For those of you that truly don't like this album: Why?
i refuse to listen to memes
i like good music, thats why i don't like that album
It's ok but there's nothing great on it. Feels like a really unimportant album.
With OK Computer the word "chic" took on a new meaning. The album is a masterpiece of faux avantgarde (of pretending to be avantgarde while playing mellow pop music). It is, more properly, a new link in the chain of production artifices that changed the way pop music "sounds": the Beatles' Sgt Pepper, Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon, Fleetwood Mac's Tusk, Michael Jackson's Thriller. Despite the massive doses of magniloquent epos a` la U2 and of facile pathos a` la David Bowie, the album's mannerism led to the same excesses that detracted from late Pink Floyd's albums (lush textures, languid melodies, drowsy chanting).
>>60815210
you know I hate Scaruffi because a lot of his posturing and ego is totally misplaced
but he hit the nail on the head with OKC
>>60815178
>>60815164
>>60815139
bad posts
>>60815210
bad pasta
Any real replies?
>>60815210
>The album is a masterpiece of faux avantgarde (of pretending to be avantgarde while playing mellow pop music).
ugh gets more terrible every time I read it
>>60815210
whoever your quoting is terrible at writing
>>60815234
>>60815139
this guy here
i was just pullin ya legs i actually think it a p great album
>>60815128
It insists upon it'self.
>>60815259
>terrible at writing
>your
>>60815259
well, its translated from italian, so who knows
>>60815283
What does that even mean?
>>60815300
yeah didnt realise it was scaruffi my bad
>>60815128
CUZ ITS POPULAR, FUCK SAKES I WANNA BE A PATRICIAN. HOW THE FUCK AM I GONNA BE A PATRICIAN IF I START TO LIKE THE RYM #1 ALBUM?
>>60815128
When I've listened to it (on the rare occasions that I feel the need to remind myself about the quality of Radiohead records), it's always sounded reserved and poorly constructed (its heavy-handed and not terribly interesting musically).
>>60815309
Yeah I had to google it t︂bh
It apparently has to do with family guy so that pretty much explains it
>>60815377
Oh is that it? I couldn't remember what that was referencing, but I knew what the reply was supposed to be
After hearing about how good this album is supposed to be, I decided to listen to it. Didn't like it at all.
Maybe it's just because I don't like the band. I've never listened to Radiohead before, and I probably won't in the future.
>>60815234
>>60815251
how about you actually refute instead of just saying "WAH IT OFFENDS ME"
>>60815538
Not that guy, but there's nothing to refute
They're literally just pasta, ironic replies, and vague criticisms.
>>60815538
When did Radiohead ever claim they were avant-garde?
>>60815603
refute the pasta
outside of the fact it's posted here, evaluate scaruffi's serious critique of it
>>60815610
they never did, but then again neither did The Beatles did they? Scaruffi I think is more referring to the perception of these artists/albums rather than the artists/albums themselves
>>60815371
How is it heavy-handed? How is it poorly constructed?
>>60815629
>Scaruffi I think is more referring to the perception of these artists/albums rather than the artists/albums themselves
Oh well if you already knew the problem with it, why'd you ask us to refute it?
>>60815629
He's basically calling it pretentious in the other parts so it seems he's taking it out on them
Breaks the atmosphere way too much, if all the songs were the same tone as Let Down, Fitter Happier and No Surprises I'd love it.
Listened to it too much when I was first getting into music and its lost its charm
Not saying it's a bad album, I just don't enjoy it as much as I used to
>>60815680
>if the album was less diverse it would be better
>tfw I ignore all of the posts in this thread
>>60815666
Because people on /mu/ who shitpost criticize (quote opinion in greentext, then say "what a shit opinion") are fucking cancer, like you
>>60815679
like I said earlier, I think Scaruffi is wrong about a lot of things and I do think calling them pretentious is a bad call since Yorke called it all pop songs.
that being said I think what he says about it being faux-avantgarde, at least in the populous' eyes, is on-point.
>>60815762
>like you
Except I gave a valid reason why his criticism is poor. Don't get upset that people know why Scruffy's a hack.
it cannot be faux avant-garde because they never claimed to be in the first place.
I like the album, but Kid A has a lot more thought put into how the tracks flow into each other, with the exception of the transition from In Limbo to Idioteque, which I don't like. However on OK Computer I don't like half of the transitions between the tracks.
That being said No Surprises is my most scrobbled track of all time on Last.fm
>>60815128
I used to think that Muse made a career by imitating OK Computer, now I think their career is a scathing parody of OK Computer.
The album feels overwrought, like they were trying to wring something profound out of the air. It's edgy, in a way that I think was spirited and genuine at the time, but has aged poorly and become the "edgy" of today.
>>60817048
Muse made a career of imitating Queen. Outside of Bellamy's whiny falsetto there's not an ounce of them that's similar to Radiohead.
>>60817048
>edgy
Simply put? It just bores me.
I've never been one for Yorke's shitty falsetto or his poetry. Period. I gave up on his idea of subtlety in the bends with the gem of hammering things home that is the title "Fake Plastic Trees". Not only using one of the most common idioms in the world, but thinking we were stupid enough that we wouldn't get it if he didn't add "fake" before them. As if no one could catch in that trees aren't meant to be plastic. And the lyrics don't get any sharper on this release.
So by this album those things didn't bother me, I'd learnt to live with them -but obviously they don't do it any favours. The "lush textures" just fell flat to me, this is very much a subjective point that I don't care to pretend is anything more than a preference. But the sonic landscaping here? Very boring, I much prefer it on releases like Kid A, though again: personal preference.
The melodies are repeated far too often for my tastes. And probably my biggest problem with the album is that ever song (save for fitter, happier) follows the same pattern: Quiet/slow (or quiet and slow) start, around a third of the way through additional instrumentation comes through and the final third is an full-on multilayered, multieffects, multi vocal ordeal. Sometimes it calms down a bit before ending, sometimes it ends like that, I don't remember if any song fades out. But it's very repetitive in that same structure, a structure that carries lyrics and vocals I don't care for, with soundscaping that I find uninteresting and instrumentation that I think it's repetitive.
It's just not for me.
>>60818055
He writes three paragraphs about an album that "bores" him. Please write a book about an album u like.
>>60815128
i used to think it was great when i was 16
that it was good when i was 17
ok when i was 18
meh when i was 19
now i just dont care about radiohead THE band anymore
amnesiac > kid a > httt = tkol > rainbows = bends > okc > pablo
>>60818110
There's actually tons of artists I would like to write books about and make every album a chapter. That'd be neat.
it fits a certain mood perfectly. Sonically it's a beautiful and endlessly evocative album.
But when I pay active attention to the details, i get a little frustrated with this album. It's unabashedly pretty, complex, dynamic, and melodic. But somehow lacks any warmth or tenderness.
When it comes to orchestrating noise with erudite popsense/chord/timbre changes there are lots of blueprints (pixies, slowdive, Sonic Youth, VU) but none that I can think of have done so with out adding some sense of sweetness or humanity to it. Sadness, sure.
But always a glimmer of warm fuzzys.
open letter to Thom...how is it possible that you can emote dissociatively?
