https://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/artic le/radiohead-ok-computer

Radiohead BTFO

i don't care about Radiohead but I hope that everybody at vice dies in a train crash

>>71968006
>disastrously technical terms like arpeggio

why the fuck are you even reviewing music if you don't know what a fucking arpeggio is

I'm upset

>>71968006
>t's also made by someone called Thom which – forgive the personal attack, here – is the "I definitely read books and want you to know it" brand of name shortening.
They can't. He killed them like cancer kills wives.

>>71968490
Lol, since when has knowing music theory been a requirement for popular music critique? The guy is a writer for a magazine, not a university prof.

>>71968006
i would not call OK Computer like super high culture or anything, but this recent "anti-intellectualism think piece" meme needs to end. The way he closes by praising some entry level pleb shit while dismissing something as pleb as Radiohead as too difficult for him to get is just too stupid

>>71968585
this post is garbage

I think he's "trolling" guys.

>>71968596
he has another article praising arca, I think he's just retarded

>>71968614
Do you think that's not the case? I've never seen a major popular music critic demonstrate any reasonable level of music theory. Knowing what time signature and arpeggio means doesn't count.

this reminds me of this article https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/10-v9n5

>>71968682
I'm saying he should at least know what an arpeggio is

Its by no means a "disasterously technical" term

>>71968690
>more like the taking homos lol

this is a new level of bullshit

>>71968690
this bait is more aggravating than anything I've seen here
we're fucking incompetent

>>71968699
It's not as if it makes a difference. Popular music criticism is a retelling of an artist's career and an exercise in finding quirky adjectives to describe surface features like timbre and tempo at best and a poor excuse to write personal essays at worst.

>>71968759
can we at least agree that it's garbage

>>71968585
>since when has knowing music theory been a requirement for popular music critique?
It's not, but it should be

File: 1477338262022.jpg (25KB, 600x349px)

25KB, 600x349px

>>71968690
>more like the talking homos
holy fuck it's incredible

>>71968585
Arpeggio is a basic ass term

>>71968690
>The Talking Homos, more like.
I can't breathe.

>>71968690
this guy got paid to write a shitpost

all it needs is multiple sets of quotation marks around seminal and this is something I'd expect from this board

>>71968770
Absolutely. It and every other pop music critic from Scaruffi to the lowliest pitchfork faggot.
>>71968779
You could always read academic papers and literature. Granted, you won't find reviews of every fotm indie rock, but popular classics like Ok Computer will usually have some stuff written about them. Most of it is classical and some jazz doe.
>>71968835
If you're trying to talk about the Schrodinger equations, knowing in vague terms what calculus is isn't going to give you much more qualification or insight than someone who doesn't know what calculus is.
Using a term like arpeggio doesn't improve the quality of a Pitchfork article by any meaningful amount. One thing the guy gets right is that terms like that are only used by journalists to project the air of knowledge.

I'd take '10s SJW-esque virtue signalling lyrics over the sort of '90s fake-deep this band were prime purveyors of.

>>71968690
Everything about the Fall is entirely accurate

File: 1484093658946.jpg (197KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1280x1280px

>Thom Yorke's lyrics are so abstract it's impossible to learn anything from them