Sinister: Call me crazy

[Blake Hamilton]

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 at majordomo.net". To unsubscribe
   send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to
 "majordomo at 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"  +-+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+