Radiohead - The King Of Limbs

[djchameleon]

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Ok this is so silly but to be frank I just can't stop laughing at it. The new video for Lotus Flower dubbed with Beyonce's Single Ladies:

Radiohead…And BEYONCE?! | PerezHilton.com

that was pretty funny.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by eric generic

The King of Limbs is not a pop album.

It's catchy, it's got easy ear-friendly melodies. It may not be radio friendly, but other than that, in what way is this NOT pop?

[davis123]

Couple things I want to point out:

1. Radiohead don't feel like a band anymore, where has that feeling gone?,It seems that they are trying to me as minimal as possible with the instrumentation on this. This sounds like Thom Yorke's Eraser 2.0

2. The repeating of electronic loops have all but replaced any drums or guitars, I don't know what Phil's repsonsiblities were on this album, but were probably minimum. Only Sepetator saves this album but honestly this like the other tracks just sound like they could be b-sides to anything from Kid A to In Rainbows.

3. Radiohead but out a bad piece of work, this is the worst I have ever heard from the band. Pablo Honey is more enjoyable. I have given this thing alot of chances. I'd give it a 6/10

[TheCunningStunt]

I wish mods would ask before changing someone's poll.

Okay and average are the same thing, I think 'decent' would have been a nice middle ground between good and average.

I guess it's too late though.

[s_k]

Adding stuff to a poll afterwards sort of makes the whole poll useless...

[TheCunningStunt]

Yep, I'd rather nothing have been added.

But 'ok' and 'average' mean the same thing in my book.

IF something had to be added, I'd have preferred 'decent' or 'acceptable'.

[Sneer]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Disagree entirely. Radiohead are not so inaccessible such that their albums are worthy of being characterized "slow burners". Radiohead is, essentially, pop. Even Thom Yorke would say so. Pop is the aim. It's supposed to be gratifying without too much effort on the listener's part to see "beyond the surface" so to speak.

It is, I believe, a very grave misunderstanding of Radiohead to see their music as being difficult. This is born witness to by the general reaction to it. For example, most people either loved or hated In Rainbows from the word go. If anything, what was more commonly seen was that people were waxing lyrical over it to start off with, only to be saying a few months down the line that it wasn't quite so great as they'd initially felt.

Neither was Kid A difficult. It was only judged as such because it wasn't what OK Computer fans had expected or wanted. Hail To The Thief is a bunch of easy tracks. Amnesiac is perhaps 'difficult', but simply because it's mostly a bunch of rubbish B-material from the Kid A sessions.

I personally think a lot of those who immediately 'love or hate' a Radiohead album are doing so insincerely. Their material is released to such fanfare these days that everybody just has to have an opinion asap. And if you look back in this thread, you'll see a good few people who, like myself, cannot commit to a definitive opinion on KOL.

At the very core of their compositions, on CERTAIN albums and songs, may be a pop sensibility, but even then that merely constitutes the skeleton of the song, the band layers it in texture, rhythms, electronics, atmospherics, studio manipulations, warped melodies/progressions... there is just too much to take in with just a couple of listens, too much subtext to decipher. This certainly applies to King of Limbs. It generally takes me a couple of months to fully absorb a Radiohead album.

And I completely disagree with your opinion of Amnesiac but I'm not going to get into a debate about that.

[Sparky]

Originally Posted by davis123

Couple things I want to point out:

1. Radiohead don't feel like a band anymore, where has that feeling gone?,It seems that they are trying to me as minimal as possible with the instrumentation on this. This sounds like Thom Yorke's Eraser 2.0

2. The repeating of electronic loops have all but replaced any drums or guitars, I don't know what Phil's repsonsiblities were on this album, but were probably minimum. Only Sepetator saves this album but honestly this like the other tracks just sound like they could be b-sides to anything from Kid A to In Rainbows.

3. Radiohead but out a bad piece of work, this is the worst I have ever heard from the band. Pablo Honey is more enjoyable. I have given this thing alot of chances. I'd give it a 6/10

This is the best description of it I've seen, i agree entirely, minus the pablo honey part.

I think trying to call radiohead "pop" is quite a stretch, and a little pretentious.

They are very catchy at times, and certainly have enjoyed mainstream success, but their lyrical content, image, certainly isn't what i consider pop. They don't follow trends enough.

If you want a pop version of radiohead listen to Muse or some other gay ****.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by matious

This is the best description of it I've seen, i agree entirely, minus the pablo honey part.

I think trying to call radiohead "pop" is quite a stretch, and a little pretentious.

Why pretentious? I don't think "pop" is a degrading term. I think it describes music that places a marked emphasis on pleasing melodies. Radiohead have always done so. Sure, they have a number of songs that aren't pop at all, but that's more the exception than the rule. Most their songs are 'pretty', with a clear melodic focus. This is in contrast say to a band like Sonic Youth, whose best music was ugly and abrasive almost all the time.

They are very catchy at times, and certainly have enjoyed mainstream success, but their lyrical content, image, certainly isn't what i consider pop. They don't follow trends enough.

You don't have to be mainstream trendy in order to be a pop band. Thom Yorke has said a number of times that Radiohead is pop, and that it is pop music that he loves. I agree that they are 'against the grain' so to speak. That's beyond any doubt. But it's also the idea: to make pop music, but in a way that nobody else does. To be different, edgy. Radiohead are that. But they rarely stray beyond pop.

If you want a pop version of radiohead listen to Muse or some other gay ****.

I don't think Muse are much like Radiohead at all. Muse is all about the bombast, the theatrical. Muse are more like a modern early-Queen, or at any rate fit within the poppy prog rock tradition. The only pop version of Radiohead, is Radiohead. Nobody truly sounds quite like them.

[Sparky]

He's said, unless you can show me otherwise, that they've had pop songs on their records, but i don't think he's ever generalized his music as being such.

You make some valid points no doubt. I think we have different idea's of pop, i'm looking at it from a consumer, pop music is selling sex to children, or subtle racism to southern people ()

Pop music is usually over-produced, written by ghost writers, and more dance-oriented. Maybe i'm just looking at it on the surface..

Muse sounds like early bad radiohead to me, if they stuck with "creep" and never progressed they're sound.