This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The article says the name On a Friday came from the fact they were formed on a friday, but I always it was named that way because they could only practice on fridays.
This article needs a rewrite for grammar. Every couple of sentences is a grammatical mistake which detracts from the authoritative quality of the article. If you're going to edit this article, at least be somewhat careful.
Could we have an article about radiohead that's not gush and fluff written unobjective fans? Reading this article you'd think that Radiohead was the undisputed greatest band ever.
Umm on the page someone wrote "little did they know that 'on a friday' would become the BEST BAND EVER!!!" this was clearly written by a fan boy and is not only POV but bad writing, i think a 15 year old has been screwing around here somewhere.
Besides, Ryan Adams is a tosser ;) -- Robert Merkel
list of singles would be nice, if anyone can remember them all. i'm buggered if i can. fill in the gaps - anyone can play guitar, creep, just, street spirit, fake plastic trees, karma police, paranoid android, no surprises, pyramid song, and whatever the other one off amnesiac was...don't have my cds here so I can't look :) AW
Right - Just by Radiohead - best song ever? Discuss. -- Bbtommy
Not sure which one, but wouldn't Dylan have to have best song ever? Perhaps Tangled up in Blue?
Wasn't High and Dry a single (it had a music video IIRC)?
OT: Just probably is my fav' radiohead song - though I don't think Radiohead nearly as good as people claim (it's been downhill since The Bends - and the last couple of 'experimental' albums have been un-listenable self-indulgent crap). - stewacide 05:58 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
I totally disagree. I can't stand their stuff before OK Computer, and I think it's gotten better and better from there! But that's music for you. More comments below Pema
Bends best, of course. And Kid A - its quite good, and quite listenable, as long as you're not searching for a 3 minute pop single. atorpen
Some of the singles someone else has added look dodgy to me. I've marked ones I *KNOW* were never sold as "promo only", but I'm not convinced some of them exist - the only one I remember being released to radio stations is Optimistic. will check some discographies, but anyone else have comments?
I know it off by heart, so I've revised the singles list- the promos were listed in the wrong order and its probably cheeky to regard 'How To Disappear Completey' as a single, but hey, go figure. Also added 'Pop Is Dead', 'My Iron Lung' (which was a British single before it was an import E.P) and tidied the order and years of 'The Bends' singles. -Zoo
I think I'm gonna edit some of their history, which includes a lot of cool stuff I've never seen by the way, nice work! Like their original name, and where radiohead came from. These guys are one of my favourite bands, so I can fill in some of the blanks. Follow me Around is a great source for discographic information. Pema
I've never heard of Radiohead as a progressive rock band, and neither has allmusic (they list anything even remotely valid). They are progressive and they are rock, but that doesn't mean they are progressive rock per se... Allmusic lists experimental rock, which seems more appropriate to me. Tuf-Kat
They're beyond overrated. It literally disgusts me how much the internet community worships them.
I love radiohead's music for artistis reasons, because it makes me feel things that i don't want to deny. it's had a big impact on my life, and nobody can accurately say that they're good or they're bad. they're just artists making art.
And they're certainly not progressive rock. word to that. they're a rock band that never wanted to be a rock band, then they turned into an electronic band, and that's how i liked them best. now they're a more relaxed rock band, but the reason they rule is that it's never been about rock n roll or electronica or any of that soddy shit. while most musicians rely on musical style as their art form, these guys just use it 'cause it's there, to make art. Whether I'm listening to something that Thom made on his PowerBook, or a live recording of just him and his guitar, it brings up the same feelings in me.
My source: http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/
What you think doesn't matter, do you have a source? It's a message on their official website against your intuition, so you have no right to change the article.
Sorry, but do you understand the notion of irony? Its clearly a joke. Why would the band really change their name to thay of a big American private investment corporation with links to the Bush family, etc. Why hasn't the band released an official statement regarding this? Why hasn't the website changed? The front page still says 'Radiohead Internet'. It was a joke!!! Do you Americans get irony?????-- Richj1209 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we Americans do understand irony. Apparently, however, we do not understand satire or double entendre.
I work for waste, and manage the server for Radiohead, and I can assure you that some people just don't understand English humour. /Woollyhat2
Google and Wikipedia search make it clear Brett Boucher is some college sports player who plays guitar on the side and has inserted his name repeatedly into this article and maybe others. Either that, or the Brett Boucher who is doing this to us is another, even lesser known one.
I have 99.9% certainty this is vandalism. And it has happened repeatedly. Needs to be straightened out. Can someone say who the hell Brett Boucher is and provide documentation Radiohead was influenced by him, or else it'll be deleted again?
Edit: I have uncovered the vandal's myspace page. www.myspace.com/brettboucher
Are all of those fan sites necessary? We don't want this to become a link-list for upping contributers' Page ranks. I've no problem if each of those sites deserves to be in the list, but I think it's important to note what they are/aren't adding to the information content. I would think an official site and one or two good fan sites (w/ news etc.) should be enough. I can't see that the fifth fan site listed adds anything that the other four lack.
-- Rory ☺ 13:54, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Went to some effort to identify these site's popularity, based on Google Page rank and reletive number of links from external sites. I've removed three of them, left the top two. -- Rory ☺ 16:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Hey, to be fair, Radiohead have one of, if not the, biggest web presence in terms of fan community. Its practically an industry in itself! Maybe worth a note in the article?- Zoo
what about the discography site listed - i think that's a useful resource... Fakeasanything 09:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I added vocals to Ed O'Brien's contribution to the band on both guitar and vocals, as he does pretty much all backing vocals live and often on record. Is it neccesary to add Phil Selways contribution to There There, where I believe he sings? It doesnt say so in the HTTT booklet.
I am working on doing an early history, school days style thing on the 'head. Anyone want to lend a hand? -- Newdawnfades 22:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Phil does not provide backing vocals on enough tracks to mention it. Even Ed, I think, has not sung backing vocals on any studio album since OK Computer-- Thom does them all himself through overdubs-- but Ed continues to provide backing vocals in concert. They were asked about this sometime in a Hail to the Thief interview and explained it. I think the only track Phil has EVER done backing vocals on is the live version of "There There." It's unlikely he even sang back in the Pablo Honey days, even live, because those songs were pretty similar from live to album and in old live performances I've seen Phil never sings. "There There" is a special case because Jonny and Ed are on drums, allowing Phil to sing.
I've made a few changes over the last few days, mostly adding some more info on albums, tracks and editing the prose style into what I understand is the house style here at Wik. But one question though - why don't people add a little more detail about what Radiohead (and many other rock band entries) actually sound like? Just some basic information would be good, explaining to the uninitiated what a "rocking sound" actually sounds like. A little extra info on how one album sounds different to another would also help the Encyclopedia stylee. Nesbitt 05:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 2004.11.11 - Seconded. If someone wants to know "what that Radiohead fuss is all about" from here, he should be given at least a vague but reasonable hint of what the discography sounds like, so that he can start with something with the most chances to appeal to him. Or, if he has already loved/hated one album, he should be given a hint of how the others are similar or different to what he knows.
So for what it's worth, I've attempted a genre description for each album in the Albums section (btw renamed to Studio Albums) some days ago, mostly using recognizable and understandable categories (so as to be useful) even if they don't 100% fit, under heading/disclaimer "approximative genre overview".
I don't claim them to be perfect, but keep in mind they're supposed to be helpful to the unitiated -- the people most likely to dispute them are those who already know the albums by heart and don't *need* the info in the first place.
this section is a bit odd. if i was going to think of 2 bands most like radiohead i wouldn't have put coldplay. somebody should expand the list or it should get deleted. --- bob
Ok, I did what I could. I'm proud of it, I must say and I'll make it bigger. I indend to put more material about Pablo Honey and the Bends and Ok Computer sections, because as you can see the last two album sections surpass their first two. So far - so good. It's a real pleasure working on Radiohead... If you plan something bigger change on the page, which you think will make it better - please, let's discuss it first. As a major contributor for the page I think I've earned my right to know what's happening with the article. -- Painbearer 20:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)Painbearer
Excellent work I think. If you want to - do some corrections, but I like what happened. It's my greatest pride to see this...-- Painbearer 21:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Meeting People Is Easy" contains loads of footage of the band performing "Creep" during the tour for OK Computer, so I don't think the reference to the band's refusal to play it up until recently is all that accurate.
The header of the OK Computer section says "the height of their popularity," but in fact despite the fame and critical acclaim of that album, it either didn't quite or only barely (don't remember) go platinum, possibly due to the fact that OKC only started getting the fawning reviews by the magazine end-of-year lists - it didn't make a huge splash upon its release. In contrast, Kid A went platinum in its first week. So while OKC may be the source of their popularity, it wasn't the height of it; that came with Kid A (though they haven't fallen much from there).
I propose that the last sentence of the 'Radiohead by others' should be deleted as it is irrelevant. The fact that Radiohead like Sigur Ros in this part of the entry doesnt make any sense at all. -- Richj1209 12:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the Jamie Callum mention needs to be there, since it is for only a single song and not a full album. I think that listing every recorded Radiohead cover is beyond the scope (never mind the ability) of this entry. Thoughts? Padraic 03:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Don't see any problems in mentioing artists who have covered Radiohead; single or album. -- Madchester 16:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
There should really be a list at least of the cover albums that have been done. There has been an unusually large number of them, and at least four are classical (off the top of my head). I've always felt that the interest other musicians, especially classical, have shown in Radiohead's work is very telling of how exceptional they are. It's an important bit of information that shows how much the music is respected that's missing from the article.-- 24.190.122.122 13:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Australian musician Frank Bennett gave an unconventional makeover to Radiohead's song "Creep" on his 1996 album "Five O'Clock Shadow", performing it in the style of Frank Sinatra. The album has been deleted, but..
Does anyone think we're going too far by listing "approximate genre overviews" next to the albums? Can anyone even tell me what the hell electro progressive rock is? And isn't "experimental abstract rock w/jazz" a bit too wordy to even mean anything to the average reader? Isn't "experimental abstract" pretty redundant?
I seems to have become common consesus that thom and jonny are the principal song writers. I would argue against this notion, i think saying that thom writes the songs and jonny builds on them is over simplistic.
this is pure speculation.
how do we know how they write music as a band? phil could play guitar in the studio for all we know (thom plays bass on "National Anthem" on the album recording, for example).
anybody else feel the same?
The band always credit everyone with regards to songwriting. They try to avoid Pink Floyd-esque situations this way, and divide royalties equally. But Thom and Jonny are the 'brains' behind Radiohead, however. Thom is the sole lyric-writer, whereas Jonny can be seen as the most 'creative' member of the group musically. -- Richj1209 11:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I edited this part before reading this. I didn't do anything major to it, just emphasized that the whole band has a role in it though Thom and Jonny are the primary song writers. I don't want to get into a pissing match about Radiohead fandom, but I know as much as anyone about them and the version that's in the article right now sounds pretty damn accurate to me.-- 24.190.122.122 13:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
2005 - 10 July A fair bit of the information on early Radiohead comes from a site called radiohead biography | ateaseweb.com http://www.ateaseweb.com/biography/ And I think that explains some lacunae in this article. All of a sudden Chris Hufford is quoted, without context, hyperlink, etc., and then disappears. Who IS this guy? Turns out he was one of those who ran Courtyard Studios and produced "Manic Hedgehog Demo." The wikipedia page then goes on to say that Hufford says that releasing Drill EP was "not a clever move." But if you read the original of this, Hufford's saying that in addition to producing, he'd taken on the role of manager, and that's what wasn't a clever move because it was "A huge conflict of interests. I think Thom was very insecure of my involvement. I'd had that happen to me as an artist when one of our managers acted as producer. There was definitely some friction on that front." The way the wikipedia page is now, it just doesn't make sense. Why was the EP not a clever move? Radiohead does that alot. Answer: The EP was ok -- it was Hufford saying there was too much contradiction and conflict in him taking on too many roles (and too much power, it seems). Does this make more sense to anyone else? Also, we should know -- is Chris Hufford still associated with Radiohead (managing? producer????). I don't want to make changes, 'cuz I love Radiohead but I don't really know much of the history. Just looking to raise some editorial issues so the page has more info. Thanx - kagillogly
Yes, Chris Hufford IS still their manager, along with Bryce Edge, so far as I know. I found this a major omission in the article too. Hufford and Edge ran the local Courtyard Studios in Oxfordshire (gawd, it's so easy to type Oxfordshite, lol) through which they produced and maybe managed many bands including Slowdive (the shoegaze scene, i.e. Ride, Chapterhouse, Slowdive was the main thing within indie rock in the Oxford area at the time, and a slight influence can be heard in certain tracks of Pablo Honey. I have a Slowdive album that credits at least one of them as producer.) Anyway, they got the job of producing Radiohead after they were sent the band's original 14 or 15 track (not sure) demo tape, which is the one that was leaked on the internet in 2002 after being taken for lost. This is another inaccuracy of the article, it says Manic Hedgehog was the "first demo." That is totally wrong. They released either two or three demos including "Manic Hedgehog" (so named for the store in which it was sold) in 1991-2 that were recorded in Courtyard Studios and had the backing of Bryce & Edge, though not a label. But they had previously recorded this first demo on their own. Confusion arises because the later 2 or 3 demos with only a few songs each appeared in stores and the earlier much longer one did not, in fact, presumably multiple demo quality recordings were recorded for their own purposes throughout the first few years On a Friday existed (Thom made a "demo" of "Creep" for instance, which he sent to other band members while in college), so the very meaning of "demo" is in question here. Anyway, whatever we call it, apparently Hufford and/or Edge were unconvinced by that demo until they heard the final song. There is all sorts of speculation as to what that song may have been on their original tape, as the 2002 leaked version changed names and possibly order, but "New Generation" seems to fit. There is a great website with all sorts of info about the history of the On a Friday days and the 2002 leak called I'm Tired Sleep Tonight or something like that.
Hey, I managed to do this comment w/o putting in my user name. Now it's in.
kagillogly
There needs to be more work on the singles discography. I recently copyedited/added a new infobox to Street Spirit (Fade Out) and Karma Police.
Unless I'm mistaken, I think Mariah Carey has a better singles discography than this page. -- Madchester 16:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Where are people getting their information about the release date of the new album? People have added info ranging from November 2005 to June 2006, with little sourcing. Ario 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello there.... I added information about 'Lucky' and the War Child 1995 album Help in the 'OK Computer' section. I've also cleaned up some elements of the 'New Album' page, adding a link for Dead Air Space and correcting the assertion that 'House of Cards' was from the OK Computer sessions, when this was not the case. 'Last Flowers' was, though. I've also added information about the Ether Festival and the Trade Justice gig, which I was surprised no-one had entered as these are the only 'gigs' Radiohead (well some of, anyway) have played this year. -- Richj1209 11:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Whoever keeps adding the Matt Carter/Subconscious Dream plugs, it's really useless, futile, and not even very funny. "Jack Mehoff" would even be more clever, but continuing to add your inside joke and re-add it after it is removed is just pointless. If you have some legitimate reason for this, please list it here. And yeah, it doesn't matter if you switch IPs or usernames every time you make that edit, we can still see it and change it back. Ario 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how Radiohead's music "compares" to any of them. This list seems to have been created for the purpose of namedropping as many respected artists as possible. If the editor meant to list influences cited by the band (for instance, Yorke cites Talking Heads' Remain in Light as in influence), then this information should be moved to an appropriate section (not the lead) and properly sourced. If it's meant to be a list of "unconscious" influences not neccesarily cited by the band, then the connection between them needs to be demonstrated.— jiy ( talk) 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of that "infamous relationship with napster" mentioned in the ok computer article in the main article as well?
Shouldn't think so, as I don't think Napster was around in 1997. -- Richj1209 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the label 'progressive' is something that the band themselves have shied away from and that Jonny has stated that he is too young to have been influenced by '70's prog rock. Nonetheless, much of their work does share characteristics with progressive rock as described in the wikipedia. They also sit fairly happily in the 'alternative' genre. It may depend which album, or indeed, song is being considered - 'Just' alternative, 'The National Anthem' progressive. Should both adjectives be applied or is that sitting on the fence? Redkaty 13:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I propose that there at least should be some small mention of Radiohead's involvement with political issues, particuarly in regards to the Free Tibet campaign, Drop the Debt, CND, Trade Justice groups and most recently, Friends of the Earth. It could be argued that this has rubbed off on 'Hail to the Thief' and some elements of 'Kid A' and 'Amnesiac'. -- Richj1209 11:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
YES. I heartily agree. And actually they are also involved at a more local level in charities though they don't trumpet it. Phil, for instance, is and has been since before joining the band, a volunteer for the Samaritans, which is a British helpline organization for the suicidal or depressed; ironically (in light of that), Radiohead has been called a slit-your-wrists band, which is something else that needs to be mentioned, hopefully with some opposing evidence as well in the article itself. Early Radiohead and Nirvana were closely linked by the press, and one critic even suggested Thom should/would kill himself. Differences and similarities between these bands and their frontmen at least need to be hinted at. Thom is an "anti-rock-star," and Radiohead aren't your prototypical/mythical hotel-trashing dopefiend rockers, which never comes across in the article either. Thom and his band have been more successful at avoiding the kind of co-optation Cobain felt he underwent, while still managing to have a lot of people listen to them. Maybe it's just that Thom is a more sophisticated thinker or songwriter and tries to move ahead the mainstream (or behind as the case may be-- drawing from older obscure music) in order to challenge it, rather than throwing up his middle finger at it in an attempt to be real, which he tried for a little while back in 1993 and realized led nowhere but greater fame and artificiality.
This article is severely lacking in those sociopolitical areas which have come increasingly to dominate Thom's songwriting as he came to this realization on The Bends, and then began looking almost entirely outside himself for songwriting material on OK Computer. Not just the past three but OK Computer in a less obvious way (and its b-sides, more literally) is suffused with suspicion of the new global economy, of corporate-imposed culture and political correctness, of people living their lives thinking they have choices when in Yorke's view they are "pigs in a cage on antibiotics" (which is probably the worst line he ever wrote, but whatever). None of this comes through, and the individual articles on Kid A and OK Computer, though more informative about these specific albums, are even more flawed than this general one.
In fact Wiki's "Radiohead" is severely lacking in many, many areas, to the point I suggest it be taken immediately out of the "good" category until some massive rewriting and changes are done. It's not one of the worst on Wiki by any means, but it's hardly one of the 200some best. Especially considering the huge Radiohead-fan internet presence and the inspiration of Radiohead themselves, this article is disappointing for its lack of depth, poor organization, disproportionate concentration on chronological band history only, many grammar problems and examples of poor, inconsistent or over-repetitive writing throughout the article, and some very annoying, though not that major, factual inaccuracies. Reading this article a newbie to the band, much less to rock, would get little sense 1. what they sound like, other than lots of namedrops of influences (some of which are close to being wrong) 2. what they stand for, musically, lyrically, personally, symbolically, commercially, culturally, 3. why they are considered such a "seminal" band for our era by their fans and by music critics, and why these people don't prefer all the bands that keep sounding the same from year to year, are actually played on the radio, have good looking people in them, and sell.
Some of the people who edited this article appear to have a good grasp on Radiohead, some do not, but regardless the end product leaves something to be desired at this stage. -Paul
More crucially, I agree that the article is lacking. There is plenty of information, but we have much to do to improve the writing. I've removed the Good Article template. ( omphaloscope talk) 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"as the bandmembers are capable enough to produce it themselves"
I don't really like this. It's awfully speculative, and from what interviews I've read, the Kid A and Amnesiac sessions would have collapsed if not for Nigel. Perhaps I'm being a bit picky over one sentence, but it seems much out of place in what is supposed to be an encylopedia. Gamiar 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I do agree to a point....It is true what you say about Godrich and Kid A....although the band are indeed capable to produce it themselves. Perhaps the sentence should be re-worded to avoid assumptions. -- Richj1209 09:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Which is better?
( [1] in article history)
...comprising five musicians:
(current version by 64.201.77.221)
...comprising five musicians:
I suggested the wordier one. I think it's more professional: if the NYTimes or the Guardian had info on band members, I wouldn't expect to see it done like a Powerpoint presentation. It also clears up some false parallelisms: Jonny plays lead guitar, but he doesn't play the effects pedals or the laptop. Still, maybe it's frilly, or gets awkward. Feelings/suggestions on this? -- Omphaloscope 04:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The Britpop article suggests Radiohead is Britpop (and they sound like Britpop to me). Should they be added to Category:Britpop musical groups? — Ashley Y 07:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Britpop is not that easy to define. I mean, when we use "Britpop" we are implying "90s Britpop" or "00s Britpop" really, and the only other kind is '60s Britpop; the term doesn't seem to have been used as much throughout the '70s and '80s.
A general definiton now seems to be British POP (i.e. reasonably accessible) music played by a rock band, that gets popular. Because there is such a difference between some of the music. The only common thread is that anything called Britpop has to have had massive success in Britian in either the '60s or the '90s/00s or to sound very similar to music that did. By being successful, it stopped being just pop music or rock and became "Britpop," defining the popular of the country.
Arguably if Coldplay, Travis or the Verve's Urban Hymns (which Coldplay's best stuff is basically a ripoff/homage to) is considered to exemplify "Britpop", then songs like "Let Down," "No Surprises" or even "Airbag" are Britpop too. None of these songs relate directly to Britain, but they became popular and ultimately contributed to what the stereotypical British sound these days is.
Britpop bands like Blur were also singing about the dark side of Britain, just in a lighter way. I think pre-Kid A Radiohead could definitely be considered Britpop in some way, though they weren't one of the bands defining the movement then even if their influence eventually did sink in.
But the major error in those sentences is to imply any of these bands was writing music to sell the "Cool Britannia" image or help Tony Blair. It's irrelevant to this article which bands were or weren't Britpop, except where Radiohead is concerned, but still, none of these bands, least of all Radiohead, "participated in Cool Britannia," in fact they and other big "Britpop" bands were writing songs critical of modern Britain at this very time, although the coolness and high quality of their music may have unintentionally helped the UK's image. But the article's wording makes it sound like Cool Britannia was some battle of the bands officiated by Blair. Blair was two years from being PM in 95, so what does he have to do with anything?
This article is riddled with claims about the success of Radiohead, its influences, its sound. It's not surprising; I certainly find it difficult to resist the urge to contribute my own idea, or my friends' ideas', of what Radiohead is. But all of this is original research.
What's I've begun doing is to add "" or "" next to such claims, e.g.:
What I'd like to see is some substantiation to these claims, and others. Or I'd like to see all of these claims erased until some citations of music reviews, discussion fora, or accountants' sheets appear. ( omphaloscope talk) 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The real problem with an article like this is it's undeniably stating things that need substantiation (though without being POV really, as it cites both sides) but in the Internet age, there IS a form of substantiation for claims about what fans of a given band or style of music (or fans or haters of anything really) think as a group, and that's internet forums. But Wikipedia doesn't have a practice of treating someone's post on an internet forum as documentation, do they? It's not a "published" source, so that wouldn't seem right. At the same time, about the only way to get a sense of what fans think about something is to interact with them, and whether online or in real life, this is not a verifiable, empirical thing like a citation in a book. What are we supposed to say, "This guy on Ateaseweb.com, x fan, thinks Radiohead is however," or "My acquaintances online over the past decade have given me the general impression of whatever," or "webmaster of whatever site, when just interviewed by me, drew the general conclusion of whatever about the opinions of users of the site, Radiohead fans," Now THAT would be POV or original research. Someone could (and people have) write a very speculative, poorly researched, uninformed, money-grubbing book about a popular rock band such as Radiohead, and anything that was in it could be cited as fact on Wikipedia. This is something I'm not getting about Wiki, the conflict between, on the one hand, lack of respect for self-appointed "experts" on a topic being above other people in terms of deciding what goes in an article, and on the other hand, the requirement that sources for articles themselves be "experts," and not only that, but ones published by a print publisher or a major website.
This new revision is not good, don't get me wrong. It's not encyclopedic in style and way too long. But it is still accurate and informative and decently written. I've noticed some of the pop music related pages seem to adhere to different style guidelines, whether by accident or not. They allow a lot more opinions into them, not exactly in a biased sense but just in order to get across what people identify with, or dislike, in the music. A true encyclopedia should not be like that, it should be concise and fact based. The page on Michael Stipe or Eazy-E (which I just cited for good article) are good examples of what encyclopedia style articles should truly be, short and to the point. They don't reveal a tiny fraction of the important aspects of these people's music, influence, personal life that are well known from interviews, and they don't make any of the useful, true, non-POV commentaries that could be made to inform someone of these men's importance. In fact reading the Stipe article, he doesn't sound terribly interesting. There's a sentence about things that could be SUMMARIZED in three or four paragraphs, and no mention of others at all. That's what proper encyclopedia articles are supposed to be like. Annoyingly brief if you're well aware of the topic, but accessible and informative for newcomers.
However, Wikipedia will never be like that in its current structure without oversight, and maybe that isn't such a bad thing although it will mean it's never the neat, clean entity some want it to be, it'll always tend toward more, rather than better chosen, information. There will always be the tendency to add more material to articles like that, because there is always more interesting and relevant material that can be added, and pretty soon the page gets to the length of an All Music bio, and when it's at that stage, there is even more tendency to add material because it's already in such an unmanageable state. The old text that was replaced by this recent edit was much shorter, but it was still quite long, and it was also much worse in terms of factual basis. If an article is already too long, it may as well be a little longer and convey a little more. Three paragraphs of pure fact on Stipe or any musician is okay. Dozens of paragraphs of pure fact (some of it purely wrong) on Radiohead can't help but give an innacurate or incomplete picture of who they are and bores the reader with chronology. Seriously, the lets-report-what-they-did-each-month history outline is not a good one, especially when it's so easily found on a Radiohead website. I guess I want an article that will inform someone what Radiohead is about, not just what they did, but that'll do it very briefly, using a few pieces of well chosen quotes or evidence rather than making nebulous grand claims.
I admit to editing it, and I planned to edit it much more. It was an alternative to an unknown user like me coming and demanding its "good" status be removed, because this article was (and is) in no way "good." But I don't really care about any of that text I put in, it's just replacement for the BS that was there. Feel free to delete. What I care about is 1. accuracy, which was off throughout the article in some minor ways, I noted some of them down privately and was going to make changes, 2. writing style, which was bad, 3. sense of the subject a reader without an idea of them would get from it, which was really nonexistent despite all the detailed information
Since there are endless things to write about for this band, but that other sites can handle and that would make a Bible out of this if it were to incorporate them, I think this article should be entirely rewritten to four paragraphs long, max, in true encyclopedic fashion with every word in its right place. Let's try it.
They are POV. They are used inconsistently. On the other hand, they are cool and funny. But I'm taking them out. ( omphaloscope talk) 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
EDIT: I'm adding U2 and Nirvana to this rant just in case someone in the future tries adding them in as well. All three of these bands could be mentioned in the article, they all have similarities the media has remarked on so much that they could be mentioned, whether or not they have any validity. In terms of musical style it is obvious Pablo Honey and parts of The Bends either are inspired by U2 and Nirvana or are inspired by similar bands as U2 and Nirvana.
However, since the band rarely mentioned U2 and intentionally never mentioned Nirvana as an influence, THEY CANNOT GO IN THE "INFLUENCES" SECTION, WITHOUT A DISCLAIMER. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH A GIVEN EARLY OR EVEN LATE RADIOHEAD SONG SOUNDS LIKE U2, NIRVANA OR PINK FLOYD TO YOU PERSONALLY, OR TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW. WITHOUT THE BAND HAVING CLAIMED THEM AS AN INFLUENCE, THE FURTHEST YOU CAN GO IS TO REMARK THAT THESE BANDS ARE OFTEN NAMED AS INFLUENCES BY THE MEDIA. Or, you could mention them in another section of the article-- for example it would be accurate to say that Radiohead is "often seen as assuming the mantle of U2 or Nirvana or Floyd," because whatever that actually means, it is something they are often "seen" to be doing, whether or not they have done it.
This is not to say Radiohead's opinion should determine the text of the article. In fact, members of Radiohead may love Nirvana and U2 for all I know (and some members may love Pink Floyd). The point is, for "influences" to mean anything worth having a separate section on, they cannot be subjective, you find them out in band interviews. For every time they've mentioned U2, they've mentioned a hundred more obscure artists, even in the old days.
original rant follows:
Stop adding Pink Floyd back into the article. It's okay to cite Floyd as similar to Radiohead, although that is completely a POV thing, but THEY ARE NOT AN "INFLUENCE." Influences is something we have to take the band's own word on. Do you guys who have never read an interview with Radiohead want me to start quoting them for you?
Imo, there are only a few Radiohead songs that even sound like Floyd, "Sail to the Moon" and then the rest are on OK Computer or The Bends. Kid A doesn't sound even remotely like Pink Floyd, and Pink Floyd meets Aphex Twin is stupid. I never saw that quote outside Wikipedia, I think it's original research. I get the feeling people editing that back in have very little experience of arty rock outside artists as big as Radiohead and Floyd, otherwise they would stop comparing the sound of the two's music. Yes, they both have Orwell influences. that doesn't mean Thom has to have studied Animals, maybe he studied 1984 and Animal Farm instead. Yes, they are both synthy and multilayered. But so is Neu!, an admitted RH influence from Floyd's same era, maybe that's where they got their ideas.
Bottom line is, zero evidence Radiohead has ever claimed Floyd as an influence, much less an early one. What were they were listening to while recording OK Computer? The white album and Ennio Morricone. Jonny Greenwood actually said in an interview from the '90s that he hated Pink Floyd but he heard the Meddle album sometime around when OK Computer came out and liked that one. Ed said his girlfriend made him watch a documentary about Pink Floyd's working methods making Dark Side... and he realized despite never identifying with the band there were eerie similarites between their working method. The only other time I remember Floyd being cited is in the Meeting People Is Easy documentary, as an example of a corporate rock band that just sits around and has board meetings (described in very negative tones by the band). If that is considered a major early influence, I don't get it. It seems Radiohead set out from the start inspired by punk and post-punk, wanting to become a band as different as possible from Pink Floyd, only to end up fulfilling a remarkably similar function in the music industry.
--A. (I will now go by this for courtesy sake, I'm the one who edited the article and made the previous anonymous rant)
EDIT ok lets be honest.1) of course you can hear floyd in radioheads music.2)just because they havent said in interviews therir an influence doesnt mean they arnt
I didn't mean we need to trust the band's own word on everything, but we can't just lump together ones the band admits to all the time and ones the band is conspicously silent about or denies when asked. If the media and fans tend to assume something about Radiohead and Floyd, that is very relevant to the article, but not to the influences section, or not the same part of it at least. Bands like U2, Nirvana and Floyd need to be somehow differentiated from bands like Can or the Pixies, who may to most people's ears sound much less like Radiohead, but are ALWAYS cited by them. There is a memorable quote about "prog rock" from Thom that may be relevant here, I think it's found in the Thom Yorke article.
The Pink Floyd thing just has to go anyway. Why? Because it says "EARLY influences." Neither band members NOR any critics and fans mentioned Pink Floyd as an influence on the earliest Radiohead. I am not sure whether or not U2 is an admitted early influence on Radiohead, but you can clearly hear some U2 in the early music, as many people pointed out then. You can't hear much Pink Floyd in the early music.
I am just listing plain errors in the article now, if you need more elaboration or source for my info tell me.
I stop my comments here.
I've changed the description of Abingdon school to fall in line more with the linked article. I have used the term private as this will be clearly understood by non-English readers whereas public, although accurate, is misleading. The use of the term grammar did not help so I have removed that too. ( Redkaty 11:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
You should put it back to "English public school" and provide a link to the Wiki article on that subject, to make clear it's not the kind of public school an American or Canadian might think of. Even if Wikipedia was just for a non-British audience, which it isn't, that specific term has a specific meaning a bit different from just "private school" in the US sense, and is very relevant. A scholar named Dai Griffiths even wrote an entire paper on Radiohead's particular status as a band defined by their British public schooling. It's apparently much more class-related even than private school in America. I'm American btw, but if anyone reading the article doesn't know what a public school means in the UK, they could benefit by learning.
A while back, I edited "band were" to "band was", because the latter uses the wrong conjugation of the verb "to be". It was switched back. Why? According to Wiktionary's entry on be, was would be the proper form:
Present indicative | Past indicative | Present subjunctive | Past subjunctive | |
First-person singular | am | was | be | were |
---|---|---|---|---|
Second-person singular | are or, obsolete, art | were or, obsolete, wast | be | were or, obsolete, wert |
Third-person singular | is | was | be | were |
First-person plural | are | were | be | were |
Second-person plural | are | were | be | were |
Third-person plural | are | were | be | were |
Since band is singular and not plural, shouldn't it be followed by was and not were. For instance, instead of "Even though the band were already fairly certain that they wanted to keep playing together..." try "Even though the band was already fairly certain that they wanted to keep playing together...". I don't know, maybe my grammar stinks, but it sounds weird to me. -- Thebends 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a point, but you see that a band represents a group of people, so... I think it should be were. Dunno, me neither, I am not into the depth of gramatic truth of the English language. You see, I'm not a native speaker and I tried not add lines that I am not sure of. So most of the things that are listed here aren't so much done by me.
The article currently reads
What exactly does this mean? Assuming we replace "vice versa" with whatever it stands for, what do we get? "Radiohead has sometimes been cited as a "mainstream" band within the outsider? It doesn't make any sense. Can someone please explain what this sentence is supposed to mean, and then change it so it say that? Nohat 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It means Radiohead is a mainstream band (popular, signed to a major label) that is seen to reflect an atypically "outsider" mentality, compared to other famous rock bands. Basically, that they are a cult band with leftist political views and more experimental/intellectual taste in other art than you might expect for rock stars of their stature. They function as a gateway to experimental and independent music. I admit it is quite POV, but much less than some things in this article. There are numerous sources that could be cited, starting with a long New Yorker article of 2001 (whose title was I think "The Outsiders"), or numerous others as well.
Why is there an external link to W.A.S.T.E., a site that sells Radiohead merchandise? Aren't the external links supposed to deepen the reader's understanding of whatever they're reading about? Buying a shirt doesn't deepen my knowledge of the band! -- Thebends 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
W.A.S.T.E. is also the place where tours are announced and tickets are sold, so it ought to be interesting for fans? /pocki
W.A.S.T.E. is the official fan club for radiohead and is the main site for tour and gig announcements and has a large collection of external links to radiohead fan sites around the world. And yes, it also sells ethically produced merchandise on behalf of the band. Personally I think it should be included but as an interested party, I'll let other make that decision. /Woollyhat2
I'm not sure of the relevance of this sentence: "Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon has so far sold over 40 million copies worldwide (and the band have been very quick to publicise those figures), whereas Radiohead's much-acclaimed OK Computer has probably only sold a fraction of that (To date, OK Computer sales are acknowledged to be just over 8.4 million copies)."
I'm not sure that this sentence is relevant to the extent that Dark Side of the Moon has been out for 33 years, whereas OK Computer is only 9 years old. Of course Dark Side of the Moon has sold more copies than OK Computer, it would be illogical to think otherwise. Perhaps it would be more relevant to compare Radiohead's record sales with that of, say, Coldplay to whom have sold more than Radiohead's records put together, I think, already. The point that could be made would be that Radiohead's work is more respected by musician's etc. than Coldplays (for example), even though they have sold more, blah blah. Not sure. What do you think guys?-- Richj1209 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That irrelevant info seems to have gradually got in that section due to an edit I made. At first the article contained vague insinuations that Radiohead had simply "inherited the mantle" of Pink Floyd, U2, etc. whatever a "mantle" is exactly, was unclear, so I said Radiohead is often seen as inheriting the mantle artistically, but made clear that although extremely popular compared to today's indie rock bands, they are in a very different category commercially from Pink Floyd, U2, REM, the Beatles. I made the point by saying Floyd had sold more. I guess someone else felt the need to get really specific about how much more they sold.
Hi all, I'm new to wiki(pedia), so I hope I did things right.
I have edited the part about the Manic Hedgehog tape.
It's not the first demo tape, but the second.
The first one was a demo tape released in April 1991.
As far as I can tell, that tape is simply called "On a Friday".
It contains the following songs:
01 what is that you say
02 stop whispering
03 give it up
On the info page of the Manic Hedgehog demo tape I have added the tracklist.
More info can be found here: http://www.ateaseweb.com/discography/CDdemos.php
Harold
Has (Have) Radiohead changed their name to The Carlyle Group or is it just a joke? On the blog from their website it says they have, but they have been known to joke around on there. I've also found a couple of sites [2] [3] saying that the name change is real, but I'm still skeptical. Honestly, I don't believe it, but if anyone knows the truth it would be helpful. -- Thebends 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The article says the name On a Friday came from the fact they were formed on a friday, but I always it was named that way because they could only practice on fridays.
This article needs a rewrite for grammar. Every couple of sentences is a grammatical mistake which detracts from the authoritative quality of the article. If you're going to edit this article, at least be somewhat careful.
Could we have an article about radiohead that's not gush and fluff written unobjective fans? Reading this article you'd think that Radiohead was the undisputed greatest band ever.
Umm on the page someone wrote "little did they know that 'on a friday' would become the BEST BAND EVER!!!" this was clearly written by a fan boy and is not only POV but bad writing, i think a 15 year old has been screwing around here somewhere.
Besides, Ryan Adams is a tosser ;) -- Robert Merkel
list of singles would be nice, if anyone can remember them all. i'm buggered if i can. fill in the gaps - anyone can play guitar, creep, just, street spirit, fake plastic trees, karma police, paranoid android, no surprises, pyramid song, and whatever the other one off amnesiac was...don't have my cds here so I can't look :) AW
Right - Just by Radiohead - best song ever? Discuss. -- Bbtommy
Not sure which one, but wouldn't Dylan have to have best song ever? Perhaps Tangled up in Blue?
Wasn't High and Dry a single (it had a music video IIRC)?
OT: Just probably is my fav' radiohead song - though I don't think Radiohead nearly as good as people claim (it's been downhill since The Bends - and the last couple of 'experimental' albums have been un-listenable self-indulgent crap). - stewacide 05:58 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)
I totally disagree. I can't stand their stuff before OK Computer, and I think it's gotten better and better from there! But that's music for you. More comments below Pema
Bends best, of course. And Kid A - its quite good, and quite listenable, as long as you're not searching for a 3 minute pop single. atorpen
Some of the singles someone else has added look dodgy to me. I've marked ones I *KNOW* were never sold as "promo only", but I'm not convinced some of them exist - the only one I remember being released to radio stations is Optimistic. will check some discographies, but anyone else have comments?
I know it off by heart, so I've revised the singles list- the promos were listed in the wrong order and its probably cheeky to regard 'How To Disappear Completey' as a single, but hey, go figure. Also added 'Pop Is Dead', 'My Iron Lung' (which was a British single before it was an import E.P) and tidied the order and years of 'The Bends' singles. -Zoo
I think I'm gonna edit some of their history, which includes a lot of cool stuff I've never seen by the way, nice work! Like their original name, and where radiohead came from. These guys are one of my favourite bands, so I can fill in some of the blanks. Follow me Around is a great source for discographic information. Pema
I've never heard of Radiohead as a progressive rock band, and neither has allmusic (they list anything even remotely valid). They are progressive and they are rock, but that doesn't mean they are progressive rock per se... Allmusic lists experimental rock, which seems more appropriate to me. Tuf-Kat
They're beyond overrated. It literally disgusts me how much the internet community worships them.
I love radiohead's music for artistis reasons, because it makes me feel things that i don't want to deny. it's had a big impact on my life, and nobody can accurately say that they're good or they're bad. they're just artists making art.
And they're certainly not progressive rock. word to that. they're a rock band that never wanted to be a rock band, then they turned into an electronic band, and that's how i liked them best. now they're a more relaxed rock band, but the reason they rule is that it's never been about rock n roll or electronica or any of that soddy shit. while most musicians rely on musical style as their art form, these guys just use it 'cause it's there, to make art. Whether I'm listening to something that Thom made on his PowerBook, or a live recording of just him and his guitar, it brings up the same feelings in me.
My source: http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/
What you think doesn't matter, do you have a source? It's a message on their official website against your intuition, so you have no right to change the article.
Sorry, but do you understand the notion of irony? Its clearly a joke. Why would the band really change their name to thay of a big American private investment corporation with links to the Bush family, etc. Why hasn't the band released an official statement regarding this? Why hasn't the website changed? The front page still says 'Radiohead Internet'. It was a joke!!! Do you Americans get irony?????-- Richj1209 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we Americans do understand irony. Apparently, however, we do not understand satire or double entendre.
I work for waste, and manage the server for Radiohead, and I can assure you that some people just don't understand English humour. /Woollyhat2
Google and Wikipedia search make it clear Brett Boucher is some college sports player who plays guitar on the side and has inserted his name repeatedly into this article and maybe others. Either that, or the Brett Boucher who is doing this to us is another, even lesser known one.
I have 99.9% certainty this is vandalism. And it has happened repeatedly. Needs to be straightened out. Can someone say who the hell Brett Boucher is and provide documentation Radiohead was influenced by him, or else it'll be deleted again?
Edit: I have uncovered the vandal's myspace page. www.myspace.com/brettboucher
Are all of those fan sites necessary? We don't want this to become a link-list for upping contributers' Page ranks. I've no problem if each of those sites deserves to be in the list, but I think it's important to note what they are/aren't adding to the information content. I would think an official site and one or two good fan sites (w/ news etc.) should be enough. I can't see that the fifth fan site listed adds anything that the other four lack.
-- Rory ☺ 13:54, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Went to some effort to identify these site's popularity, based on Google Page rank and reletive number of links from external sites. I've removed three of them, left the top two. -- Rory ☺ 16:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Hey, to be fair, Radiohead have one of, if not the, biggest web presence in terms of fan community. Its practically an industry in itself! Maybe worth a note in the article?- Zoo
what about the discography site listed - i think that's a useful resource... Fakeasanything 09:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I added vocals to Ed O'Brien's contribution to the band on both guitar and vocals, as he does pretty much all backing vocals live and often on record. Is it neccesary to add Phil Selways contribution to There There, where I believe he sings? It doesnt say so in the HTTT booklet.
I am working on doing an early history, school days style thing on the 'head. Anyone want to lend a hand? -- Newdawnfades 22:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Phil does not provide backing vocals on enough tracks to mention it. Even Ed, I think, has not sung backing vocals on any studio album since OK Computer-- Thom does them all himself through overdubs-- but Ed continues to provide backing vocals in concert. They were asked about this sometime in a Hail to the Thief interview and explained it. I think the only track Phil has EVER done backing vocals on is the live version of "There There." It's unlikely he even sang back in the Pablo Honey days, even live, because those songs were pretty similar from live to album and in old live performances I've seen Phil never sings. "There There" is a special case because Jonny and Ed are on drums, allowing Phil to sing.
I've made a few changes over the last few days, mostly adding some more info on albums, tracks and editing the prose style into what I understand is the house style here at Wik. But one question though - why don't people add a little more detail about what Radiohead (and many other rock band entries) actually sound like? Just some basic information would be good, explaining to the uninitiated what a "rocking sound" actually sounds like. A little extra info on how one album sounds different to another would also help the Encyclopedia stylee. Nesbitt 05:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 2004.11.11 - Seconded. If someone wants to know "what that Radiohead fuss is all about" from here, he should be given at least a vague but reasonable hint of what the discography sounds like, so that he can start with something with the most chances to appeal to him. Or, if he has already loved/hated one album, he should be given a hint of how the others are similar or different to what he knows.
So for what it's worth, I've attempted a genre description for each album in the Albums section (btw renamed to Studio Albums) some days ago, mostly using recognizable and understandable categories (so as to be useful) even if they don't 100% fit, under heading/disclaimer "approximative genre overview".
I don't claim them to be perfect, but keep in mind they're supposed to be helpful to the unitiated -- the people most likely to dispute them are those who already know the albums by heart and don't *need* the info in the first place.
this section is a bit odd. if i was going to think of 2 bands most like radiohead i wouldn't have put coldplay. somebody should expand the list or it should get deleted. --- bob
Ok, I did what I could. I'm proud of it, I must say and I'll make it bigger. I indend to put more material about Pablo Honey and the Bends and Ok Computer sections, because as you can see the last two album sections surpass their first two. So far - so good. It's a real pleasure working on Radiohead... If you plan something bigger change on the page, which you think will make it better - please, let's discuss it first. As a major contributor for the page I think I've earned my right to know what's happening with the article. -- Painbearer 20:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)Painbearer
Excellent work I think. If you want to - do some corrections, but I like what happened. It's my greatest pride to see this...-- Painbearer 21:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Meeting People Is Easy" contains loads of footage of the band performing "Creep" during the tour for OK Computer, so I don't think the reference to the band's refusal to play it up until recently is all that accurate.
The header of the OK Computer section says "the height of their popularity," but in fact despite the fame and critical acclaim of that album, it either didn't quite or only barely (don't remember) go platinum, possibly due to the fact that OKC only started getting the fawning reviews by the magazine end-of-year lists - it didn't make a huge splash upon its release. In contrast, Kid A went platinum in its first week. So while OKC may be the source of their popularity, it wasn't the height of it; that came with Kid A (though they haven't fallen much from there).
I propose that the last sentence of the 'Radiohead by others' should be deleted as it is irrelevant. The fact that Radiohead like Sigur Ros in this part of the entry doesnt make any sense at all. -- Richj1209 12:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the Jamie Callum mention needs to be there, since it is for only a single song and not a full album. I think that listing every recorded Radiohead cover is beyond the scope (never mind the ability) of this entry. Thoughts? Padraic 03:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Don't see any problems in mentioing artists who have covered Radiohead; single or album. -- Madchester 16:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
There should really be a list at least of the cover albums that have been done. There has been an unusually large number of them, and at least four are classical (off the top of my head). I've always felt that the interest other musicians, especially classical, have shown in Radiohead's work is very telling of how exceptional they are. It's an important bit of information that shows how much the music is respected that's missing from the article.-- 24.190.122.122 13:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Australian musician Frank Bennett gave an unconventional makeover to Radiohead's song "Creep" on his 1996 album "Five O'Clock Shadow", performing it in the style of Frank Sinatra. The album has been deleted, but..
Does anyone think we're going too far by listing "approximate genre overviews" next to the albums? Can anyone even tell me what the hell electro progressive rock is? And isn't "experimental abstract rock w/jazz" a bit too wordy to even mean anything to the average reader? Isn't "experimental abstract" pretty redundant?
I seems to have become common consesus that thom and jonny are the principal song writers. I would argue against this notion, i think saying that thom writes the songs and jonny builds on them is over simplistic.
this is pure speculation.
how do we know how they write music as a band? phil could play guitar in the studio for all we know (thom plays bass on "National Anthem" on the album recording, for example).
anybody else feel the same?
The band always credit everyone with regards to songwriting. They try to avoid Pink Floyd-esque situations this way, and divide royalties equally. But Thom and Jonny are the 'brains' behind Radiohead, however. Thom is the sole lyric-writer, whereas Jonny can be seen as the most 'creative' member of the group musically. -- Richj1209 11:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I edited this part before reading this. I didn't do anything major to it, just emphasized that the whole band has a role in it though Thom and Jonny are the primary song writers. I don't want to get into a pissing match about Radiohead fandom, but I know as much as anyone about them and the version that's in the article right now sounds pretty damn accurate to me.-- 24.190.122.122 13:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
2005 - 10 July A fair bit of the information on early Radiohead comes from a site called radiohead biography | ateaseweb.com http://www.ateaseweb.com/biography/ And I think that explains some lacunae in this article. All of a sudden Chris Hufford is quoted, without context, hyperlink, etc., and then disappears. Who IS this guy? Turns out he was one of those who ran Courtyard Studios and produced "Manic Hedgehog Demo." The wikipedia page then goes on to say that Hufford says that releasing Drill EP was "not a clever move." But if you read the original of this, Hufford's saying that in addition to producing, he'd taken on the role of manager, and that's what wasn't a clever move because it was "A huge conflict of interests. I think Thom was very insecure of my involvement. I'd had that happen to me as an artist when one of our managers acted as producer. There was definitely some friction on that front." The way the wikipedia page is now, it just doesn't make sense. Why was the EP not a clever move? Radiohead does that alot. Answer: The EP was ok -- it was Hufford saying there was too much contradiction and conflict in him taking on too many roles (and too much power, it seems). Does this make more sense to anyone else? Also, we should know -- is Chris Hufford still associated with Radiohead (managing? producer????). I don't want to make changes, 'cuz I love Radiohead but I don't really know much of the history. Just looking to raise some editorial issues so the page has more info. Thanx - kagillogly
Yes, Chris Hufford IS still their manager, along with Bryce Edge, so far as I know. I found this a major omission in the article too. Hufford and Edge ran the local Courtyard Studios in Oxfordshire (gawd, it's so easy to type Oxfordshite, lol) through which they produced and maybe managed many bands including Slowdive (the shoegaze scene, i.e. Ride, Chapterhouse, Slowdive was the main thing within indie rock in the Oxford area at the time, and a slight influence can be heard in certain tracks of Pablo Honey. I have a Slowdive album that credits at least one of them as producer.) Anyway, they got the job of producing Radiohead after they were sent the band's original 14 or 15 track (not sure) demo tape, which is the one that was leaked on the internet in 2002 after being taken for lost. This is another inaccuracy of the article, it says Manic Hedgehog was the "first demo." That is totally wrong. They released either two or three demos including "Manic Hedgehog" (so named for the store in which it was sold) in 1991-2 that were recorded in Courtyard Studios and had the backing of Bryce & Edge, though not a label. But they had previously recorded this first demo on their own. Confusion arises because the later 2 or 3 demos with only a few songs each appeared in stores and the earlier much longer one did not, in fact, presumably multiple demo quality recordings were recorded for their own purposes throughout the first few years On a Friday existed (Thom made a "demo" of "Creep" for instance, which he sent to other band members while in college), so the very meaning of "demo" is in question here. Anyway, whatever we call it, apparently Hufford and/or Edge were unconvinced by that demo until they heard the final song. There is all sorts of speculation as to what that song may have been on their original tape, as the 2002 leaked version changed names and possibly order, but "New Generation" seems to fit. There is a great website with all sorts of info about the history of the On a Friday days and the 2002 leak called I'm Tired Sleep Tonight or something like that.
Hey, I managed to do this comment w/o putting in my user name. Now it's in.
kagillogly
There needs to be more work on the singles discography. I recently copyedited/added a new infobox to Street Spirit (Fade Out) and Karma Police.
Unless I'm mistaken, I think Mariah Carey has a better singles discography than this page. -- Madchester 16:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Where are people getting their information about the release date of the new album? People have added info ranging from November 2005 to June 2006, with little sourcing. Ario 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello there.... I added information about 'Lucky' and the War Child 1995 album Help in the 'OK Computer' section. I've also cleaned up some elements of the 'New Album' page, adding a link for Dead Air Space and correcting the assertion that 'House of Cards' was from the OK Computer sessions, when this was not the case. 'Last Flowers' was, though. I've also added information about the Ether Festival and the Trade Justice gig, which I was surprised no-one had entered as these are the only 'gigs' Radiohead (well some of, anyway) have played this year. -- Richj1209 11:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Whoever keeps adding the Matt Carter/Subconscious Dream plugs, it's really useless, futile, and not even very funny. "Jack Mehoff" would even be more clever, but continuing to add your inside joke and re-add it after it is removed is just pointless. If you have some legitimate reason for this, please list it here. And yeah, it doesn't matter if you switch IPs or usernames every time you make that edit, we can still see it and change it back. Ario 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how Radiohead's music "compares" to any of them. This list seems to have been created for the purpose of namedropping as many respected artists as possible. If the editor meant to list influences cited by the band (for instance, Yorke cites Talking Heads' Remain in Light as in influence), then this information should be moved to an appropriate section (not the lead) and properly sourced. If it's meant to be a list of "unconscious" influences not neccesarily cited by the band, then the connection between them needs to be demonstrated.— jiy ( talk) 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of that "infamous relationship with napster" mentioned in the ok computer article in the main article as well?
Shouldn't think so, as I don't think Napster was around in 1997. -- Richj1209 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the label 'progressive' is something that the band themselves have shied away from and that Jonny has stated that he is too young to have been influenced by '70's prog rock. Nonetheless, much of their work does share characteristics with progressive rock as described in the wikipedia. They also sit fairly happily in the 'alternative' genre. It may depend which album, or indeed, song is being considered - 'Just' alternative, 'The National Anthem' progressive. Should both adjectives be applied or is that sitting on the fence? Redkaty 13:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I propose that there at least should be some small mention of Radiohead's involvement with political issues, particuarly in regards to the Free Tibet campaign, Drop the Debt, CND, Trade Justice groups and most recently, Friends of the Earth. It could be argued that this has rubbed off on 'Hail to the Thief' and some elements of 'Kid A' and 'Amnesiac'. -- Richj1209 11:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
YES. I heartily agree. And actually they are also involved at a more local level in charities though they don't trumpet it. Phil, for instance, is and has been since before joining the band, a volunteer for the Samaritans, which is a British helpline organization for the suicidal or depressed; ironically (in light of that), Radiohead has been called a slit-your-wrists band, which is something else that needs to be mentioned, hopefully with some opposing evidence as well in the article itself. Early Radiohead and Nirvana were closely linked by the press, and one critic even suggested Thom should/would kill himself. Differences and similarities between these bands and their frontmen at least need to be hinted at. Thom is an "anti-rock-star," and Radiohead aren't your prototypical/mythical hotel-trashing dopefiend rockers, which never comes across in the article either. Thom and his band have been more successful at avoiding the kind of co-optation Cobain felt he underwent, while still managing to have a lot of people listen to them. Maybe it's just that Thom is a more sophisticated thinker or songwriter and tries to move ahead the mainstream (or behind as the case may be-- drawing from older obscure music) in order to challenge it, rather than throwing up his middle finger at it in an attempt to be real, which he tried for a little while back in 1993 and realized led nowhere but greater fame and artificiality.
This article is severely lacking in those sociopolitical areas which have come increasingly to dominate Thom's songwriting as he came to this realization on The Bends, and then began looking almost entirely outside himself for songwriting material on OK Computer. Not just the past three but OK Computer in a less obvious way (and its b-sides, more literally) is suffused with suspicion of the new global economy, of corporate-imposed culture and political correctness, of people living their lives thinking they have choices when in Yorke's view they are "pigs in a cage on antibiotics" (which is probably the worst line he ever wrote, but whatever). None of this comes through, and the individual articles on Kid A and OK Computer, though more informative about these specific albums, are even more flawed than this general one.
In fact Wiki's "Radiohead" is severely lacking in many, many areas, to the point I suggest it be taken immediately out of the "good" category until some massive rewriting and changes are done. It's not one of the worst on Wiki by any means, but it's hardly one of the 200some best. Especially considering the huge Radiohead-fan internet presence and the inspiration of Radiohead themselves, this article is disappointing for its lack of depth, poor organization, disproportionate concentration on chronological band history only, many grammar problems and examples of poor, inconsistent or over-repetitive writing throughout the article, and some very annoying, though not that major, factual inaccuracies. Reading this article a newbie to the band, much less to rock, would get little sense 1. what they sound like, other than lots of namedrops of influences (some of which are close to being wrong) 2. what they stand for, musically, lyrically, personally, symbolically, commercially, culturally, 3. why they are considered such a "seminal" band for our era by their fans and by music critics, and why these people don't prefer all the bands that keep sounding the same from year to year, are actually played on the radio, have good looking people in them, and sell.
Some of the people who edited this article appear to have a good grasp on Radiohead, some do not, but regardless the end product leaves something to be desired at this stage. -Paul
More crucially, I agree that the article is lacking. There is plenty of information, but we have much to do to improve the writing. I've removed the Good Article template. ( omphaloscope talk) 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"as the bandmembers are capable enough to produce it themselves"
I don't really like this. It's awfully speculative, and from what interviews I've read, the Kid A and Amnesiac sessions would have collapsed if not for Nigel. Perhaps I'm being a bit picky over one sentence, but it seems much out of place in what is supposed to be an encylopedia. Gamiar 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I do agree to a point....It is true what you say about Godrich and Kid A....although the band are indeed capable to produce it themselves. Perhaps the sentence should be re-worded to avoid assumptions. -- Richj1209 09:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Which is better?
( [1] in article history)
...comprising five musicians:
(current version by 64.201.77.221)
...comprising five musicians:
I suggested the wordier one. I think it's more professional: if the NYTimes or the Guardian had info on band members, I wouldn't expect to see it done like a Powerpoint presentation. It also clears up some false parallelisms: Jonny plays lead guitar, but he doesn't play the effects pedals or the laptop. Still, maybe it's frilly, or gets awkward. Feelings/suggestions on this? -- Omphaloscope 04:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The Britpop article suggests Radiohead is Britpop (and they sound like Britpop to me). Should they be added to Category:Britpop musical groups? — Ashley Y 07:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Britpop is not that easy to define. I mean, when we use "Britpop" we are implying "90s Britpop" or "00s Britpop" really, and the only other kind is '60s Britpop; the term doesn't seem to have been used as much throughout the '70s and '80s.
A general definiton now seems to be British POP (i.e. reasonably accessible) music played by a rock band, that gets popular. Because there is such a difference between some of the music. The only common thread is that anything called Britpop has to have had massive success in Britian in either the '60s or the '90s/00s or to sound very similar to music that did. By being successful, it stopped being just pop music or rock and became "Britpop," defining the popular of the country.
Arguably if Coldplay, Travis or the Verve's Urban Hymns (which Coldplay's best stuff is basically a ripoff/homage to) is considered to exemplify "Britpop", then songs like "Let Down," "No Surprises" or even "Airbag" are Britpop too. None of these songs relate directly to Britain, but they became popular and ultimately contributed to what the stereotypical British sound these days is.
Britpop bands like Blur were also singing about the dark side of Britain, just in a lighter way. I think pre-Kid A Radiohead could definitely be considered Britpop in some way, though they weren't one of the bands defining the movement then even if their influence eventually did sink in.
But the major error in those sentences is to imply any of these bands was writing music to sell the "Cool Britannia" image or help Tony Blair. It's irrelevant to this article which bands were or weren't Britpop, except where Radiohead is concerned, but still, none of these bands, least of all Radiohead, "participated in Cool Britannia," in fact they and other big "Britpop" bands were writing songs critical of modern Britain at this very time, although the coolness and high quality of their music may have unintentionally helped the UK's image. But the article's wording makes it sound like Cool Britannia was some battle of the bands officiated by Blair. Blair was two years from being PM in 95, so what does he have to do with anything?
This article is riddled with claims about the success of Radiohead, its influences, its sound. It's not surprising; I certainly find it difficult to resist the urge to contribute my own idea, or my friends' ideas', of what Radiohead is. But all of this is original research.
What's I've begun doing is to add "" or "" next to such claims, e.g.:
What I'd like to see is some substantiation to these claims, and others. Or I'd like to see all of these claims erased until some citations of music reviews, discussion fora, or accountants' sheets appear. ( omphaloscope talk) 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The real problem with an article like this is it's undeniably stating things that need substantiation (though without being POV really, as it cites both sides) but in the Internet age, there IS a form of substantiation for claims about what fans of a given band or style of music (or fans or haters of anything really) think as a group, and that's internet forums. But Wikipedia doesn't have a practice of treating someone's post on an internet forum as documentation, do they? It's not a "published" source, so that wouldn't seem right. At the same time, about the only way to get a sense of what fans think about something is to interact with them, and whether online or in real life, this is not a verifiable, empirical thing like a citation in a book. What are we supposed to say, "This guy on Ateaseweb.com, x fan, thinks Radiohead is however," or "My acquaintances online over the past decade have given me the general impression of whatever," or "webmaster of whatever site, when just interviewed by me, drew the general conclusion of whatever about the opinions of users of the site, Radiohead fans," Now THAT would be POV or original research. Someone could (and people have) write a very speculative, poorly researched, uninformed, money-grubbing book about a popular rock band such as Radiohead, and anything that was in it could be cited as fact on Wikipedia. This is something I'm not getting about Wiki, the conflict between, on the one hand, lack of respect for self-appointed "experts" on a topic being above other people in terms of deciding what goes in an article, and on the other hand, the requirement that sources for articles themselves be "experts," and not only that, but ones published by a print publisher or a major website.
This new revision is not good, don't get me wrong. It's not encyclopedic in style and way too long. But it is still accurate and informative and decently written. I've noticed some of the pop music related pages seem to adhere to different style guidelines, whether by accident or not. They allow a lot more opinions into them, not exactly in a biased sense but just in order to get across what people identify with, or dislike, in the music. A true encyclopedia should not be like that, it should be concise and fact based. The page on Michael Stipe or Eazy-E (which I just cited for good article) are good examples of what encyclopedia style articles should truly be, short and to the point. They don't reveal a tiny fraction of the important aspects of these people's music, influence, personal life that are well known from interviews, and they don't make any of the useful, true, non-POV commentaries that could be made to inform someone of these men's importance. In fact reading the Stipe article, he doesn't sound terribly interesting. There's a sentence about things that could be SUMMARIZED in three or four paragraphs, and no mention of others at all. That's what proper encyclopedia articles are supposed to be like. Annoyingly brief if you're well aware of the topic, but accessible and informative for newcomers.
However, Wikipedia will never be like that in its current structure without oversight, and maybe that isn't such a bad thing although it will mean it's never the neat, clean entity some want it to be, it'll always tend toward more, rather than better chosen, information. There will always be the tendency to add more material to articles like that, because there is always more interesting and relevant material that can be added, and pretty soon the page gets to the length of an All Music bio, and when it's at that stage, there is even more tendency to add material because it's already in such an unmanageable state. The old text that was replaced by this recent edit was much shorter, but it was still quite long, and it was also much worse in terms of factual basis. If an article is already too long, it may as well be a little longer and convey a little more. Three paragraphs of pure fact on Stipe or any musician is okay. Dozens of paragraphs of pure fact (some of it purely wrong) on Radiohead can't help but give an innacurate or incomplete picture of who they are and bores the reader with chronology. Seriously, the lets-report-what-they-did-each-month history outline is not a good one, especially when it's so easily found on a Radiohead website. I guess I want an article that will inform someone what Radiohead is about, not just what they did, but that'll do it very briefly, using a few pieces of well chosen quotes or evidence rather than making nebulous grand claims.
I admit to editing it, and I planned to edit it much more. It was an alternative to an unknown user like me coming and demanding its "good" status be removed, because this article was (and is) in no way "good." But I don't really care about any of that text I put in, it's just replacement for the BS that was there. Feel free to delete. What I care about is 1. accuracy, which was off throughout the article in some minor ways, I noted some of them down privately and was going to make changes, 2. writing style, which was bad, 3. sense of the subject a reader without an idea of them would get from it, which was really nonexistent despite all the detailed information
Since there are endless things to write about for this band, but that other sites can handle and that would make a Bible out of this if it were to incorporate them, I think this article should be entirely rewritten to four paragraphs long, max, in true encyclopedic fashion with every word in its right place. Let's try it.
They are POV. They are used inconsistently. On the other hand, they are cool and funny. But I'm taking them out. ( omphaloscope talk) 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
EDIT: I'm adding U2 and Nirvana to this rant just in case someone in the future tries adding them in as well. All three of these bands could be mentioned in the article, they all have similarities the media has remarked on so much that they could be mentioned, whether or not they have any validity. In terms of musical style it is obvious Pablo Honey and parts of The Bends either are inspired by U2 and Nirvana or are inspired by similar bands as U2 and Nirvana.
However, since the band rarely mentioned U2 and intentionally never mentioned Nirvana as an influence, THEY CANNOT GO IN THE "INFLUENCES" SECTION, WITHOUT A DISCLAIMER. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH A GIVEN EARLY OR EVEN LATE RADIOHEAD SONG SOUNDS LIKE U2, NIRVANA OR PINK FLOYD TO YOU PERSONALLY, OR TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW. WITHOUT THE BAND HAVING CLAIMED THEM AS AN INFLUENCE, THE FURTHEST YOU CAN GO IS TO REMARK THAT THESE BANDS ARE OFTEN NAMED AS INFLUENCES BY THE MEDIA. Or, you could mention them in another section of the article-- for example it would be accurate to say that Radiohead is "often seen as assuming the mantle of U2 or Nirvana or Floyd," because whatever that actually means, it is something they are often "seen" to be doing, whether or not they have done it.
This is not to say Radiohead's opinion should determine the text of the article. In fact, members of Radiohead may love Nirvana and U2 for all I know (and some members may love Pink Floyd). The point is, for "influences" to mean anything worth having a separate section on, they cannot be subjective, you find them out in band interviews. For every time they've mentioned U2, they've mentioned a hundred more obscure artists, even in the old days.
original rant follows:
Stop adding Pink Floyd back into the article. It's okay to cite Floyd as similar to Radiohead, although that is completely a POV thing, but THEY ARE NOT AN "INFLUENCE." Influences is something we have to take the band's own word on. Do you guys who have never read an interview with Radiohead want me to start quoting them for you?
Imo, there are only a few Radiohead songs that even sound like Floyd, "Sail to the Moon" and then the rest are on OK Computer or The Bends. Kid A doesn't sound even remotely like Pink Floyd, and Pink Floyd meets Aphex Twin is stupid. I never saw that quote outside Wikipedia, I think it's original research. I get the feeling people editing that back in have very little experience of arty rock outside artists as big as Radiohead and Floyd, otherwise they would stop comparing the sound of the two's music. Yes, they both have Orwell influences. that doesn't mean Thom has to have studied Animals, maybe he studied 1984 and Animal Farm instead. Yes, they are both synthy and multilayered. But so is Neu!, an admitted RH influence from Floyd's same era, maybe that's where they got their ideas.
Bottom line is, zero evidence Radiohead has ever claimed Floyd as an influence, much less an early one. What were they were listening to while recording OK Computer? The white album and Ennio Morricone. Jonny Greenwood actually said in an interview from the '90s that he hated Pink Floyd but he heard the Meddle album sometime around when OK Computer came out and liked that one. Ed said his girlfriend made him watch a documentary about Pink Floyd's working methods making Dark Side... and he realized despite never identifying with the band there were eerie similarites between their working method. The only other time I remember Floyd being cited is in the Meeting People Is Easy documentary, as an example of a corporate rock band that just sits around and has board meetings (described in very negative tones by the band). If that is considered a major early influence, I don't get it. It seems Radiohead set out from the start inspired by punk and post-punk, wanting to become a band as different as possible from Pink Floyd, only to end up fulfilling a remarkably similar function in the music industry.
--A. (I will now go by this for courtesy sake, I'm the one who edited the article and made the previous anonymous rant)
EDIT ok lets be honest.1) of course you can hear floyd in radioheads music.2)just because they havent said in interviews therir an influence doesnt mean they arnt
I didn't mean we need to trust the band's own word on everything, but we can't just lump together ones the band admits to all the time and ones the band is conspicously silent about or denies when asked. If the media and fans tend to assume something about Radiohead and Floyd, that is very relevant to the article, but not to the influences section, or not the same part of it at least. Bands like U2, Nirvana and Floyd need to be somehow differentiated from bands like Can or the Pixies, who may to most people's ears sound much less like Radiohead, but are ALWAYS cited by them. There is a memorable quote about "prog rock" from Thom that may be relevant here, I think it's found in the Thom Yorke article.
The Pink Floyd thing just has to go anyway. Why? Because it says "EARLY influences." Neither band members NOR any critics and fans mentioned Pink Floyd as an influence on the earliest Radiohead. I am not sure whether or not U2 is an admitted early influence on Radiohead, but you can clearly hear some U2 in the early music, as many people pointed out then. You can't hear much Pink Floyd in the early music.
I am just listing plain errors in the article now, if you need more elaboration or source for my info tell me.
I stop my comments here.
I've changed the description of Abingdon school to fall in line more with the linked article. I have used the term private as this will be clearly understood by non-English readers whereas public, although accurate, is misleading. The use of the term grammar did not help so I have removed that too. ( Redkaty 11:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
You should put it back to "English public school" and provide a link to the Wiki article on that subject, to make clear it's not the kind of public school an American or Canadian might think of. Even if Wikipedia was just for a non-British audience, which it isn't, that specific term has a specific meaning a bit different from just "private school" in the US sense, and is very relevant. A scholar named Dai Griffiths even wrote an entire paper on Radiohead's particular status as a band defined by their British public schooling. It's apparently much more class-related even than private school in America. I'm American btw, but if anyone reading the article doesn't know what a public school means in the UK, they could benefit by learning.
A while back, I edited "band were" to "band was", because the latter uses the wrong conjugation of the verb "to be". It was switched back. Why? According to Wiktionary's entry on be, was would be the proper form:
Present indicative | Past indicative | Present subjunctive | Past subjunctive | |
First-person singular | am | was | be | were |
---|---|---|---|---|
Second-person singular | are or, obsolete, art | were or, obsolete, wast | be | were or, obsolete, wert |
Third-person singular | is | was | be | were |
First-person plural | are | were | be | were |
Second-person plural | are | were | be | were |
Third-person plural | are | were | be | were |
Since band is singular and not plural, shouldn't it be followed by was and not were. For instance, instead of "Even though the band were already fairly certain that they wanted to keep playing together..." try "Even though the band was already fairly certain that they wanted to keep playing together...". I don't know, maybe my grammar stinks, but it sounds weird to me. -- Thebends 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a point, but you see that a band represents a group of people, so... I think it should be were. Dunno, me neither, I am not into the depth of gramatic truth of the English language. You see, I'm not a native speaker and I tried not add lines that I am not sure of. So most of the things that are listed here aren't so much done by me.
The article currently reads
What exactly does this mean? Assuming we replace "vice versa" with whatever it stands for, what do we get? "Radiohead has sometimes been cited as a "mainstream" band within the outsider? It doesn't make any sense. Can someone please explain what this sentence is supposed to mean, and then change it so it say that? Nohat 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It means Radiohead is a mainstream band (popular, signed to a major label) that is seen to reflect an atypically "outsider" mentality, compared to other famous rock bands. Basically, that they are a cult band with leftist political views and more experimental/intellectual taste in other art than you might expect for rock stars of their stature. They function as a gateway to experimental and independent music. I admit it is quite POV, but much less than some things in this article. There are numerous sources that could be cited, starting with a long New Yorker article of 2001 (whose title was I think "The Outsiders"), or numerous others as well.
Why is there an external link to W.A.S.T.E., a site that sells Radiohead merchandise? Aren't the external links supposed to deepen the reader's understanding of whatever they're reading about? Buying a shirt doesn't deepen my knowledge of the band! -- Thebends 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
W.A.S.T.E. is also the place where tours are announced and tickets are sold, so it ought to be interesting for fans? /pocki
W.A.S.T.E. is the official fan club for radiohead and is the main site for tour and gig announcements and has a large collection of external links to radiohead fan sites around the world. And yes, it also sells ethically produced merchandise on behalf of the band. Personally I think it should be included but as an interested party, I'll let other make that decision. /Woollyhat2
I'm not sure of the relevance of this sentence: "Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon has so far sold over 40 million copies worldwide (and the band have been very quick to publicise those figures), whereas Radiohead's much-acclaimed OK Computer has probably only sold a fraction of that (To date, OK Computer sales are acknowledged to be just over 8.4 million copies)."
I'm not sure that this sentence is relevant to the extent that Dark Side of the Moon has been out for 33 years, whereas OK Computer is only 9 years old. Of course Dark Side of the Moon has sold more copies than OK Computer, it would be illogical to think otherwise. Perhaps it would be more relevant to compare Radiohead's record sales with that of, say, Coldplay to whom have sold more than Radiohead's records put together, I think, already. The point that could be made would be that Radiohead's work is more respected by musician's etc. than Coldplays (for example), even though they have sold more, blah blah. Not sure. What do you think guys?-- Richj1209 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That irrelevant info seems to have gradually got in that section due to an edit I made. At first the article contained vague insinuations that Radiohead had simply "inherited the mantle" of Pink Floyd, U2, etc. whatever a "mantle" is exactly, was unclear, so I said Radiohead is often seen as inheriting the mantle artistically, but made clear that although extremely popular compared to today's indie rock bands, they are in a very different category commercially from Pink Floyd, U2, REM, the Beatles. I made the point by saying Floyd had sold more. I guess someone else felt the need to get really specific about how much more they sold.
Hi all, I'm new to wiki(pedia), so I hope I did things right.
I have edited the part about the Manic Hedgehog tape.
It's not the first demo tape, but the second.
The first one was a demo tape released in April 1991.
As far as I can tell, that tape is simply called "On a Friday".
It contains the following songs:
01 what is that you say
02 stop whispering
03 give it up
On the info page of the Manic Hedgehog demo tape I have added the tracklist.
More info can be found here: http://www.ateaseweb.com/discography/CDdemos.php
Harold
Has (Have) Radiohead changed their name to The Carlyle Group or is it just a joke? On the blog from their website it says they have, but they have been known to joke around on there. I've also found a couple of sites [2] [3] saying that the name change is real, but I'm still skeptical. Honestly, I don't believe it, but if anyone knows the truth it would be helpful. -- Thebends 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)