Talk:Radiohead

1986 or 1991

1991: Ok let's through the dice. Personally I prefer 1991, since that's the year they got from college, started using Radiohead moniker and became present on the music scene. That's what I vote for. What say you? The Mad Hatter (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They still existed in 1986. To claim 1991 would be original research. Zazaban (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they used the name On A Friday. I don't want to put them by this year, where they were just a bunch of schoolboys. AllMusic lists them as 1989. For reaching consensus I prefer that year. Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So, the fact that they were schoolboys means their band cannot be thought of as legitimate? Claiming that a name change signifies the creation of a new band even if the lineup is identical is utterly insane, and 1989 seems totally random. Zazaban (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source stating they were active in 1986. Happy? Zazaban (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

1986 for sure - no question. 88.110.207.23 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the bands that came before are definitely part of their history and influence. I vote for 1986.--Garyedgar (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Genres

Clearly, it is time for another discussion of the genres in the infobox, given that there have been a great many changes of late. Currently, the three genres listed are Alternative rock, art rock, and electronic music. Can we agree to leave it at that? If not, why not? The floor is open. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. faithless (^speak) 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everything they have done falls into one of those broad categories. There's no need for anything more specific. I'm really tired of the constant changes to this list. Papa November (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Experimental rock shouldn't be added to the genre list. Their Kid A and Amnesiac albums in particular, could fall under Experimental rock. And they are labeled as Experimental rock by some sources [1] [2]Kokoro20 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if "art rock" needs to be there, it is a very vaguely defined genre. Rather than describe a certain sound (like heavy metal) or a movement (Britpop/Grunge), it just implies a rock band with "arty" pretensions. indopug (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm for replacing "Art rock" with "Experimental rock", mainly because that's what Allmusic lists. "Art rock" primarily applies to the likes of 70s groups ranging from prog (Pink Floyd) to glam (Roxy Music) to protopunk (The Velvet Underground). In contrast, Radiohead members have gone on record saying they hate prog (although they like Krautrock), and their influences actually pull primarily from 1980s post-punk and alternative rock (I read in Exit Music that the band teases Johnny Greenwood because he really doesn't know that much about music prior to the 1980s, and he has said he's rather listen to Dinosaur Jr's "Freak Scene" than the Rolling Stones). They have more in common with Sonic Youth than with Pink Floyd. While we're at it, change "electronic music" to "indie electronic" (or Indietronica, as it's called here on Wikipedia), once again per Allmusic and because it's more specific. "Alternative rock" stays, of course, since there's really no argument that the band fits in the genre (in fact, they are one of the genre's most notable and most important groups).WesleyDodds (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of replacing "art rock" with "experimental rock." It seems much more appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Small note: Both indie electronic and Indietronica redirect to electronic dance music. indopug (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd that, since there's an Allmusic page on the genre and I've read about it in other places. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, there was an AfD a while ago. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Indietronica should just be changed back to Electronic. The fact that Indietronica redirects to Electronic dance music suggests that all Radiohead's Electronic songs sounds like the song Idioteque, which it doesn't. Also, Art rock shouldn't have been removed, but Experimental rock should be there alongside of it. Some sources also cite them as Art rock. [3] [4] [5] Kokoro20 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The first two links are concert reviews that can't be really used to determine genre, since it's an offhand comment. The Time article says "combining punkish attitude, tasteful art-rock grandeur and judicious electronic sampling". It says the group combines elements of art rock, not that they are an art-rock band. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Electronic music referes to a wide range of music.If you take a look at it's article you'd see what I mean.It contains a wide amount of musicians in many genres.I think maybe we could change it to Electronica which referes to a specific kind of Electronic music which is more associated whith Rock.Any thoughts?Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't put anything about indie in there, indie refers to independent music, like music that's not on big record label. Radiohead has been on a big record label until recently, their electronic stuff (Kid A/Amnesiac) was from when they were on a big label (EMI)Iminrainbows (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

plurality of band names?

Why the insistence on keeping the initial sentence to contain "Radiohead are..."? It's unnatural and I think it should depend on the band name itself, e.g. "The Beatles are..." and "Radiohead is..." Radiohead is the moniker for a single group of people and grammatically should be treated as such. What authoritative English source, British or otherwise, says to treat all band names as plural? --Henryrm (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Common usage. Zazaban (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not common usage. You'll need to cite something if it's against the rules of standard English. Blue Danube (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't against the rules of standard English, probably because there are no official rules of "standard English" (see Standard English article). It is, however, perfectly acceptable in British English (see footnote a in British English article). As the WP:ENGVAR states, articles written in one variety of English should be kept in that variety. I see no compelling reason why American English should be used in an article about a British band.

For evidence, you simply need to look at the references the article cites. Of the first ten I was able to access, seven use Radiohead as a plural, none use it as a singular and three are just lists/tables.

1. Radiohead are charging...
2. Radiohead are emerging...
3. Radiohead infuriate me
4. Radiohead have continued
5. Radiohead... have come over all cheerful
6. Radiohead remain a magnet for misfits everywhere
7. Radiohead have emerged...

This proves that multiple reliable sources (and probably all of those we cite) treat Radiohead as a plural. Papa November (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a British band: we use British English for British things, American English for American things. End of discussion. Jubilee♫clipman 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammys

Radiohead DID NOT perform at the grammys. they were introduced as radiohead, but it was just thom & jonny + the USC marching band. the article should probably state the facts.99.153.29.112 (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

wow ok, i didn't mean completely delete any reference to them being there, i just meant note the fact that it was introduced as radiohead, but was only 2/5's of the band. also stanley donwood won for best limited edition recording package for the in rainbows disc box.99.153.29.112 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the text because it seemed like undue weight on a fairly minor event in the band's history. The band have been around for a long time, and everything needs to be put into perspective. In other words, is that performance really worth noting in the grand scheme of things? It seems a bit much to talk explicitly about two band-members performing one song at an awards ceremony when three entire tours are summarised as "Radiohead toured North America, Europe and Japan in 2008 to promote In Rainbows." Papa November (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I added the sentence since it seemed relevant to the preceding part about Radiohead's recent Grammy nominations. Also, while the older tours may not have been notable enough individually for their own descriptions, I felt that playing at a venue so important as the Grammy Awards warranted some mention. However, if the community disagrees or wishes to downplay the fact (I suppose if it matters so much, one could stress that only Thom and Jonny played) then I won't cause any fuss :) Banjaloupe (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

i think it does matter so much :) 99.153.29.112 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe i was not clear enough, i think that the article should include the the awards which they were nominated for and the ones which they won, and it should also include the fact that thom & jonny played with the USC marching band but were introduced as radiohead.99.153.29.112 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If the Grammy Awards were a serious award in the field of alternative rock, then the awards should be mentioned in the main article. But the Grammy Awards hardly constitute notable critical opinion in progressive and alternative rock - such legendary acts Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had won only a few Grammys in their lifetime, and such critically-acclaimed albums by Radiohead, such as OK Computer, never won a Grammy. The Grammys are a show marketed to young teens, nothing more. I'm sure that any serious critic will agree with me that having suddenly won three Grammys this year means absolutely nothing to the band or to the music industry, except that perhaps their music has gotten worse. Naur (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Young teens, huh? I guess that explains why Robert Plant was the big winner. Wait...no, no it doesn't. :-P I'm not sticking up for the Grammys (all awards are worthless in my opinion), but to say that the Grammys are not a major music award is absurd. faithless (^speak) 06:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, OK Computer did in fact when the Grammy for best alternative music album.Windward1 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Formatting error in the "In Rainbows andindependent work(2005–present)"

I think the HEADER "In Rainbows andindependent work(2005–present" should read "In Rainbows and independent work(2005–present)". I cannot edit this (i'm not sure why, I think I have been a member long enough, however I rarely change articles. If this talk/comment on this page is in the wrong section (see previous! - I am a Noob) please put it where it belongs, If that is in the bin then put it there. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuliwil (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. You couldn't edit the article because it is currently semi-protected and although you have been registered for long enough, you did not have enough edits (10) to edit semi-protected articles. - kollision (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Genres

I'm inserting post grunge. Because Pablo Honey, and Creep specifically, was exactly that. I know there are a lot of folks who like to pretend that Pablo Honey never happened, but it did, so lets paint a true picture for newcomers to the band, rather than rigging the article to the liking of how hardened fans would like Radiohead to be perceived by the world. Creep remains by far Radiohead's most famous song, and that single, along with its parent album, exemplify post grunge.

Are there reliable sources that confirm that "post-grunge" is a good description of Radiohead music? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are the sources for the other genres? If we're going by sources, then why don't we simply have "rock" under genres? My citation for Radiohead being post grunge is Creep and Pablo Honey. Quite an obvious and undeniable one. You, Creep, Stop Whispering, Anyone Can Play Guitar, Ripcord, Vegetable, Blow Out. Big guitars, quiet/soft dynamics, angst-filled lyrics... generally known as "post grunge."

You forgot to answer the question- Wikipedia requires reliable sources verifying information; are there sources for this? If there aren't, I'm going to remove it for now, but feel free to restore it if you do find sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I did answer the question - Pablo Honey. If you're looking for a cite from a publication, then you're showing bias and agenda, as none of the other genres have cites. Re-instated at once.

"Pablo Honey" is not a reliable source- what the encyclopedia requires is simply a reviewer describing Radiohead as a 'post-grunge band.' If you think there's another genre listed that is inaccurate, which one is it? I'm sure we can look for reliable sources to verify any genre that we don't think is accurate. If you want 'post-grunge' added, that's very easy and I have no objection, as long as you can cite it- there's no need to look for explanations when citing the genre of a major band is so easy. I'm not sure it's fair to identify a genre for a band based on a few individual songs. After all, while it's easy to make and cite a good case for Helter Skelter as an early metal song, I don't think it would be reasonable to identify the Beatles as a metal band. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Helter Skelter probably is metal. But that's one song. The majority of Pablo Honey is post grunge, as I just stated. Several tracks from The Bends also qualify; Just and My Iron Lung are obvious example of the angst, heavy guitars and loud/quiet dynamics synonymous with post grunge. Pitchfork clearly describes Pablo Honey as post grunge here: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/12938-pablo-honey-collectors-edition-the-bends-collectors-edition-ok-computer-collectors-edition/. A notable publication referring to Radiohead as post grunge, but doubtless the endless rigging and bias that goes on here will prevent it from being correctly displayed as a genre.

Thanks for the source. It seems to describe Pablo Honey as a post-grunge album, and the genre terms it uses for Radiohead are "rock" and "alt-rock." I'm curious to hear what other users think about this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think while pablo honey has post-grunge elements or even full post-grunge songs, it still isn't a post-grunge album, it is more simply just alternative rock. just because dollars and cents is a jazz song doesn't make radiohead jazz, or even the album amnesiac jazz. also i don't think just because one out of seven albums is post-grunge, that the genre should be listed on the band's page, but only the album's page. I think the genres on the band's page should just cover genres on the majority of the albums, which definitely includes alternative rock and electronic music, and experimental rock in my opinion.

NPOV tag?

Who added the tag and why? What exactly is questioned: the whole article (unlikely as it is a featured article!) or a particular part? Which part? Where is the discussion? Is the immeadiately preceeding discussion relevent? If so how? A few people just seem to be ranting about genre. There is no NPOV problem there. Confused... Jubilee♫clipman 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have subsequently removed it. 119.224.57.190 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Prog rock

I know experimental rock already probably covers this, but what would people think if I added progressive rock to the list of genres? --LordNecronus (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think prog is a bit of a controversial addition, given that the band tried to deny any connection with prog around the time of OK Computer.[6] However, more than one critic has stuck the prog label on them. The prog labelling is discussed in the Kid A article, but it's probably safer to leave it out of the infobox in this article. Papa November (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead's Longest Song

I'd like to point out that in this article it is said that Paranoid Android (OK Computer) is the band's longest song, when really it is Motion Picture Soundtrack (Kid A), which is 7:01 while Paranoid Android is 6:23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.154.16 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

About four minutes of silence doesn't count toward the length of the song. DKqwerty (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead's eighth studio album

Perhaps we could exhume the Radiohead's eighth studio album article, now that a number of brand new songs have been unveiled, and Ed has given a candid interview regarding the upcoming album. This follows older comments from Colin and Nigel that the band had commenced work. Just a thought. Fester Smith (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Post Rock

Wouldn't this be a bit more feasible than progressive rock?--Degree9 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)