Ok well-- This is certainly a lot to take in, so i'll address it right off the bat... B&S and Radiohead are different bands. When the comparison was made between them, it was not done stylistically or musically, but it was gaged by the way it made (at least me) feel when I put on a record. Of course, the feeling I get when I put on okc and sinister are completely different, yet incredibly similar. On another level, as a radiohead fan, I particularly find the comments made about Radiohead's lyrics to be incredibly inaccurate. Thom Yorke, who is perhaps even more obscure than Mr. Murdoch, writes a hell of a line, and I do think that one needs to look at okc as a truly artisitic album, with unified themes, statements, and not just a lineup of pop anthems. I would, however, state that Radiohead as a band is constantly changing. No longer are they the children of nihilistic grunge. It is something different now, and I think that it must be respected. One cannot utterly disregard Radiohead's music as oozing in self loathing, because, if you listen hard enough to it, it appears that way. It's the same way with B&S--you'll find that self loathing in there as well, if you really want to. But you must understand that these two bands operate on different levels. Both have different objectives and different musical tastes and such. I urge you to glance through at some of the lyrics of okc. They are at times boring (like any lyrical statement) but at times brilliant and insightful. I cannot say that B&S make me want to kiss the sky, or be happy, for I don't think that's the intention. There is a lot of bitterness and loathing (perhaps not the self variety) behind the music that is very similar to Radiohead. I've had okc since the day it came out and have listened to it tens of times, and I find fresh nuances within it all the time. Radiohead, like B&S, dislike 'what's it's all about these days', and both, reveal a way out. -blake the duke thus spake:

you're crazy. you're all crazy.

...

I couldn't agree more!!! There's a line that can be drawn straight from the Beatles through Radiohead and to B & S.

i know it's more or less entirely subjective, but, um, you know the lineage described here baffles me. I know people all make their own cultural connections based on their experiences and inputs, and i'm no different, but, well, really, you think there's something connecting radioheed and B&S?? As far as i know Stuart has never been a spoilt brat who is so far up his own arse that he can't tell the difference between poetry and self-agrandised bullshit. No offence to any radioheed fans, i mean... well actually okay, loads of offence to radioheed fans because that's Pop: Drawing lines in the sand and saying 'that's pish' and 'that isn't'.

Radioheed are traditional Rock creatures, bred on the equation of self-loathing and obvious suffering equals great art, an equation which is, quite frankly, bollocks. I honestly tried to listen to that ok computer record. Really, i did, but i couldn't. I just couldn't because it sounded so, so OLD and DULL and everything i hate about Rock. B&S are everything i LOVE about what i call Pop (read the archives or read a book), and it's so far away from what radioheed stand for it hurts. See, B&S are not about wallowing in self-pity or in self-importance. The only 'stances' they make are ones that are natural, stand up and out because they don't shout or use the too esay and tired rock histrionics peddled by the filth. I mean that artistically as well as (potentially)politically too... B&S make me want to kiss the skies, make me grin irrationally, make me do such dumb things you wouldn't believe. They also make me want to CREATE and be involved and add beauty to the world: beauty that is AFFIRMATIVE and glorious, and utterly in vain but so what? Radioheed just sound like they want you to sleep, or write tenth rate poetry or be 'worthy' or something. Fuck worthy. Radioheed ooze boredom and B&S ooze humanity. They are a lot sexier too.

As for the beatles, well, um, isn't it just TOO EASY to use them as some 'year zero' of line-drawing? particularly when talking about contemporary artists, because even IF B&S are/were influenced by the beatles, it's unlikely that they were experienced 'first hand'. In other words, it's a distillation of the beatles through someone like, i dunno, whoever in the 80s sounded like the beatles and talked about them a lot. Someone crap probably. i'm not up on the beatles see... but it's like saying that B&S are like The Byrds, only that would be seen through Orange Juice, with expectations of the Byrds coloured by the views of the OJs because they were fans of the OJs first and they introduced The Byrds. This is getting confusing... I'm just arguing against real sense and validity behind these perceived time-based lineages i guess. It's all looped and eliptical, not straight.

and the bottom line is i hate the beatles and radioheed as much as i love B&S, which is A LOT.

keep the faith,

the duke

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to "majordomo@majordomo.net". For list archives and searching, list rules, FAQ, poor jokes etc, see http://www.majordomo.net/sinister +---+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" +---+ +-+ "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------+