Talk:Thom Yorke

I think the list of Thom's musical influences needs to be updated...Jimi Hendrix?? I've never heard him mention that one. I think people from the atease message boards should take a look around here... -passionisafashion

I actually believe Thom Yorke to be a much greater musician than lyricist. Yes, his lyrics are often evocative of "urban-existentialism", alienation and such. But I've never seen a PENISargument for the case of Thom Yorke as one of the finest lyricists of pop music. There are much better lyricists and this strikes me as a very fanish thing to say.

Dan Duggleby

It's a shame that just about all wikipedia articles on rock/pop musicians have to be so fanish. Here's some examples from this article: "While the early success of hit-single 'Creep' led to the band being written off as a one-hit wonder, a succession of increasingly complex albums has led to Radiohead becoming one of the world's most respected bands" (emphasis mine) Also: "He is considered by many to be one of the finest lyricists in popular music." Well, you know what? He is also "considered by many" to SUCK!

Weasel words, nothing more than weasel words. Nothing more than one person's opinion disguised as the general world consensus. Look: I'm a fan, alright? I love the man's music as much as anyone if not more than. But my fan grovelling has no place in an encyclopedia article and nor does anyone elses. It makes me sick how music fans can't write a proper NPOV article. One of these days I might take a torch to the weasel words in this article.--Me, 65.100.56.163 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i think there are some serious NPOV issues with this article. Claims such as 'worlds most respected bands' and 'finest lyricists in popular music' need to go, unless they are quoted out of magazine articles or something. Compared to the Radiohead page, this one is pretty poorly done. goodsmonth 03:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to claim that the excess praise on the page shouldn't be neutralized, it annoys me too, but I think "Life in a Glass House" for one is a pretty impressive set of pop lyrics, even apart from its music. Whatever it means, and even if it means nothing. The Radiohead page has its own problems. In some ways this is more effective than that. All you have to do with a page like this that captures the essence of its subject is correct factual innaccuracies and bring it strictly into NPOV rules, which admittedly are extremely important but shouldn't be too hard. With a page like that which is so dully written and formulaic it's clearly within NPOV, more drastic measures would be needed to improve it to the point where it informs someone with no knowledge of its subject in a way they won't forget five seconds after finishing.

Calling them one of the worlds most respected bands is not fannish, it's objectively true by nearly all standards. They are well known to be a musician's and critic's favorite, and those are usually the people who are refered to when the word "respected" is used in music. "Popular" is used when talking about the general population - they are popular but I don't know that I'd count them among the world's MOST popular.--Terminal157 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taste being a matter of subjective appreciation for a particular art form, and "respect" being an impossibe notion to operationally define or quantify, I think that any and all aesthetic judgments of Yorke or Radiohead should be excised. Non-neutrality is fine on a fansite, they have no place in an encyclopedia. But if anyone is particularly bothered by POV-issues, why complain about it ad infinitum on discussion pages? Edit the damn article, already! Fishhead64 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've done some major re-editing on the article, writing some more, clarifying a bit here, moving a sentence there. I think it flows more as an article and gives the reader a clearer perspective of Yorke the musician, that is what he is best known for, after all! Hopefully all the NPOV issues have been resolved, although, it is of course up to anyone to point out any errors or suggestions for further improvement.--Richj1209 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Choice

The '2000s, older self' photo is inaccurate of Yorke's present-day appearance. The photo is unique in showing him in uncharacteristically old-man clothes with a tired expression. Was this a deliberate choice to match the caption or the authors' ideas of his maturation as an artist? Thom Yorke often looks as young in modern photographs as he did in the The Bends era. This is sacrificing accuracy for an editiorial effect.

He's only 10 or 11 years older than he was when Pablo Honey came out, for the love of God. It's 2005 right now--Thom Yorke will turn 37 next month. He's hardly eligible for Medicare yet. The "older self" thing might be apt if we were talking about someone who'd been famous for decades, someone you could clearly see the progression of age. Someone like Leonard Cohen. But we have not seen Thom Yorke age significantly since 1994. Someone fetch me a torch...65.100.56.163 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note on genre

"Genre labels being loaded as well as approximate terms, it should be noted that the idea of Radiohead being in the progressive rock (prog) tradition is solely from the perspective of some listeners." (more follows, including a quote of Thom's views on prog rock.)

What is the meaning of this section? First of all--the article is about Thom Yorke, not Radiohead. Second of all--where in the article does it say Radiohead is a prog rock band? (Hint: nowhere. Hence, this is a non-issue). Third--"loaded" is a "loaded" word. This is your opinion. This is about as POV as it gets. Fourth--all this section is really saying is, Radiohead is not prog and Thom Yorke does not like prog. Thom has views on all kinds of things--what is special about prog rock in particular that deserves mention?

Today is September 15. I will wait a week for a convincing reason to keep this section. If, by the end of that week, no case has been made, I will remove the "note on genre" section. Frankly, it is at odds with what wikipedia is all about. 65.100.56.163 21:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Looks like you forgot to get around to it... removed goodsmonth 04:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political significance of Hail To The Thief

I can't be fecked to look for references right now, but HTTT really has nothing to do with George W. Bush or 9/11. Come on, people. Thom Yorke doesn't smack you over the head with the "meaning" of his lyrics like that. He's a bit more subtle than that, you know? Another change I'm going to make to this article, if I ever get around to it. 65.100.56.163 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any good quotes, execept for the one on the wiki Hail To The Thief page. (While i agree with you totally) you have to admit, a lot of people interpret that as the message behind the title of the album, so I've tried to fix it to show that.... and have possibly failed. Somewhat better that it was before anyway. goodsmonth 03:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every member of the band that has commented on this has said several times that the title is not a reference to the GWB's election. I'm just going to strengthen the bit that says the band denies it.--Terminal157 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suspect HTTT represents a sole political stance although I see the theme of anti-corporate dominance throughout. I think the record is a general attack on the endorsement of unconscious ignorance and the associated superficial values promoted by negligent, yet exploitative, management of consumerism. The title reminds me of the much used term of ideology as theft. I think the single Go To Sleep represents the cultural cleansing by corporate monopoly of the remains of true independent pre-subsidiary business and a revolutionary response to that attitude. The video for the track says it all to me; buildings are torn down to be replaced by something else. NM 14/04/06

Tom Jones?

I have no idea where this came up. Why is Tom Jones listed as having worked with Thom? This is strange. Does anyone have any proof? If not, then I shall get rid of it. --Richj1209 01:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TV Appearances

Added Notable TV appearances. Not a complete list, source material IMDB. laurens.whipple 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Critics opinions"

Somebody added a section about 'critic's assessments on Yorke. I removed that section because it was largely irrelevant and basically there to give a one-sided view of his/Radiohead's work and himself, drawing on the traditional, negative stereotypes and opinions (his eye, preteniousness, etc). As such, I treated that edit as a case of vandalism. The same with this assertion that Yorke was born in Fife. Thats wrong, and changed back to the correct data. Thom did live in Scotland as a child briefly, but was not born there!--Richj1209 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References section

Add more html refs to this section. Skinnyweed 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fill in citations. Skinnyweed 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]