OK Computer (Capitol, 1997) was the album that sanctified their futuristic pop. For about six songs...

>
OK Computer (Capitol, 1997) was the album that sanctified their futuristic pop. For about six songs, this is a masterpiece of faux avantgarde (of pretending to be avantgarde while playing mellow pop music).

What did he even mean by this?

who the fuck listens to paranoid android and literally thinks of any of that shit? just wtf

avant garde? they use fucking drums guitars typical rock band shit, typical verse chorus....they TRY and be avant garde? who tf is he calling avant garde? WHAT does he think avant garde is?

Why do you care what this old decrepit tucker has to say? Can't you think for yourself or are you just another cunt

Faux, pseudo, quasi etc are just empty, valueless prefixes that mediocre minds offer up as criticism.

I get why all of you are butthurt, accepting that your taste in music is utter shit is not easy for anyone.

You know that he's not wrong, right?
Radioheadfags are truly the most worst cancer of the board.

I think you meant Kendrick fans

Most of Kendrick fags are also Radiohead fags.

>who tf is he calling avant garde?
radiohead fans you goal shifting retard

>scruffyfag tries to defend his scruffys opinion by calling people cancerous while not at all relating to what scruffy said
wow

How can mellow pop music pretend to be avant-garde?

>You know that he's not wrong, right?
he is though. "faux avantgarde" doesn't make any sense and doesn't describe the album at all
plus, for someone who claims to be unbiased, he's clearly taking other critics' opinions in account on his review

why are radioheadfags so autistic?
>not at all relating to what scruffy said
read again

Not me though

>"faux avantgarde" doesn't make any sense and doesn't describe the album at all
He just meant that they're pretentious.

>plus, for someone who claims to be unbiased, he's clearly taking other critics' opinions in account on his review
If you mean that this review and the score are too positive because his opinion was influenced by other critics, than yeah, it's kinda lame, he should have made it more negative.

>You know that he's not wrong, right?
Then show me where Radiohead ever claimed to be avant-garde

paranoid android sounds like gentle giant Radiohead is trash

>show me where Radiohead ever claimed to be avant-garde
Not Radiohead themselves, he's talking about other critics and fans who believe that radiohead is avantgarde

Do you all have to copy your autistic Italian Lord and saviour so closely that you're as retarded as him? You literally said "he's not wrong" without providing any evidence he's not. Agreeing with someone isn't doing a great job of defending their opinion

>He just meant that they're pretentious.
wow. "pretentious". what a great critique on their music.
>If you mean that this review and the score are too positive because his opinion was influenced by other critics, than yeah, it's kinda lame, he should have made it more negative.
haha epic dude

damn

Why are radioheadfags so vicious?

Is this what the reddit made you to be?

>Not Radiohead themselves
So then Scruffy misspoke
>he's talking about other critics and fans who believe that radiohead is avantgarde
Then he's a poor writer, as the subject of the review--specifically the sentence those words appear in--is the album, not how people perceive the album.

>without providing any evidence he's not.
I just acted like the people i replied to. And why should I provide evidences that he's right in my position you little redditor?

So he is making a straw man argument claiming that some certain nameless RH fans think they are avant-garde. The thing about straw man arguments is you are then supposed to dismantle them, not say "this thing I believe is true: isn't true." He is a shit writer and critic and no, i'm not a RH fan.

>So then Scruffy misspoke
Show me where he said that they've CLAIMED.
>Then he's a poor writer, as the subject of the review--specifically the sentence those words appear in--is the album, not how people perceive the album.
Are you really that dumb? He just pointed out that this album is overrated.

>radiohead fags testosterone levels only rise when radiohead is accurately labeled as shit
really has my brain deep in ponder

If you walked into a room of autists, would you be yourself or join them in the shitting, screaming carnage? This is why the boards staying shit, instead of bothering to spark discussion you think it's fine to shitpost aslong as others do. Oh btw, redditor is a term that's been saturated so much over the years it's basically an empty insult, incase you never heard.

>Show me where he said that they've CLAIMED.
he's reviewing their music. the critics and their fanbase have no reason to be mentioned at all, specially for someone who claims to be as unbiased as possible

>So he is making a straw man argument claiming that some certain nameless RH fans think they are avant-garde.
There are many of them

>the critics and their fanbase have no reason to be mentioned at all
What rule is this?

>Show me where he said that they've CLAIMED.
"faux avantgarde (of pretending to be"
>He just pointed out that this album is overrated.
I thought you just said he was poiting out that it was "pretentious"?

Which is it? Are you just tossing out buzzwords here?

The reality is the subject of the review is the music, not the perception of it. To suddenly talk about critic's perception without provocation is out of place and a red herring. So either
1) If Scruffy was truly referencing the fan/critic perception of the music, he is a poor writer because he falls out of subject for a fraction of a sentence.
2) If Scruffy was referencing the music as pretending to be avantegarde (which he literally said in parenthesis) he misspoke and you are misrepresenting his argument to save face.

Which option is it?

expressing dislike for the fanbase or for other critics for no reason clearly shows bias

YUP

What instrument does he play again? How long has he been studying theory?

He plays the "HES RIGHT"
And he's been studying music theory since "HIS OPINION WAS BETTER THAN YOURS"

jesus christ, it's like arguing with a 5 year old

He plays this board like a fiddle. His doting audience hangs on every note.

I know right, I think it was a pretty accurate representation of how one of his fans might respond to the question, if only I added more buzzwords...

oh, you weren't being serious

>all this defending of a generic pop band
Jesus H Christ

>all this work just to trigger Radiofags
Is it worth it?

You clearly can't read, no one is defending a pop band, they are attacking a pop critic.

>pop band
They aren't a pop band though.

they're avant-garde super-stars
you are correct

all you have to day is say they're shit takes 5 secs tops

That's exactly what they are tho.

How so? Do you also think Metallica is a pop band?

Keep telling yourself that.

How are they?

You know what popular music is right? If you think Metallica is anything more than it you're delusional. They might be interesting buy they're miles away fron erudit music.

Maybe because they utilize pop song structures. Not a Beatles fan, but at least they were more innovative compositionally than Radiohead with their chording. Futuristic pop is the perfect term to use for Radiohead. Pop music augmented with futuristic timbres that they borrowed from more avant-garde artists.

I can understand thinking The Bends is a Smiths knockoff.
I can understand calling OK Computer glamorized pop.
I can agree with calling Amnesiac pretentious.

But I have no idea what his problem is with Kid A. Music isn't bad because the production is fancy

>Music isn't bad because the production is fancy
he said the same thing about Pink Floyd
according to him, the production starting on Meddle is bad because it was made to be pleasant to listen to
I'm not joking

not all popular music is pop bro

He didn't exactly pan Kid A. Much like their discography, he think it's overrated and there's nothing wrong with that.

>the creative collage of The Numbers blends distorted Indian-esque music with snippets of orchestral music, massive organ drones and ghostly lysergic chanting; the elaborate ethereal pastiche Daydreaming blends more minimalist repetition with drones and sound effects that are almost musique concrete; Present Tense grafts flamenco-ish guitar and falsetto scat into a Caribbean beat; and Ful Stop sets an electronic threnody to Neu-esque motorik rhythm.

At no point in this selection does he say anything about why the music is good or bad. 80% of his reviews are him trying to prove he listened to the album to lend credibility to either baseless accusations or baseless praise

>You know what popular music is right?
Nice goalpost shifting
>Maybe because they utilize pop song structures
=/= pop music

Most music critics don't. Either does Fantano. Writing shouuld be more nuanced then simply stating why a composition is good or bad.

>=/= pop music

Now you're just being silly. They are a pop band first and foremost. Labeling them as such isn't a damnation as they are some great pop bands. It's just that they fall in that paradigm.

Or lending to the criteria in which he views each release. Every critic has their own criteria as top what makes a great release. If Scaruffi favors originality then he's obviously going to accentuate his reviews with references to other artists.

In the end, the opinions developed by people like Scaruffi, Melonhead, or Pitchfork aren't criticisms of music but rather the reviewer deciding wether he or she would want to be associated with the fans of the music in question. The reviewer knows he is powerless to genuinely sway opinions and instead has to use his reviews to craft an image of himself.

Yes, Radiohead is the band of choice for depressed high schoolers and college kids who don't really care for music. But they're still a notable act with measurable influence that got popular because their music was enjoyable and original on some level.

Yes, the Beatles largely popularized the styles of other, forgotten artists. But no other act so consistently did Rock music with such pinpoint craftsmanship. To pretend that they were elevated to thier status purely because the masses are ignorant is simply posturing.

That's exactly what pop is.
Everything else evolved and gained specifics names but everything came from pop. Pop is the name of the remnants of popular music.

Dumb.

amen

He's explaining you the detail put into this album only to then describe the detail is made for no reason.
Learn to read.

If every writer was blunt there would be no great writing.

>They are a pop band first and foremost
They aren't. They are an alt-rock band.
Non argument.
>That's exactly what pop is.
Not really. It's a specific genre with defined boundaries. Surely listen to "Barbie Girl" by Aqua and then "National Anthem" by Radiohead and you might hear a difference?

You know an alternative rock band can be a pop band as well, right?. These two terms aren't mutually exclusive.
>Not really. It's a specific genre with defined boundaries. Surely listen to "Barbie Girl" by Aqua and then "National Anthem" by Radiohead and you might hear a difference?
"National Anthem" is an anomaly in their catalogue, probably why it's one of their better songs.

Barbie Girl also has differences from Enter Sandman, maybe you could be more autistic, rockist?

>there is literally one user in every Scaruffi thread who says "he's not wrong" every time

This meme man breeds meme posters I swear to god

captcha Marcel 1300

Pop music is one of the most eclectic genres that exists containing an immense amount of different styles. I'm not sure why you're having such a tough time comprehending that Radiohead has a seat there

>Barbie Girl also has differences from Enter Sandman
Which is why Metallica isn't a pop band.
>You know an alternative rock band can be a pop band as well, right?
They are two separate genres, so usually not
>"National Anthem" is an anomaly in their catalogue
Oh OK how about "Pyramid Song"?
>I'm not sure why you're having such a tough time comprehending that Radiohead has a seat there
Because they don't fit the genre qualifications.

>They are two separate genres, so usually not
A band can fit or play multiple genres.
>Oh OK how about "Pyramid Song"?
Just a typical ballad.

>Just a typical ballad.
Typical? chart out the rhythm for us and illustrate

Why this nigga Scaruffi looking like an elf though lmaoooi

hes correct

That's exactly what Metallica, or any other rock band, is.

Reading this thread, you're all making one very basic mistake, which has nothing to do with the band itself.
Arguing that music is pretentious because it is dressed-up pop is pretentious itself because it implies that pop is always without artistic or cultural merit

Which is probably the most pretentious belief one could possibly hold

Rock and pop are separate genres. Do you know what you are talking about?

It's just a piano ballad with fluffed arrangements. I'm not going to chart out something that can easily be identified with your ears.

Ooops you didn't chart it out!

Try again.

Rock is a genre of pop(ular) music.

Why don't you chart it out, user?
Rock and pop have the same stylistic origins

>I'm not going to chart out something that can easily be identified with your ears.
You seem to have some difficulty identifying the complex time signature changes with your ears. Isn't that strange?

>pop(ular)
Nice backpedaling
>Why don't you chart it out, user?
Because the burden of proof is on him for claiming it was typical (it's not btw)
>Rock and pop have the same stylistic origins
You have the same evolutionary origins as Africans. Are you a black man?

That's neither the point of Scaruffi or anyone else in this thread.
The observation that it is pretentious is that all of that dress-up is without meaning.
Dress-up can be meaningful and therefore with artistic merit.
This one isn't.

Dumb.

Stop white knighting for Radiohad, dude. I like them too but they definitely indulge in popular music.

But they kind of are, and this is coming from a Radiohead fan.

>is that all of that dress-up
Except, there was no dress up. Radiohead never claimed to be avant-garde
>without meaning.
How do you know there is no meaning?
Not an argument
Not a argument
Not really. Very few of their songs could be considered in the pop music genre.

What's the meaning then?

Which song?

The whole album.

Which album?

The autism is real. Stop replying to this guy, it's no use

not me. Think Kendrick is just average, love Radiohead though

But I wasn't making an argument?

Lack of empathy for other people is a sign of autism...
That's the problem

Sorry I offended your favorite mediocre band. Take care (:

>I offended your favorite mediocre band
Quote me where I stated my favorite band, or any artist I liked for that matter