Talk:Radiohead/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Prog rock comparison

"Questions and Answers". Spin With a Grin. Retrieved 2007-05-11.

Before Thom says "i have no connectivity with anything prog whatsoever" here, he denies that several prog rock groups are prog rock at all, so in effect he hasn't said much. This should be put into context, especially since this claim is made right after the Pink Floyd comparison. Right now, the article reads like Radiohead denied being influenced by Pink Floyd. But they can be influenced by certain prog rock bands and at the same time say that they are not influenced by prog rock by denying that those bands are prog rock. Also, only Thom said it, not the entire band. –Pomte 23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. Unfortunately it may not be defensible to have an extended discussion of the subject in this article, even under Style and songwriting, but we could probably do with one more phrase or sentence. As it stands now it's not exactly inaccurate, but it does imply something misleading, when Jonny Greenwood for instance, ALONG with criticizing Dark Side of the Moon and their later albums, actually said he was a great fan of Meddle, and had just discovered it during the OK Computer period! I wouldn't say most of the album sounds much like Pink Floyd as far as the music, but it is pretty obvious in the final two songs.

It seems what Yorke is trying to say (surprisingly eloquent quote by his standards, actually) is that he rejects the characterization of certain things as being "progressive" when he feels they aren't- and thus he doesn't like the designation of prog rock, which he feels is just a throwaway genre label used to justify "singing about the fairies in the woods". It's a joke to him. If he actually thought it designated a band that was progressive, he'd take it as a huge compliment.

Members of so-called prog rock bands have actually said the same thing- they only reluctantly agree to be called prog. With the classic prog bands it does refer to specific scenes at a specific time that they came out of, unlike with Radiohead who were never a part of the "prog scene", but the old bands still might not see themselves as similar to all the other bands in the scene. And fyi, Krautrock is not necessarily "prog" since it wasn't part of the same scene. It was a uniquely German thing with a different approach that might have been called prog if done in the UK, but at the same time, that exact style of music wasn't done by the prog acts in the UK, and for whatever reason (perhaps its obscurity, or greater focus on rhythm and electronic music) Radiohead and a lot of hipsters seem to identify with Krautrock but not "prog rock". And what he said about Queen- they're not considered prog, for the exact reason he said, and because they were so pop. The only prog he seemed to support there was Peter Gabriel era Genesis and Krautrock, though he's never said anything else about liking Genesis.

The entire quote could really be reprinted in the specific articles on Kid A or OK Computer if we need to give the band's position on it. 172.154.111.137 07:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thought I had on this: I think the confusing thing with Radiohead is even with a bit of Pink Floyd influence, they may actually not be lying too much when they say they're not influenced by "prog rock" itself. Bands that call themselves prog rock today are influenced by other prog rock- it's become a standardised genre with its own cliches.

But the original idea of prog was to advance rock beyond the rock formula. I think Radiohead is actually like a first generation prog band, reinvented for today, in that they go to the original sources of non-rock music for inspiration, as if "prog rock" itself never happened. They do copy Krautrock a lot. I'm not saying they're "original." But they're also taking various non-pop/commercial music and directly integrating that into their songs, instead of just copying the way previous bands integrated it into their songs.

Simon Reynolds I think said Radiohead might be the last major band to be influenced firsthand by the post-punk generation, even though they were just teenagers at the time. The title of his book "Rip It Up and Start Again" strikes me as a good metaphor here. What was being ripped up by punk was, partly, "prog rock", but what was being started again with post-punk was in a way a new progression of rock.

You could see Radiohead as the end of this progression... they sound nothing like P.I.L. but they see themselves as following that tradition, the same way early prog bands would have seen even their most arty and "self indulgent" work as the extension of say the blues, when to an outsider to their tradition it would hardly appear that way.

Perhaps whoever takes over after Radiohead is the one that needs to be ripped up again, or maybe they themselves have already grown out of whatever "punk" value they ever had and they need to be challenged again. But if so it's because they've developed postpunk into prog rock all over again, not because they've directly copied other bands in the now-stagnant genre of "prog rock". 172.154.111.137 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. To add any of this to the article would require a great degree of WP:NOR.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section should briefly mention the content included in each section/subsection. It still needs a bit about collaborations (including Donwood's artwork) and their legacy (see WP:LEAD). I'll work on it, but help's always good ;) - Alex valavanis 10:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the lead needing to reflect each major point of the article. But I removed a lot of the stuff just now, BECAUSE it was simply entire big paragraphs regurgitated from later in the article. It needs to be rewritten much better if it's going to be put back, because any benefit we get from having the intro correspond to every section of the article is outweighed by having it exactly copy the words in ridiculous level of detail- an article is doomed if you make someone read the same exact things twice.

I think it's also not necessary to recap every major fact in the same order/structure that it appears later. The intro now appears at first glance as a summary of the history section. But phrases mentioning the popularity of The Bends in the UK, and the "landmark" status of OK Computer, already provide a great summary of everything in the "Legacy" section. The article will be expanding on these, but they'll be familiar from the intro. Similarly, the mention of the music genres that influenced Kid A/Amnesiac, and the band's changing style over time, summarize the "Style and Songwriting" section already so that more specifics on the band's exact working method and instruments used aren't needed. Too many details in the intro just clog it up. 172.154.111.137 08:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

We need a free Radiohead image for the infobox, as the fair-use one has been deleted. There don't appear to be any good ones on Commons or Flikr. Has anyone seen one elsewhere? - Alex valavanis 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about uploading pictures, but I have one that I shot from bonnaroo 2006. you can't really see their faces, but it's a better picture than what is up now. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivenorth (talk • contribs) 02:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.117.234 (talk)

I have a couple of photos I took myself. What can I do with them (new to Wikipedia editing)? --RaphaelBriand 14:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy to release the images under a free license (i.e. you allow anyone in the world to freely reproduce and modify them for any purpose whatsoever), you can go to the Commons:Upload and follow the step-by-step instructions there. Let me know if you need any further help. Papa November 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FA pass?

How far is this article from FA status? and what can i do to get it there? --SteelersFan UK06 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it still needs a thorough copyedit. Last time I read through, some of the text seemed a little wordy. Once the redundancy has been reduced a bit, it can probably go to WP:FAC. At worst, we'll receive a lot of good suggestions for how to improve things. - Papa November 1 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't for the the life of me imagine why you'd want to get an article passed at FAC, if you really care, standardize the references and cite the solo work section, the two main obstacles remaining to FA.

You really don't think articles should pass FA? Can i ask why? --SteelersFan UK06 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Author didn't sign their post, could be trolling.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I MEANT was that getting an article passed at FA requires way too much time and energy dealing with Wiki-numbskulls who couldn't write an article to save their lives, so much so that it isn't worthwhile. I've worked on other articles and have seen this face to face, but of course, if you want to improve this article, you might want to cite all of the solo work section and standardizing ALL the references with cite web, which in itself is a daunting task. You'll also want to replace a bunch of the references with reliable book refs, as there's no way an article will pass FA with all net refs. 71.97.74.204 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The article is very good I think, but the wording in the Kid A section is slightly redudant/overlong and the tone of that part could be more objective (well, it's not POV, but it could stand to be rewritten) and of course it'll be hard to get to FA status with the new In Rainbows section. Also, the pictures/captions could use improvement. For example, the caption on the picture of the "Just" video. 172.164.253.105 22:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wp:el

Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided does include links to be avoided as MySpace pages. However, the first line states an exception is official pages of the subject of the article. Radiohead's MySpace page is "an official page of the article subject." By this interpretation an external link to the MySpace page is acceptable. - Steve3849 ^talk 08:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

... except that that is not Radiohead's official Myspace page, despite what it says. -/- Warren 10:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

We are having a slight disagreement on whether or not the Band Members section is overlong, and whether or not to cut some of the instruments played. I feel that--based on the type of band Radiohead is--that they all DO play many instruments, and thus they need to stay. Other opinions? K. Scott Bailey 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm primarily removing is the double-listing of the ondes martenot, along with moving the listing of "percussion" to Selway, as that class of instrument is mainly played by him. There shouldn't be too much debate, either, that "sound effects" and "electronics" are too similar to be both listed. Atlantik (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that last is the only bit I had a real problem with. Radiohead's music can be so experimental, that I don't have a real problem including both "electronics" and "sound effects", which could be very different things on one of their records. The other changes, I think, are fine. K. Scott Bailey 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thom played drums on "Bangers And Mash". --RaphaelBriand (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You may as well re-promote this for FA status

As far as I'm concerned, it should be there already.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Especially when compared to the Nine Inch Nails FA, this seems like it is appropriate for FA. Letharis (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think it should be nominated. One of the best articles on contemporary musicians I've read. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article doesn't have any major content issues, but it still does need some more citations and a consistent reference style, two things that brought it down in the last FA nomination. Atlantik (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pay what you want, figures

Here are some figures on the amounts that people were willing to pay for the "in Rainbows" record. Reliable enough for inclusion? //Knuckles 08:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion centralized at Talk:In Rainbows. Please discuss there instead.- kollision 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Could we please establish consensus on which musical genres will be listed in the infobox? It seems that the field is being changed back and forth very frequently. I propose keeping it very simple, and stating Alternative Rock and Electronic Music. They are wide enough terms to efficiently summarise the musical output of the band throughout their career, while also being distinct enough to demonstrate their shift in style (i.e. approximately alt. rock until OK Computer and Electronic thereafter). I think terms like "Art Rock" are too specific to individual albums, while terms like "Rock" are too wide to give a useful description. Papa November (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Impossible to try and list all the genres Radiohead touch upon. This sounds like a good alternative. Perhaps a note after the genres have been listed that they frequently experiment with genre? --RaphaelBriand (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the term "art rock," vague as it is, is much LESS specific to individual albums, and more relevant to their career in general. If we try to apply "art rock" to any specific album we will run into problems as it's not really a word with one accepted meaning that a lot of sources agree on, as far as the actual sound of "art rock". Calling OK Computer or any of their albums since "art rock" is ok- it's more easily justified for Radiohead than for most bands, even though Radiohead reject the label- but imo, it's a more useful term to characterize them in general, than to pigeonhole specific albums. The same goes for alternative rock to an extent. Both "art rock" and "alternative rock" situate the band accurately in terms of either their own attitudes toward music (from interviews) and the influences they have (i.e. their primary influences have been many other artists designated as "alternative rock", and influences from "art" outside of pop music= lit, jazz, avant garde music, classical), or the way they have been seen by critics, marketed to audiences, etc (as an "alternative" band- EMI's campaigns and radio stations that play them- or as a band that makes "art"- reviews by classical critic in New Yorker, dissertations on the various forms of meaning in their lyrics, etc.).

"Electronic music", on the other hand, at first appears incongruous as a career-wide genre label, as even during the Kid A period it's only a minority of the time that Radiohead have made tracks that could ultimately be best described as "electronic music" (rather than say "alternative/art rock with electronic sounds"). However, is necessary to list because it has so strongly influenced the band's entire creative process since OK Computer, as well as the way they are seen by critics and by other bands, and the influence they have had on others- not so much the end results being "electronic" or not, but the unashamed and open use of an electronic process to create music and to manipulate what was formerly held to be so "authentic" about Radiohead, which sets them apart from what "rock" signifies to many people. There are sources to back this up- Reynolds interview (The Wire) in 2001 would be a good one if anyone's in need of convincing. Perhaps the period in question only lasted two albums, but the influence appears to have continued. 172.163.213.199 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Logo in infobox

I've removed the "logo" from the infobox as Radiohead have no fixed logo, and it would be misleading (and ugly!) to place an image there. The image used was simply the rendering of the band's name on the In Rainbows box. I've also placed a notice in the infobox that images should not be used in the "Name" field. Any objections? Papa November (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Excellent idea. This article always has problems with people trying to replace the "name" field with whatever their personal idea of what the band's logo SHOULD be- usually going back to the Kid A-style typeface, which hasn't been used on the merchandise since 2001. Radiohead have many logos, but no fixed one, and even if they did, it would be inappropriate and unprofessional to use in this encyclopedia context. If a band logo was of such importance, it should be placed on the page as an image, with a caption to explain its context and importance, not put as a heading at the top of the page as if this article is another piece of Radiohead merchandise. 172.163.213.199 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:RHbear.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:RHbear.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, seeing as there's an issue with this image, I could scan the bear myself from the Kid A Book that I own. At least the source wouldn't be an issue, and it'd also look neater (while keeping it at small resolution of course). Any thoughts? - Phorque (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There's an easier solution if you're sure the image was copied directly from the booklet - there's no need to reupload it. Instead, please can you update the image page with details of where it appears in the booklet along with the artist (Stanley Donwood) year of publication etc. I'd do it myself, but I don't have my copy of Kid A handy. I'll also create a low-detail SVG version of the image as an alternative, so we don't need to worry about scanning. Papa November (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made an SVG version and added as much detail as I can to the Fair Use rationale. If anyone can add more, that would be great :). The poorly compressed JPEG version can safely be deleted soon. Papa November (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just incase you're curious, here is the bear logo's incarnation in the Kid A Book. - Phorque (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Some nice images...

There are some nice creative commons images on flickr. Does anyone see one that would look good in the infobox? It would be nice to replace it with a better quality one. Papa November (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the photos in this set are ideal for this main band article. An ideal image would be one that shows all five members, preferably with faces recognizable (so they'd all have to be close together). I'm sure there's one out there, we just have to keep looking - kollision (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to make a composite image from individual photos of band members... there's a good chance it could end up looking very cheesy though! Papa November (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but I would at least go with photos of the individual bandmembers from the same source/photographer/show so that there aren't glaring differences between the photos in terms of quality/resolution. - Phorque (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone and made a photomontage. It's in the infobox now. All the images (except for Colin) were actually from the set Papa November originally recommended, turns out they were the best Creative Commons images of Radiohead members on flickr after all. What does everyone think of it? - kollision (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks much better than the old image! Thanks :) Papa November (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, great improvement there. I suppose a regular photo that is fully representative of the band rather than a montage would be ideal, but until such an image is found this is a fine compromise. - Phorque (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The new montage pic is EXCELLENT, at least compared to all the old ones we've been subjected to for the past year or two, which singlehandedly brought down the quality of the article no matter how much improved the prose got. Occasionally someone added a good image where you could identify the band members, but it always turned out to be un-free (or perhaps only claimed to be thus by those uncertain of its origin) and was deleted promptly. Let's hope this one can stay, or else, can we agree that if it is to be replaced, it is ONLY replaced if a better image (that is, one that also has all five band members, but is perhaps not a montage) is found. The thing is, it should not be at all difficult to find good FREE images, because of the number of concert photos around. Not all would make every face clear, of course, but they'd be better than the blurry photo of just TWO band members we had for so long.

Let's say a perfect amateur-taken image is found. Maybe it involves contacting the photographer to ask, but I have a feeling most would be happy to give up some rights for one image if they know it's so far above the others available to us, that it's certain to stay as the official image in a highly read wiki article on the band. Many people who take these pictures do so as Radiohead fans first of all, and even if an image's legality was questionable, they could be convinced to make it free for the good of this particular article. There should be no need to rely on the poor quality of images found here before, anyway. 172.163.213.199 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

<- The free status of the montage is fine, so there's no reason why it should ever be removed from Commons. For now, I think it's the best choice for the infobox. Papa November (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is actually such a straightfoward and logical choice (after all, we can modify images if they are free or properly licensed) that more band articles should do it instead of relying on a picture of a band live in concert taken from the back rows with people's heads in-between. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We should upload the source images to Commons too. I'll do it later if no one beats me to it! Papa November (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)