is Radiohead the most respectable "pop" band of all time?
i remember initially dismissing them because i assumed they were another shitty britpop band.
The Bends was their last pop album.
They're an art-rock band now.
>>65103301
>Being this pleb
Radiohead is a pop band and all of their albums are pop albums. Yes even Kid A used conventional pop song structures
And that said, there is nothing wrong with that and they are one of my favourite bands.
>>65103301
OK Computer:
>The near universal positive reception to the album overwhelmed the band, and some members thought the press was excessively congratulatory. Particularly irksome to the band were links to progressive rock and art rock, with frequent comparisons to Pink Floyd's 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon.[152] Yorke responded: "We write pop songs ... there was no intention of it being 'art'. It's a reflection of all the disparate things we were listening to when we recorded it."[97] He was nevertheless pleasantly surprised that many listeners identified the album's musical influences: "What really blew my head off was the fact that people got all the things, all the textures and the sounds and the atmospheres we were trying to create."[153] "In England, I think a lot of the reviews have been slightly over-the-top," remarked Jonny Greenwood, "because the last album [The Bends] was somewhat under-reviewed possibly and under-received."[42]
In addition they've always thought every album they've released has been immediately accessible and understandable.
They make pop.
>>65103740
>"We write pop songs ... there was no intention of it being 'art'
Yeah yeah sure thom.
He was deppressed as fuck at the time and he hated the attention he was receving, but im pretty sure that he thought the album was a masterpiece
>>65103787
I told you fucking idiot, they thought this for every album.
>>65103787
>>65103848
https://youtu.be/hnTFiWrw1GI?list=PL0WjqrZQmH2QqM2CNueBcbEUHMFKPYbK-&t=47
>>65103848
They said that they thought.
And btw, an album that is "immediately accesible and understandable" doesnt neccesarelly have to be a "pop" album.
>>65103704
Nigga...
Even some metal uses pop song structure, does that make it pop?
>>65103848
>>65103740
I could start making generic third wave Explosions in the Sky ripoff post-rock and call post-avant jazzcore, doesn't mean my music is post-avant jazzcore all of a sudden just because I said it is.
Are you all confusing pop music with being popular? Because yes, radiohead are very popular but it doesn't mean they make pop music.
>>65103886
>And btw, an album that is "immediately accesible and understandable" doesnt neccesarelly have to be a "pop" album.
Yes it does you idiot, Radiohead's music is pop music because of the immediately accessible forms and tonalities.
>>65103892
Nice strawman where'd you get it?
>>65103887
Yes.
The instrumentation doesn't have anything to do with a song being pop or not
>>65103934
>Yes it does you idiot, Radiohead's music is pop music because of the immediately accessible forms and tonalities.
>>65103704
Accesibility is subjective btw.
>>65103956
Oh it figures that after you've been thoroughly proven wrong you go for "well i-i-i-it's just my opinion"
Fuck off kid, focus on your high school work
>>65103934
It's an analogy you fucking retard.
Just because an artist decides to make one thing but call it another thing doesn't mean he's right and that somehow his feelings go above the standards in classification of music. Thom can be a retard and say they're making pop all they want, that doesn't change the fact that the music they're making is alt-rock.
>>65103919
it's meme man. Nobody actually believes that.
>>65103993
Wtf, you have no arguments dude, and you don't have to argue that agressively to show your point.
I agree with you that Radiohead is a pop band, but you are calling them a pop band for all the wrong reasons.
>>65103919
Can you even read the thread?
they're one of the most respectable bands of all time period. the deeper i delve into music the more they stand out as one of the few bands of my p4kcore days that were actually of a great quality, despite their accessibility
Are Amnesiac and TKoL considered pop?
>>65104392
take for example, Lotus flower and Knives out, do you think those are not pop songs?
>actually liking beeps and boops and horrible whining
>>65103704
>Radiohead is a pop band and all of their albums are pop albums.
this is so fucking dumb
making pop melodies doesnt make you a 'pop' band.
radiohead sound nothing like Braids or Grimes or Cocteau Twins
I thought we decided they're a prog rock band
>>65104762
>beatles aren't pop, they don't sound like britney
Radiohead is barely better than Weezer.
>>65104893
im comparing contemporaries. youre comparing artists making music 40 years apart.
also, there are more similarities between Cocteau Twins and Britney Spears than Radiohead and Britney Spears
>>65104933
Dem dubs say you on to sumthin.
>>65104952
Retard
Beatles? Fuck Britpop
>>65104933
That's actually debatable.
>>65103934
You're a fucking imbecile.
>>65104762
isn't just about pop melodies, it includes the song structures like 4/4 or 5/4 and the decision of not make songs longer than 6 minutes (in the Kid A era) they broked up this rule in the new album of course.
>>65105074
Fuck you, memer. Memes are dead and you should be dead, too.
>>65105084
Now you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
>>65104762
>pop melodies
What?
>>65104952
There's more similarities between Radiohead and Britney Spears than John Cage and Britney Spears.
>>65105084
that doesnt make you "pop" IMO. if you want to debate the technical definition of like, "popular contemporary western music" or whatever and the typical structures that most western music uses, of course most of their stuff would fall under that category. but when you're talking about POP music as a descriptive term for the music, it doesn't make any sense at all to call Radiohead pop
>>65105180
do you need me to explain what a pop melody is ?
>>65105231
we need to separate the terms "pop format song" and "pop genre song"
Pop music is just any music that is meant to be consumed by the masses.
Is it's Radiohead's intention to sell a lot of albums?
>>65105231
True, excepting the last album
>>65105084
>it includes the song structures like 4/4 or 5/4 and the decision of not make songs longer than 6 minutes
This just in, Slayer and Cannibal Corpse are pop.
>>65105446
a band in pop format, it doesn't lncludes them in the musical genre called "pop"
radiohead can be defined as pop music, sure, plenty of their singles have charted highly in the anglosphere
now people acting like they don't make fantastic music... that's a different story
>>65105364
by this logic, death grips is pop
>>65105485
Christ, just because they are popular on /mu/ doesn't mean the are an easily accessible or mainstream popular band.
>>65105470
No, this is the standard you used to define Radiohead as pop. Quit backpedaling you dumb fuck.
>>65105485
>>65105364
By this logic literally all music before the advent of pretentious post-modernist "performance art music" is pop. As if fucking Beethoven's and Wagner's works weren't written to be performed in fron of massive crowds of rich people.
I suppose the few tunes played by traveling musicians ordered by various court rulers to be played in private would count.
>>65105084
>it includes the song structures like 4/4 or 5/4
I'm sorry but what
Most pop music does not use time signatures (they're called time signatures, not song structures) like 5/4 and 7/8 which Radiohead uses quite frequently. I don't see your point.
>>65103740
I find it funny that for all the accolades that are showered upon their music, the band themselves actually have a pretty realistic view of what they are. They don't pretend to be better than they are and they wear their influences on their sleeves. Aside from the occasional outburst like that infamous Street Spirit tirade Thom had, the band themselves come across as surprisingly unpretentious. They're just dudes making music that they think is neat, and that's alright.
>>65105511
except that's not what you fucking said you dumbass. you said it's solely the "intent" of being consumed by the masses. as much as you don't want to believe it, zach hill and homeless black man actually WANT as many people to like their music as possible.
>>65105577
Do they, though? I didn't realise you spoke for them.
>>65105511
holy shit do you really think Death Grips is obscure or not mainstream? they were on Adult Swim for christ's sake. celebrities reference them all the time. every faggot who has ever been on pitchfork knows who they are.
btw mainstream does not mean you're as popular as Taylor Swift or get played on the radio, before you use that retarded argument
>>65105650
I never said that were obscure or mainstream you assumptive bastard, I don't even like the cunts. Just because they are popular doesn't mean they intended to be or made their music with the intention of making loadsa money.
>pop is the same as popular music
when will this meme end
>>65104877
but anon, AMSP is post-orchestal folk with ambient and prog-rock elements
>>65105692
> Just because they are popular doesn't mean they intended to be or made their music with the intention of making loadsa money.
holy shit you keep moving the goal posts or putting words in my mouth.
making music with the intention of making loadsa money =/= making music with the intent of getting as many people to listen to it =/= making pop music
i am done with this retardation
>>65105702
"pop" is a meaningless buzzword that nobody knows the meaning of or knows how to define without just naming bands, just like first-wave post rock. It's completely retarded, useless and shouldn't even exist.
>cool melodies
>pop
please...
>>65105762
this, everything is pop, anything and nothing is pop
ITT: people who only listen to pop music getting defensive because they don't understand that it's a catch-all term for non-art, non-folk music
>>65105959
>non-art
Everything is art.
>>65106002
non-formal music then, you dense little cunt. it's a label, not a statement of what is and isn't art in a grander sense
Gratuitous pontificating:
1. Rock is Pop. They're only vaguely distinguished by the types of instruments used, although their sonority is basically identical and it's more of a formality.
2. The most useful definition of Popular music is a natural branch of Folk music that develops under money-worshiping systems (Capitalism and Socialism) and 20th and 21th century culture of egotism.
>>65105959
>non-art, non-folk music
ayyyy, always this guy and hs "serious" comments lmao
>>65106002
He means art music. aka Formal music
>>65106271
>culture of egotism
thanks for the cancer and the pseudo-intellectual bullshit
thread is over now
>>65106271
>money-worshiping systems (Capitalism and Socialism) and 20th and 21th century culture of egotism
>>65106271
omg the cringe
>>65106311
>>65106331
>>65106347
Are there any particular rebuttals to go with these worthless replies?
>>65106271
nigga the fuck are you talking about
>>65106384
>Are there any particular rebuttals to go with these worthless replies?
You're just a little treasure trove aren't you?
The Beatles are far more respected than Radiohead as a pop group. And yes both are pop bands btw. Just because they are better at appropriating aspects of other genres than Beyonce's pathetic attempt at blues with Jack White doesn't mean they aren't pop.
>>65106501
What economic system would you favour?
>>65106384
Your first point is correct. Your second is laughable. First of all, you use provocations like "money-worshipping systems" and "culture of egotism" to sidestep the actual need to explain why popular music develops as it does. Your discussion of it as a "natural" branch of folk music is also laughable. These things add up to you basically saying "pop music happened in the 20th and 21st centuries, I have no interest in describing exactly what it is, but because it happened I will pull reasons out of my ass as to why it happened when it did and call it 'natural' progression." People are comparing you to a fedora because 1. you're talking like an autist and 2. you're doing the same non-thinking, non-falsifiable pontificating that evolutionary psychologists do when they try to make people believe that rape is ethical because muh common sense. Luckily, none of what you're saying is necessarily unethical, but it is woefully under-informed.
A better way of looking at popular music might be defining its boundaries musically (while acknowledging these boundaries blur at certain degrees) as something along the lines of small ensembles and solo musicians who use contemporary musical equipment ('50s onward) to make music outside of a scholastic context (that is, not funded, trained, or performed within academies or similar art institutions) that is inspired by but apart from folkloric traditions, usually because of its tendencies against traditionalism and its penchant for re-combination of disparate inspirations. Then you could look at why folk traditions were abandoned/minimized in the mid-20th century, blaming things like television for packaging American folk music as a British innovation for example. The focus on image is probably more important than a "culture of egotism."
>>65105485
and they are, compared to stuff like the bad plus
>>65106559
>compared to
That's not how genres work you dipshit. It isn't relativistic. They either are pop or aren't.
>>65106811
>They either are pop or aren't.
this is wrong
>>65106540
>A better way of looking at popular music might be defining its boundaries...
And how/why do you think those boundaries came to be? Why the small ensembles and solo musicians? Why the contemporary instrumentation? Why music outside of a scholastic context? Why inspired by but apart from folkloric traditions? Why the penchant for re-combination of disparate inspirations?
>blaming things like television for packaging American folk music as a British innovation for example
>The focus on image
This is your answer? Random insular occurrences preceded by the emergence of Popular music?
>First of all, you use provocations like "money-worshipping systems" and "culture of egotism" to sidestep the actual need to explain why popular music develops as it does.
>First of all, you use provocations like "the invention of the piano" and "culture of virtuosity" to sidestep the actual need to explain why Frank Liszt's music develops as it does
>>65106820
You are wrong. And stupid. And gay. And you need to kill yourself because I said so. Why? Because I am better than you in every conceivable way.
Don't believe me? Just ask me.
>>65106843
wew
>>65106841
none of this is an argument. you're just regurgitating my argument as questions instead of forming your own argument. please respond with actual contentions if you want me to respond again. thanks!
>>65106872
I don't need to respond because I've already made my point crystal clear in the first comment:
Popular music is a mutation Folk music undergoes when under pressure from money-worshiping systems and the culture of egotism that goes hand in hand which such systems.
All Popular music is the way it is due to the fundamental fact that selling albums trumps everything in the Popular music world. If you don't sell albums you don't exist. Thus every single Popular tune you've heard had to go through a bottleneck that selects for certain traits at the expense of other. All your technical delimitation perfectly fit into this model.
>small ensembles and solo musicians
Self-explanatory - egotism automatically selects for this.
>contemporary musical equipment
>music outside of a scholastic context
Instruments like the piano or the violin are integral parts of the pre-money-worshiping, pre-culture of egotism world and are therefore selected against. Likewise for any kind of scholastic tradition.
>inspired by but apart from folkloric traditions, usually because of its tendencies against traditionalism...
Couldn't have put it better myself. Inspired but apart since it evolved from it. Rejects traditionalism since, again, Folk music tradition is an integral part of the pre-money-worshiping, pre-culture of egotism world.
Are you subconsciously agreeing with me?
>>65107219
>money-worshiping systems
What economic system would you prefer
>>65105231
>do you need me to explain what a pop melody is ?
yes
>>65107253
Capitalism is fine as long as there is something higher than money - religion, national identity, material rationalism, art, gyros.
