|
| | iteresting article but to me there is nothing more tedious than reading play-by-play about individual songs. Generaly I know I will end up disagreeing with the critic in question once I hear the final product so it does little for me knowing that ahead of time. I guess my point is that I would much rather listen to the songs then read about each one. |
| |
|
| | great, so then why read any music criticism at all? you're on the wrong website, buddy. |
| |
|
| | Absolutely agree on "House of Cards". Ever since hearing the chorus I knew that this is gonna be a special one. By far my personal fave out of the current live set. I really do hope Nude will receive the full organ/orchestra treatment if it is set for the next album. The current version makes up for an interesting change but it's got nothing on the older/original one... |
| |
|
| | There is a difference between reading an album review and reading a play-by-play commentary of songs that will most likely turn out completely differently by the time they are put out in an album. Its like reading an article on ESPN in March about who is going to win the super bowl in the coming season based on the potential of the team's position in the draft and their current roster; there may be some validity to the commentary but it probably will amount to little by the time the season hits. I am sure there are some valid points about the songs here but I would much rather read about something pertinent to music right now as opposed speculation on which songs are going to be good for an album that is at the very least a year away. |
| |
|
| | So piss off and come back in a year then. I liked the article, since I'll probably not get a chance to hear the new songs until they've been recorded and released. It's nice to know that I can keep carrying the torch.
|
| |
|
| | Nice concluding statement josh...suing radiohead is the best idea since the weird sisters were killed last year |
| |
|
| | "So piss off and come back in a year then." Ohs my gods he didn't just diss a Radiohead article did he? Do I need to remind everyone once again that this is the "comments" section; not the "suck this writer off because he is writing about radiohead" section or "bitch and moan like a five year old because this writer didn't like sufjan stevens" section. I think its somewhat irrelevant to write an article that will be up for an entire week about songs a year off which will likely be completely different iterations at that point and which current versions will be heard by few people outside of the those that will be able to attend the shows or scour the internet for bootlegs. Stylus has the comments section up for me to voice this very opinion along side whoever loved the article to death or whoever was indifferent to it or even someone who was more displeased with it then I was. I wasn't disrespectful about it; I voiced my opinion and provided my reasoning for it and left it at that. Its OK to accept that alongside everyone else’s opinion. Or would "I hate Josh Love's stupid article and everything stupid he has to write about Radiohead" be easier for you guys to get pissed about? |
| |
|
| | It's a snapshot - a look at where a band is, a certain place and time, in their development. And since you've taken the steps of reminding people of things, you seem to require being reminded that it's an article being posted online, NOT carved into granite and mounted in a monument to itself in an ivory bowl. The very transitory nature of online writing compliments this style of article very well. You said it yourself - it's up for a WEEK. You may not think that you were disrespectful, but I think you were annoying.
|
| |
|
| | cry me a fucking river. the majority of the time I am the one defending some of stylus' arbitrary articles. |
| |
|
| | I was agreeing with you MEKsLP, until that last comment where your ego muscles it way in.
I too find it a bit tedious to read through song-by-song breakdowns, but these tracks don't appear in any other form and as I have never seen Radiohead live it's good to know what I'm missing, and have to look forward to if they ever commit any to tape.
So I can't disagree as I haven't heard any, and I doubt you have either, but I still agree with you. But KissMyGrits is right too - if you're worried about disagreeing, why bother reading anything? |
| |
|
| | "Most egregiously," Stylus needs an editor. As far as Radiohead goes, they have untapped potential live. They need to learn how to shift from song to song and even to jam a bit. They really don't explore their songs much at all. "House of Cards" is the shit, and everyone giving MEKsLP a hard time should come over here and suck my asshole. |
| |
|
| | why would you avoid reading a review for fear of disagreeing with it? i would never take the words of any reviewer as gospel let alone let it dictate my own evaluation of the object in question; just a stepping stone or a catalyst for further thought. and as for the review, it was boring and i hate when reviewers slide in their own snarky sidebars about how such-and-such a song is a low point without backing their shit up. if it's not a majority consensus, either state your complaint or leave it out altogether. |
| |
|
| | if you look at MEKsLP first comment, he says it's interesting and yet tedious. conflicted indie rockers posting on websites? what next? anyways, i think it's nice for radiohead to tour around and play a lot of new songs that are still in formative stages. there's no way every one of those songs is going to end up on a studio album sounding exactly like they did live, so in the future it'll be interesting to compare and contrast. i really like the song "videotape". the lyrics are much more overtly uplifting and don't seem like typical radiohead stuff. |
| |