Talk:Radiohead/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Radiohead's Greatest Hits, and Boxset

http://www.ateaseweb.com/2008/02/09/emi-to-release-radioheads-greatest-hits/

It's fairly clear the band have nothing to do with these releases. Should any of this go back into the article, to make the disputes between ex-label very clear, and to help make more distinct who has the rights to what? Maybe once the details ofthe GH are a little more solid. LiamUK (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Scott Tenorman Must Die"

Shouldn't one notice Radiohead's guest appearance in the South Park episode Scott Tenorman Must Die? I think it's a quite important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.22.64 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, especially since they are one of the very few celebrities who have guest starred on South Park rather than being imitated. They also have this (http://www.waste.uk.com/Store/waste-radiohead-dii-24-8-charity+white+older+tshirts.html) --RaphaelBriand (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This used to be on the page, but as part of an erstwhile trivia section which was removed in a bid to get to FA. But the information would, in my opinion, be more appropriate on the South Park page or even the individual episode page rather than here. Atlantik (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: section heading

Please discuss the naming of the "In Rainbows" section heading here before altering it. We should try to achieve consensus and stick to the final decision. It's bad for the reader if things are being continually reverted. The suggestions I've seen so far include:

  1. In Rainbows and a new release method (2005–present)
  2. In Rainbows and "pay what you want" (2005–present)
  3. In Rainbows and a new pricing scheme (2005–present)
  4. In Rainbows and a change of labels (2005–present)
  5. In Rainbows and going independent (2005 – present)
  6. In Rainbows and leaving EMI (2005 – present)

Please discuss your preferred option, or propose an alternative (don't just vote!). Personally, I'd prefer to stick with any of numbers 4-6, or something like "In Rainbows and independent work" as it sums up the entire period. "Pay as you want" only lasted for a couple of months, and isn't a fair summary of the band's career in this entire 3 year period. Papa November (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I strongly support In Rainbows and leaving EMI (2005 – present), or "going independent" and "change of labels." The change of a record label is a significant event in the history of any band. Furthermore, the others are misleading; yes, In Rainbows was offered for free, but as far as we know this was a one-time-only deal. It is far too early to hail it as a "new release method." faithless (speak) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the options selected by Faithlessthewonderboy. In contrast, the title "In Rainbows and "pay what you want" (2005–present)" is the worst possible choice and, quite frankly, utterly shit. Now there's some grammatical leeway with section titles, but that title is horrendously awkward (amplified by the word "and"). I'm for the use of quotes in sections titles if they are sensible (U2 uses the phrase "Reapplying to be the best band in the world" as a section title, because it is a notable quote that summarizes the point), but this quote is fairly random and not all that illustrative of what actually happened. Seriously, it's nonsensical, poorly constructed, and just plain horrible. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I support "pay what you want" (or as it should really be written pay-what-you-want). Yes, pretty ugly looking phrase, but the most appropriate. Google "In Rainbows" and you will see most news articles and reviews discuss pay-what-you-want heavily. The fact they left EMI is usually only briefly mentioned. To most people pay-what-you-want has been the most important thing Radiohead have done in recent years. Leaving EMI is really only important to fans (especially fans who write Wikipedia articles). As an encyclopedia article it should reflect what is widely seen as important, not what a bunch of fans think is important.Surlytim (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • We should try to be objective: we need a section heading that reflects the content of the section accurately. Every other section does this, for example the "Pablo Honey, The Bends and early success" section describes each of those things in detail. The "In Rainbows and insert preference" section however, only dedicates a couple of lines to the entire pay-what-you-want subject. It spends as much time describing the regular releases. Let's ask ourselves "what is this section talking about"? I'd sum up the section by saying it's talking about In Rainbows and the band's independent work since leaving EMI. Now, if I could only find a succinct way of saying that...! Papa November (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • To be fair then, "leaving EMI" is only discussed in a couple of lines. Perhaps independent work/going independent would be a better compromise as you suggest. Surlytim (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I was one of the ones changing it back to "Pay what you want" a few months ago (my reason: it was certainly preferable to the hilariously awkward "a new release method" or to "leaving EMI," since at least "pay what you want" refers to the music that WAS released during this period rather than simply the record label they had already departed). But both were bad, overly specific titles once we get into 2008, and I think everyone found a brilliant compromise with "...and independent work". The fact that band members' solo work accelerates in this period also helps make it an appropriate title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.89.26 (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in case anyone ever wants to change it back, I forgot my #1 objection to "leaving EMI"- it was that section titles should make some sense for the layperson reader who is not yet familiar with the subject. they serve to orient these readers, who may not want to read the whole article. while the ins and outs of what constitutes an independent label may not be clear to everyone, the phrase "independent work" (as with the other, good section titles) is quite clear in a general way, giving an idea what may be in the section even to someone who has never read a single word about pop music before. Whereas it's well possible that even many Radiohead hardcore fans in this day and age, much less the general wiki-reading public, may have no idea in advance of reading this article what "EMI" is. If this term "EMI" were extremely central to the theme of the article it would need to be used as a section title regardless of not being understood by laypeople, but this is not the case at all. 172.130.89.26 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The article gives adequate context and explanation of what EMI is. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The ARTICLE does, but that section title mentioning EMI was much too specific and didn't reflect the content of the section. That's the point. For an article on a subject like this, the section titles should make instant sense as a summary of the band's career history, without someone even having to read the article.
1, 2, or 6. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment: Can you give a reason for your preferences? Simple voting is generally discouraged. Thanks Papa November (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Discography link

The current external discography link is to MusicBrainz, which is pretty unusable. I'd suggest rhdiscog.com. Just an opinion of course, but MusicBrainz seems to be listing a whole load of bootlegs, which is hardly a discography, really! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.60.26 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

the discography link should be to the discography on ateaseweb.com, the leading radiohead fan website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.248.6 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Band picture???

Why is it in black&white? Are they trying to be portrayed as some old school beatle-like band thus making them appear awesome? Seriphyn (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would look pretty bad in colour: all the source images are under very different lighting, so it's much better to just strip it down to B&W. Papa November (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not use one of the images released by the band on the In Rainbows disc? Or is this not fair usage? Arveigh (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted images can never be used when there is a free alternative available. See WP:NONFREE for more information. Papa November (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonny's Picture, with the "Electronic Instrument"

He's not playing an electronic instrument in this picture, so i think its inappropriate to refer to a variety of electronic instruments in a very specific period of time in the caption that does not actually relate to the picture. He is playing Glockenspiel in the picture. Tylerisfat (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

oh god... if true, THAT NEEDS FIXING. :) 172.130.89.26 (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, it seems dumb to have a caption completely unrelated to whats happening in the picture. The caption doesn't really fit it at all, as it specifies a time in their career that the picture was not taken during, and an instrument that is not being played. Tylerisfat (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It used to be even worse- I think the caption originally referred to synthesizers or ondes martenots, of which that obviously isn't one. I changed it to "a variety of electronic instruments" since I wasn't sure what it was, but now it turns out not to be "electronic" at all! Great. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.148.165 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm changing the caption, again. It does seem to get reverted fairly often, to 'electronic instruments.' Hopefully with this little discussion section, that won't continue.Tylerisfat (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Tour in South America

The band has not confirmed if they will tour South America in 2008. The statement that they will tour North America, Europe, South America and Japan must be corrected, unless there is official confirmation that they will tour all the mentioned regions. The article backing up these regions does not mention South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.78.198.3 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not true, sadly.
In December 2007 Ed O'Brien said they were almost certain to tour at least Brazil and Argentina, probably in between legs of the North American and Euro tours, and that's where the sentence comes from, but it looks as if this plan has already been abandoned. Unless they're planning to go down there much later in (northern hem.) autumn. For a band so aware of global economic inequalities they always seem to find some excuse only to visit North America, Japan and the richest countries of Europe on their own tours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.148.165 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to another interview a couple of months ago, Radiohead still plan to tour parts of South America, and maybe Mexico, in 2009. Aroquentin tin (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Humph

I have just been reading in Humphrey Lyttleton's obituary that he played on a 7 hour session for Amnesiac. Yet I can find no mention of it in the Radiohead article. Was his recording used? If so, it should be mentioned. Amnesiac is one of the few Radiohead albums I don't own! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The piece he worked on was 'Life in a Glass House,' which is the last track off Amnesiac. I think such a small part on a b-sides album does not really warrant a mention 12.183.126.18 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Slayer13
Amnesiac isn't a b-sides album. Cathalmcb (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (GMT)
Amnesiac is NOT a B-sides album, but their fifth studio album, and if such a celebrated jazz musician jammed with them for 7 hours, then evidence should be found and it should be in the article. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Life in a Glass House was actually one of the SOUND SAMPLES in this article for a long time, before the deletionists removed most of those. The caption mentioned their collaboration with Lyttelton (it's completely his band you hear on that song- backing Yorke singing) and Radiohead's incorporation of jazz influences. There was also mention of Lyttelton in the text of the Kid A/Amnesiac section: Radiohead staged their own "festival" in Oxford in 2001, their first show there since becoming popular 8 years earlier, and as co-headliners they chose Beck, Sigur Ros and... Humphrey Lyttelton and his band. (Even if they did not collaborate on playing anything live with Radiohead at that time, they did perform Life... once together, its only live performance, on Jools Holland in that year) There's a short interview Lyttelton gave where he talked about his impressions of working with Radiohead, as well. He got a formal letter from Jonny Greenwood asking him if he would be interested in working together, but he had to go to his grandchildren to ask them who Radiohead was, and after listening to OK Computer decided to try it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.148.165 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

replacing false myspace link

dear wiki

www.myspace.com/radiohead isn't the band's myspace page. dunno why, but the url is www.myspace.com/215759866

cheers - jame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.248.249 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the template anyway - it's really only intended for user pages, not as a reference for articles. Papa November (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Towering Above the Rest

If anyone knows more about Towering Above the Rest than I do. Please add it to that article It is seemingly a collection of lots of bootlegs which seem to have a lot of hits in google

Francium12 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Bootlegs aren't really notable enough to mention. Papa November (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems strange we have Category:Bootleg albums then Francium12 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think he was saying generally speaking bootlegs aren't notable. faithless (speak) 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh fantastic, I turn my back and a deletionist gets it, why do I bother Francium12 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You edited the article four times after it was WP:PRODed, so I can't see how its deletion took you by surprise. Also, some people might be insulted being called deletionists. Just sayin'. faithless (speak) 23:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the label of "deletionist" should be reserved for people who delete articles it would at least be possible to argue are notable. This is not true of "Towering Above the Rest"- calling it a bootleg is giving it way too much credit, since it was just one fan's compilation of all the stuff (which would only have been "rarities" pre-Internet) that any other fans with access to the Internet had already found, with the only addition of an extra-silly title. Everything on there was either officially released as a b-side and legally available on EPs and singles, or already widely circulating live versions, which the bootleg compiler did not record themselves. It's really an insult to fans if anyone ever paid for that person's mp3 collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.57.156 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


I agree, although i found it impossible to find a live version of sulk live until it was sent to me, apparently it's on CD 22 of the collection, i put it on youtube so people can find it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.106.245 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"electronic music"

Any sources?--SilverOrion (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

2530 Google News hits, 359 Google Scholar hits and 229 Google Books hits. faithless (speak) 09:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If they do another album with the instrumentation of In Rainbows, it'll be arguable they should be reduced back to just "alternative rock" and/or "art rock" (or, the shame of being just "rock"!) but for now Kid A and Amnesiac are almost a third of their work, and there's still more-than-average use of blatantly electronic sounds on OK Computer, Hail to the Thief, and In Rainbows, compared to most other rock albums of the time. The whole thing's really arbitrary though- you don't see "electronic music" for The Cure, or for many pop and hip-hop acts now, or even Linkin Park, though all these examples for better or worse, use at least as many electronic sounds (however this is defined) as Radiohead. Before the late '90s, I guess using electronics was a major part of the idea of "alternative rock," and "electronica" had yet to become a meaningless marketing category, so it was less necessary to specify bands as that. I think what happened is that the definition of "alternative rock" broke down because it stopped meaning anything after Nirvana, and became associated with some lame bands with a macho, post-grunge, usually anti-electronic kind of sound, so more specific descriptions had to be invented for bands that pushed the limits of sound in the ways alternative bands used to. If you read the Kid A article though, there are great arguments for that specific album (and Amnesiac) being called "electronic music," not due to how it sounds, since a lot of it used non-electronic instruments, but to the idea and methods behind its production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.57.156 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Paranoid Android, the longest song?

As per:

"Paranoid Android", Radiohead's first single from OK Computer, consisted of three sections, computerized voices, and abrasive guitar solos. It was the band's highest charting single thus far and remains the longest song they have released.

In fact, Motion Picture Soundtrack is 6:59 whereas Paranoid Android is only 6:23. I realise a large part of the former is whitespace, but since it's listed as longer in the Kid A article, isn't it wrong to state that the latter is longer?

Tricky one. But I think that while MPS is a longer track, PA is a longer song. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. And it would seem like an irrelevant thing to mention PA's length (which after all, isn't *THAT* long in the post-Hey Jude world), except that it's quite notable and strange Radiohead has never come up with something longer. It's hard for me to think of any other act of whatever style of modern music except the purest punk, or the simplest pop, that hasn't done a song longer than that with a seven-album career behind them. None of the rock bands Radiohead gets compared to resisted the temptation, but my god, not even Radiohead b-sides go over the limit, even if some live versions do. I think it shows their control-freak nature pretty clearly- it's almost scary! And I think most people would be surprised to find it out, for such an "experimental" band, as well, but it just shows experimentation isn't as simple as it's usually cracked up to be, and I like how they leave you wanting more, especially with short unsettling albums like Amnesiac or In Rainbows. I remember reading something Brian Eno said about how much harder it was to make up a two-second "song" to be used as the Windows theme, than all the other music he had written in his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.57.156 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In Rainbows Release

Why does someone continually change the release date from 'October 10, 2007' back to 'October, 2007'? It is an established fact that the record came out that day, so why can't the wiki show that information? 12.183.126.18 (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Slayer13

The exact day the album was released is unnecessary to mention in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Radiohead's Pioneering Achievements

A band that pioneered so much new technology in their music videos and concerts? A definitely must add to the page i think. Especially with the new laser scanned house of cards music video. And also the LED light system for their upcoming concerts Just a thought. Anyone agrees or disagrees? Nekolux (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


I agree, but how precisely should it be implemented here? I think that if this was sufficiently brought into being, a second page would be in order. But the difficulty is very high. Where do you draw the line of what they have pioneered, what has been pioneered FOR them, and what they were just the first to be noticed doing? 70.59.153.55 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes that is a problem, perhaps we can draft out our ideas in the talk page first and once everyone has gone through it and agreed that it meets the FA class we can then copy and paste it over? i'll do it on a word doc now and post it here later.Nekolux (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Best of" in the lead section

I have removed the mention of the "best of" from the lead section, as it gave far too much weight to the album. I don't have any objection to it being mentioned in the lead, but it seems ridiculous to have it mentioned in the first paragraph, before any other album. Any thoughts? Papa November (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another content dispute: Influence section

WesleyDodds suggested these changes were all negative (i.e. reverted me). I think at least some are improvements on the older version. Hopefully some other people will work to improve this section, which remains by far the weakest link in the article.

This was my text:

While Radiohead's later albums brought the band a wide audience,[1] their earlier sound on The Bends and OK Computer remained influential on British rock music. In the late 1990s and 2000s, many critics compared the style of contemporary bands to Radiohead. Some of these bands also used the band's own producers Nigel Godrich or John Leckie. When asked in 2001 by MTV, "How do you guys feel about the fact that bands like Travis, Coldplay and Muse are making a career sounding exactly like your records did in 1997?", Yorke replied, "Good luck with Kid A."[2] In 2008, Coldplay's singer Chris Martin said, "Sometimes I feel like [Radiohead] cleared a path with a machete, and we came afterward and put up a strip mall."[3] Radiohead and Coldplay are among the only UK rock acts with US number one albums in recent decades.[4]

Other British rock bands such as Bloc Party have cited influences from Kid A and Amnesiac,[5][6] but acts from many countries and musical styles have also been compared to Radiohead. The press often likened the experimental path of Mexican alternative stars Café Tacuba to Radiohead.[7] Performers in different genres, such as The Roots,[8] Hanson,[9] John Mayer,[10] Massive Attack[11] and Gillian Welch,[12] as well as some jazz and classical musicians,[13] have directly covered or sampled Radiohead songs.

Radiohead's work has appeared in a large number of listener polls and critics' lists.[14][15][16] For example, in 2005, Radiohead were ranked number 73 in Rolling Stone's list of "the greatest artists of all time".[17] The same year, Kid A was also selected "best album of the decade so far" by critics at independent music websites Pitchfork and Stylus Magazine,[15] and OK Computer appeared as the all-time favourite album in a Channel 4 television poll of UK music listeners, with The Bends at 22 in the same list.[18]

Radiohead have toured with many bands through their career, including Spiritualized (1998), Sigur Rós (2000), Four Tet (2002) and Deerhoof (2006). On the current In Rainbows tour, Liars, Modeselektor, Grizzly Bear, Bat for Lashes and Underworld have all supported them as opening acts. Radiohead members have said that many of their chosen opening acts influenced them. Touring partners such as Deerhoof and Liars have said the same in interviews about playing with Radiohead.[19][20]

Edit: If we are going to list a few acts which covered the band, in order to be representative of a wider range of genres I would also advocate for Jorge Drexler (Oscar-winning Uruguayan singer-songwriter, covered "High and Dry" in 2006), Anthrax (well known heavy metal band, covered "The Bends" in 1999) and Matthew Herbert (acclaimed electronic artist, covered "(Nice Dream)" in 2006, his Wiki article also says he pioneered microhouse genre) being added. Sources can be found here, here and here. A roquentin tin (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you'd be better off naming Music Festivals they have played (Glastonbury etc.) rather than randomly naming four one off tours, when they would do that many in a year. kiac (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Also don't forget Toots an the Maytals and Horace Andy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.67.47 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

links to academic articles

At times this article has referenced academic papers, articles, and dissertations (full disclosure: one of them is my wife's). Periodically they come and go from the list of reference, external links, or further reading. The only discussion about whether these should stay or go appears to been in the edit summary. If the article is going to include links to commercial works, then it should also include links to academic articles. If a student is using this article as a starting point for research into the band then it would be better to have the links. RichardLetts (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Experimental

I know it's one of the more mutable and debatable genres of music (and thus meriting - tada! - talk page discussion and not arbitrary editing) but would anyone disagree with them being classified as experimental? I mean, "any music that challenges the commonly accepted notions of what music is" is right there in the Wikipedia article. I think their weird song structures, electronic music-heavy period, genre shifts, use of instruments like Ondes Martenot, and nods to what are commonly accepted experimental composers are decent evidence to "nominate" them for experimental music status. Then again, that might just make them art rock. (Oh no! I blew my whole arguement!) 24.3.14.157 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to find multiple reliable references which describe them as experimental, as personal opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia. You need to be careful with definitions of genres though. As I understand it "experimental music" refers more to modern classical music, like Philip Glass. "Experimental rock" might be more appropriate. Papa November (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about Philip Glass for experimental music, maybe John Cage. But yeah, in any case experimental music does not really refer to popular music, nor to classical music, but to something that violates a lot more rules than Radiohead songs do. Btw, the fact they have "song structures" at all, kinda tells you they are still doing pop music. And even if all their songs sounded like "Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors" you might have a hard case to prove they were part of "experimental music". It's a music scene, really, and no one has ever said they are a part of it.
EDIT: I should add, Thom Yorke proudly identifies himself as a pop singer. 70.21.67.47 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre

The genre field has been removed from the infobox as it does not fit with the "facts & figures" nature of the other fields. However, this leads to an issue with what the first sentence in the article should say. Some options:

  1. "Radiohead are an English alternative rock band from Oxfordshire."
    This is the existing option. I favour keeping this, as the "alternative rock" label can apply to some extent to every album the band made. It does however seem a little restrictive, as Radiohead have worked in a variety of other styles.
  2. "Radiohead are an English alternative rock/art rock/electronic band from Oxfordshire."
    Someone added this a few hours ago, but I reverted it because it is far too ugly and cumbersome. Imagine a screen reader reading this out to a blind person - not good! However, it does cover pretty much every possible style the band have worked in
  3. "Radiohead are an English band from Oxfordshire whose music has included alternative rock, art rock and electronic styles."
    A bit longer, but it keeps everything together.

Opinions anyone? Whatever we do, I'd suggest adding some in-line commentary asking people not to edit the list without discussion. Papa November (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The first one. Over-arching/general genre should come in the the first sentence. indopug (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with indopug. Giggy (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added the second option before. But I think something like the third option looks good. Maybe it could be something like "Radiohead are an English band from Oxfordshire who covers a variety musical genres such as alternative rock, art rock and electronic." - 66.227.131.213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.131.213 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Paranoid Android" sources

There's currently a push taking place to get "Paranoid Android" featured. If anyone who's hanging around this page has any sources or other such information (eg. an NME review is one of the things we're looking for) that could help the article, please feel free to pitch in. Giggy (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Radiohead tours

One thing this article lacks is detail on Radiohead's live performances. I stumbled on List of Björk tours and it seems like this format may just work for Radiohead as well. It's quite brief, it lists the songs performed from each album over each tour (NOT individual setlists!), the total number of songs performed per tour, the start and end dates of each tour, and the opening acts on each tour. The article also has a list of TV show appearances by Bjork.

Radiohead tours are notable, as they have predictably sometimes been voted by some magazines/readers as the best live act, and they're one of the most profitable current touring bands as well (#7 or 8 of this summer), despite not charging particularly high prices relative to some other acts, or doing it on a particularly regular schedule. A lot of the major rock bands already have separate articles on each tour (i.e. U2, Coldplay), but this doesn't seem as appropriate for Radiohead since their tours rarely had unique names (only exception is "Running from Demons" tour for OK Computer album, and that name wasn't even used consistently) and also their tours tend to be a bit smaller and shorter, probably not warranting such unique attention. However, they do warrant more attention than they get in Wiki right now. For instance, the band is known for changing up setlists, and they have not played their two greatest radio hits (i.e. Creep, High and Dry) regularly for a decade. Meanwhile they have brought back certain old songs after long intervals. But their live performances aren't unscripted to the point it would be a headache to compile such a list. For the most part they stick to a consistent set of songs on each tour, including the tours where they have played a large number of new songs. They rarely if ever perform cover songs on tour. There is plenty of setlist information and live reviews available for every Radiohead tour, with the exception of 1993 and earlier.

Several other things also make their tours notable. The band continued to tour as basically a rock band despite the change in music style on their records. In Kid A there used to be a list of songs from the album played live, and how the songs were specifically changed for live performance, and then this information was removed. It might fit better as a footnote to a tours article. Another thing, their 2008 tour has attracted attention in many reviews for its innovative LED lighting system which is said to use far less energy than the usual lights. This is the sort of thing which other bands may pick up on, and eventually might fit more into the Influence section of this Radiohead article, as well. But the Radiohead article also used to list some of the bands that have opened for them (most reflecting the band's musical influences, and some of them going on to greater success), which editors have also felt was out of place here. Bjork's tour article provides a good template I think. 70.21.67.47 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that there's some merit in discussing the band's live performances, there's already a brief mention of some tours here and I'd be concerned about making this article any longer. Perhaps a new article about Live performances by Radiohead would be a better idea. I do have a couple of concerns about it though. As usual, everything would need to be supported by reliable sources (fansites aren't good enough). Are there any set lists published anywhere? Furthermore, information is only notable if it is in multiple reliable sources; observations from web forums/fanzines/yourself should be left out. For example, statistics about the band's most/least commonly played songs would not be appropriate for the article, unless a reliable published source has given them. Papa November (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Box Set, Live album and Greatest Hits in the Intro?

Someone has recently added some new sentences at the end of the intro to mention the box set released last year containing all of Radiohead's albums up to In Rainbows, as well as this summer's greatest hits compilation Radiohead: The Best of. They also mention the 2001 live "mini album" I Might Be Wrong which was a part of last year's box set along with the first six albums.

This information has occasionally been added before when the products were first released, and it was always removed by consensus that they weren't relevant for the intro. A few days ago I removed these again and was told not to remove useful information. I argue that with the possible (but very arguable) exception of I Might Be Wrong, none of these releases is relevant to mention in the introduction, because they have not been important in the larger view of the band's career. The fact that the box set and greatest hits were released by the band's former label EMI without band members' permission- thus generating some Radiohead fan dislike for these products- is completely irrelevant in deciding to remove them. What is relevant is that neither the box set, nor the greatest hits compilation, contained any new tracks, and furthermore neither has performed particularly well commercially (or critically) in comparison with the band's albums, and neither is important in defining the musical style of the band in a way the albums did not, so their mention adds nothing to the existing overview of Radiohead's career and music that is already given by the intro. The box set in particular did nothing more than repackage all the existing albums for a new price (they had never gone out of print, so they were not "re-released"- unlike some of the band's lesser known EPs and singles, which HAVE been re-released by EMI over the years). Yes, it is perhaps appropriate that it (and, certainly, the hits compilation, the band's first) are mentioned in the article when it discusses the time period in which they were released. However to mention them in the intro seems like purely a commercial tie-in, like "Reader: do you like Radiohead? Here's their newest product".

In fact I don't remember ever seeing another "good article", let alone a "featured" one, feature such greatest hits products in the introduction. For instance, even The Beatles' massively successful, record-breaking "1" compilation is not mentioned in the introduction to the Beatles article. Maybe if a classic band has been inactive for a long time and resurfaces with a new hits compilation containing new tracks, and that release is generating a lot of media attention, that could be very releveant to their intro. But this is not at all the case with Radiohead- the greatest hits generated comparatively little media attention (and the expensive box set released by the label last year, virtually zero) compared to their current tour and album.

The only argument for inclusion of the greatest hits (as opposed to the box set, for which I see no argument in the intro) is that it's the most recent full length release with the band's name, even if it is not new material. But it came out in early June, nearly five months ago, and since then the band have released several more singles from their current album In Rainbows. Their recent and ongoing-next-year tour has been tied to promoting their album, not the hits compilation.

As for I Might Be Wrong, I could see that maybe it has some relevance as the band's only live album, but similar to the greatest hits, it did not make enough impact commercially or critically to justify mentioning in the intro. In fact it was considered by most reviews as closer to being an EP than a full length album, and as such, it fits better within the Kid A and Amnesiac section, the same way we don't mention Bends-era EP My Iron Lung (which was ALL-new material) nor OKC's Airbag/How Am I Driving EP discussed in the intro. The idea of the intro is NOT to mention every single release the band has done- that is what the ARTICLE is for. It's true this band has only released seven full length albums as of 2008, and they have shown a strong sense of change over time, as well as continued commercial and critical relevance. For that reason only, it seems appropriate for the intro to mention each of the seven albums of Radiohead, whereas say the Bob Dylan or Sonic Youth article cannot hope to mention every album. However, our intro can't be an invitation for completists to add mention of every single other release that is linked in the Radiohead navbox. At some point quite soon if Radiohead's career continues for long, it will no longer be appropriate to name every full length in the intro. Right now, the seven albums ARE there for a reason, but our intro is detailed enough as it is, and I think any additional releases need to be similarly justified as those albums. 70.21.38.143 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I right in summarising your detailed post with the following statement? You oppose the inclusion of I Might Be Wrong, the box set and the Best of album in the lead due to their very low prominence within the story band's career.
If you're happy with that very brief summary, I think I broadly agree with you. The box set is completely irrelevant to the lead: it was just a marketing decision by the record label; really very little to do with the history of the band themselves or their music. The "Best Of" album has no new music on it, and again is just a decision taken by the record label. The lack of approval by the band is far too trivial for the lead section. There were no high-profile arguments and mentioning it only detracts from the more important parts of the lead. Finally, I Might Be Wrong again contains no new music and isn't a big deal in the history of the band. The lead should really only present the most important details.
With the exception of "Creep", which was a massive, global hit which launched the band's career I'd prefer to only mention full length, original studio albums in the lead to avoid proliferation of trivia and obscuring important points. Papa November (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we agree then. I don't think either the box set/greatest hits, OR the band's disagreement with the label over these things, are deserving of mention in the intro/lead. What I was trying to say was just that there are so many reasons that we as editors should remove mention of these releases in the lead, ASIDE from the bad feelings some have about them because the band doesn't approve of them. I Might Be Wrong for instance, was approved by the band, but that doesn't make it relevant for the intro either. The reason we have to remove them is they weren't that important, and all the music that's on them is already summarized in our lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.38.143 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Charts table

Needs a singles and albums chart badly - most good bands have the some sort of template —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.35.119 (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2008 (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)

I do concur. Zazaban (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Exhumation complete. Zazaban (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Post Rock

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

I reverted the addition of "Progressive rock" per the invisible comment in the article "PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE GENRES WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT ON THE TALK PAGE!", as this issue has come up before. If a number of reliable sources state that the album is post rock (or progressive rock, or europop for that matter), then bring them up here and through discussion the current consensus (of Alternative rock, electronic music, experimental rock) can be changed. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Radiohead is listed on the Prog Archives as progressive rock. Rick Wakeman states "Radiohead are as prog as they come". Prog is not just something that is similar to the 70's prog. Radiohead definitely belongs to the category "progressive rock", otherwise you have to re-define the term progressive rock. 193.65.105.176 (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2010 (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)

I'd agree with this, particularly in light of iTunes' decision to sell the hidden track seperately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.27.28 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Everything in its right place (live on I might be wrong). is the longest released song. (7:43). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.234.170 (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Style section

It reads more like an influences section. Alternative rock is not referenced at all throughout the article, but we claim it is their main genre? I understand that there is brief mentions of style in each history section, because of their progression, but we really need some sort of summary which we can at least attribute the genres in the infobox too. Something to look into. kiac. (talk-contrib) 08:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Style and songwriting" section

I notice the "Style and songwriting" section from the version that passed the FAC is about three times as large as the current one. Also, there seems to be a lot of valuable information that has been left out. Why is that so? Can we revert back to the FAC version?—indopug (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This should give you an idea. Since all that was almost a year ago and the article has changed somewhat, it would make sense to start gaining consensus to re-add at least some of the info - for what it's worth, as a former contributor I'd support at least a partial revert to the old version, or something along those lines. 71.164.187.101 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Indie

CBS Radio has their Radiohead station listed under the Indie category. Should we list indie as one of their genres? 76.126.21.16 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because we're working on the "proper" meaning of Indie as in independent music. Radiohead, it's true, are no longer on EMI but they aren't an indie band and certainly most of their hits were released with a major record label. The genres defined also do an adaquate job in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.27.28 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New prog

I know that it has been brought up before, but shouldn't the genre list new prog? Even Wikipedia itself lists the band as a new prog band. Sbrianhicks (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

can i put progressive rock on radiohead's genre section?

albums like ok computer are progressive rock so please can i? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.220.96 (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think New Prog should be added... I think Progressive Rock is a bit too much... --80.109.105.223 (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source which explicitly describes Radiohead as a "New prog" band, then it can be considered. Papa November (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this one ok? http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2001/sep/07/artsfeatures.popandrock --80.109.105.223 (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding genres

I'm gonna ask a question.

Why can't I put "Art rock" or "Progressive rock" in radiohead's genres?

This is ridiculous, Prog Archieves called radiohead "prog rock" and OK Computer has been considered a "Prog rock" album.

So I still don't understand why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.248.50 (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Because (a) Only one of their albums (OK computer) falls loosely into that category. None of the others are really prog at all. (b) The band have made statements in the past that they don't consider themselves prog rock. (c) OK Computer may have elements of prog rock, but as a whole it is not a prog rock album in the traditional sense. (d) There are already three genres in the infobox, which broadly summarise the band's music. We don't need dozens more. Papa November (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think "Art Rock" should be placed in Radiohead's genre section instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.41.33 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this before (check the archives); art rock is mostly a 60s/70s' genre, used for acts such as the Velvets, Bowie or Roxy Music.—indopug (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove "accepted changes"?

Since this article has been getting relatively little IP attention of late—around 1 IP edit every couple days—and a number of people are watching this article, shall we remove the "accepted changes" thing and go back to normal?—indopug (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sure. We can always put it back if the vandalism creeps up again. Papa November (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New Tracklist?

The LP8 tracklist that has gone up has no citation or evidence, and is likely fabricated due to the ferocity of rumours surrouding their latest release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.31.70 (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

This information about an 11-track listing is unverified and possible misinformation. Please stop adding it. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

King of Limbs release date edit

The release information for King of Limbs needs to be updated. According to Pitchfork Media, the album will be out of March 29, 2011 in North America, and March 28, 2011 everywhere else. Source: http://pitchfork.com/news/41561-radiohead-to-release-new-album-this-saturday/

Can this change me made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisBernard (talkcontribs) 00:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The page isn't edit protected. Make the change, as long as you include the source. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

alert

this article has really gone way down the tubes in the last year....someone want to put it up for Featured Article Review? papa november, whered you go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.175.74 (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm still alive! I finished my PhD and got a job, so I don't spend anywhere near as much time on Wikipedia these days. Most of my efforts have either been in complicated physics articles or helping my idiot friend Coolug out with his horrible article about The Human Centipede (First Sequence). The trouble with articles about popular subjects (like Radiohead) is that there are a lot of very serious fans who want to add obscure or trivial information. Eventually, it reaches a point where the reader has to trawl through five pages of statistical analysis about the colours of T-shirts worn by Thom Yorke before they discover that Radiohead released an album called OK Computer in the '90s. I guess I haven't been paying enough attention to notice the holes developing in the article. Can you point me to particular areas of weakness? Papa November (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
oi! Coolug (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

History on name of band

It was revealed what inspired the song "Radio Head" . . . and thus I feel is very connected to the name of this band, since this band is named after that song. I added a (long) sentence and it was removed 9 minutes later for being "excessively tangential". I seek thoughts by other if this is considered legitimate or "excessively tangential" - I don't want it to be just between me and the person who reverted it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.86.185 (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All that's necessary for context here is where the name comes from. What inspired said song is irrelevant to this page; only the appropriate Talking Heads page. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't there a Criticism Section?

This whole article is very NPOV/brown-nosing to the band! Many critics have labelled their work as derivative! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are POV. NPOV is the way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This article doesn't really cover critical reception of the band's work. Instead, the article about each album presents a fair overview of positive and negative critical reception. Papa November (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence about album sales should be removed from the lede

It's four years old, so it's a dated figure for the first six albums, and Radiohead have released three albums since: In Rainbows, The Best Of, and The King of Limbs. If you consider that to be irrelevant, then consider this: although it's published in a newspaper, the claim about record sales in the cite is a statement from Radiohead's manager, essentially not an unbiased source. Also, the word "records" is used, not "albums". Records could mean singles, EPs, albums, you name it. I think this should be removed, or an up-to-date figure given, if available. Hussein95698 (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be no objection. Hussein95698 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I restored the information because this is the most verifiable sales data we have for Radiohead to date. Certainly they've sold more records since then, but we can't verify any amounts. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The band are amazing.

One would not say "the band are amazing." While the band is comprised of multiple members, the band itself is singular. The page should open "Radiohead is...." not "Radiohead are...." I wonder why the edit page has been disabled for Radiohead. I don't think Thom and the boys would approve of such a restriction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.15.147 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The way to treat band names is an ongoing and heated dispute. I'm not sure if Wiki has a set policy (though itmay relate to what english spelling/grammar tradition is being used...see below). My person feeling is that in American English, a band, as a collective noun (like herd, etc) should be treated as a singular noun, with the exception of when the band's name is in and of itself a plural noun (The Killers). So, it would be "Radiohead is a band. Radiohead rocks. Radiohead jumps up and down." instead of "Radiohead are a band. Radiohead rock. Radiohead jump up and down." In the case of The Killers, the band name being a collective noun is negated by the name itself being a plural noun. So, "The Killers rock, The Killers are a band", etc. HOWEVER, there are folks on the other side of the argument who would argue just as strongly. The following sources agree with me. I'm sure there are many that disagree.Now that I look at a couple of the sources (especially Grammar Girl, who I trust implicitly:)), it looks like this might be an England vs. American usage issue. With Radiohead as a UK band, then British spellings/usage would be in place for this article. Read these and see what you think.
 http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm
 http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/06/is-the-band-phish-singular-or-plural.html
 http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/collective-nouns.aspx

Jbower47 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. The band are ok.--Michig (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"Radiohead are" is bad British English as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't.--Michig (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed a few times previously, and the consensus was that "Radiohead are..." is the normal usage in British English, and that the majority of magazine/newspaper articles about the band use that form too. Papa November (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
As a British Person, I can say that "Radiohead are" would be the preferred usage in this country. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely Prog Rock

The edginess/pretentiousness (delete as necessary) of some of this band's output suggests progressive rock, not alternative rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You say that as if alt-rock is never edgy or pretentious. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
He/she said it like it's confirmed to be "edgy" or "pretentious". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)