Music Banter - View Single Post - Radiohead

streetwaves · 06-01-2013, 02:13 PM

I’ve never understood the fascination nearly everyone appears to have with Radiohead’s OK Computer (1997). Compared to the usual extremely positive review this album gets, my review is quite negative. In reality, though, I see my view of this album is being pretty fair. I don’t say it’s a “bad” album simply because I’m annoyed at the praise it receives. That wouldn’t wouldn’t be the truth, because it’s certainly not bad. But is it good? At times maybe, but it doesn’t approach greatness and it certainly doesn’t approach being the greatest record of all-time (or of the 90s, or of 1997, to be frank).

If I wasn’t aware of the tremendous praise this album receives, I’d literally never be able to guess it. For something so universally-acclaimed, the listening experience is thoroughly ordinary. Forget the complaints that Thom Yorke sounds “whiny”, or that it’s “too depressing”. My criticisms are not as superficial as that, and such complaints really should be ignored. My main problem is that there is a lack of substance to this record. Basically, this is slightly more intelligent pop music for people who have a bit more interest in music than your average listener. Comparisons to Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon are fairly well-justified in that both records are not particularly interesting from a creative standpoint, but have the kind of blend of musical competence and style that makes them extremely popular with the mainstream music press (and therefore with their readers).

After all, both are exceedingly accessible records. Unless a person isn't accustomed to "different" sounding music at all (likely the type of person that complains about Yorke's vocals or the album's "depressing mood") it can’t be said that OK Computer ever delves into any sort of challenging territory. While that’s not a requirement for a record, I do think it’s a requirement if the record is to be taken seriously as a true work of art, a masterpiece, and one of the “greatest ever”. There are records from the 60s that are likely to surprise you more than this album ever could. And if your mind is open, those are the type of surprises that win you over and reward you the most in the end, I think. Albums like Piper at the Gates of Dawn, The Velvet Underground & Nico, and of course Trout Mask Replica from the 60s; or Can's Tago Mago, Faust's self-titled debut (or even So Far or Faust IV, which are more accessible), or Pere Ubu's The Modern Dance from the 70s. These albums do things that surprise the listener, but it's not a gimmick (as opposed to some of the studio gimmickry Radiohead's guilty of here), rather they do this in pursuit of a purer form of expression. They of course may turn you off at first (or forever), but I think the beauty is in that potential to truly reward you.

So, in conclusion, OK Computer is by no means a bad record. It’s a totally competent, easily-accessible pop album that is sort of a victim of its own incredible success. Yes, it's bothersome that it frequently overshadows what I consider to be true masterpieces. But I don’t “hate” it, and I don’t complain that the singer sounds whiny, or that the lyrics are “depressing”, or anything like that. I just don’t think it’s done anything to deserve its status, and at least at the time, it doesn’t sound like Thom Yorke did either: “We write pop songs … there was no intention of it being ‘art’.”

6.5-7/10

06-01-2013, 02:13 PM	#1 (permalink)
streetwaves Music Addict Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 267	Radiohead - OK Computer I’ve never understood the fascination nearly everyone appears to have with Radiohead’s OK Computer (1997). Compared to the usual extremely positive review this album gets, my review is quite negative. In reality, though, I see my view of this album is being pretty fair. I don’t say it’s a “bad” album simply because I’m annoyed at the praise it receives. That wouldn’t wouldn’t be the truth, because it’s certainly not bad. But is it good? At times maybe, but it doesn’t approach greatness and it certainly doesn’t approach being the greatest record of all-time (or of the 90s, or of 1997, to be frank). If I wasn’t aware of the tremendous praise this album receives, I’d literally never be able to guess it. For something so universally-acclaimed, the listening experience is thoroughly ordinary. Forget the complaints that Thom Yorke sounds “whiny”, or that it’s “too depressing”. My criticisms are not as superficial as that, and such complaints really should be ignored. My main problem is that there is a lack of substance to this record. Basically, this is slightly more intelligent pop music for people who have a bit more interest in music than your average listener. Comparisons to Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon are fairly well-justified in that both records are not particularly interesting from a creative standpoint, but have the kind of blend of musical competence and style that makes them extremely popular with the mainstream music press (and therefore with their readers). After all, both are exceedingly accessible records. Unless a person isn't accustomed to "different" sounding music at all (likely the type of person that complains about Yorke's vocals or the album's "depressing mood") it can’t be said that OK Computer ever delves into any sort of challenging territory. While that’s not a requirement for a record, I do think it’s a requirement if the record is to be taken seriously as a true work of art, a masterpiece, and one of the “greatest ever”. There are records from the 60s that are likely to surprise you more than this album ever could. And if your mind is open, those are the type of surprises that win you over and reward you the most in the end, I think. Albums like Piper at the Gates of Dawn, The Velvet Underground & Nico, and of course Trout Mask Replica from the 60s; or Can's Tago Mago, Faust's self-titled debut (or even So Far or Faust IV, which are more accessible), or Pere Ubu's The Modern Dance from the 70s. These albums do things that surprise the listener, but it's not a gimmick (as opposed to some of the studio gimmickry Radiohead's guilty of here), rather they do this in pursuit of a purer form of expression. They of course may turn you off at first (or forever), but I think the beauty is in that potential to truly reward you. So, in conclusion, OK Computer is by no means a bad record. It’s a totally competent, easily-accessible pop album that is sort of a victim of its own incredible success. Yes, it's bothersome that it frequently overshadows what I consider to be true masterpieces. But I don’t “hate” it, and I don’t complain that the singer sounds whiny, or that the lyrics are “depressing”, or anything like that. I just don’t think it’s done anything to deserve its status, and at least at the time, it doesn’t sound like Thom Yorke did either: “We write pop songs … there was no intention of it being ‘art’.” 6.5-7/10 __________________ rateyourmusic Last edited by streetwaves; 06-01-2013 at 03:55 PM.