Thursday, April 03, 2008

Radiohead = U2...not a compliment

Radiohead sucks. And all you ass lickers who continue to promote, praise and worship these has-beens, can fuck right off.

Radiohead lost the plot after Amnesiac and that album was spotty at best. They have put out nothing but boring and bland shit since then and I would like to finally put it out there that Radiohead IS OVER. The only reason they continue to clog up Mp3 players and column after column of space on wank fests like Pitchfork (thank god no trees have been killed) is because they have the music buying public (well the ones who aren’t buying Madonna’s latest abortion) completely and utterly snowed as to who they really are.

Radiohead is today’s equivalent to U2. Now some of you might think this is a compliment. It’s not. Like U2, Radiohead has put out some incredible music. Put on some of the greatest live shows and dazzled fans with their unique and endearing interpretation of rock music. They’ve also faltered down the stretch like an aging athlete who can no longer carry the load. The ONLY think keeping them going is the good will they built up in the first part of their career.

U2 can do no wrong. They’ve sucked for a long time yet they are still considered one of the world’s greatest bands. I can think of two dozen bands who right now are making far better music than U2. Will they have the impressive catalogue that U2 boasts? No, probably not. But if we are judging current greatness by past accomplishments, O.J. Simpson, George W. Bush and Britney Spears would skip happily with Ghandi, Mother Teresa and MLK in a fairy tale land envisioned by indie rock dorks.

U2 will pop out a minor hit every now and awhile then coast on that for several years. Because of who they are and what they did (way back when), music fans will give them the pass. The Rolling Stones have been doing this for 30 years. The Stones, like U2 can do whatever they want because to say anything negative about them is tantamount to treason.

Sound like anyone you know?

Radiohead has crammed their way into this club too. It’s amazing that a band that has put out nothing but mediocre crap for the last couple of years, can still be held in high regard. Take a look at any music site and you will find several stories akin to “Radiohead’s Thom Yorke took a big shit today,” or “Radiohead has nothing new to add, just seeing if you’re paying attention” populating its pages. They don’t do anything and yet it’s reported on. Why? Because everyone has got it in their head that this band is still relevant and important, and to NOT report on them would be admitting that you are not relevant and important. It’s brilliant, top notch marketing.

Puff Daddy is the same way. We can all agree he sucks. Maybe he’s a talented producer but as a performer and a human being, he’s a complete sack of shit. Yet, does anyone come out and say this? No. Why? Because everyone’s afraid to do so. He’s still a popular man and more importantly, a rich man, so no one will stand up and point out what we all know: he sucks the sweat off Tony Little’s balls.

No indie hipster will admit that Radiohead has lost several steps. To do so would look bad in the eyes of all the other hipsters who have drank Thom Yorke’s Kool Aid. Hail to the Thief is such a bad and unfocused album it makes Ashlee Simpson records seem enjoyable. In Rainbows was only slightly better. I listened to that semi-stinker multiple times before realizing it’s like latte foam: a lot of air and kind of flavorless. The other aspect to the Radiohead phenomenon is that they did make good music at one point, and seeing them like this now is like seeing Superman die. Radiohead was the champion of all people who liked intelligent, important rock music. If you liked Radiohead, you were smart. You didn’t go in for all that meathead shit. They were heroes. You can respect the hell out of them (I do), but it’s time to finally admit that they are shadows of their former selves and making music that is sub par at best.

If you and your friends created In Rainbows, no record company would put that out. The only reason it got made and released (oddly enough by the band itself) is because Radiohead did it. Does anybody really want to hear the music Paul McCartney is making these days? No. But because he’s Paul McCartney we give him a polite pass.

Radiohead should keep making music. That’s their right. But let’s not step in a turd and pretend it smells like roses. The band is making uninspired music that sounds like everything else they’ve done for the last couple of years. Is that praiseworthy? Does that really earn them countless press on every music website? Separate yourself from who they are and what they’ve done and you will see a aging beauty who has no business playing the 25 year bombshell. Pam Anderson meet Radiohead. Radiohead meet your future.

The Rolling Stones and U2 are not relevant anymore. But like your grandfather, they should be afforded respect and admiration for the contributions they’ve made. Radiohead is not relevant anymore either. They’ve epitomized the law of diminishing returns with their lackluster musical output yet have forged bold new trails in marketing and promotion. Music geeks have ironically put them on a high pedestal because they can’t bear to see their heroes fall; writing stories about their every movement (bowel or otherwise).

So before the next bowel movement of an album by Radiohead comes out and bloggers and indie dorks everywhere rev up their false worship machine, take a page from the nostalgia act that is Radiohead and remember the “good ol’ days” when the band actually made music that mattered. And if you can’t buy this, have fun seeing these guys play their “bleep bloop“ snore fest music well into their 70‘s. Thom Yorke might even let you watch him take a shit….you can pay as little or as much as you want. I think we already have.



Anonymous said...

Radio HEAD sucks my chode

J Reidy said...

yay! let's keep this ball rolling. if everyone finally admits this, the indie dorks who run these music sites will finally have to admit it themselves.

Radiohead...about as relevant as Bon Jovi, but only half as lame.

Oh yeah, i should have put Sonic Youth on there too....god they suck. they once were mighty and now completely irrelevant...yet always the darlings of music cunts. please no more Sonic Youth coverage.


Anonymous said...

isn't it all relative? RHead are much better than 80-90% of music that makes it to the mainstream.
I guess if you are trying to light a fire under their ass or something then thats cool. To measure them against themselves is fair enough I guess but I still rank them up there. And if they sucked like Britney I guess they would never be the object of your ire in the first place so thats something. What would you say a band should do after a great set of albums and one shitty one? Call it quits? What dio you think of the new 10-year-in-the-making Portishead? No "third":"turd" puns please ;)

J Reidy said...

"What would you say a band should do after a great set of albums and one shitty one?"

answer: not one shitty album, one shitty and two close to shitty. that's a pretty bad streak. most bands would be finished after that string of stinkers. yet who is on the front page of pitchfork every day? you guessed it.

i don't think U2 is shitty. they're capable of pulling out a good song every couple of years, but let's not say they're "in top form." the last Radiohead album had one or two tolerable tracks on it but nothing that should give them the status they currently enjoy.

i never said they should pack it in. in fact, if you read what i wrote i said they should continue because that is their right and most people would leap at the chance to make music for a living. i was asking the people who continue to praise these guys to pack it in. to stop lavishing praise on musicians who no longer deserve it.

and to say "hey it's still better than 90% of the music out there" is a cop out. first, it's not better than 90% of the music out there. that is untrue. second, that's like saying "hey i've got a treatable form of cancer." still not great.

Anonymous said...

Radiohead should have stopped making music after some stole all their gear in Denver way back when.

J Reidy said...

that was you? i remember that. tragic.

Mlar007 said...

There's a hard, fast rule in rock and roll: never reference rainbows.

Radiohead's latest album = In Rainbows.

do the math.
they suck.

J Reidy said...

oh but what about "rainbow in the dark"????

you may say that about Radiohead, but what about Dio? WHAT ABOUT DIO??????


Anonymous said...

"answer: not one shitty album, one shitty and two close to shitty. that's a pretty bad streak."

actually I meant any band in general. Surely there are examples of older bands who started to suck coming out with good albums later in careers...I can think of Judas Preist off the top..that's according to some metal critics. I don't listen to that stuff. I kinda gave up on Mars Volta after De-loused but the new album is pretty fucking amazing.

Also I said it was better than a percentage of music that makes it to the mainstream. I know there are great underground, seldom- heard bands.

I do agree that certain media outlets overhype bands. I thought the album was ok..just like the later offerings from U2. But I also give bands the benefit of the doubt for future work b/c the individuals involved are mega-talented. That does not go for metallica..they suck so hard now they have lost 95% of any respect I had for them in the 80's-90's. That's why i asked how long does the streak of bad albums have to go for before you can really say the band has lost it. I guess for you its about 2.5

As a side note..please blog more often. You're getting worse than Maddox ;)

J Reidy said...

Maddox? as in angelina jolie's kid?

i will try to write more because it's helping me with another project i'm doing.

i've got a doozy of a post i'll put up in a few days.

Anonymous said...

I assume Dio was talking about a satanic rainbow.

Alternating stripes of black and blood.

Those are exempt from the "no rainbows in rock" rule.


Jason said...

Radiohead is the greatest band that will ever live. You are just an idiot who has no taste in music and likely rocks out to Wham! everyday

Anonymous said...

I can tell you might be one of those "I hate every band in the world persons" or "I only like underground bands that no one else had heard of"
I'll give you the fact that a few U2 albums have been less than steller, but the fact remains that U2 can sell out any stadium in the world, not because of the past, but because they are one of the best live acts you can see. Half of the bands nowadays don't last for more than a couple of years, with different lineup changes every year. U2 had had the same lineup since 1976. They are still together, and making great music.

Anonymous said...

This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read. You didn't give one legitimate insight into WHY Radiohead (or U2) sucks. What do you know about music anyway? What about the MUSIC on In Rainbows doesn't work for you? You need to read Dave Eggers' take on small "critics" like you in the Harvard Advocate several years ago. Basically, you don't even care about the music; you care about the latest trends. Radiohead (and U2) got too big for you, so now they don't "keep shit real." Ha! What a joke.

The reality is In Rainbows is one of the best albums of this decade...not a bad song in the mix, organic, strong lyrics, innovative forms. Comparing musicians who make masterpieces like Weird Fishes/Arpeggi, Videotape, and Reckoner to Britney Spears shows how shallow your understanding of music really is.

Joe V.

ashley said...

well, what good have you done lately anyway? i don't see you spreading the word about child labor or free trade organizations...
i mean, as far as i can tell you're just sitting on your ass blogging about how much a band sucks.
get a life.

Anonymous said...

radiohead make music that the bands u bunch of empty-headed fools listen to could only dream of.most of u probly havnt even listened to in rainbows or hail to the theif properly cuz ur small minds cant cope.

Anonymous said...

You're full of shit.

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of tools you all are. How is your band doing? .....that is what i thought. try doing something that is as good as radiohead's shittiest song.

louise said...

I first saw U2 perform live in July 2005, and I haven't stopped talking about that experience yet!! : lol: Over the years, I've had the good fortune to see them many times, U2 band and their show improve with each new tour! Next weekend I'm gonna see them again since I can compare and get cheap tickets from ; so I can save some dollars to the next concert ...I’m so excited!!

Anonymous said...


Sexflat Blog

Live Girls

Anonymous said...

Good evening

We do not agree with this year BRIT awards 2010 decision.

Please attend our little poll

Lady Gaga can not be better than Madonna

Poll supported by BRIT awards 2010 sponsor femmestyle
[url=]brustvergrößerung günstig[/url]

Do you have a burning question we could ask all the stars at The BRIT Awards?

DECawein said...

thats just like...your opinion, man.

DECawein said...

thats just like...your opinion, man.