They will never make anything like this again

>they will never make anything like this again

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EPIRpI0GtDc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bends
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_(Radiohead_song)
discogs.com/Radiohead-Creep/release/465416
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>OP will make another thread like this again

if they did you would just say it's derivative and they've run out of ideas

Everything they've done since has just been refinements of the Amnesiac sound. In terms of mood they'll probably never do another album like it but in terms of style Amnesiac is basically where Radiohead became the band they are today in full bloom with all the albums before it working towards the Amnesiac sound.

youtube.com/watch?v=EPIRpI0GtDc

Same cover, better album

I prefer TKOL

>Kid A and Kid B
Who cares, TKOL is their best anyway.

>They will never make anything like this ever again

Sulk and High and Dry should have been replaced by Talk Show Host, The Trickster, or any other Bends era b-sides

>they will never make anything again

sad that they're retiring..

Sad that Thom is dead

Good, it was awful

High and dry was great. But I agree with Talk Show Host replacing sulk

Talk Show Host is not a Bends era b-side you dummies

They did, its called the king of limbs. That said, its not AS good, but is still fantastic

It was on the Street Spirit (Fade Out) EP

They were recorded at the same session as "Lucky" was, while the band was on tour for The Bends.

It's still considered a Bends era b-side even if it was recorded just a couple of months after the album was released.

>recorded just a couple of months after the album was released.
Then it isn't a part of that era, is it? It was a year btw

Do you think Lucky is a Bends era song too? lel

yea Lucky is, it was recorded closer to The Bends. Lucky sounds more like a Bends song than OKC song anyways

>Lucky sounds more like a Bends song than OKC song anyways
Not really

>they will never make anything like this again

Because they already made it. Making it again would just come off as watered down and derivative. The fact that this came out of the same sessions as Kid A shows there was no conscious effort to write this way in the first place. It was just a natural part of where they were creatively at the time. To actively try and re-create that would probably result in garbage.

>thommy will die in your lifetime

>they will make this album again and again

wtf user

delet

>Then it isn't a part of that era, is it? It was a year btw

If the closest album to it's recording was The Bends, and it came out while they were touring The Bends then it's part of The Bends era. Your only logic is that it came out after The Bends so therefore it can't be part of that era.

Dummy

Wtf bro that wasn't necessary

Not that guy but I think it would have to be when it was written. I mean creatively the songs on the bends come from a different place than on OK Computer so I think you would have to look at the writing of the song rather than quibbling over release dates like fucking idiots who don't know how to use the word era

Yes really, it sounds like it could fit in the final stretch of The Bends really snug. It wasn't out of place in OK Computer, but it just feels like it'd work just as well (if not better) in The Bends.

>. Your only logic is that it came out after The Bends so therefore it can't be part of that era
No the logic is that it was written and recorded at the start of a new era, since Lucky was literally included on OK Computer and Talk Show Host paved the way for Kid A material.
This guy knows what's up.

But then going solely by that logic you would have to say that "Lucky" was a "The Bends" era song.

not if I kill myself first

Not really. The work is really dependent on open space and atmospherics, like the rest of OKC. The reason was is because it was written in empty venues during soundchecks. Not really. See above.

>Not that guy but I think it would have to be when it was written.

Exactly. It was written around the time of The Bends and only came out a few months after. So therefore it's a The Bends era song.

Obviously I know the release date doesn't really matter. For example if they released some bonus track from The Bends session this year I wouldn't consider it part of the AMSP era. It's just common sense m8

>It was written around the time of The Bends
Yet it wasn't. The Beands was completed, and the band moved on. If it was written in "The Time of The Bends" it would have been in consideration of the album.
>few months after.
It was recorded 10 months after the last songs on The Bends were recorded. I know you don't know what context is, but I assure you it's important.

>No the logic is that it was written and recorded at the start of a new era

Talk Show Host was on the Planet Telex EP you mong. That's The Bends era.

>Talk Show Host was on the Planet Telex EP you mong
It was a new song they had just recorded because they needed a b-side. Are you tarded?

>releaed 10 months after The Bends
>probably recorded months earlier
>probably written months/years earlier

Once again, stop obsessing over release dates like an autist. The song was obviously written during the same time they were writing The Bends.

>It was recorded 10 months after the last songs on The Bends were recorded

It was released 10 months after The Bends was released. Get your facts straight m8

This was the last of their political/neurotic albums. Radiohead chilled the fuck out after this one.

Prove it
>released
Irrelevant

The Bends was recorded between May and November of 1994, mostly written in the spring of 1994.
Lucky, Talk Show Host and Bishop's Robes were recorded September 1995, written probably that fall because they were all new songs.

You do the math.

>Prove it

Do you think bands write songs and then they magically get released a week/month later? What are you 13 years old?

>Irrelevant

You don't know when they recorded it though. You say release dates are irrelevant yet you're using them as recording dates. You're being a liar and a hypocrite at the same time.

>You don't know when they recorded it though
I looked it up. Did you?
>yet you're using them as recording dates
No I'm using the recording dates as recording dates.
Not a proof, try again

Lel so let me get this straight. You're divying up a bands "eras" by their albums (i.e. The Bends era or the OKC era) YET you claim the release dates are irrelevant? oook

That being said there's an easy solution to this. Talk Show Host = The Bends era as it's on a B-side for that album and the bonus tracks for that album. If the band considered an OK Computer era song they would have included it on the Ok Computer bonus trakcs.

Lucky is an Ok Computer song because it's on fucking OK Computer.

Y'all are fucked.

>Not a proof, try again

The burden of proof is on you though. Talk Show host is objectively a The Bends era track. Just because you have off the charts autism doesn't make your different opinion any more special.

>You're divying up a bands "eras" by their albums
No I'm diving up by when they were written and recorded.
>Talk Show Host = The Bends era as it's on a B-side for that album
>Lucky is an Ok Computer song because it's on fucking OK Computer.
Your logic fails because both songs were written and recorded at the same time.
>The burden of proof is on you though.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bends
Recorded August – November 1994
Early 1993 ("High and Dry")
27 May 1994 ("My Iron Lung")
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_(Radiohead_song)
Recorded 4 September 1995

Learn2research

>lists recording dates

How does that prove anything? The burden of proof is on you to prove that Talk Show host is an OK Computer era song simply because it was recorded 10 months after The Bends era songs.

The majority of OK Computer was recorded September '96 through March '97. That's a year after Talk Show Host yet only 10 months after The Bends.

So if the recording was closer to The Bends and they were still touring for The Bends and it came out on a B-side for The Bends then by all means it's a Bends era track.

You're just grasping at straws by this point.

>You're just grasping at straws by this point.

Not him, but that sounds like you honestly, after reading your posts. If they recorded those songs in September of 96 (Talk Show Host and Lucky) and one of those tracks ended up on OK Computer then why wouldn't the other be considered part of the OKC era? That's just logic

>How does that prove anything?
You asked for recording dates. Did you forget what we were talking about?
>The burden of proof is on you to prove that Talk Show host is an OK Computer era song simply because it was recorded 10 months after The Bends era songs.
It was recorded at the same session as Lucky, which was an OKC era song. Hence, it was a part of that OKC era. Not to mention the arrangement is more forward thinking than The Bends and was more comparable to the forward thinking OKC. Also, it was the first session produced by Nigel Goodrich. That was the other factor
>So if the recording was closer to The Bends and they were still touring for The Bends and it came out on a B-side for The Bends then by all means it's a Bends era track.
Does that mean the song "The Bends" is actually a Pablo Honey song? Look it up if you don't know what I'm referencing

>It was recorded at the same session as Lucky, which was an OKC era song

It was recorded closer to The Bends era songs though. The only reason you're classifying Lucky as an Ok Computer song is because it was released on the album. I thought you said release dates don't matter???

>It was recorded closer
Not relevant
>The only reason you're classifying Lucky as an Ok Computer song is because it was released on the album.
And it was written post-Bends, along with the other OKC material, and stylistically fits it. We already covered this. Please pay attention

>It was recorded closer to The Bends era songs though. The only reason you're classifying Lucky as an Ok Computer song is because it was released on the album. I thought you said release dates don't matter???

You gotta be kidding

>Not relevant

That's exactly my point! Let me rephrase it carefuly for you m8. Lucky was RECORDED closer to The Bends. The only reason you consider an OKC track is because it was RELEASED on the album.

And I thought you said release dates don't matter. So therefore going by your established "logic" Lucky is a The Bends era track.

>closer
Not relevant
>The only reason you consider an OKC track is because it was RELEASED on the album.
Did you read the post you replied to? I don't think you did
>So therefore going by your established "logic"
My logic is that when Radiohead was finished recording with John Leckie in November 1994, the era wrapped, that project was done. A new era began with the recording of NEW songs with a NEW producer for a NEW project 10 months later, in September 1995. What was released when is not relevant to this logic.

Continue twisting my words if you want though.

At best the only thing you could argue is that those songs are part of their own era in between those two albums.

But since you dismiss anything that discredits you (such as recording dates) as "irrelevant" yet you'll use personaly opinions such as what is "stylistically" similar to OKC as solid proof I'm not really inclined to take much of what you say seriously.

It's literally like talking to a brick wall. Half your argument has been based off of recording dates thus far but when it gets pushed back around on you you just say "irrelevant". Bravo

I miss /mu circa 2010...

>At best the only thing you could argue is that those songs are part of their own era in between those two albums.
Not really. As I said, new producer, new songs, and the aesthetic of them (either spacey and atmospheric due to them being written in empty concert venues, per boundary pushing) matches OKC closer than The Bends
>But since you dismiss anything that discredits you (such as recording dates)
>Half your argument has been based off of recording dates
Wait, which is it? Now you are contradicting yourself.
>I'm not really inclined to take much of what you say seriously.
I don't care. You can believe me or not. But the fact is that I know more about Radiohead than you, so it's logical to assume I am more right than you.

You guys realize there's no actual answer to this right? Like, there's no objective truth to be found here. Just think whatever you like and stop trying to autistically prove the other person wrong.

Interviews with the band suggest otherwise, but OK

>and the aesthetic of them

literally your opinion and literally irrelevant. I can't bother "debating" with a child who thinks that passes as a point worth arguing.

>Wait, which is it? Now you are contradicting yourself.

Nah m8. You say it's irrelevant only when I mention recording dates. If you bring them up then its solid evidence to support your case.

I feel sorry for your condition but it's hard to appreciate how frustrating communicating with the mentally handicapped is.

>Your opinion is irrelevant
>but my opinion is fact!
Stop
>You say it's irrelevant only when I mention recording dates
Only when you examine which was "closer" rather than

>but my opinion is fact!

No it's not. How big headed of you.

Let us not forget this started with you claiming Talk Show Host is not a The Bends era b-side. It's literally on a b-side to a The Bends song. Lol you're fucking dumb.

>No it's not.
So you are admitting your opinion is just subjective interpretation?
>Let us not forget this started with you claiming Talk Show Host is not a The Bends era b-side. It's literally on a b-side to a The Bends song. Lol you're fucking dumb.
Answer this: do you think the song "The Bends" is a Pablo Honey or a Bends era song BY YOUR LOGIC?

It's not about my logic lol. It literally was on a b side to a song from The Bends. You could consider the song OK COmputer era but its still a The Bends B Side. What's so complex about that concept???

Answer this: do you think the song "The Bends" is a Pablo Honey or a Bends era song?

Because "The Bends" was literally a b-side to Creep
discogs.com/Radiohead-Creep/release/465416

Read my last post. It answers your question.

So you think The Bends is a Pablo Honey era track?

I love how you're just dying for me to answer your stupid question as if it's some sort of fool proof trap you've set.

Like I said, I answered the question above. You shouldn't need me to elaborate.

NOTE: This doesn't give you license to put words in my mouth during your next post. Even though I know you will ;)

>Talk Show Host is not a Bends era b-side you dummies
>literally a B-Side to a song from The Bends album

What did he mean by this?

>he thinks The Bends is a Pablo Honey era track
lele
My logic is that when Radiohead was finished recording with John Leckie in November 1994, the era wrapped, that project was done. A new era began with the recording of NEW songs with a NEW producer for a NEW project 10 months later, in September 1995. What was released when is not relevant to this logic.

Good

>tfw you'll never have this debate with your qt awkward radiohead fan GF on a cozy winter night

My gf doesn't like Radiohead at all. She says Thom soudns like a dying cat.

And then she wants to put on fucking Modest Mouse