it would surely have been even more luxurious than the previous one. I get the impression that labels these days would rather have a huge guaranteed bank event every few years than risk damaging the brand every time an artist's muse strikes.

 

You get these long waits because of babies and just generally what happens to human beings who've spent half their life doing something constantly and start to feel a bit oppressed by it. Although it does seem recently like Thom just went and made a Radiohead record with some other people because others in the band wanted this long break, so one assumes there are some tensions.

 

You'll get to a point later this year where you can say 'every cell in my body has replaced itself since In Rainbows, and there's been one album'. They can't hope to be the big deal they were while maintaining this tortoise pace, but on the bright side it's a low-burnout model that can last until they're physically unable to play anymore, as various geriatric musicians have proved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they're getting older. they've never been a band to crank out an album every year so it's no surprise that it takes them 4-5 years now. i don't think being independent has anything to do with that. it must be nice though, to not have to worry about any deadline at all. so maybe it has resulted in rh taking a more leisurely approach to their music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it does seem recently like Thom just went and made a Radiohead record with some other people because others in the band wanted this long break, so one assumes there are some tensions.

 

i think that's a little extreme. he essentially made The Eraser Part II. and in fact it didn't even sound as good, in 2013, as The Eraser did in 2006. i don't think Thom has any shortage of material for Radiohead to work on when Ed doesn't want to take a fucking year off

 

also, re: cells, turnover totally various by organ type. your neurons and heart muscle cells have essentially no turnover whatsoever, which is why you're fucked if you have a stroke or a heart attack. intestine, blood and skin cells replace themselves rapidly. and lots of other organs are somewhere in between

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that's a little extreme. he essentially made The Eraser Part II. and in fact it didn't even sound as good, in 2013, as The Eraser did in 2006. i don't think Thom has any shortage of material for Radiohead to work on when Ed doesn't want to take a fucking year off

 

also, re: cells, turnover totally various by organ type. your neurons and heart muscle cells have essentially no turnover whatsoever, which is why you're fucked if you have a stroke or a heart attack. intestine, blood and skin cells replace themselves rapidly. and lots of other organs are somewhere in between

 

Amok is kind of the love child of The Eraser and TKOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has recently been discovered that neurons are routinely replaced, it wouldn't be at all surprising if the same turned out to be true for heart cells as well, since they're essentially just modified muscle cells.

 

i very much doubt neurons are "routinely replaced" but i'm not an expert in that area. i have done cardiac research for the last 7 years though and i can tell you that cardiomyocyte replacement, while not non-existent, is very low. low enough to not be particularly important

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...