The world probably doesn't need even MORE of my anti-Radiohead rantings, but there are so many things that need to be addressed in print that this entry is absolutely necessary. So in the spirit of year-end Top 10 lists, here are, in no particular order, "10 Random Misconceptions, Nonsensical or Downright Sucky Things about Radiohead".
1. Thom Yorke's voice is not "mournfully soulful". Thom Yorke does not sing, he whines. I have nothing against whining -- Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins) and Ira Kaplan (Yo La Tengo) make excellent music and both are a tad on the whiny side -- but whining is not soulful, it has never been soulful, and it never will be soulful. Therefore, Radiohead's music is not soulful in any way.
2. Say whatever you want about Pearl Jam's music, but when they decided to cut themselves off from the world, they DID it. No videos, no press, no nothing. Radiohead tried a similar trick after the release of "Kid A" and yet somehow every time I opened a music mag there was an "exclusive" interview with one of the band members.
3. "Kid A" finished on a lot of "Top Albums of 2000" lists because it was released in October. Had it been released in March, there would have been more time for the backlash to kick in and come year's end, it would have been viewed as the load of self-indulgent tripe that it is. Remember, most people liked "Be Here Now" when it was released in August 1997, and we all know what happened after THAT backlash kicked into overdrive.
4. I visited HMV today and finally had a listen to the JJ72 album. This was a band I had wanted to check out for quite some time. JJ72 -- abrasive, sexy, the new Manics! Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, I found that JJ72 do not sound like the Manics. JJ72 sound like Radiohead. The lyrics do resemble the kind of rambling prose and irregular pacing that characterized Richey-era Manics, but otherwise the high-pitched, whiny angelic voice, introspective acoustic ballads and not-in-the-least-bit-feather-ruffling rock riffs are pure Radiohead. I've long since given up on any UK band creating an album as visceral and gripping as "The Holy Bible", but SOMEBODY out there should be talented enough to make a run at creating another "Gold Against The Soul".
5. Speaking of bands that sound like Radiohead, take Coldplay. At least they're smart enough to rip off "The Bends"-era Radiohead, i.e. ripping Radiohead off during the only period when they were actually any good. But if the success of Travis and Coldplay has proven anything, it's that there are many, many other Travises and Coldplays out there waiting to break through. Their type of music is simple, catchy, and the record buying public is eating it up with a spoon right now. By spring's end, another band sounding just like Coldplay and Travis will have released this year's "Yellow", it will soundtrack the summer and the successes of Coldplay and Travis will be rendered commonplace. If new Travises can break through all the time, then the real Travis aren't very unique, are they? Why do you think the Backstreet Boys release an album every year? If they don't, then their fans will quickly forget about them because there are 1452 crappy boy bands born every minute, all of them sound the same, thus, the fans aren't going to care which one they listen to, they'll just listen to the flavour of the month. If Travis and Coldplay are to survive long-term, then they MUST quit sounding less like 1995 Radiohead and more like something, anything, else. However, advance press regarding the new Travis album do not suggest that this is the case.
6. It seems that there is a new catchphrase for the act of a band following up a guitar album with an electronic, wibbly album. This is known as "doing a Kid A". Anyone who claims to be the least bit knowledgeable about music and supports the entry of this phrase into the critical lexicon is thicker than the sac of saline currently supporting Britney Spears' latest "I don't want this sexy image" see-though rhinestone-studded top. Once upon a time, a band from merry Britain followed up their hugely successful guitar album of 1997 with a record of massive indulgence, electronic weirdness, and seemingly bereft of potential hit singles. The name of the band is Blur, the name of the album is "13" and it was released almost two years ago. Yet I've never heard anyone talk about "doing a 13". Are people's musical tastes shaped so much by Flavours of the Month (see point 5, above) that they have already forgotten about "13"?
7. This Pisses Me Off So Much that it warrants another point. Thom Yorke babbles on about listening to the Warp Records catalogue and how much it influenced "Kid A". While he does this (during one of those many "exclusive" interviews, of course), the mags drop their collective jaws in amazement like he'd just discovered the Holy Grail and deserves a medal for doing so. Dear God, I thought that the post-electronica mainstream press could accept the influence of techno-based music on guitar bands as being commonplace, but I guess I was wrong. Even Eric bloody Clapton made an ambient album, so why is it suddenly so risky and inventive once Radiohead does it?
8. I'm not done. I was not suggesting that Blur were the first guitar band to go electronic, wibbly, and uncommercial. I just addressed the fact that they did so long before Radiohead. Hell, Oval (Berlin-based techno artist) made some pleasant albums of dubby, click-filled techno in the mid-90's. Now that this music is more in vogue, what did he do? He released an album of indecipherable noise (and clicking). Yet nobody talks about "doing a Process". Far more famously, in 1975, Lou Reed followed up the success of the inoffensive AOR album "Sally Can't Dance" with the very offensive "Metal Machine Music", a 60-minute blast of noise and feedback, an album which is considered to be a work of genius years ahead of it's time or the worst album ever recorded, depending on who you ask, what time of day you ask them, and what stimulants they are on at the time. I know I am not alone in considering "MMM" to be the first instance of what these hacks are referring to as "pulling a Kid A", but by no means am I arrogant or closed minded enough to insist that there wasn't an earlier instance of which I am not aware. One final note, "MMM", even today, is 80 billion times more radical than "Kid A" would be even if Radiohead performed it naked with bombs strapped to their chests. The simple reason (among other things) is that "MMM" may be loud and unstructured, but certainly not boring, whereas "Kid A" is merely boring and unstructured.
9. Radiohead are actually not all bad. "OK Computer" is one of the most praised albums ever, and even I have to praise ... the singles from "OK Computer". The rest is meaningless filler. "No Surprises" is easily the best thing they have ever done. There's so much empty space in that song, so that every last drop of sound that is there counts for so much more than it normally would. And the video is the perfect accompaniment to the loneliness -- few things are lonelier than almost drowning. However, I haven't heard a live version that comes close to recreating that emptiness.
10. The hype machine will soon be restarting in time for the release of "Amnesiac" in March. Thus, I may have to add more points to this list. Happy New Year.
