Jump to content

Talk:Radiohead/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Initial comments

The article says the name On a Friday came from the fact they were formed on a friday, but I always it was named that way because they could only practice on fridays.

This article needs a rewrite for grammar. Every couple of sentences is a grammatical mistake which detracts from the authoritative quality of the article. If you're going to edit this article, at least be somewhat careful.

Could we have an article about radiohead that's not gush and fluff written unobjective fans? Reading this article you'd think that Radiohead was the undisputed greatest band ever.

Umm on the page someone wrote "little did they know that 'on a friday' would become the BEST BAND EVER!!!" this was clearly written by a fan boy and is not only POV but bad writing, i think a 15 year old has been screwing around here somewhere.

Besides, Ryan Adams is a tosser ;) --Robert Merkel

list of singles would be nice, if anyone can remember them all. i'm buggered if i can. fill in the gaps - anyone can play guitar, creep, just, street spirit, fake plastic trees, karma police, paranoid android, no surprises, pyramid song, and whatever the other one off amnesiac was...don't have my cds here so I can't look :) AW

Right - Just by Radiohead - best song ever? Discuss. --Bbtommy

Not sure which one, but wouldn't Dylan have to have best song ever? Perhaps Tangled up in Blue?

Wasn't High and Dry a single (it had a music video IIRC)?

OT: Just probably is my fav' radiohead song - though I don't think Radiohead nearly as good as people claim (it's been downhill since The Bends - and the last couple of 'experimental' albums have been un-listenable self-indulgent crap). - stewacide 05:58 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I totally disagree. I can't stand their stuff before OK Computer, and I think it's gotten better and better from there! But that's music for you. More comments below Pema

Bends best, of course. And Kid A - its quite good, and quite listenable, as long as you're not searching for a 3 minute pop single. atorpen

Some of the singles someone else has added look dodgy to me. I've marked ones I *KNOW* were never sold as "promo only", but I'm not convinced some of them exist - the only one I remember being released to radio stations is Optimistic. will check some discographies, but anyone else have comments?

I know it off by heart, so I've revised the singles list- the promos were listed in the wrong order and its probably cheeky to regard 'How To Disappear Completey' as a single, but hey, go figure. Also added 'Pop Is Dead', 'My Iron Lung' (which was a British single before it was an import E.P) and tidied the order and years of 'The Bends' singles. -Zoo

I think I'm gonna edit some of their history, which includes a lot of cool stuff I've never seen by the way, nice work! Like their original name, and where radiohead came from. These guys are one of my favourite bands, so I can fill in some of the blanks. Follow me Around is a great source for discographic information. Pema

I've never heard of Radiohead as a progressive rock band, and neither has allmusic (they list anything even remotely valid). They are progressive and they are rock, but that doesn't mean they are progressive rock per se... Allmusic lists experimental rock, which seems more appropriate to me. Tuf-Kat

I don't know anything about it; I'm no good at classifying music. I was just removing some of the more egregious bits. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:25 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The closest Radiohead ever got to prog rock was Paranoid Android (on OK Computer). They're certainly not a prog band. --AW
It's progressive. It's rock. It's progressive rock by default. Prog has such a stigma these days because people are so afraid of being associated with it. --[[user:MMBKG|MMBKG]

They're beyond overrated. It literally disgusts me how much the internet community worships them.

It literally disgusts me how people make generalizations about a group of people they perceive as the "Internet community". Radiohead is critically lauded, and for good reason. They aren't my favorite band but I do respect them for bringing innovation and freshness to a stale musical mainstream. Not only that, but being successful for doing so. -- goatasaur

I love radiohead's music for artistis reasons, because it makes me feel things that i don't want to deny. it's had a big impact on my life, and nobody can accurately say that they're good or they're bad. they're just artists making art.

And they're certainly not progressive rock. word to that. they're a rock band that never wanted to be a rock band, then they turned into an electronic band, and that's how i liked them best. now they're a more relaxed rock band, but the reason they rule is that it's never been about rock n roll or electronica or any of that soddy shit. while most musicians rely on musical style as their art form, these guys just use it 'cause it's there, to make art. Whether I'm listening to something that Thom made on his PowerBook, or a live recording of just him and his guitar, it brings up the same feelings in me.

pema

Radiohead changed their name into "The Carlyle Group"

My source: http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/

Erm... I think it was erm... a... joke.--Richj1209 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What you think doesn't matter, do you have a source? It's a message on their official website against your intuition, so you have no right to change the article.

Sorry, but do you understand the notion of irony? Its clearly a joke. Why would the band really change their name to thay of a big American private investment corporation with links to the Bush family, etc. Why hasn't the band released an official statement regarding this? Why hasn't the website changed? The front page still says 'Radiohead Internet'. It was a joke!!! Do you Americans get irony?????--Richj1209 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we Americans do understand irony. Apparently, however, we do not understand satire or double entendre.

I agree. I think we can afford to wait and see where this goes (it might be a one-off flippant comment, or they might run with it for a bit) before we mention it in the article. If we try too hard for up-to-the-second accuracy, and if we try too hard to believe everything Radiohead say, we will end up with egg on our faces. Take it with a pinch of salt. --rbrwr± 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I work for waste, and manage the server for Radiohead, and I can assure you that some people just don't understand English humour. /Woollyhat2

Brett Boucher, WIKIPEDIA VANDAL

Google and Wikipedia search make it clear Brett Boucher is some college sports player who plays guitar on the side and has inserted his name repeatedly into this article and maybe others. Either that, or the Brett Boucher who is doing this to us is another, even lesser known one.

I have 99.9% certainty this is vandalism. And it has happened repeatedly. Needs to be straightened out. Can someone say who the hell Brett Boucher is and provide documentation Radiohead was influenced by him, or else it'll be deleted again?

Edit: I have uncovered the vandal's myspace page. www.myspace.com/brettboucher

Fan Sites

Are all of those fan sites necessary? We don't want this to become a link-list for upping contributers' Page ranks. I've no problem if each of those sites deserves to be in the list, but I think it's important to note what they are/aren't adding to the information content. I would think an official site and one or two good fan sites (w/ news etc.) should be enough. I can't see that the fifth fan site listed adds anything that the other four lack.

--Rory ☺ 13:54, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Let's give one fan site, preferably the most popular (Green Plastic?), and leave it at that. Maybe two, but anything more than that looks suspiciously like advertising. Everyking 13:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Went to some effort to identify these site's popularity, based on Google Page rank and reletive number of links from external sites. I've removed three of them, left the top two. --Rory ☺ 16:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, to be fair, Radiohead have one of, if not the, biggest web presence in terms of fan community. Its practically an industry in itself! Maybe worth a note in the article?- Zoo

I've always thought so. Especially leading up to OKC, they were one of the first bands to truly capitalize on the internet. It deserves a mention. However, if I was going to do it I would do at least a little research so I could say something that wasn't totally nebulous. I can't be bothered with that at the moment.--24.190.122.122 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

what about the discography site listed - i think that's a useful resource... Fakeasanything 09:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional vocals - Ed O'Brien

I added vocals to Ed O'Brien's contribution to the band on both guitar and vocals, as he does pretty much all backing vocals live and often on record. Is it neccesary to add Phil Selways contribution to There There, where I believe he sings? It doesnt say so in the HTTT booklet.

I am working on doing an early history, school days style thing on the 'head. Anyone want to lend a hand? --Newdawnfades 22:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and NOT Phil Selway

Phil does not provide backing vocals on enough tracks to mention it. Even Ed, I think, has not sung backing vocals on any studio album since OK Computer-- Thom does them all himself through overdubs-- but Ed continues to provide backing vocals in concert. They were asked about this sometime in a Hail to the Thief interview and explained it. I think the only track Phil has EVER done backing vocals on is the live version of "There There." It's unlikely he even sang back in the Pablo Honey days, even live, because those songs were pretty similar from live to album and in old live performances I've seen Phil never sings. "There There" is a special case because Jonny and Ed are on drums, allowing Phil to sing.

Encyclopedia Style, Question

I've made a few changes over the last few days, mostly adding some more info on albums, tracks and editing the prose style into what I understand is the house style here at Wik. But one question though - why don't people add a little more detail about what Radiohead (and many other rock band entries) actually sound like? Just some basic information would be good, explaining to the uninitiated what a "rocking sound" actually sounds like. A little extra info on how one album sounds different to another would also help the Encyclopedia stylee. Nesbitt 05:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- 2004.11.11 - Seconded. If someone wants to know "what that Radiohead fuss is all about" from here, he should be given at least a vague but reasonable hint of what the discography sounds like, so that he can start with something with the most chances to appeal to him. Or, if he has already loved/hated one album, he should be given a hint of how the others are similar or different to what he knows.

So for what it's worth, I've attempted a genre description for each album in the Albums section (btw renamed to Studio Albums) some days ago, mostly using recognizable and understandable categories (so as to be useful) even if they don't 100% fit, under heading/disclaimer "approximative genre overview".

I don't claim them to be perfect, but keep in mind they're supposed to be helpful to the unitiated -- the people most likely to dispute them are those who already know the albums by heart and don't *need* the info in the first place.

Similar bands ??

this section is a bit odd. if i was going to think of 2 bands most like radiohead i wouldn't have put coldplay. somebody should expand the list or it should get deleted. --- bob

I agree entirely; it should probably be removed. Now Coldplay is at the top, although they're really nothing like Radiohead. Similarly, the Travis comparison strikes me as odd as well - aside from the Nigel Godrich touch, it's apples to oranges really. I say do away with the comparisons - Big Billy V
I just want to say that both Coldplay and Travis comparisons are completely justified - there are certain guitar and vocal similarities that occasionally go past "influence" and into "rip-off". Muse as well, the vocals are clearly influenced by Thom. Perhaps this is more obvious to me because I'm a musician and have a critical ear for music, or maybe it's just a difference in opinion. Whatever, I agree with the deletion of the section as it was. Perhaps a better version under the title "Influence" (or something like that) will be an interesting addition at some point.--24.190.122.122 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be easier to state their influences... such as Pixies, Miles Davis, etc.
I just removed this section as it is completely subjective/unencyclopedic in addition to the above comments, with which I agree. Sc147

Similar bands

So far - so good

Ok, I did what I could. I'm proud of it, I must say and I'll make it bigger. I indend to put more material about Pablo Honey and the Bends and Ok Computer sections, because as you can see the last two album sections surpass their first two. So far - so good. It's a real pleasure working on Radiohead... If you plan something bigger change on the page, which you think will make it better - please, let's discuss it first. As a major contributor for the page I think I've earned my right to know what's happening with the article. --Painbearer 20:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)Painbearer

Okey

Excellent work I think. If you want to - do some corrections, but I like what happened. It's my greatest pride to see this...--Painbearer 21:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Performances of "Creep"

"Meeting People Is Easy" contains loads of footage of the band performing "Creep" during the tour for OK Computer, so I don't think the reference to the band's refusal to play it up until recently is all that accurate.

They haven't performed it in North America in years. But they played in several times on the UK leg of the HTTT tour in'03 or '04.--Madchester 21:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. There was a well known period of years where they didn't play it at all. It was clear that they were snubbing it. When they started playing it again it was pretty big news in the radiohead community.--24.190.122.122 13:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this relevant to the article anymore, but there's no evidence they are less willing to play it on North America than anywhere else, they played it at their very most recent North American show in fact, 1st May 2004 at Coachella.
The facts regarding them performing it are:
  • Up until 1996- played it regularly/semi-regularly at least.
  • OK Computer tour (1997-8)- Still played regularly until the Australian leg of the tour (Feb 98), after that it wasn't played again in 1998 (about another 20 shows) except for the 2 Tibetan Freedom gigs.
  • Kid A tour (2000)- 44 dates, not played at all
  • Amnesiac tour (2001)- 35 dates, played once, in Oxford (closed the show)
  • Iberian tour (2002)- 14 dates, played once, it closed the show again
  • HTTT tour (2003)- First played in August in Japan (a fair way into the tour), closed the show once again. Then suddenly started being played mid-setlist at several shows, it was played another 9 times in North America and Europe. Then it was played at Coachella in 2004, in the encore, because they were "running early".
So really the longest period without them playing it was 1998-2001, it's not like they've been ignoring it since 1995/6 or something, as legend seems to have it. It seemed to return as a "once a tour" treat during 2001-3, and then it became a semi-regular for the rest of the HTTT tour. Jimbow25 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Height of Popularity?

The header of the OK Computer section says "the height of their popularity," but in fact despite the fame and critical acclaim of that album, it either didn't quite or only barely (don't remember) go platinum, possibly due to the fact that OKC only started getting the fawning reviews by the magazine end-of-year lists - it didn't make a huge splash upon its release. In contrast, Kid A went platinum in its first week. So while OKC may be the source of their popularity, it wasn't the height of it; that came with Kid A (though they haven't fallen much from there).

I agree with this. Shouldn't the phrasing of the 'OK Computer' section be changed therefore to "The *source* of their popularity" instead of *height* of? As a consequence should the Pablo Honey/Bends section be changed to "Hit singles and *early* success, to take this into account? --Richj1209 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Radiohead by others

I propose that the last sentence of the 'Radiohead by others' should be deleted as it is irrelevant. The fact that Radiohead like Sigur Ros in this part of the entry doesnt make any sense at all. --Richj1209 12:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Jamie Callum mention needs to be there, since it is for only a single song and not a full album. I think that listing every recorded Radiohead cover is beyond the scope (never mind the ability) of this entry. Thoughts? Padraic 03:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

No response, so I removed it. Padraic 19:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Another single-song cover has been added by 194.78.92.165. Any objections to my removing it? Padraic 14:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Removed. Padraic 14:43, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Don't see any problems in mentioing artists who have covered Radiohead; single or album. --Madchester 16:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

There should really be a list at least of the cover albums that have been done. There has been an unusually large number of them, and at least four are classical (off the top of my head). I've always felt that the interest other musicians, especially classical, have shown in Radiohead's work is very telling of how exceptional they are. It's an important bit of information that shows how much the music is respected that's missing from the article.--24.190.122.122 13:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bit About Frank Bennet

Australian musician Frank Bennett gave an unconventional makeover to Radiohead's song "Creep" on his 1996 album "Five O'Clock Shadow", performing it in the style of Frank Sinatra. The album has been deleted, but..

What does "The album has been deleted" mean? Nohat 06:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello guys. I added the Frank Bennet entry. Apologies, I hadn't read this discussion about single-song covers. I thought the Frank Bennet one was worthwhile because a) it's a very unusual and amusing cover, and b) I spent about three years searching for information on it having heard it once on the radio, so I thought I'd try and save others the trouble. I understand if you want to get rid of it, however - listing every cover version ever could produce an unnecessarily long list.
'Deleted' means the album is no longer available commercially. A shame, I reckon - it's nifty. But, of course, you can go to the Frank Bennet website and download the lot, so maybe it's even better this way. pauldwaite

Genres by albums

Does anyone think we're going too far by listing "approximate genre overviews" next to the albums? Can anyone even tell me what the hell electro progressive rock is? And isn't "experimental abstract rock w/jazz" a bit too wordy to even mean anything to the average reader? Isn't "experimental abstract" pretty redundant?

thom and jonny

I seems to have become common consesus that thom and jonny are the principal song writers. I would argue against this notion, i think saying that thom writes the songs and jonny builds on them is over simplistic.

this is pure speculation.

how do we know how they write music as a band? phil could play guitar in the studio for all we know (thom plays bass on "National Anthem" on the album recording, for example).

anybody else feel the same?

evilswan

The band always credit everyone with regards to songwriting. They try to avoid Pink Floyd-esque situations this way, and divide royalties equally. But Thom and Jonny are the 'brains' behind Radiohead, however. Thom is the sole lyric-writer, whereas Jonny can be seen as the most 'creative' member of the group musically. --Richj1209 11:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited this part before reading this. I didn't do anything major to it, just emphasized that the whole band has a role in it though Thom and Jonny are the primary song writers. I don't want to get into a pissing match about Radiohead fandom, but I know as much as anyone about them and the version that's in the article right now sounds pretty damn accurate to me.--24.190.122.122 13:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Issues/Suggestion for more Info -- Chris Hufford

2005 - 10 July A fair bit of the information on early Radiohead comes from a site called radiohead biography | ateaseweb.com http://www.ateaseweb.com/biography/ And I think that explains some lacunae in this article. All of a sudden Chris Hufford is quoted, without context, hyperlink, etc., and then disappears. Who IS this guy? Turns out he was one of those who ran Courtyard Studios and produced "Manic Hedgehog Demo." The wikipedia page then goes on to say that Hufford says that releasing Drill EP was "not a clever move." But if you read the original of this, Hufford's saying that in addition to producing, he'd taken on the role of manager, and that's what wasn't a clever move because it was "A huge conflict of interests. I think Thom was very insecure of my involvement. I'd had that happen to me as an artist when one of our managers acted as producer. There was definitely some friction on that front." The way the wikipedia page is now, it just doesn't make sense. Why was the EP not a clever move? Radiohead does that alot. Answer: The EP was ok -- it was Hufford saying there was too much contradiction and conflict in him taking on too many roles (and too much power, it seems). Does this make more sense to anyone else? Also, we should know -- is Chris Hufford still associated with Radiohead (managing? producer????). I don't want to make changes, 'cuz I love Radiohead but I don't really know much of the history. Just looking to raise some editorial issues so the page has more info. Thanx - kagillogly

Yes, Chris Hufford IS still their manager, along with Bryce Edge, so far as I know. I found this a major omission in the article too. Hufford and Edge ran the local Courtyard Studios in Oxfordshire (gawd, it's so easy to type Oxfordshite, lol) through which they produced and maybe managed many bands including Slowdive (the shoegaze scene, i.e. Ride, Chapterhouse, Slowdive was the main thing within indie rock in the Oxford area at the time, and a slight influence can be heard in certain tracks of Pablo Honey. I have a Slowdive album that credits at least one of them as producer.) Anyway, they got the job of producing Radiohead after they were sent the band's original 14 or 15 track (not sure) demo tape, which is the one that was leaked on the internet in 2002 after being taken for lost. This is another inaccuracy of the article, it says Manic Hedgehog was the "first demo." That is totally wrong. They released either two or three demos including "Manic Hedgehog" (so named for the store in which it was sold) in 1991-2 that were recorded in Courtyard Studios and had the backing of Bryce & Edge, though not a label. But they had previously recorded this first demo on their own. Confusion arises because the later 2 or 3 demos with only a few songs each appeared in stores and the earlier much longer one did not, in fact, presumably multiple demo quality recordings were recorded for their own purposes throughout the first few years On a Friday existed (Thom made a "demo" of "Creep" for instance, which he sent to other band members while in college), so the very meaning of "demo" is in question here. Anyway, whatever we call it, apparently Hufford and/or Edge were unconvinced by that demo until they heard the final song. There is all sorts of speculation as to what that song may have been on their original tape, as the 2002 leaked version changed names and possibly order, but "New Generation" seems to fit. There is a great website with all sorts of info about the history of the On a Friday days and the 2002 leak called I'm Tired Sleep Tonight or something like that.

Editorial question -- Chris Hufford -- again

Hey, I managed to do this comment w/o putting in my user name. Now it's in.


kagillogly

Discography write-up

There needs to be more work on the singles discography. I recently copyedited/added a new infobox to Street Spirit (Fade Out) and Karma Police.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think Mariah Carey has a better singles discography than this page. --Madchester 16:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Do singles have to be released? Or are we just supposed to list all the songs that aren't on the major albums? (I can do the latter...)

New Album (Album 7)

Where are people getting their information about the release date of the new album? People have added info ranging from November 2005 to June 2006, with little sourcing. Ario 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello there.... I added information about 'Lucky' and the War Child 1995 album Help in the 'OK Computer' section. I've also cleaned up some elements of the 'New Album' page, adding a link for Dead Air Space and correcting the assertion that 'House of Cards' was from the OK Computer sessions, when this was not the case. 'Last Flowers' was, though. I've also added information about the Ether Festival and the Trade Justice gig, which I was surprised no-one had entered as these are the only 'gigs' Radiohead (well some of, anyway) have played this year. --Richj1209 11:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Matt Carter/Subconscious Dream (repeat vandalism)

Whoever keeps adding the Matt Carter/Subconscious Dream plugs, it's really useless, futile, and not even very funny. "Jack Mehoff" would even be more clever, but continuing to add your inside joke and re-add it after it is removed is just pointless. If you have some legitimate reason for this, please list it here. And yeah, it doesn't matter if you switch IPs or usernames every time you make that edit, we can still see it and change it back. Ario 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Compare to?

The band's early music compares with artists such as Elvis Costello, Pixies, Pink Floyd, R.E.M., U2, Talking Heads, The Beatles, The Smiths, and Mancunian post-punk acts The Fall, Joy Division, and Magazine. Later albums resemble German art-rock band Can, the avant-garde electronic group Kraftwerk, electronic artists such as Autechre and Aphex Twin, and jazz pioneers such as Charles Mingus and Miles Davis.

I don't see how Radiohead's music "compares" to any of them. This list seems to have been created for the purpose of namedropping as many respected artists as possible. If the editor meant to list influences cited by the band (for instance, Yorke cites Talking Heads' Remain in Light as in influence), then this information should be moved to an appropriate section (not the lead) and properly sourced. If it's meant to be a list of "unconscious" influences not neccesarily cited by the band, then the connection between them needs to be demonstrated.—jiy (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I second the motion. Ario 07:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. I wouldn't expect a mathematical proof, but, at the very least something like "Listeners have compared the band to...[cite critic, official website, official fan forum, whatever]" or "...have influenced musicians such as...[cite music critic, artist in question's statement at an interview, etc.]". I'd suggest, when it comes to musicians, we should be fairly liberal about what sources are reasonable to cite, but absolutely strict on no original research, which becomes more important, not less, when dealing with art and other fuzzy subjects. Jkelly 21:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I have removed Jeff Buckley as one of Radiohead's early influences. This doesnt make sense as both artists emerged at around the same time. Perhaps the editor was thinking of Tim Buckley, I don't know. Yes, Jeff Buckley did influence Radiohead, particuarly with regards to Fake Plastic Trees (the vocal was recorded after the band saw him live in 1994) but this was after the band broke through, not before it. --Richj1209 16:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

napster

Shouldn't there be some mention of that "infamous relationship with napster" mentioned in the ok computer article in the main article as well?

Shouldn't think so, as I don't think Napster was around in 1997. --Richj1209 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything on Kid A and Napster. Where is it? I think (if an article I read about it is to be believed) the possible relationship between Napster and Radiohead's first #1 album is pretty important. --User:128.146.68.89 19:00, 4 March 2006
It's there, in the Kid A article .. give it another look :) -EdisonLBM 00:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Progressive or Alternative

I believe that the label 'progressive' is something that the band themselves have shied away from and that Jonny has stated that he is too young to have been influenced by '70's prog rock. Nonetheless, much of their work does share characteristics with progressive rock as described in the wikipedia. They also sit fairly happily in the 'alternative' genre. It may depend which album, or indeed, song is being considered - 'Just' alternative, 'The National Anthem' progressive. Should both adjectives be applied or is that sitting on the fence? Redkaty 13:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is that Radiohead is not a progressive rock band. Thom is on record as saying that he doesn't like prog rock at all. Perhaps when Radiohead start producing 17-minute songs then perhaps then they could be considered a prog-rock band. I've corrected the band's genre definition, although of course, people are welcome to edit it again and give their reasons! Generally its very difficult to define Radiohead's genre, but Im very sure that they arent prog. Richj1209,22:01 23 November 2005 (GMT)
In my estimation, they started out as an alterna-rock band, but progressed to post-rock starting with Kid A. I love both Radiohead and prog, but calling Radiohead a prog band is a bit of a stretch. Cassandra Leo 08:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Radiohead and Politics

I propose that there at least should be some small mention of Radiohead's involvement with political issues, particuarly in regards to the Free Tibet campaign, Drop the Debt, CND, Trade Justice groups and most recently, Friends of the Earth. It could be argued that this has rubbed off on 'Hail to the Thief' and some elements of 'Kid A' and 'Amnesiac'. --Richj1209 11:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

YES. I heartily agree. And actually they are also involved at a more local level in charities though they don't trumpet it. Phil, for instance, is and has been since before joining the band, a volunteer for the Samaritans, which is a British helpline organization for the suicidal or depressed; ironically (in light of that), Radiohead has been called a slit-your-wrists band, which is something else that needs to be mentioned, hopefully with some opposing evidence as well in the article itself. Early Radiohead and Nirvana were closely linked by the press, and one critic even suggested Thom should/would kill himself. Differences and similarities between these bands and their frontmen at least need to be hinted at. Thom is an "anti-rock-star," and Radiohead aren't your prototypical/mythical hotel-trashing dopefiend rockers, which never comes across in the article either. Thom and his band have been more successful at avoiding the kind of co-optation Cobain felt he underwent, while still managing to have a lot of people listen to them. Maybe it's just that Thom is a more sophisticated thinker or songwriter and tries to move ahead the mainstream (or behind as the case may be-- drawing from older obscure music) in order to challenge it, rather than throwing up his middle finger at it in an attempt to be real, which he tried for a little while back in 1993 and realized led nowhere but greater fame and artificiality.

This article is severely lacking in those sociopolitical areas which have come increasingly to dominate Thom's songwriting as he came to this realization on The Bends, and then began looking almost entirely outside himself for songwriting material on OK Computer. Not just the past three but OK Computer in a less obvious way (and its b-sides, more literally) is suffused with suspicion of the new global economy, of corporate-imposed culture and political correctness, of people living their lives thinking they have choices when in Yorke's view they are "pigs in a cage on antibiotics" (which is probably the worst line he ever wrote, but whatever). None of this comes through, and the individual articles on Kid A and OK Computer, though more informative about these specific albums, are even more flawed than this general one.

In fact Wiki's "Radiohead" is severely lacking in many, many areas, to the point I suggest it be taken immediately out of the "good" category until some massive rewriting and changes are done. It's not one of the worst on Wiki by any means, but it's hardly one of the 200some best. Especially considering the huge Radiohead-fan internet presence and the inspiration of Radiohead themselves, this article is disappointing for its lack of depth, poor organization, disproportionate concentration on chronological band history only, many grammar problems and examples of poor, inconsistent or over-repetitive writing throughout the article, and some very annoying, though not that major, factual inaccuracies. Reading this article a newbie to the band, much less to rock, would get little sense 1. what they sound like, other than lots of namedrops of influences (some of which are close to being wrong) 2. what they stand for, musically, lyrically, personally, symbolically, commercially, culturally, 3. why they are considered such a "seminal" band for our era by their fans and by music critics, and why these people don't prefer all the bands that keep sounding the same from year to year, are actually played on the radio, have good looking people in them, and sell.

Some of the people who edited this article appear to have a good grasp on Radiohead, some do not, but regardless the end product leaves something to be desired at this stage. -Paul

I agree that the politics ought to be covered, but a distinction should be made between the personal efforts of individual band members, and the attitudes reflected Radiohead's music/actions taken using the band's visibility.

More crucially, I agree that the article is lacking. There is plenty of information, but we have much to do to improve the writing. I've removed the Good Article template. (omphaloscope talk) 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

New Album + Nigel Godrich

"as the bandmembers are capable enough to produce it themselves"

I don't really like this. It's awfully speculative, and from what interviews I've read, the Kid A and Amnesiac sessions would have collapsed if not for Nigel. Perhaps I'm being a bit picky over one sentence, but it seems much out of place in what is supposed to be an encylopedia. Gamiar 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I do agree to a point....It is true what you say about Godrich and Kid A....although the band are indeed capable to produce it themselves. Perhaps the sentence should be re-worded to avoid assumptions. --Richj1209 09:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Introducing the musicians

Which is better?

([1] in article history)

...comprising five musicians:

(current version by 64.201.77.221)

...comprising five musicians:

I suggested the wordier one. I think it's more professional: if the NYTimes or the Guardian had info on band members, I wouldn't expect to see it done like a Powerpoint presentation. It also clears up some false parallelisms: Jonny plays lead guitar, but he doesn't play the effects pedals or the laptop. Still, maybe it's frilly, or gets awkward. Feelings/suggestions on this? --Omphaloscope 04:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the wordier version more. Although I just corrected a minor typo in it. Cassandra Leo 08:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Cassandra! I've implemented the change, although I expect at least one editor to differ. (omphaloscope talk) 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Britpop

The Britpop article suggests Radiohead is Britpop (and they sound like Britpop to me). Should they be added to Category:Britpop musical groups? —Ashley Y 07:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...not really. Radiohead were never part of the Britpop movement. While Blur and Oasis were slugging it out, the whole thing just passed Radiohead by. --Richj1209 09:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
But bands always claim not to be in a genre, don't they? And their fans always agree... —Ashley Y 01:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This new sentence is incorrect: "Radiohead – widely praised a year after the album's release – took part in Cool Britannia, battling famous acts like Oasis, Blur, Pulp, and Suede." Its incorrect as Radiohead didn't 'battle it out' against Oasis, Blur and Pulp, et al. Firstly, if the guy who put that sentence should know that, in relation to singles success, and radio airplay and the like, Radiohead were nowhere compared to Oasis and Blur in 1994-5. Secondly, Radiohead were not a Britpop band. Lyrically and musically. Have you heard Thom signing about 'cigarrettes and alcohol', a 'charmless man' who lived in a 'country house', enjoying a 'disco in the year 2000'? Radiohead were above that. OK Computer partly killed off Britpop! --Richj1209 10:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Radiohead are definitely not a Britpop band, but there's a whole wave of new British pop bands that are commonly classified as Britpop, like Coldplay and Muse, that wouldn't be able to exist without Radiohead, which causes a considerable amount of confusion. (Notably, however, several of these artists also deny being Britpop). Perhaps a mention of this should be worked into the article somehow. Cassandra Leo 08:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Britpop is not that easy to define. I mean, when we use "Britpop" we are implying "90s Britpop" or "00s Britpop" really, and the only other kind is '60s Britpop; the term doesn't seem to have been used as much throughout the '70s and '80s.

A general definiton now seems to be British POP (i.e. reasonably accessible) music played by a rock band, that gets popular. Because there is such a difference between some of the music. The only common thread is that anything called Britpop has to have had massive success in Britian in either the '60s or the '90s/00s or to sound very similar to music that did. By being successful, it stopped being just pop music or rock and became "Britpop," defining the popular of the country.

Arguably if Coldplay, Travis or the Verve's Urban Hymns (which Coldplay's best stuff is basically a ripoff/homage to) is considered to exemplify "Britpop", then songs like "Let Down," "No Surprises" or even "Airbag" are Britpop too. None of these songs relate directly to Britain, but they became popular and ultimately contributed to what the stereotypical British sound these days is.

Britpop bands like Blur were also singing about the dark side of Britain, just in a lighter way. I think pre-Kid A Radiohead could definitely be considered Britpop in some way, though they weren't one of the bands defining the movement then even if their influence eventually did sink in.

But the major error in those sentences is to imply any of these bands was writing music to sell the "Cool Britannia" image or help Tony Blair. It's irrelevant to this article which bands were or weren't Britpop, except where Radiohead is concerned, but still, none of these bands, least of all Radiohead, "participated in Cool Britannia," in fact they and other big "Britpop" bands were writing songs critical of modern Britain at this very time, although the coolness and high quality of their music may have unintentionally helped the UK's image. But the article's wording makes it sound like Cool Britannia was some battle of the bands officiated by Blair. Blair was two years from being PM in 95, so what does he have to do with anything?

Citations!

This article is riddled with claims about the success of Radiohead, its influences, its sound. It's not surprising; I certainly find it difficult to resist the urge to contribute my own idea, or my friends' ideas', of what Radiohead is. But all of this is original research.

What's I've begun doing is to add "" or "" next to such claims, e.g.:

"Fans, [[music critic]]s, and fellow musicians tend to regard them<!--CITE--> as among the most fearlessly creative bands of their era, although they are not universally popular<!--CITE-->."

What I'd like to see is some substantiation to these claims, and others. Or I'd like to see all of these claims erased until some citations of music reviews, discussion fora, or accountants' sheets appear. (omphaloscope talk) 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations continued / How to substantiate claims about what FANS think / rant / et al

The real problem with an article like this is it's undeniably stating things that need substantiation (though without being POV really, as it cites both sides) but in the Internet age, there IS a form of substantiation for claims about what fans of a given band or style of music (or fans or haters of anything really) think as a group, and that's internet forums. But Wikipedia doesn't have a practice of treating someone's post on an internet forum as documentation, do they? It's not a "published" source, so that wouldn't seem right. At the same time, about the only way to get a sense of what fans think about something is to interact with them, and whether online or in real life, this is not a verifiable, empirical thing like a citation in a book. What are we supposed to say, "This guy on Ateaseweb.com, x fan, thinks Radiohead is however," or "My acquaintances online over the past decade have given me the general impression of whatever," or "webmaster of whatever site, when just interviewed by me, drew the general conclusion of whatever about the opinions of users of the site, Radiohead fans," Now THAT would be POV or original research. Someone could (and people have) write a very speculative, poorly researched, uninformed, money-grubbing book about a popular rock band such as Radiohead, and anything that was in it could be cited as fact on Wikipedia. This is something I'm not getting about Wiki, the conflict between, on the one hand, lack of respect for self-appointed "experts" on a topic being above other people in terms of deciding what goes in an article, and on the other hand, the requirement that sources for articles themselves be "experts," and not only that, but ones published by a print publisher or a major website.

This new revision is not good, don't get me wrong. It's not encyclopedic in style and way too long. But it is still accurate and informative and decently written. I've noticed some of the pop music related pages seem to adhere to different style guidelines, whether by accident or not. They allow a lot more opinions into them, not exactly in a biased sense but just in order to get across what people identify with, or dislike, in the music. A true encyclopedia should not be like that, it should be concise and fact based. The page on Michael Stipe or Eazy-E (which I just cited for good article) are good examples of what encyclopedia style articles should truly be, short and to the point. They don't reveal a tiny fraction of the important aspects of these people's music, influence, personal life that are well known from interviews, and they don't make any of the useful, true, non-POV commentaries that could be made to inform someone of these men's importance. In fact reading the Stipe article, he doesn't sound terribly interesting. There's a sentence about things that could be SUMMARIZED in three or four paragraphs, and no mention of others at all. That's what proper encyclopedia articles are supposed to be like. Annoyingly brief if you're well aware of the topic, but accessible and informative for newcomers.

However, Wikipedia will never be like that in its current structure without oversight, and maybe that isn't such a bad thing although it will mean it's never the neat, clean entity some want it to be, it'll always tend toward more, rather than better chosen, information. There will always be the tendency to add more material to articles like that, because there is always more interesting and relevant material that can be added, and pretty soon the page gets to the length of an All Music bio, and when it's at that stage, there is even more tendency to add material because it's already in such an unmanageable state. The old text that was replaced by this recent edit was much shorter, but it was still quite long, and it was also much worse in terms of factual basis. If an article is already too long, it may as well be a little longer and convey a little more. Three paragraphs of pure fact on Stipe or any musician is okay. Dozens of paragraphs of pure fact (some of it purely wrong) on Radiohead can't help but give an innacurate or incomplete picture of who they are and bores the reader with chronology. Seriously, the lets-report-what-they-did-each-month history outline is not a good one, especially when it's so easily found on a Radiohead website. I guess I want an article that will inform someone what Radiohead is about, not just what they did, but that'll do it very briefly, using a few pieces of well chosen quotes or evidence rather than making nebulous grand claims.

I admit to editing it, and I planned to edit it much more. It was an alternative to an unknown user like me coming and demanding its "good" status be removed, because this article was (and is) in no way "good." But I don't really care about any of that text I put in, it's just replacement for the BS that was there. Feel free to delete. What I care about is 1. accuracy, which was off throughout the article in some minor ways, I noted some of them down privately and was going to make changes, 2. writing style, which was bad, 3. sense of the subject a reader without an idea of them would get from it, which was really nonexistent despite all the detailed information

Since there are endless things to write about for this band, but that other sites can handle and that would make a Bible out of this if it were to incorporate them, I think this article should be entirely rewritten to four paragraphs long, max, in true encyclopedic fashion with every word in its right place. Let's try it.

Songs in section titles

They are POV. They are used inconsistently. On the other hand, they are cool and funny. But I'm taking them out. (omphaloscope talk) 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Death to Pink Floyd... and U2 and Nirvana

EDIT: I'm adding U2 and Nirvana to this rant just in case someone in the future tries adding them in as well. All three of these bands could be mentioned in the article, they all have similarities the media has remarked on so much that they could be mentioned, whether or not they have any validity. In terms of musical style it is obvious Pablo Honey and parts of The Bends either are inspired by U2 and Nirvana or are inspired by similar bands as U2 and Nirvana.

However, since the band rarely mentioned U2 and intentionally never mentioned Nirvana as an influence, THEY CANNOT GO IN THE "INFLUENCES" SECTION, WITHOUT A DISCLAIMER. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH A GIVEN EARLY OR EVEN LATE RADIOHEAD SONG SOUNDS LIKE U2, NIRVANA OR PINK FLOYD TO YOU PERSONALLY, OR TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW. WITHOUT THE BAND HAVING CLAIMED THEM AS AN INFLUENCE, THE FURTHEST YOU CAN GO IS TO REMARK THAT THESE BANDS ARE OFTEN NAMED AS INFLUENCES BY THE MEDIA. Or, you could mention them in another section of the article-- for example it would be accurate to say that Radiohead is "often seen as assuming the mantle of U2 or Nirvana or Floyd," because whatever that actually means, it is something they are often "seen" to be doing, whether or not they have done it.

This is not to say Radiohead's opinion should determine the text of the article. In fact, members of Radiohead may love Nirvana and U2 for all I know (and some members may love Pink Floyd). The point is, for "influences" to mean anything worth having a separate section on, they cannot be subjective, you find them out in band interviews. For every time they've mentioned U2, they've mentioned a hundred more obscure artists, even in the old days.

original rant follows:

Stop adding Pink Floyd back into the article. It's okay to cite Floyd as similar to Radiohead, although that is completely a POV thing, but THEY ARE NOT AN "INFLUENCE." Influences is something we have to take the band's own word on. Do you guys who have never read an interview with Radiohead want me to start quoting them for you?

Imo, there are only a few Radiohead songs that even sound like Floyd, "Sail to the Moon" and then the rest are on OK Computer or The Bends. Kid A doesn't sound even remotely like Pink Floyd, and Pink Floyd meets Aphex Twin is stupid. I never saw that quote outside Wikipedia, I think it's original research. I get the feeling people editing that back in have very little experience of arty rock outside artists as big as Radiohead and Floyd, otherwise they would stop comparing the sound of the two's music. Yes, they both have Orwell influences. that doesn't mean Thom has to have studied Animals, maybe he studied 1984 and Animal Farm instead. Yes, they are both synthy and multilayered. But so is Neu!, an admitted RH influence from Floyd's same era, maybe that's where they got their ideas.

Bottom line is, zero evidence Radiohead has ever claimed Floyd as an influence, much less an early one. What were they were listening to while recording OK Computer? The white album and Ennio Morricone. Jonny Greenwood actually said in an interview from the '90s that he hated Pink Floyd but he heard the Meddle album sometime around when OK Computer came out and liked that one. Ed said his girlfriend made him watch a documentary about Pink Floyd's working methods making Dark Side... and he realized despite never identifying with the band there were eerie similarites between their working method. The only other time I remember Floyd being cited is in the Meeting People Is Easy documentary, as an example of a corporate rock band that just sits around and has board meetings (described in very negative tones by the band). If that is considered a major early influence, I don't get it. It seems Radiohead set out from the start inspired by punk and post-punk, wanting to become a band as different as possible from Pink Floyd, only to end up fulfilling a remarkably similar function in the music industry.

--A. (I will now go by this for courtesy sake, I'm the one who edited the article and made the previous anonymous rant)

A., thanks for your hard work. I agree with some of what you're saying here (although I think ranting, while a lot of fun, is probably not the best way to contribute to the discussion.) There are few tasks more Sisyphean than reaching an objective notion of what has influenced a particular artist or group of artists, and I think this applies especially to a band as complex as Radiohead. I agree that we need to demarcate, perhaps remove, claimed influences that lack citation.

EDIT ok lets be honest.1) of course you can hear floyd in radioheads music.2)just because they havent said in interviews therir an influence doesnt mean they arnt

On that note, I disagree with the idea that we must "take the band's own word". I think we must say what each band member claims, what the fans claim, and what the critics claim. We trust the reader from there.
Omphaloscope » talk 08:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean we need to trust the band's own word on everything, but we can't just lump together ones the band admits to all the time and ones the band is conspicously silent about or denies when asked. If the media and fans tend to assume something about Radiohead and Floyd, that is very relevant to the article, but not to the influences section, or not the same part of it at least. Bands like U2, Nirvana and Floyd need to be somehow differentiated from bands like Can or the Pixies, who may to most people's ears sound much less like Radiohead, but are ALWAYS cited by them. There is a memorable quote about "prog rock" from Thom that may be relevant here, I think it's found in the Thom Yorke article.

The Pink Floyd thing just has to go anyway. Why? Because it says "EARLY influences." Neither band members NOR any critics and fans mentioned Pink Floyd as an influence on the earliest Radiohead. I am not sure whether or not U2 is an admitted early influence on Radiohead, but you can clearly hear some U2 in the early music, as many people pointed out then. You can't hear much Pink Floyd in the early music.

Errors I found

I am just listing plain errors in the article now, if you need more elaboration or source for my info tell me.

  • no evidence from interviews that Radiohead's early music was "heavily influenced" by U2, other than POV of individual on sound of later On a Friday/Pablo stuff which could just as easily be Smiths-influenced.
  • Who the hell is Brett Boucher?
  • Calling On a Friday "rather uninspired" is POV. That's not why they changed their name anyway, the record company thought it would confuse people as to concert date on posters.
  • was the first gig really 86? or 87? I've often seen 87 given as forming date. jonny wasnt involved yet, or was he? time is unclear in phrasing. the date the band "formed" needs to be before the date they played first gig. and they can't be considered formed without jonny.
  • I think they rehearsed some weekends too, they would drive down to Oxford or take the train maybe? They were much more committed to the band at that point than some sources imply, given many of them had their own different bands throughout college.
  • depending on meaning of "demo," Manic Hedgehog was not the first. as well as probably numerous demos made privately earlier (one for "Creep" is mentioned in band comments, which thom sent to other members while they were in uni.), there was a 14/15 track demo they used to get their managers, Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, to take them on. it leaked in 2002 but had never been sold in stores in Oxford as the later, short ones were.
  • Jonny was to be studying psychology AND music at Oxford Polytechnic. ironically, though the only one without university experience, jonny is also the only member of the band WITH formal training in music. i.e. he can read it, they don't.
  • as said, On a Friday name not changed in response to a critic, but record label.
  • Talking Heads' True Stories has never been mentioned as a "major influence" on Kid A. that would be Remain in Light.
  • I hardly think Radiohead is the type of band to spend a year "trying to break into the consciousness of the British music press." ok, it's just bad wording.
  • Creep may have first come out in 1992 but it did not become well known until much later in 93. its success started at a radio station in the US that began playing it, then it hit big in America first. it had to be rereleased in the UK before being a hit. I have also heard rumors Israel was the first country Creep was a hit. the US radio station may have been in san francisco.
  • why are we going back to their debut EP (Drill) after talking about Creep, Pablo Honey and subsequent tours?
  • "the album" being Pablo again. confusing. needs reordering.
  • how can we verify the song "You" was popular as claimed? it's popular now with fans on message boards I've seen, relative to other Pablo songs, but it was never a single. same for Thinking About You.
  • is John Leckie quite a "legend"?
  • "touring Australasia" wouldn't that mean touring New Guinea and Indonesia? they didn't do that.
  • "pop-like" is a questionable adjective to describe Pablo, or anything for that matter. what does it mean?
  • "striking" may be acceptable, but "original and profound" goes too far off NPOV. sounds like a music review.
  • "growing as musicians" and "on their way to lasting fame" are very different things. I would argue The Bends (and every other post-Pablo album) is indicative of the former, but not the latter, which seems to come to the band almost by accident.
  • "took part in Cool Britannia"? it was a slogan, not a battle of the bands. and Radiohead never publicly supported Blair to my knowledge.
  • Godrich was co-producer of OKC, not just engineer. he had previously been engineer on parts of The Bends.
  • "the bands next steps." uh yeah, grammar
  • "the band learned that creative tensions isn't necessarily a bad thing" this is both grammatically wrong and needs evidence to support it. sounds like a moral of the story imposed by the writer.
  • the album was not released till July 1 in the US.
  • "first and foremost" shows, not "tours"
  • "powerful alternative" are bad descriptions or POV for Urban Hymns, and irrelevant too in a Radiohed article. alternative means nothing. as to powerful, it's a great album, but honestly saying it provided a boost to a dying movement, which is true, is higher and more objective praise than calling it that.
  • of those bands only Nirvana is routinely considered among the greatest of the '90s by a wide range of people. U2 & REM = 90s work controversial with 1 or 2 exceptions. Pearl Jam = good but dubious reputation among non-fans post-Vs. OKC is often listed up there with Nevermind, an album that has huge cultural influence and was way more commercially big than OKC was, that's the important fact to get across. without sounding too pro-OKC.
  • Romeo & Juliet and soundtrack was a year before OKC.
  • no name to keep calling it Against Demons, that may have been just the title for the Asian part. they didnt brand their tours with the same fervor of U2.
  • I have never before heard the claim about New Years eve 98 and it seems irrelevant even if true.
  • Thom was Stipe's friend from earlier I think. they toured together in 95.
  • "from which they chose 30." wrong. there are 21 songs on the next two records, and less than 9 Amnesiac b-sides TOTAL, even ignoring the fact that the only b-side known to have been recorded at the same time as the albums is Cuttooth. they usually hole up later to record b-sides.
  • "that complemented the lyrical and musical hooks..." this part should be deleted, it makes no sense.
  • Paul Lansky was not so much an influence, it was just his piece of music Mild Und Leise that was sampled for Idioteque.
  • Alice Coltrane not sure about either, more an influence on Amnesiac from I read. this is restricting it to interviews, otherwise we can pick and choose influences, like I personally hear King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man in The National Anthem.
  • again, who likened them to a meeting of Floyd and AFX? no one I've ever heard. even if verified that person's opinion doesnt have any place in this article. look, I like Pink Floyd, they're brilliant, but that is not the point. RH needs to stop being treated as Floyd's little brother at times in this article.
  • it biases the article a little too pro-Radiohead to have critics complaining it was radio-unfriendly. I actually don't think anyone was that lame. they complained it was too inaccessible. even Nick Hornby's (writer of controversial review) favorite melodic and accessible indie music is not radio friendly these days.
  • use of "finest" in two sentences in a row. questionable.
  • "a growing number of critics." it's not as if your average rock critic has been talking a lot about Amnesiac and having the chance to re-evaluate it in writing since about end-of-year 2001.
  • "I Might Be Wrong" was actually the first Amnesiac single in the US. No Pyramid Song there.
  • "unreleased track" is unclear. it had never been on an album before, but it was still just a live rendition, not studio.
  • the band never denied the Hail to the Thief title "had ANY reference to George Bush's election win," much less denying that it had ANY reference "to the subsequent Bush presidency." what they did was attempt to distance it in interviews from the use of "Hail to the Thief" as a slogan protesting the Florida recount and all that. obviously they knew the current political context. and the presidency, although not the disputed election, is certainly relevant to parts of the album's lyrics. while thom claims to have heard of the phrase in a BBC show with regard to an 1800s disputed US election, even that BBC show was probably being done due to the 2000 results. the title is not supposed to be about an election, but the full denial was never so explicit.
  • "orwellian-referenced." you mean "orwell-referencing."
  • "lukewarm reviews." totally wrong. reviews were mixed but largely positive in the UK, and very very positive in the US. most mainstream critics couldnt give a damn about genre redefining or whatever. they liked HTTT cause it WASN'T, and they'd only just caught up with Kid A. but even pretentious indie critics gave this blah album great reviews.
  • "infused with a certain swagger." POV. imo, it's not. the band said they felt a swagger in recording sessions, that can be mentioned in quotes. no one with any sense has ever called the final product swaggering, for good reason. ok ok, it's not that bad, but still.
  • "the band showed a relaxed attitude..." irrelevant. were they un-relaxed in previous shows? no, actually not, that was a media image. the same dancing and grinning was done in 2001 performances of Idioteque and You and Whose Army, it's choreographed.
  • "with the help of his brother" implies Colin was equally responsible for Bodysong. not true, he just played on a couple tracks.
  • it should be made clear that Com Lag, like Airbag, contained material that had already come out on singles as "b-sides." it features only 1 live take and 1 different version of a HTTT song and 1 acoustic number. but unlike Airbag, Com Lag as a unit whole is not very important, it should really not even be mentioned.
  • "acclaimed performance" is a bit much, considering Yorke's voice gave out. it was acclaimed, but not especially more than any other Radiohead performance.
  • NO.NO. Do not mention "The Wyrd Sisters." Seriously, Wikipedia may get sued. They tried to sue Warner Bros., Radiohead, Pulp etc. and even to ban the release of the film in Canada for that. it's a real life folk band, so the movie one now goes nameless.

I stop my comments here.

Well done to the anonymous guy here who has (quite clearly) devoted a lot of time and energy to sorting out the discrepancies within the article. I agree with many of the points and opinions made (like for instance the constant annoyance I feel when I hear people compare RH to Pink Floyd). The article needs to be re-assessed with relation to the way it conveys information about the band. I did some editing to the article around a month ago. But I knew then that the article was not perfect. Its good that someone has actually articulated the exact problems with the article.
Just one or two points:
The website 'I'm Tired Sleep Tonight' has a section on OAF, which explains that the first performance was in August 1986. I think the information was gleaned from 'Q' magazine. Hence I changed the bands formation to 1986. However I do know, although not enough to be completely sure, that the band existed in some form prior to 1986. I've read somewhere that Thom and Colin actually met in 1982 and formed a punk band called 'TNT' before moving on to 'OAF'. Interesting. Does anyone know more?
I said that HTTT got 'lukewarm' reviews because generally thats what they got. NME gave it 7/10 and Q gave it 3/5. Some of the criticism (particularly in the NME review) were based on the assertion that RH were 'directionless', or that they ran out of ideas (HTTT can be viewed as a melting-pot of RH past and present).--Richj1209 16:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

History

I've changed the description of Abingdon school to fall in line more with the linked article. I have used the term private as this will be clearly understood by non-English readers whereas public, although accurate, is misleading. The use of the term grammar did not help so I have removed that too. (Redkaty 11:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

You should put it back to "English public school" and provide a link to the Wiki article on that subject, to make clear it's not the kind of public school an American or Canadian might think of. Even if Wikipedia was just for a non-British audience, which it isn't, that specific term has a specific meaning a bit different from just "private school" in the US sense, and is very relevant. A scholar named Dai Griffiths even wrote an entire paper on Radiohead's particular status as a band defined by their British public schooling. It's apparently much more class-related even than private school in America. I'm American btw, but if anyone reading the article doesn't know what a public school means in the UK, they could benefit by learning.

"Band were" vs. "band was"

A while back, I edited "band were" to "band was", because the latter uses the wrong conjugation of the verb "to be". It was switched back. Why? According to Wiktionary's entry on be, was would be the proper form:

Present indicative Past indicative Present subjunctive Past subjunctive
First-person singular am was be were
Second-person singular are or, obsolete, art were or, obsolete, wast be were or, obsolete, wert
Third-person singular is was be were
First-person plural are were be were
Second-person plural are were be were
Third-person plural are were be were

Since band is singular and not plural, shouldn't it be followed by was and not were. For instance, instead of "Even though the band were already fairly certain that they wanted to keep playing together..." try "Even though the band was already fairly certain that they wanted to keep playing together...". I don't know, maybe my grammar stinks, but it sounds weird to me. --Thebends 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, that's a point, but you see that a band represents a group of people, so... I think it should be were. Dunno, me neither, I am not into the depth of gramatic truth of the English language. You see, I'm not a native speaker and I tried not add lines that I am not sure of. So most of the things that are listed here aren't so much done by me.

Cheers Painbearer 10:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I see what you're trying to say with band representing a group of people, but I don't think it's correct. For instance, you say "the family was happy", not "the family were happy" (family being the collective noun). On the other hand, if you were talking about more than one family it would be "the families were happy." See what I'm saying? "Band", whether it is collective or not, is still a singular noun. --Thebends 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This is actually a British English vs. American English thing. See American and British English differences#Singular_and_plural_for_nouns. Seeing as how Radiohead are a British band, it follows according to Wikipedia policy to follow British usage in their article. Nohat 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, it all makes sense to me now! The only reason I brought it up is because I saw the cleanup banner at the top of the page and thought that this might have been (one of) the issue(s), but I guess it's not. Anyways, thanks for the clarification.--Thebends 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The article currently reads

Radiohead has sometimes been cited as an "outsider" band within the mainstream, or vice versa.

What exactly does this mean? Assuming we replace "vice versa" with whatever it stands for, what do we get? "Radiohead has sometimes been cited as a "mainstream" band within the outsider? It doesn't make any sense. Can someone please explain what this sentence is supposed to mean, and then change it so it say that? Nohat 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It means Radiohead is a mainstream band (popular, signed to a major label) that is seen to reflect an atypically "outsider" mentality, compared to other famous rock bands. Basically, that they are a cult band with leftist political views and more experimental/intellectual taste in other art than you might expect for rock stars of their stature. They function as a gateway to experimental and independent music. I admit it is quite POV, but much less than some things in this article. There are numerous sources that could be cited, starting with a long New Yorker article of 2001 (whose title was I think "The Outsiders"), or numerous others as well.

I propose replacing that sentence with the following: "Radiohead have sometimes been cited as an "outsider" band within the mainstream. However they have also been cited as perhaps the most potent example of an 'mainstream' band that remains rooted to the alternative music scene".--Richj1209 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Or how about, instead of "outsider" the link is "Wiktionary:outsider", since Wikipedia does not have an article related to how the word is being used in this sentence? --Thebends 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

W.A.S.T.E. is a waste

Why is there an external link to W.A.S.T.E., a site that sells Radiohead merchandise? Aren't the external links supposed to deepen the reader's understanding of whatever they're reading about? Buying a shirt doesn't deepen my knowledge of the band! --Thebends 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --Richj1209 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

W.A.S.T.E. is also the place where tours are announced and tickets are sold, so it ought to be interesting for fans? /pocki

W.A.S.T.E. is the official fan club for radiohead and is the main site for tour and gig announcements and has a large collection of external links to radiohead fan sites around the world. And yes, it also sells ethically produced merchandise on behalf of the band. Personally I think it should be included but as an interested party, I'll let other make that decision. /Woollyhat2

Sorry, I have to disagree. With all the other links, it wouldn't take someone too long to figure out tour dates and recent news. Plus, W.A.S.T.E.'s main purpose is to sell merchandise, not to keep fans updated. Also, if you scroll down (to Feature Music Project evaluation) you'll see that one of the suggestions to improve this article is to get rid of some external links.Thebends 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Computer sales

I'm not sure of the relevance of this sentence: "Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon has so far sold over 40 million copies worldwide (and the band have been very quick to publicise those figures), whereas Radiohead's much-acclaimed OK Computer has probably only sold a fraction of that (To date, OK Computer sales are acknowledged to be just over 8.4 million copies)."

I'm not sure that this sentence is relevant to the extent that Dark Side of the Moon has been out for 33 years, whereas OK Computer is only 9 years old. Of course Dark Side of the Moon has sold more copies than OK Computer, it would be illogical to think otherwise. Perhaps it would be more relevant to compare Radiohead's record sales with that of, say, Coldplay to whom have sold more than Radiohead's records put together, I think, already. The point that could be made would be that Radiohead's work is more respected by musician's etc. than Coldplays (for example), even though they have sold more, blah blah. Not sure. What do you think guys?--Richj1209 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree... maybe mention that DSOTM has been out longer than OK Computer, or somebody could search out the figures on DSOTM sales 9 years after its release, or you could get rid of it all together, though I kind of find the sales numbers interesting. I suggest moving that information to the OK Computer portion of the article and getting rid of the "Pink Floyd's sold 40 million copies" sentence. Bruiser07 12:17, 16 February 2006

That irrelevant info seems to have gradually got in that section due to an edit I made. At first the article contained vague insinuations that Radiohead had simply "inherited the mantle" of Pink Floyd, U2, etc. whatever a "mantle" is exactly, was unclear, so I said Radiohead is often seen as inheriting the mantle artistically, but made clear that although extremely popular compared to today's indie rock bands, they are in a very different category commercially from Pink Floyd, U2, REM, the Beatles. I made the point by saying Floyd had sold more. I guess someone else felt the need to get really specific about how much more they sold.

2006-02-17 Manic Hedgehog demo tape

Hi all, I'm new to wiki(pedia), so I hope I did things right.

I have edited the part about the Manic Hedgehog tape.
It's not the first demo tape, but the second.
The first one was a demo tape released in April 1991.
As far as I can tell, that tape is simply called "On a Friday".
It contains the following songs:
01 what is that you say
02 stop whispering
03 give it up

On the info page of the Manic Hedgehog demo tape I have added the tracklist.

More info can be found here: http://www.ateaseweb.com/discography/CDdemos.php

Harold

Name Change

Has (Have) Radiohead changed their name to The Carlyle Group or is it just a joke? On the blog from their website it says they have, but they have been known to joke around on there. I've also found a couple of sites [2] [3] saying that the name change is real, but I'm still skeptical. Honestly, I don't believe it, but if anyone knows the truth it would be helpful. --Thebends 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Both those non-official sites use the same source; the say the exact same thing. However, they do also say that they are doing this "tongue in cheek". Personally, I don't believe this yet. Until something more reputable than Ultimate-guitar.com, host of millions of half-accurate tabs, confirms it, my faith is weak. Folkor 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course its a joke, the same as regards to Thom's claim that they were 'splitting up'. Its tongue-in-cheek of course, an ironic joke. Its a shame that some people actually believe it...--Richj1209 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I don't believe it either, but all I wanted was someone who knew for sure. The only reason I raised the question in the first place is because I saw in the history that someone had attempted to change the band's name. And yeah, you're right Folkor- the (very unofficial) sites are basically the exact same. :) --Thebends 01:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radiohead/Archive_1&oldid=1000746667"