My daughter Margeaux and I were in the Asian Arts Center the other day to check out an exhibition by contemporary female Vietnamese artists. That's not completely true — we went there, as we do whenever she's in town, because of its quiet, understated beauty, and the solace it offers from the hectic pace of downtown Dallas. This exhibit was new, and a pleasant surprise, with works ranging from jagged portraiture to delicate brush and ink renderings that captured the breeze dancing on brooks better than any photo ever could.
When Margeaux views a piece, she quietly inhales it, letting it wash over her to interpret it according to her own life experiences. She never attempts to second-guess the artist's original intent, and she has no patience for those who do. That explains why when the volunteer tour guides appeared from nowhere, we hastily retreated to the second floor of the Center, to further peruse Chinese and Indian antiquities in a more meditative environment.
In a roundabout way, it also explains why Radiohead:OK Computer (A classic album under review) reduces OK Computer to a fanboy exercise of pretentiousness.
.
It's been ten years since Radiohead released OK Computer, and depending on who you talk to, it's either the seminal canon of all rock music, or a paranoid post-industrial Luddite's vision of a bleak future. The truth is, it was neither... and it was both. At the time, I really thought that Radiohead was potentially the Pink Floyd for the new millennium. Ten years later, I realize they're a footnote, albeit an important one, in rock history. And while I still maintain it was one of the most important albums of 1997, that's all it was. Tom Yorke and company have moved on with their lives.
The makers of this documentary, however, have not. What we have here is a collection of Brit rock critics dissecting every lyric, every chord, every note in some instances, in a vain attempt to elevate the album to a Work of Art. It's a valiant effort, but not a very compelling argument. They take each song on the album, inject it with their personal world visions and come to the conclusion that it's a work that's way too heavy for mere mortals to grasp.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - chrisb
I haven't seen this DVD, but obviously it's instance within a much broader genre of documentaries discussing "classic albums". I'm more than happy for people to disllike that genre, but I would be interested to hear your opinion in that regard, Ray. Do you dislike the genre, or do you just think that OK Computer is unworthy of the 'honour'? If it's the latter, then we've got a problem! ;)
2 - Glen Boyd
I always liked Kid A and Amnesiac better anyway.
-Glen
3 - Tom Johnson
I agree with most of what you say, Ray, with regards to the overzealous applauding of OKC. It is, however, a great, great album, and just like most great, great albums, it's just going to get those and wear out its welcome. I can't listen to most albums that receive that much attention - they just bore me - but OKC is different because I lived it and it became a part of me. While I'm just adding to the applause, I'd say that OKC is one of the 90s' best albums, along with U2's Achtung Baby.
What I don't agree with, however, is the notion that Radiohead is just a "footnote." For a statement like that to make sense, you've got to say a lot more about their standing in the music world, and from where I sit, they seem a lot more important than merely a footnote. Just the fact that OKC continually winds up named on best-of lists makes them anything but a footnote, and that people like Glen then stand up and say "I like Kid A and Amnesiac better" says quite a bit, doesn't it?
4 - Mark Saleski
this is interesting. every 6 months or so, i pull out OK Computer and make another attempt. the same thing happens every time, just like my first listen.
...nothing.
and i'm not one of those "hate it because it's popular" people either. i do remember reading all of the hype about the band, though at the time i didn't know any of their music (not even "Creep"). then i heard an interview with Yorke, i think done by Terry Gross. anyhow, i bought the record...sort of expecting to be bowled over.
nothing. at least nothing that King Crimson hadn't already done.
somehow, i remained intrigued and ended up with both Kid A, and Amnesiac...both of which i really love.
5 - Ray Ellis
Thanks for all the input. My intent here was not to talk about OK Computer per se, but to indict so-called critics who put together this kind of tripe. While OK Computer is one of the most important albums of the 90's in terms of impact( as fleeting it was), this DVD offered no insights into its making. Rather, it consisted of tiny snippets of the album, used as an excuse for the co-called experts to tell us what Yorke and Company were attempting to convey.
I respect the opinions of you guys--and I don't think there's one among you who would second-guess the artist in the way these guys did. We're all keenly aware that criticism is subjective.
Sadly, there was no criticism as advertised in this package. It was all "golly gee" wrapped up in junior college intellectualism.
Again, thanks to all--and I hope I answered your question, Chris B.
6 - zingzing
"nothing. at least nothing that King Crimson hadn't already done."
ok. the first song kinda sounds like king crimson. true. that guitar is straight-up robert fripp. agreed.
there are a few patches with screechy, lightening fast guitar runs that also smack of fripp, but they are pretty few and far between. sometimes, a bit of structure (i'm thinking of paranoid android) could be crimson-inspired. but it's not as if crimson were the only ones to have done that (i'm thinking beach boys).
ok computer gets the crimson thing because those first notes remind you of fripp. from there, you could certainly here some crimson if you were so inclined. but to say that ok computer is nothing that king crimson hadn't already done is just not true.
it's not my favorite radiohead (it's maybe my fourth favorite), but it is still a good, forward-looking album. on somewhat of a smaller scale, it has been this generation's sgt. pepper (if only on a musical level).
7 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
I personally think it gets the "Pinnacle of Rock" treatment due to its over-exposure from media outlets. Not to say it is a bad album but I feel the difference between them & Pink Floyd was that Floyd had f*cking boatloads of talent & Radiohead got lucky. I don't know how anyone could compare them anyways. PF was(one of)the ultimate prog-rock bands that constantly pushed the envelope and Radiohead was a band that got popular with Creep. Which was a rip off of some tune(I forget).
AND...Let's just forget about Green Day,please. Talk about follow the leader syndrome. Who wasn't releasing an album about Bush,etc...? US Bombs put out far more political material that rang the truth far before Green Day found out how to rake in the cash!! Green Day never released a good album and should just quit!! Those f*cks helped to destroy punk!!
8 - zingzing
big guppy: "Radiohead was a band that got popular with Creep."
yes, they did become popular because of that. then they put out "fake plastic trees" as a single, which is about as uncommercial as you can get. then they released a six-minute multisectioned prog epic. then! then they put out the inscrutible kid a? yet they still maintained most of their popularity. luck? they did their best to fuck it all up!
btw--i find floyd to be pretentious yaps with a few notable exceptions. beyond that i find them boring with a few less notable exceptions.
9 - Glen Boyd
I think OK Computer is a really great, but if it is even possible -- somewhat overated album. So on that level, I kind of get what Ray is saying.
There's really nothing there that wasn't done ten times over by the likes of Pink Floyd, King Crimson and Peter Gabriel era Genesis twenty years prior. At the time these bands were mainly labeled as being overblown and pretentious for doing exactly the same thing--the difference being of course, that they did it first.
Only this time around, it is being called by some--okay, by many even--the most innovative record ever. Puh-leeese.
That said, I do really dig the album and I love Radiohead the band. I especially love them as a live band. Just don't mistake what they do for innovation.
This is where I kind of get what Ray is talking about in terms of how a bunch of so-called music critics fall all over themselves here without offering anything really substantive.
On a strictly personal level though, again--I dig Kid A and Amnesiac a lot more. At this point, Radiohead moved from putting a modern dressing on seventies prog-rock to doing their take on the minimalist synth rock of the Bowie/Eno Berlin Trilogy.
Same deal basically in terms of it modernizing something previously done, but far more interesting musically--at least to my ears.
-Glen
10 - Christopher Rose
To my taste, Radiohead peaked with "Creep" and got progressively more pretentious and whiny from then on. Shame.
11 - Christopher Rose
And, yes, Guppusmaximus makes a great point. Green Day are a mockery of the spirit and ethos of punk.
I worry a lot about what passes as music these days. There have been no new genres of music for about twenty years now. Hip-Hop is at least 25 years old, punk is over 30 years old and rock itself well over 50. What the hell is going on?
12 - A CItizen
Interesting thread- However, it is unbelievable how off the mark it is.
To compare Radiohead to Pink Floyd is absurd. I have never understood that comparison (nor the prog rock one either).
While PF capitalized on the dark side of the psychedelic movement of the late 60's (becoming formulaic and quite frankly borning), Radiohead is constantly changing and pushing the medium. Each release has it's own motif and influences. Ranging from the Beatles to Nirvanna, Charles Mingus to the Aphex Twins. They are also not always immediately accesable, which is quite a feat for a pop band.
OKC is their shiny, pop album, Paranoid Android is a take off of Happiness is a Warm Gun by the Beatles- Let Down an homage to the Beach Boys. What it did was gave them the cred and independence to move onto the experimental stuff that makes them unique. Their influence is felt on almost everyone in the industry, ranging from Coldplay to Muse, to new bands like Union of Knives. To hold onto the golden chalace of ancient prog rock bands like King Crimson completely misses the point-
The point being is besides their records being in the record bins of your local record store collecting dust, where are they today? Are they doing anything DIFFERENT, or are they all out of work or sitting at home collecting royalty checks? Adriene Belew is still playing small 300 person venues (he is from my home town).
Anyway- Radiohead is completing their new album this year and I can't wait to buy it.
13 - Syd Barett
I quite agree ..stop overanalysing what an album means..its quite personal for each person and he/she may even take it differently from what the artist wants to say..especially when it comes to abstract lyrics and tunes.
In terms of pushing the envelope without falling into the shitty art syndrome,Radiohead are miles ahead of Floyd.Just for sheer consistency and quality of work they get a 10. Radiohead arent todays Pink Floyds - you could Floyd were trying to do a Radiohead back then, which they did pretty well but not consistently.
14 - Mark Saleski
OKC is their shiny, pop album
yeesh. that the darkest shiny pop album ever made.
15 - A CItizen
Pop is pop- popular, sells millions, makes millions- let's not make it more than what it is.
For every dark song like Climbing the Walls, there are songs like Airbag and Lucky that are about rebirth. Paranoid Android are about taking the piss out of snobby people. Subtn Homesick Alien is about wanting to be abducted by aliens- taken from a grade school writing project- How bloody serious is THAT?
Most are jokes anyway- Like No Surprises in a childs toybox major key- You have to put your tongue in cheek to get away with that! Fitter Happier is hilarious! Even Let Down is over the top- Even Thom Yorke says he was joking when he wrote it-
"I was pissed in a club, and I suddenly had the funniest thought I'd had for ages - what if all the people who were drinking were hanging from the bottles... if the bottles were hung from the ceiling with string, and the floor caved in, and the only thing that kept everyone up was the bottles?"
Even the band doesnt take themselves very serious- why should anyone else?
16 - Glen Boyd
Anyway, for all the energy we are spending talking and yes, even analyzing this much about them--I guess that alone somewhat proves their continuing "relevance".
-Glen
17 - Ray Ellis
If nothing else, it keeps the party rolling, eh, Glen?
18 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Ok...Let's get beyond this Prog thing. Both PF & Radiohead were just creating music that they both envisioned but PF is "Pretentious & Whiny" for it?
HA!! Radiohead is far more prententious, whiny & overrated than most bands and as for pushing the envelope...I don't buy it. Here's my reasoning:
1993: Radiohead releases Pablo Honey = Boring ass post grunge Bullshit!!
Atheist releases Elements = Phenomonal Latin/Jazz/Metal with the idea that they didn't want to use double bass.
Cynic releases Focus = far more progressive than anything Radiohead will ever create in their entire existence!!
Just 2 years prior... Mr. Bungle releases their compilation on WB Records which is absolutely mind blowing!!
Believe me, I could keep going! I just don't understand how Radiohead gets such attention. I mean that's fine if you like 'em but don't ever put down one of the greatest bands in the history of music (yes, Pink Floyd)because you think you have some f*cking idea of what pushing the boundaries are.
*off my soapbox*
19 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
*BTW* If you're gonna mention The Mars Volta...I suggest you try listening to Watchtower - Control & Resistance first. Just to get an idea where prog was really going in the 80's.
20 - A CItizen
I think everyone likes to take "ownership" of bands they like and defend the living crap out of them. Music is very closely tied to memory- where you were in a situation of your life. A band is "great" depending on how relevant they are to you. Regardless of prog rock vs pop- It's good to have that connection- you dont always need to dissect it.
21 - Glen Boyd
OK Citizen A, I'll bite.
For me, Radiohead moved from a band I kind of liked to a band I became somewhat obsessed with when I saw them live at the Gorge here in Washington State in what I want to say was around 2001.
There are no particularly personal memories assocaited with the experience, as in nothing profound like the loss of a loved one or a newfound romance. It was just a great weekend with some close friends. But I did really "GET" Radiohead as a band for the first time at that concert. Much the same way I really "GOT" people like Bruce Springsteen after seeing them live for the very first time.
But I know exactly what you mean about how great music is often associated with the memory of personal experience. I have great memories of such things that will forever be associated with the music of everyone from The Monkees as a sixth grader stuck in puppy love with the ever so cute girl I fantasized over back then, to Uriah Heep and Black Oak Arkansas when I had long since graduated to the raging hormonal maniac I became in high school.
But these days, having long since gone through all the shit that comes with the various travails of adult life--the ups and the downs; the betrayls and the bullshit--the music that I choose to listen to is something that is pretty much judged on the merits of the music alone.
And on purely musical terms, the music of Radiohead hits me pretty hard. Like Springsteen, they are also most fully appreciated once you've seen them live.
-Glen
22 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"A band is "great" depending on how relevant they are to you."
No offense Citizen, I can agree about emotional ties to music because of memory,but, I am so tired of that statement. The subjectivity of music is an easy stance to take until you realize that it is great musicianship & great songwriting skill together that make a Great band.
My experience being a diehard, dedicated metal head that dabbles very heavily in the fusion genre has shown me that for every one popular "Radiohead" (or in my case the horrible Hardcore/Metal that's dominating the airwaves here in the US) there are always like ten other bands that are putting out material just as good or even better.
I completely agree with Glen. You can appreciate music on quite a few levels and to limit it to pure emotion or connection to the past is, well, quite limiting. Only listening to music that way doesn't give you an opportunity to learn. Don't get me wrong,I love music as well.
23 - A CItizen
You see what defines great is terribly subjective. It's the difference between caviar and hot dawg at a baseball stadium. Both have their fans- There are people who can't stand either. Music is the same way (meatal, classical,jazz)
Suprisingly, anytime I listen to a radiohead album the first time I freaken HATE it. Can't stand it. Then after about three listenings it gets me and I can't listen to anything else-
Thats the difference. Most other bands have this hook mostly on the surface because the publics attention span is so short- radiohead buries their hooks so deep- its almost unaccesable the first listening. I bought OKC when it first came out, listened to it twice and then forgot about it. For two years.
Went back,listened to it again- and haven't put it down.
24 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
It seems to me that you force yourself to like something because you feel that there are no other alternatives. AND,reducing a highly educated subject to a comparison of foods doesn't mean that subjectivity exists. It just shows(to me) that,maybe, alot of people don't understand music and they don't have a clue what is actually good.
I mean, you even said it yourself:"Most other bands have this hook mostly on the surface because the publics attention span is so short"
If that is the case, those people will never fully understand such a complex subject. Those people will never understand what it takes to master an instrument and have the intelligence and creativity to push musical boundaries. Sure, Music can be entertaining and that's what can make it seem subjective to most. BUT, when you get right down to it,the musicians that push the envelope...The people that really put together the most outstanding work are the ones who live & breathe music.
This is just the way I feel about it...
A person could recommend a band to me and I may check 'em out. But what have they listened to besides that? What have they sat down to and appreciated? What kind of ear do they have for music? Just because someone likes it...Doesn't mean it is good.
25 - Jim Robyatson
Creep was by far their finest moment, and remains their most popular song for good reason. The Bends was their finest album, albeit with nothing on there to quite match Creep. OK Computer was fair (the band were so adored by the press at that point that they could've put out a blank CD and had it hailed as the greatest record of all time), and subsequent albums were tuneless tosh. Only hyperbolic Radiohead sadsacks will contest otherwise - it's why Radiohead are no longer relevant to mainstream music, with records entering high in the charts, only to fade into obscurity the next week. They have no mass appeal outwith their fanbase anymore and that's because they can no longer write songs. I hold no hope for their upcoming album - perhaps they should just pack it in before further tarnishing their legacy and embarrassing people, like myself, who were fans when they used to write good music and have witnessed their tragic downfall.