From my short affiliation with Acclaimed Music, I have learnt how little I know about music, and to bow down to most of the other people on this forum for their musical knowledge, appreciation and expertise. In terms of mainstream-ish music, I know my stuff relatively well, from Pet Sounds to Vampire Weekend; but I wouldn’t claim to be familiar with any of the work of LCD Soundsystem, for example. Yet there is one question I would dare to ask my superiors on musical knowledge: why are Radiohead so acclaimed?

When I first discovered this amazing website, I only knew a handful of Radiohead songs, and I was positively shocked to see their position on the AM artist rankings. How could it be that this band I have barely touched upon is considered by musical experts to be so much better than their nineteenies contemporaries Blur, for instance, who, in my eyes, were and still are far more innovative (okay, I’ll take the point that in their prime they just repackaged Britpop), influential and above all listenable? Having now listened to the cream of the Radiohead catalogue countless times, my question still remains. I mean come on: the top ten, above Hendrix?

To my perhaps untrained ear, the majority of Radiohead’s songs seem dry and detached (with the exception of ‘Creep’, which I agree is a brilliant song), yet lacking the sharpness to allow them to get away with the distant feel. I hear no spectre of emotions in Thom Yorke’s voice, as so many professional reviewers apparently can. I’ll admit that they are a very good album band, as reflected by their AM rankings, but very good is the limit of my appraisal. They are very good, on a level with Pulp or The Jam, were maybe one of the leading bands in world music for a short time, but not great. Of course, the thing which underpins all musical acclaim is opinion. But why the opinion of critics and learned fans alike is so universally and extensively in Radiohead’s favour, as reiterated by OK Computer topping AMF’s latest album poll and almost simultaneously moving up the AM album rankings, I don’t think I shall ever understand.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Radiohead and have too limited a knowledge of Radiohead’s discography and musical context to stand up to the judgment of thousands of experts. I am happy to trust the consensus of the knowledgeable over my own relatively uninformed judgment. I would just like someone with that knowledge, preferably someone unbiased, to explain to me how and why Radiohead have come to be the ultimate symbol of critical success in pop/rock music (you might like to pick me up on my rather damning critical analysis of their music too). Also, does anyone else think the same as me? Did anyone used to think the same? Are they a band whose music grows on you with time? One thing’s for sure: right now I don’t get Radiohead, and were I in a more informed position, I would be tempted to argue objectively for them being very overrated.

I think you just did. There are probably a lot of people who agree with you, too. I fall somewhere in between.

I've picked up OK Computer and Kid A in the past year. I like them, but I don't LOVE them. I can understand why they are loved, but there's a lot out there that I think deserves as much attention!

Alex, I used to think Radiohead were really cool and innovative, but not really something I want to listen to. Now I'm a true believer.

One of my very good friends is obsessed with Radiohead. Whenever he got control of the ipod doc, I would always hear the now very familiar synths that open Everything In It's Right Place. I searched up some of their more well-known songs on youTube, and like you, decided that Creep was their best.

After some more exposure, and the recommendation of every AMF poll the site has ever ran, I decided to would listen to OK Computer front to back, opposed to the usual listening of Paranoid Android and Karma Police. I was shocked at how much sense the music made to me. The arrangements were stunningly beautiful, sort of like the evolved-form of the guitar rock/pop I had previously enjoyed. After enough listens, Thom's voice went from somewhat annoying to sprectrally magnificent. He can do a falsetto unlike anyone else. The music, as well as the album's theme and concepts of alien and paranoia really struck a chord with me. From there, I more deeply explored Radiohead's catalogue, and found the vast majority of their work to be trully remarkable. Kid A is nearly as incredible as OK Computer, and their other albums aren't much worse either.

If you love Creep, than I highly recommend The Bends. It's pretty much a straight-forward rock album with some progressive textures and Thom's (at the time) unorthodox singing. If you enjoy The Bends, listen to it often, and when you're bored of it, re-listen to OK Computer. Radiohead are the ultimate growing band. I knew I loved Jimi Hendrix and The Beatles within moments of hearing them. Radiohead took time, and I'm very happy I made the investment.

Also, LCD Soundsystem is great too. You should check it out!

ah the good old days of pre-radiohead (a good year and a half ago) i found myself in the same position as you. i bought their greatest hits album when it first came out and thought it was dreadful. i thought it was the most depressing music i had ever heard. eventually i began thinking they were alright and bought The Bends, because it was acclaimed enough and the songs off the greatest hits i liked the most were from there. i started liking it more and more and so i bought OK Computer and i was disappointed. i didn't give up on them, and eventually i really started loving them. i bought Kid A and was disappointed again but now that's my favorite of their albums.

essentially, i hated them, then revered them and now i just really really like them. don't give up!

Definitely - I had OK Computer sitting around for at least a year before I could even get through it,now it's my #3 album...

I bought OK Computer the week it came out... I remember that. I don't remember why. I don't think I heard it on the radio, I know I heard Creep before OK Computer but I don't think that would have been the reason I bought OK Computer. The only thing I remember is playing Risk with one of my friends a couple hours after I bought it and both of us saying this is one of the greatest albums we've ever heard. I imagine my parents saying the same thing about a Beatles album when they were young, and I'm glad something came out in my teen years that struck me like that. Now, Kid A is my favorite Radiohead album, but it didn't have that moment like OK Computer had for me.

Hey, Alex. I respect your honest question and your openness to trying new things—we need people like that.

Your feelings about Radiohead pretty much mirror where my own were until about a year ago. I’ll second SR—they’re definitely a grower, although in my case, a couple of things happened which allowed Radiohead to click with me, and suddenly I realized what (almost) everyone else had been going on about all this time.

First, in a short time I underwent a series of major upheavals—some good, some bad—in my personal life. Obviously, I don’t recommend that, but I was just in a mood to try something different—in the music I listen to as much as other things. Radiohead is not the only music I’ve developed a new appreciation for, but they’re the most important to me.

The other thing I realized is that, although Radiohead draws heavily on the pop music which preceded them (there’s a good book on OK Computer which argues that it’s the last classic album in the rock tradition), they also get a lot of their sound from jazz (especially Miles Davis) and from twentieth-century art music (things like Steve Reich, Terry Riley, John Cage, Philip Glass, etc.).

As it happens, I have recently been learning a lot more about both of those genres. This very website encouraged me to listen to more jazz, and my career (I work for an opera company) has encouraged me to learn a lot more about classical music. That background was crucial for me, I think—Radiohead makes a lot more sense if you see them as the heirs of Thelonious Monk and Stockhausen as much as Chuck Berry and Brian Wilson.

I also love Blur, by the way, and probably still listen to them as much as Radiohead. I take your point about Blur being more “listenable,” but once I got in synch with Radiohead’s odd aesthetic, I found that, although their stuff is “detached,” as you correctly point out, it’s also—usually—a beautiful expression of alienation, the inability to connect meaningfully with other people (and, although the lyrics are oblique, Thom Yorke really does have a sense of humor). I now find most of their songs melodic, inventive, and in some cases, beautiful.

Geez, I sound like a member of a cult…

It’s OK to not “get” Radiohead…hell, I got through most of my life not getting them and I did just fine. My advice? Give them a listen every once in awhile when the mood strikes. Take in a whole album—they really need to be heard for their range, not just for their famous songs. But more importantly, experiment with listening to a lot of other music that’s new to you—this band requires (for me, anyway) a wide variety of context to be fully appreciated.

Perhaps they’ll click with you at some point, perhaps not.

Hell, Moonbeam doesn’t like the frickin’ Beatles, and we still love him!

Thanks for everyone's advice on this. I have got their Best Of and OK Computer, so maybe I will try The Bends next. I can sort of understand how Radiohead might be a growing band, with the subtleties everyone seems to find in their music. I can't see Radiohead ever being one of my favourite, completely-obssesed-with artists; I generally prefer short, sharp melodic music over maticulous, sound-driven records, which is what Radiohead seem to release. But hey, I loved bands obsessively two years ago that I can't stand now, and I used to despise artists, normally for the wrong reasons, that I can't get enough of now.

Thanks again for the help

That's part of the reason I like this forum so much- I can peacefully coexist with Beatles fans.

The Bends is a great album. They have been on a downward spiral since 'Kid A' though. "In Rainbows" is a terrible album.

Radiohead is definitely overrated though. I rate a band on if you were going to put all there top songs how many CD's would it fill up. Radiohead you could fit them on a single CD. Someone like Depeche Mode would take 3 or 4. Yet they aren't ranked as highly.

People who make lists are pretentious. Really is "pet sounds" that good of an album. 3 or 4 decent songs and a bunch of standard 60's filler. First two Dresden Dolls albums don't have a bad song on either and is totally original and yet they don't get much acclaim.

Another thing I dislike about Radiohead is they have about 4 hit songs. When I saw them APW they played none of them. I felt that was pretty lame.

well i guess that ends this discussion.

Agreed. Dresden Dolls one. In Rainbows nothing.

...mmmhmmm....

i personally prefer the "people who make lists always have to acknowledge a phony female to affirm their basic obsession" version.. but to each its own..

here's to moeboid.. i still DO like him

"I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain't one"

I'm with you Alex M. I have listened to OK Computer after every AM forum poll, and I've probably listened to it more often than some albums I actually love by now, and I still don't 'get' them. I've tried their other albums as well, but it didn't really work. Although In Rainbows is nice enough and perhaps a little more accessible, it's still just that: nice.

I don't really care too much though, there's too much great music out there to be upset over missing out on Radiohead. Dresden Dolls, for example.

lolcatdat

The problem is that this would make for a terrible album, as anyone who owns their "best of" knows. Radiohead, as a band, are both very varied in the sound of their work (from album to album) and very dense. So in order to "get" Radiohead, you have to listen to their albums many times. The first time you listen to Kid A is pretty much mind-numbing because it's both very complex and a very big departure from their previous works. Over time, their music is very disjointed - going from post-grunge like Creep to the Mingus-meets-Krautrock freakouts of Kid A. And it's hard to judge their songs individually, because they are very much a band that thrives on texture and atmosphere as opposed to songcraft (not that they aren't good at it). The best way to get into them is to follow their progression chronologically - you can really see how they expanded on the ideas they had, and how they slowly moved away from traditional rock songs to all-over-the-map stuff.

Oh, I was agreeing w/ Brad btw.

My phony girlfriend is named Jade. Everyone's heard about her, but nobody's seen her.

It's going to sound strange saying this on a forum about critics' music lists. But if you don't agree with critics it's not the end of the world. Critics are there to help spread good art. Art is completely subjective. You either like a piece of art or you don't. Just because critics disagree with you doesn't mean you're wrong. I know plenty of people that dislike Radiohead(I'm not one of them, I love them).

everybody knows that girls aren't on the internet. haven't you read the rules!?!?!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rules%20Of%20The%20Internet&defid=2799580

I agree with you, but would add also that any album on the AM list necessarily has redeeming characteristics, or it would not be so acclaimed. That's probably why some people struggle to "get" the acclaimed music that does not immediately appeal to them.

Oh definitely. Pretty much all music with any sort of acclaim has redeeming qualities. Appreciation is different than admiration though. Most people will admit that Radiohead is an ambitious band, but not everyone will agree that their music is listenable.

You see it a lot with groups like Nirvana. Bands with huge impact and huge acclaim, that people seem to dislike just as frequently as like(The Beatles also come to mind). Nirvana is probably the most critically acclaimed band of the 90s. But you have plenty of people who think they're very overrated. I'm not one of them, but I can understand why people would dislike Nirvana. Usually people can admit that Nirvana's cultural impact was unparalleled in the 90s and continues to this day. Liking their music, is completely different. Whether its Cobain's voice, or his lyrics, or his guitar playing. There's always detractors. And that's perfectly fine. And it's the way it should be. If everyone agreed about what is their favorite anything (film, novel, album, food, travel destination), it would be a very very boring world.

Yeah, Radiohead sucks. The only song of theirs I can tolerate is "Creep", and that's not as amazing as most people say.

Alex,

First just because Radiohead is one of the most acclaimed bands here doesn't mean you have to like Radiohead.

I'm not convinced either. Like you I find them ok to very good (Ok Computer is my 75th prefered album), but never the best. Maybe I haven't listened to their stuff enough. The problem is that I don't feel inclined to.