How exactly are RadioHead influential?

I like the band sure, but am I missing something? I always read that they were super influential and that their music was AMAZING. But they're okay to me.

I teach music, mostly percussion but also a certain amount of theory and composition, and I find most of what Radiohead has written to be pretty shallow. I'm not really sure why people rave about them. You've got me.

I teach music, mostly percussion but also a certain amount of theory and composition, and I find most of what Radiohead has written to be pretty shallow. I'm not really sure why people rave about them. You've got me.

Elephant_Couple

It has nothing to do with the complexity of their music. I for one think Ywgnie Malmsteen is terrible. Intelligent melody, harmony and theory is good, and sometimes stands on it's own, but sometimes the most simple music can be influential.

I love Radiohead. I don't think we should just copy-cat them though, and I don't think they make the world much better or greener or more profound or any such nonsense. They do their own thing, they fused plain-ole' rock music with electronica and created a lot of melodic, atmospherey sounds. Thom sings in high pitched sorrow and joy, and often sits the obscure or ambiguous lyric right next to a poignant one.

It's different, and in a musical landscape where the sound of the month is copied OVER AND OVER and banal wins over original, where A&R guys and record label execs pidgeon-hole and contractually limit what we hear everyday, where those same execs hold sway over radio-stations who ultimately are just money-hungry companies who, too, want to turn a buck play only what makes money, what is spoon-fed !@#$% that we as a$$clown consumers mindlessly masticate and discard like so much offal, Radiohead, who is by all definitions MAINSTREAM, offer something very human and soulful. Humans can't deny themselves, and it's only a matter of time before something without resonates with something within.

I'm not exactly sure how they influence the music industry as a whole. But I enjoy their music. And I just started listening to them a few days ago. :)

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

I teach music, mostly percussion but also a certain amount of theory and composition, and I find most of what Radiohead has written to be pretty shallow. I'm not really sure why people rave about them. You've got me.

my_mortal_coil

It has nothing to do with the complexity of their music. I for one think Ywgnie Malmsteen is terrible. Intelligent melody, harmony and theory is good, and sometimes stands on it's own, but sometimes the most simple music can be influential.

I love Radiohead. I don't think we should just copy-cat them though, and I don't think they make the world much better or greener or more profound or any such nonsense. They do their own thing, they fused plain-ole' rock music with electronica and created a lot of melodic, atmospherey sounds. Thom sings in high pitched sorrow and joy, and often sits the obscure or ambiguous lyric right next to a poignant one.

It's different, and in a musical landscape where the sound of the month is copied OVER AND OVER and banal wins over original, where A&R guys and record label execs pidgeon-hole and contractually limit what we hear everyday, where those same execs hold sway over radio-stations who ultimately are just money-hungry companies who, too, want to turn a buck play only what makes money, what is spoon-fed !@#$% that we as a$$clown consumers mindlessly masticate and discard like so much offal, Radiohead, who is by all definitions MAINSTREAM, offer something very human and soulful. Humans can't deny themselves, and it's only a matter of time before something without resonates with something within.

Where did I say anything about complexity? Theory and composition don't necessarily have anything to do with complexity. I'm just referring to the way the musical elements are put together. Other than said "landscapes," which are usually mediocre and completely irrelevant to the instruments, there is really no intrinsic difference between Radiohead and bands like Nickleback, Fall Out Boy, or Simple Plan. The song structures are identical and formulaic. The rhythmic structures, save for a number of songs I could count on one hand, have no variation. The chord "progressions" don't actually progress or go anywhere at all. There's just nothing interesting or influential about it.

i wouldn't say their influential. very overrated.

they may have influenced the industry in proving that a hell of a lot of money can be made from generic rock music.

i wouldn't say their influential. very overrated.

they may have influenced the industry in proving that a hell of a lot of money can be made from generic rock music.

trenno2529

It's kind of like Muse, all it takes is one person to say that they're influential and it takes off.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="my_mortal_coil"]

It has nothing to do with the complexity of their music. I for one think Ywgnie Malmsteen is terrible. Intelligent melody, harmony and theory is good, and sometimes stands on it's own, but sometimes the most simple music can be influential.

I love Radiohead. I don't think we should just copy-cat them though, and I don't think they make the world much better or greener or more profound or any such nonsense. They do their own thing, they fused plain-ole' rock music with electronica and created a lot of melodic, atmospherey sounds. Thom sings in high pitched sorrow and joy, and often sits the obscure or ambiguous lyric right next to a poignant one.

It's different, and in a musical landscape where the sound of the month is copied OVER AND OVER and banal wins over original, where A&R guys and record label execs pidgeon-hole and contractually limit what we hear everyday, where those same execs hold sway over radio-stations who ultimately are just money-hungry companies who, too, want to turn a buck play only what makes money, what is spoon-fed !@#$% that we as a$$clown consumers mindlessly masticate and discard like so much offal, Radiohead, who is by all definitions MAINSTREAM, offer something very human and soulful. Humans can't deny themselves, and it's only a matter of time before something without resonates with something within.

kdawg88

Where did I say anything about complexity? Theory and composition don't necessarily have anything to do with complexity. I'm just referring to the way the musical elements are put together. Other than said "landscapes," which are usually mediocre and completely irrelevant to the instruments, there is really no intrinsic difference between Radiohead and bands like Nickleback, Fall Out Boy, or Simple Plan. The song structures are identical and formulaic. The rhythmic structures, save for a number of songs I could count on one hand, have no variation. The chord "progressions" don't actually progress or go anywhere at all. There's just nothing interesting or influential about it.

That's my point. They aren't any better. Everyone likes to claim they are, but nobody has any sort of legitimate reason. It's like every Radiohead fan has come to the conclusion that Radiohead is somehow better or more original just because other Radiohead fans say they are. If that's how we determine quality, I guarantee you Nickleback has sold more records and has more "fans"...they must be better.

But seriously, Radiohead is a mediocre band that should have stopped after OK Computer. Other than a few cheap gimmicks, like their "soundscapes," there is nothing creative or unique about their music.

It's kind of like Muse, all it takes is one person to say that they're influential and it takes off.

caityful

Muse...influential? That's an even bigger joke. There is a difference between being a popular fad and being truly influential. Many people like Muse, but there are really no solid, up-and-coming bands that have actually wanted to try and incorporate any elements from Muse into their music. It just isn't that good. It's a bland, repetitive, gimmicky sound- just like Radiohead.

[QUOTE="caityful"]

It's kind of like Muse, all it takes is one person to say that they're influential and it takes off.

Elephant_Couple

Muse...influential? That's an even bigger joke. There is a difference between being a popular fad and being truly influential. Many people like Muse, but there are really no solid, up-and-coming bands that have actually wanted to try and incorporate any elements from Muse into their music. It just isn't that good. It's a bland, repetitive, gimmicky sound- just like Radiohead.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="caityful"]

It's kind of like Muse, all it takes is one person to say that they're influential and it takes off.

X360PS3AMD05

Muse...influential? That's an even bigger joke. There is a difference between being a popular fad and being truly influential. Many people like Muse, but there are really no solid, up-and-coming bands that have actually wanted to try and incorporate any elements from Muse into their music. It just isn't that good. It's a bland, repetitive, gimmicky sound- just like Radiohead.

*Gives back flameshield*...fear not. My skin is made of pure titanium. I'm also smarter than anyone who listens to Muse or Radiohead.

I like them a lot, I am not sure about influential but I love the Pyramid Song...

[QUOTE="caityful"]

It's kind of like Muse, all it takes is one person to say that they're influential and it takes off.

Elephant_Couple

Muse...influential? That's an even bigger joke. There is a difference between being a popular fad and being truly influential. Many people like Muse, but there are really no solid, up-and-coming bands that have actually wanted to try and incorporate any elements from Muse into their music. It just isn't that good. It's a bland, repetitive, gimmicky sound- just like Radiohead.

Most up and coming bands mark them as inspirational and part of the reason for starting said band. Just those two facts alone makes them influential. They've also controlled the directions that modern/popular music has headed since Ok Computer.

[QUOTE="caityful"]

It's kind of like Muse, all it takes is one person to say that they're influential and it takes off.

Elephant_Couple

Muse...influential? That's an even bigger joke. There is a difference between being a popular fad and being truly influential. Many people like Muse, but there are really no solid, up-and-coming bands that have actually wanted to try and incorporate any elements from Muse into their music. It just isn't that good. It's a bland, repetitive, gimmicky sound- just like Radiohead.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="caityful"]

It's kind of like Muse, all it takes is one person to say that they're influential and it takes off.

LJS9502_basic

Muse...influential? That's an even bigger joke. There is a difference between being a popular fad and being truly influential. Many people like Muse, but there are really no solid, up-and-coming bands that have actually wanted to try and incorporate any elements from Muse into their music. It just isn't that good. It's a bland, repetitive, gimmicky sound- just like Radiohead.

Your entire response is pure opinion and subjective definition. /nothing

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

Muse...influential? That's an even bigger joke. There is a difference between being a popular fad and being truly influential. Many people like Muse, but there are really no solid, up-and-coming bands that have actually wanted to try and incorporate any elements from Muse into their music. It just isn't that good. It's a bland, repetitive, gimmicky sound- just like Radiohead.

Elephant_Couple

Your entire response is pure opinion and subjective definition. /nothing

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think you are misunderstanding the term influential in regard to these bands. What makes a band influential is when kids grow up listening to the band and are inspired to learn an instrument and make music similar to their favorite bands. Thus both of these bands can be and undoubtedly are influential. Has nothing to do with your personal like of their of music. /thread

LJS9502_basic

Your entire response is pure opinion and subjective definition. /nothing

It's your opinion first and foremost that both bands are "undoubtedly" influential; in fact, you're wrong, because I do doubt it. Second, the idea that "kids grow up listening to the band and are inspired" is your definition of "influential" in this context. It's not mine and not necessarily anyone else's.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

Your entire response is pure opinion and subjective definition. /nothing

Elephant_Couple

It's your opinion first and foremost that both bands are "undoubtedly" influential; in fact, you're wrong, because I do doubt it. Second, the idea that "kids grow up listening to the band and are inspired" is your definition of "influential" in this context. It's not mine and not necessarily anyone else's.

I couldn't even tell you who or what Muse is. Radiohead, on the other hand, like I stated above, have lead where music has headed since 97. AFter OK Computer came out, where countless bands tried to produce knockoff records, Radiohead released Kid A. What happened after Kid A? Every college kid bought some kind of synthesizer and Kid A knockoff albums started being produced. This more or less brought back the popularity of electronic music. The last album, In Rainbows, redefined the way the music industry works, and also dropped the electonic production setting in favor of a more live recording one. Quite a few, if not most, of the songs on In Rainbows are live recordings--something that is on its way back up, thankfully. It is a fact they are influential, whether you like to believe it or not.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

Your entire response is pure opinion and subjective definition. /nothing

Elephant_Couple

It's your opinion first and foremost that both bands are "undoubtedly" influential; in fact, you're wrong, because I do doubt it. Second, the idea that "kids grow up listening to the band and are inspired" is your definition of "influential" in this context. It's not mine and not necessarily anyone else's.

Bands influenced by Muse.....spirals, digitalTraffic, sender, the black rose....etc.

Bands influenced by Radiohead....Coldplay, Significant Insect, SonicRush music, BARON ZERO....etc.

Seems I have provided that it's not my opinion with both the definition of the word and with bands that have been influenced. And on your side we have....your opinion.;)

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

No it's not.:lol: I didn't give my opinion on either band. But the fact remains that kids who grow up listening to particular bands ARE influenced to create music like said band. That is fact not opinion.LJS9502_basic

It's your opinion first and foremost that both bands are "undoubtedly" influential; in fact, you're wrong, because I do doubt it. Second, the idea that "kids grow up listening to the band and are inspired" is your definition of "influential" in this context. It's not mine and not necessarily anyone else's.

Bands influenced by Muse.....spirals, digitalTraffic, sender, the black rose....etc.

Bands influenced by Radiohead....Coldplay, Significant Insect, SonicRush music, BARON ZERO....etc.

Seems I have provided that it's not my opinion with both the definition of the word and with bands that have been influenced. And on your side we have....your opinion.;)

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No it's not.:lol: I didn't give my opinion on either band. But the fact remains that kids who grow up listening to particular bands ARE influenced to create music like said band. That is fact not opinion.LJS9502_basic

It's your opinion first and foremost that both bands are "undoubtedly" influential; in fact, you're wrong, because I do doubt it. Second, the idea that "kids grow up listening to the band and are inspired" is your definition of "influential" in this context. It's not mine and not necessarily anyone else's.

Bands influenced by Muse.....spirals, digitalTraffic, sender, the black rose....etc.

Bands influenced by Radiohead....Coldplay, Significant Insect, SonicRush music, BARON ZERO....etc.

Seems I have provided that it's not my opinion with both the definition of the word and with bands that have been influenced. And on your side we have....your opinion.;)

Terms mean different things in different contexts, which is why I specified "in this context." Relative to bands that have influenced the state of music as we know it, no, these bands are not influential. It's nice that you think everthing is so black and white though.

I know alot of bands i have read into say that they were influenced by radiohead in some part.

it's interesting because Radiohead is a very personal band which i have never seen. The reason I like radiohead is not going to ge the same as anyone else. Me and my housemate like Radiohead (him more than me though) and we both like different aspects.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

It's your opinion first and foremost that both bands are "undoubtedly" influential; in fact, you're wrong, because I do doubt it. Second, the idea that "kids grow up listening to the band and are inspired" is your definition of "influential" in this context. It's not mine and not necessarily anyone else's.

Elephant_Couple

Bands influenced by Muse.....spirals, digitalTraffic, sender, the black rose....etc.

Bands influenced by Radiohead....Coldplay, Significant Insect, SonicRush music, BARON ZERO....etc.

Seems I have provided that it's not my opinion with both the definition of the word and with bands that have been influenced. And on your side we have....your opinion.;)

Terms mean different things in different contexts, which is why I specified "in this context." Relative to bands that have influenced the state of music as we know it, no, these bands are not influential. It's nice that you think everthing is so black and white though.

[QUOTE="my_mortal_coil"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

I teach music, mostly percussion but also a certain amount of theory and composition, and I find most of what Radiohead has written to be pretty shallow. I'm not really sure why people rave about them. You've got me.

Elephant_Couple

It has nothing to do with the complexity of their music. I for one think Ywgnie Malmsteen is terrible. Intelligent melody, harmony and theory is good, and sometimes stands on it's own, but sometimes the most simple music can be influential.

I love Radiohead. I don't think we should just copy-cat them though, and I don't think they make the world much better or greener or more profound or any such nonsense. They do their own thing, they fused plain-ole' rock music with electronica and created a lot of melodic, atmospherey sounds. Thom sings in high pitched sorrow and joy, and often sits the obscure or ambiguous lyric right next to a poignant one.

It's different, and in a musical landscape where the sound of the month is copied OVER AND OVER and banal wins over original, where A&R guys and record label execs pidgeon-hole and contractually limit what we hear everyday, where those same execs hold sway over radio-stations who ultimately are just money-hungry companies who, too, want to turn a buck play only what makes money, what is spoon-fed !@#$% that we as a$$clown consumers mindlessly masticate and discard like so much offal, Radiohead, who is by all definitions MAINSTREAM, offer something very human and soulful. Humans can't deny themselves, and it's only a matter of time before something without resonates with something within.

Where did I say anything about complexity? Theory and composition don't necessarily have anything to do with complexity. I'm just referring to the way the musical elements are put together. Other than said "landscapes," which are usually mediocre and completely irrelevant to the instruments, there is really no intrinsic difference between Radiohead and bands like Nickleback, Fall Out Boy, or Simple Plan. The song structures are identical and formulaic. The rhythmic structures, save for a number of songs I could count on one hand, have no variation. The chord "progressions" don't actually progress or go anywhere at all. There's just nothing interesting or influential about it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

It's your opinion first and foremost that both bands are "undoubtedly" influential; in fact, you're wrong, because I do doubt it. Second, the idea that "kids grow up listening to the band and are inspired" is your definition of "influential" in this context. It's not mine and not necessarily anyone else's.

Elephant_Couple

Bands influenced by Muse.....spirals, digitalTraffic, sender, the black rose....etc.

Bands influenced by Radiohead....Coldplay, Significant Insect, SonicRush music, BARON ZERO....etc.

Seems I have provided that it's not my opinion with both the definition of the word and with bands that have been influenced. And on your side we have....your opinion.;)

Terms mean different things in different contexts, which is why I specified "in this context." Relative to bands that have influenced the state of music as we know it, no, these bands are not influential. It's nice that you think everthing is so black and white though.

What musicians these days are influential anyway? And I mean INFLUENTIAL, not a talented band nobody heard of.

They started the recent wave of electronic-infused rock music. When they started in the mid 90's, it really didn't exist in mainstream rock. Now look at rock music. First to do something in the public eye + becomes popular = influential.Engrish_Major

So maybe they are influential, but holy moly their music is terrible, imo. I have yet to enjoy a full album by Radiohead or any of their influenced kind...