Radiohead

Certif1ed wrote: I find it VERY hard to accept Dream Theater as prog, when all they seem to do is recycle Metallica, Yes and Joe Satriani material. Their music is more metal than prog. GET THEM OUT!!!

This really is a load of cr*p.  Being metal doesn't mean that they sound like Metallica, in fact it was after discovering DT that i gave up listening to Metallica, when i discovered that there was more to music than playing the same riff over and over for eight minutes, and very quickly became profoundly bored of Metallica, tell me cert, is everyone with a metal sound, in your eyes, simply recycling Metallica?  Is this the extent of your knowledge of metal music?

Now, i REALLY don't get the Yes comment, ok, fair enough, there are clear Yes INFLUENCES in their music, but you can't honestly tell me that any of their songs actually sound like Yes, can you?  Or is it that every band with such a gifted keyboardist is recycling Yes?

Finally, they shouldn't be listed along side Satriana just because they have a shredder in their ranks.  Satriana writes songs JUST so he can solo over them, his lyrics are awful and his music is just plaing boring, i mean what sort of discerning listener wants to hear 70 minutes of fret w**king?  Petrucci on the otherhand IS a decent lyricist, and although his soloing is occasionally a little over the top, it is only found in appropriate places in the song, and doesn't go on so long that the listener just switches off (except  perhaps in places  on their new album, but that is only one in eight  studio recordings, and it is only in places).

Way more prog then Radiohead (whose placing in the archives i do not object to)


Edited by Metropolis

* RADIOHEAD * - Ok Computer
Review by Eliott Minkovitch @ 7:34:33 AM EST, 1/16/2005

  —   This kind of stuff should not be on this site, I hope someone will wake up and remove it. Since when did alternative rock become progressive rock? You might as well add Green Day, Chemical Brothers and other techno-crap. And oh, throw in David Bowie too. And why not Oasis or Nirvana?

 

ENTERELY TRUE!! WELL SAID!!

Edited by philippe

philippe wrote:   ENTERELY TRUE!! WELL SAID!!

I am 100% with Philippe on this one.

Great - they should be here.

Progressive rock = rock that progresses.

 

Music that moves, is restless, questing, inventive, seeks radical forms of expression. You can open up all the other pigeonholes you wants - angst rock, sadcore, alternative, blah,blah,blah - Radiohead are one of the most interesting, genuinely progressive rock bands out there.

I'll give you a comparison - 90% of neo-prog which slavishly re-enacts the finer moments of Genesis, Yes, KC et al like some kind of geeky historical recreation society or

Radiohead who started out life as an run-of-the-mill post-Grunge 'alternative' band and became, with OK Computer the progenitors of a music being emulated by thousands of wannabes the world over.

Taking elements of grunge, classical, jazz, krautrock, electronica Radiohead pushed their own musical boundaries and those of their audience with some of the most intelligent, questioning music of the '90s and early 21st century. OK Computer is a masterpiece of real progressive music. Anything by Echolyn, Spock's Beard, Flower Kings, yadda yadda yadda is a sad facsimile of a bygone era by comparison. Listening to them is like listening to Lenny Kravitz ripping off the Beatles, Zeppelin, Bob Marley, the Isley Brothers etc etc etc. Booooring.

Some have suggested that Radiohead are not 'prog' because they don't have great solos, or long songs, or are not virtuoso musician.

Oh please!!! Grow up! Is this really the criteria by which we judge progressive music. If that is the case then  Yngwie Malmsteen is the prog equal of Yes - great technique, long songs and endless solos. Yet we know that Malmsteen is just another over-schooled plank-spanking egomaniac whose entire musical output is the aural equivalent of a long and draining bout of dysentery.

 Pink Floyd (with the exception of Gilmour) were not great musicians and they're prog. Genesis, certainly on Tresspass and Nursry Cryme are not technically proficient.

Is it because Genesis used mellotrons? Radiohead have 'em - all over OK Computer. Is it because of an envelope-pushing love of technology as ELP had? Check out Kid A and Amesiac's use of sequencers and Jonny Greenwood's obsession with theremins, ribbon controllers and a battery of effects that would make Emerson green with envy.

Yeah, we all love classic prog but surely we're all about making some progress. Why shut yourself in a room with the same couple of hundred albums and only open the door when a record which sounds like a sonic photocopy of same comes calling.

You can clap your hands over your ears and scream 'elpgenesisyeskingcrimsonrush' till you're blue in the face, but the music world is not going to stop evolving or go away.

The classic rock the flat-earthers here are so keen to protect was born out of a melting pot of jazz,classical and rock idioms that were popular in the late 60s early 70s. What the hell is wrong with making 'progressive' music utilising the building blocks of dance, electronica, lo-fi, krautrock, classic prog, ambient, grunge, indie-rock whatever. It's progress. Take the sounds around you an use 'em, it's all music, it's all there to be enjoyed.

Say hello to Godspeed You Black Emperor, Radiohead, Sigur Ros, Tortoise, Fourtet, whoever you like.

These, not the sad and weary, drab and dreary neo-prog or prog-metal copycats, are the future of progressive music. Deal with it and welcome them on board.

Three cheers to those who made the decision to include Radiohead, the most innovative and genuinely progressive rock band of the last 10 years.

 

Reed Lover wrote: philippe wrote:   ENTERELY TRUE!! WELL SAID!! I am 100% with Philippe on this one.

Reed, you've made at least 50 posts in this thread just saying "Radiohead shouldn't be here."  We get it.

This is utterly fantastic!!! What controversy!!!

 

First, can I say a huge

YAH BOO SUCKS!!!

To all those who seem to actually take offence that a band that is infinitely MORE prog than many of the bands in the archives are finally here. As arcer says - grow up, why don't you? I don't understand why Reed thinks that the Radiohead following are such "bully boys" when we've taken a pasting from the stick-in-the-muds everytime the name of the band is mentioned.

It gives me great pleasure to shred a few of the negative posts:

Gdub:

A) Because their music is rather simplified altrernative with a little synth to give it atmosphere

You really haven't listened, have you? (and you can't even spell alternative, so I wonder if you know what it means). Or are you talking about Hawkwind?

B)amateurish, simple,  redundant lyrics

I mean, you REALLY haven't listened! (or rather, read the lyrics - because it's quite difficult to make them out sometimes...). There are soooo many prog bands whose lyrics are amateurish and simple, while Radiohead's are deeply complex and minimal. To take your argument further, you would probably think that Webern or Philip Glass are amateurish composers because they subscribe to minimalism. It's the perfect antidote to overblown maximalism (if there is such a thing), and a large part of neo-prog, which is why so many fans of the early 1970s groups don't get neo-prog.

C) They're English so why not.

Good call!

 

Metropolis:

I can and have actually identified the exact Metallica riffs that Dream Theater stole on "Images and Words", for example - and if you really think that all Metallica do on "...And Justice for All" is play the same riff for 8 minutes, then you haven't listened to it at all. My knowledge of metal music is probably a little broader and deeper than you might think...

Dream Theater's style on "Images and Words" quite simply IS NOT PROG. Got that? It isn't. Never will be. Not prog. Nope.

Whatever your opinion, I think it's wrong to say that Dream Theater are more prog than Radiohead, because the style of music is so totally different. It's like comparing Pink Floyd to Rush.

 

Joren I will ignore, because he doesn't think Pink Floyd, Marillion or Genesis are prog - so he clearly hasn't got a clue what prog is.

 

Philippe From most of your past posts, I would have to assume that you only listen to complex music - please remember that prog is not necessarily complex - it is PROGRESSIVE. There is a difference

 

Edited by gdub411

Reading every single post in this thread, there is only one thing i have to add to discussion. There is a difference between music that is progressive in the world of music, and prog-rock. For example one of the most groundbreaking and influential musicians of all time is jimi hendrix, love him or hate him you have to acknowledge that he did something with music which up to that point had not been done by virtually anyone and it changed all types of rock and roll forever. With that said virtually every argument (at least the good ones) Ive seen which say that radiohead should remain on prog archives all suggest that jimi hendrix should be added, he was talented the music he played was far removed from the mainstream, he was political in his lyrics and music, he played atmospheric pieces even (check out machine gun). Now I dont think hendrix should be added at all, but for what reason should radiohead be on the site that jimi hendrix shouldnt be on (other then he doesnt have any themed albums, he only had three studio albums im sure he would have eventually.) Thinking about it david bowie also fits the criteria.

Edited by diddy