Re: Can someone explain the Radiohead mystique?

Seeing BSD's nomination for Radiohead to perhaps be one of the best bands of the last 50 years reminds me of my nagging feeling that I'm just missing something with regard to this band. I've got a couple of their records (The Bends and Kid A) and they're both fine, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Help me out here....

It was OK Computer that put them over the top. Spin that one and let it grow. Pablo Honey was a passing LP (imo); the Bends was nominally better but OKC was a watershed. I daresay it will be regarded as one of a few 90's definitive albums a decade hence....Thom Yorke is mystique-ISH...but, yes, to a certain extent they were right place/right time, the public wanted a foppish cover boy, etc. Plus, The Bends and Kid A are pieces RELATIVE to OKC and Amnesiac.

What Ira once said about the Clash is equally true when it comes to Radiohead: they've never made an album not worth owning. On any given week I'd have a different answer as to what their best album is. Points all around for confounding fan expectations, for making the best sophomore record ever about not being able to make a sophomore record (The Bends - what a metaphor, that), and for the best 70's prog rock record that never was (OK Confuser). I came about Radiohead late, actually. They never hit me until Kid A - and then only after several listens.

I definitely see the connection between the Vulg's and the R-head, but then, I coulda swore that HOLE (aside from the obvious songwriting connection) ripped off COME.

Rhett - their mystique grew in part to the mythical experience of their live show. RHead on the Pablo Honey tour and now have little relationship. So few UK bands can come here and build in this way without pandering their integrity. It's curious that this band turned their back on their only hit that would have appeared to be a mainstream direction (Creep was international and in MTV rotation in 1993). Aside: When they're entire equipment van was absconded in 1995 in my hometown they played on borrowed gear and then issued an apology to fans with a promise to return soon with new gear - which they did. Strange, though, that if any other band released entire albums of atmosphere and experimentation in between trad-successes they would have crashed while a growing populace thrives on R-Head's neo-irascibilty.

BTW you'll get more responses to this thread if pick a more provocative title like "Radiohead Blows Dead Bears"

Yeah, but my point was that I DON'T think they blow dead bears, but neither do I see why some people get so worked up about 'em. Maybe I should pick up OK Computer to see if that explains things. But as it stands now, I think I'll stick with my old Comsat Angels albums.

Paganizer is right on... Give OK computer a go, and listen to it a few times. I don't see how you cannot be a Radiohead fan after that. Kid A is an excellent album as well, but it must be listened to in proper context (being the next album after OK Computer).

MYSTIQUE=VULGAR BOATMEN

mystique=vulgar boatmen? HUNH????

sure wah jo sure. Their fragmented lyrics I hold as profound truths.
Their music is simultaneously methodical and fresh, not fussed over. But is actually a product of an interstate 'joint' venture? Besides, my 17 year old who heckles comments at me during most of the records i like, doesn't say one word during please panic. For me, the mystical hope is the vulgar boatmen.

Radiohead on the other hand seems really fussed over...see above notes.

Radiohead are the new Pink Floyd. Yep, they really are that boring. But at least stoners have something new to play, so they don't have to drag out "Dark Side of the Moon" for the umteenth million time!

yeah kinda because what would the rubber city rebels the reducers or cinecyde say about the dark side of the moon?