> OK Computer (Capitol, 1997) was the album that sanctified

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?

>>72257241
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.

>>72257287
>>72257513
>>72257540
>>72257562
You know that he's not wrong, right?
Radioheadfags are truly the most worst cancer of the board.

>>72258807
I think you meant Kendrick fans

>>72258823
Most of Kendrick fags are also Radiohead fags.

>>72257287
>who tf is he calling avant garde?
radiohead fans you goal shifting retard

>>72258807
>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?

>>72258807
>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

>>72258857
why are radioheadfags so autistic?
>not at all relating to what scruffy said
read again

>>72258842
Not me though

>>72258885
>"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.

>>72258807
>You know that he's not wrong, right?
Then show me where Radiohead ever claimed to be avant-garde

>>72257287
paranoid android sounds like gentle giant Radiohead is trash

>>72258947
>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

>>72258897
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

>>72258937
>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?

>>72259002
>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.

>>72259012
>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?

>>72259002
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.

>>72259051
>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

>>72259058
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.

>>72259076
>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

>>72259067
>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

>>72259096
>the critics and their fanbase have no reason to be mentioned at all
What rule is this?

>>72259076
>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?

>>72259120
expressing dislike for the fanbase or for other critics for no reason clearly shows bias

File: n37nkkimyns6wr51ud16_400x400.jpg (26KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x400px

>>72259108
YUP

>>72257241
What instrument does he play again? How long has he been studying theory?

>>72259360
He plays the "HES RIGHT"
And he's been studying music theory since "HIS OPINION WAS BETTER THAN YOURS"

>>72259459
jesus christ, it's like arguing with a 5 year old

>>72259360
He plays this board like a fiddle. His doting audience hangs on every note.

>>72259485
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...

>>72259520
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?

>>72259579
You clearly can't read, no one is defending a pop band, they are attacking a pop critic.

>>72259579
>pop band
They aren't a pop band though.

>>72259652
they're avant-garde super-stars
you are correct

>>72259617
all you have to day is say they're shit takes 5 secs tops

>>72259652
That's exactly what they are tho.

>>72259903
How so? Do you also think Metallica is a pop band?

>>72259652
Keep telling yourself that.

>>72259924
How are they?

>>72259922
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.

>>72259974
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

>>72260141
>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

>>72260082

not all popular music is pop bro

>>72260141
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

>>72260082
>You know what popular music is right?
Nice goalpost shifting
>>72260114
>Maybe because they utilize pop song structures
=/= pop music

>>72260280
Most music critics don't. Either does Fantano. Writing shouuld be more nuanced then simply stating why a composition is good or bad.

>>72260286
>=/= 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.

>>72260280
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.

>>72260280
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.

>>72260175
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.

>>72260286
Dumb.

>>72258845
amen

>>72260280
He's explaining you the detail put into this album only to then describe the detail is made for no reason.
Learn to read.

>>72260280
If every writer was blunt there would be no great writing.

>>72260409
>They are a pop band first and foremost
They aren't. They are an alt-rock band.
>>72260465
Non argument.
>>72260449
>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?

>>72260601
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.

>>72260601
Barbie Girl also has differences from Enter Sandman, maybe you could be more autistic, rockist?

>there is literally one anon 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

>>72260601
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

>>72260726
>Barbie Girl also has differences from Enter Sandman
Which is why Metallica isn't a pop band.
>>72260718
>You know an alternative rock band can be a pop band as well, right?
They are two separate genres, so usually not
>>72260718
>"National Anthem" is an anomaly in their catalogue
Oh OK how about "Pyramid Song"?
>>72260777
>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.

>>72260800
>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.

>>72260867
>Just a typical ballad.
Typical? chart out the rhythm for us and illustrate

>>72257241
Why this nigga Scaruffi looking like an elf though lmaoooi

hes correct

>>72260800
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

>>72260941
Rock and pop are separate genres. Do you know what you are talking about?

>>72260894
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.

>>72260971
Ooops you didn't chart it out!

Try again.

>>72260962
Rock is a genre of pop(ular) music.

>>72260983
Why don't you chart it out, anon?
>>72260962
Rock and pop have the same stylistic origins

>>72260971
>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?

>>72261019
>pop(ular)
Nice backpedaling
>>72261021
>Why don't you chart it out, anon?
Because the burden of proof is on him for claiming it was typical (it's not btw)
>>72261021
>Rock and pop have the same stylistic origins
You have the same evolutionary origins as Africans. Are you a black man?

>>72260944
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.

>>72261039
Dumb.

>>72260983
Stop white knighting for Radiohad, dude. I like them too but they definitely indulge in popular music.

>>72259652
But they kind of are, and this is coming from a Radiohead fan.

>>72261045
>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?
>>72261063
Not an argument
>>72261062
Not a argument
>>72261064
Not really. Very few of their songs could be considered in the pop music genre.

>>72261084
What's the meaning then?

>>72261101
Which song?

>>72261118
The whole album.

>>72261127
Which album?

>>72261039
The autism is real. Stop replying to this guy, it's no use

>>72258842
not me. Think Kendrick is just average, love Radiohead though

>>72261084
But I wasn't making an argument?

>>72261158
Lack of empathy for other people is a sign of autism...
>>72261179
That's the problem

>>72261084
Sorry I offended your favorite mediocre band. Take care (:

>>72261194
>I offended your favorite mediocre band
Quote me where I stated my favorite band, or any artist I liked for that matter

>>72261190
Not everything is a debate. You ok there, buddy?

>>72261213
>You ok there, buddy?
Are you? You just popped into a debate you weren't a part of and said something offensive. Why would you do that?

Radiohead has composed pop songs thus they are a pop band, now please end this thread.

>>72261239
So did Mozart. I guess he's a pop artist too, right?

>>72260442
>Radiohead is the band of choice for depressed high schoolers and college kids who don't really care for music

I don't think this is true. I love Radiohead, probably my favorite band, and I love music, I'm into all sorts of different kinds of stuff. I think a big Radiohead fan is likely to be into lots of different stuff, not just Radiohead.

>>72261023
A time signature is completely irrelevant to whether a song is pop or not, nice try attempting to understand theory though.

>>72261134
The one we're talking about ITT.

>>72261247
Mozart composes erudit music, though.

>>72261247
Sure, but not primarily.

>>72261307
>A time signature is completely irrelevant to whether a song is pop or not
The argument is if it was "typical", and the complex time signature proves it is not.

Nice misdirection. btw a complex time signature will make a piece less dance-able, and thus less likely to be considered pop music.
>nice try attempting to understand theory though.
Can you chart it out? I bet you'll find a reason not to.
>>72261312
I would say the meaning is a commentary on the paranoia, isolation and disillusionment of modern humans in the technology-driven world.
>>72261333
Not relevant
>>72261343
Nice double standard

>>72261023
Pyramid Song is in 4/4, you realize that 4/4 is the most popular time signature in pop music, right?

>>72260449

hahahahah you're fucking retarded

literally go to wikipedia's "popular music" article to see how wrong you are

>>72261343
Mozart didn't write pop music.

>>72261374
How is that the meaning?

>>72261343
What double standard, you know you're replying to a bunch of different people, right?

>>72261392
>The song is infamous among fans for its time signature, which many find hard to discern or even nonexistent. However, one possibility is that “Pyramid Song” could be based around an uncommon subdivision of 8/8 time (3+3+2) in which the eighth notes are swung. This could also be expressed as 16/8 time subdivided as 3+3+4+3+3. Another interpretation which can be found be following the drum pattern is a cycle of 5/4-4/4-4/4-3/4 that repeats itself throughout the song.

I love it when non-musicians try to attack Radiohead
>>72261432
How isn't that the meaning? Did you listen to it?

>>72257540
Not even a radiohead fan but this is v true. lazy critique/journalism.

>>72261374
Very relevant. Mozart didn't write popular music, only erudit or art music.

>>72261411
Right, I guess the name 'pop' must be a total coincidence.
>quoting wikipedia
Is this a joke? I can write a 'journal article' and quote that on wikipedia saying bullshit and it would be technically right.

>>72261374
For someone who says that Radiohead is not their favorite band, you seem to be resolute, almost desperate in defending them, why is that?

>>72261461
>Very relevant. Mozart didn't write popular music, only erudit or art music.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_dance
>>72261465
Maybe I'm just triggering your autism.

>>72261439
To me, it doesn't have any meaning. It tries to be something but ultimately goes nowhere, or at least I couldn't find anywhere it went.

>>72261479
>To me, it doesn't have any meaning.
Oh well have you charted out the song yet?

I guess you just don't know theory, which is why you "don't get it"

Remember that just because you were unable to find meaning, doesn't mean it's not there.

>>72261479
So what would you say constitutes "going somewhere?"

File: w.jpg (21KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 350x233px

>I would say the meaning is a commentary on the paranoia, isolation and disillusionment of modern humans in the technology-driven world.
Wow, no one's written about this subject before! Does Orwell ring a bell? These Radiohead fanboys are hilarious

>>72261477
Dance isn't music.

>>72261509
>Wow, no one's written about this subject before!
Goalpost shifting

Out of arguments anon?

>>72261497
The detail and obvious time spent on production.

>>72261495
I'm talking about the whole album.

>>72261520
Reply doesn't follow logically

>>72261527
>I'm talking about the whole album.How many times have you heard it? There is detail and obvious time spent on production.

>overrated / underrated
The mantra of the moron

>>72261521
What argument? That was my first post in this thread

>>72261556
>What argument?
See >>72261509

>>72261527
So you think that there aren't any Radiohead songs or albums where there wasn't time or detail put into the production

>>72261439
It's still in 4/4, and it doesn't matter how superficially complex it may be? As a drummer, I've played along with this very exact song in 4/4 at a local music store, It's in 4/4

>>72258937
>He just meant that they're pretentious.
the term "pretentious" alone is a baseless argument when it comes to music. care to back it up?

>>72259714
false dilemma

>>72260082
the anon you responded to's definition of pop music and your detention of popular music is different.

>>72260114
>but at least they were more innovative compositionally than Radiohead with their chording

can you back that up? because I believe that you are wrong on this

>>72261307
it's not just the time signature, the entire song is built off of an ambiguous metric. read more about it here:

http://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.13.19.1/mto.13.19.1.hesselink.html

>>72261411
again, you guys are operating off of two completely different definitions here. It's kind of frustrating to watch

>>72261529
Hope this is bait. We're talking about music, not dance. What Mozart has to do with dance is completely irrelevant to the point.

>>72261549
You asked me to 'chart out the song'. I don't understand what this means. I'm talking about the whole album, not a song.

>>72261594
>It's still in 4/4
Incorrect. See >>72261439
>As a drummer
lol
>>72261599
>We're talking about music, not dance
Literally the first sentence of the link states Mozard wrote dance music.

>>72261620
>I'm talking about the whole album
Then chart out the whole album.

>>72261596
It's pretty well known that The Beatles used odd chord arrangements. A ton of Radiohead songs seem to be in C, and their chording isn't as diverse on first glance.

>>72261571
Uh? I never said anything of the sort.

>>72261650
>A ton of Radiohead songs seem to be in C, and their chording isn't as diverse on first glance.
Of course it is. Did you bother giving a glance?

>>72261628
I've accompanied it on time in 4/4, so how is it not?

>>72261596
I know, it's wrong.

>>72261651
Then what are you trying to say? What's your argument?

>>72261628
Dance music is not related to traditional definitions os music. Pretty much all music is danceable, even erudit music.
You're retarded.

Radiohad fanboys are insufferable

>>72261651
>It tries to be something but ultimately goes nowhere
>"going somehwere" is the detail and obvious time spent on production.
>>72261680
Because you played it wrong. I know you think you were hot shit, walking into a Guitar Center and playing the wrong beat for a song to impress other 15 year olds playing Squires, but to the musically literate it's just embarrassing
>>72261703
Nice double standard
>>72261706

>>72261699
That OK Computer has lots of details and tons of heavy production but no real meaning in any song.
I didn't really say anything about their other albums. But too me they're about the same or worse, except probably their first which is just a bad mix of grunge and britpop.

>>72261706
They absolutely are. "Chart it out". Eventually the onus is going to be on you to advance your argument, anon

>>72261726
Not an argument. Come back when you've learned the basics of music, particularly the differences between popular and erudit music.

>>72261742
bruh you just said going somewhere is detail and obvious time spent on the production

>>72261726
Now you're just making assumptions, There's not even a Guitar Center near me, lol

>getting this assblasted over a pop band
W E W

>>72261742
>but no real meaning in any song.
All of the songs have lyrics, so there is literal meaning to it all.

Try harder
>>72261753
https://musictheorybridges.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/counterpoint-in-radiohead/

Nice try
>>72261747
>let's discuss the music
>no let's not!
Please make up your mind.

>>72261726
Mozart played erudit music, this is well known by people smarter than you and I

>>72261757
Yeah misread that. Thought he was asking what I think the album tries to do.

>>72259360
He plays the analogue synthesizer and a Les Paul tuned to G-minor.

>>72261787
How does citing influences make it less of a pop song?

>>72261793
>Mozart played erudit music
He also did not. he composed simple dance music as well.
>>72261795
If you can't read a simple one sentence post, how could you be in charge in interpreting art?
>>72261811
What do you mean?

>>72261782
Radiohead fanboys at their finest. Scrambling to justify their tenuous heroes

>>72261795
Ah all good. Still, I have no idea how someone can listen to a song like No Surprises or Let Down and glean no meaning from them.

>>72261650
There are plenty of radiohead songs (post bends) that primarily utilize chord tension and modulates frequently. I admit, I do not know the beatles nearly as well so i'll give you that.

>>72261837
Looks like the Radiohead haters are getting assblasted here. What are you talking about?

>>72261742
>That OK Computer has lots of details and tons of heavy production but no real meaning in any song

can you back that up? how the heck is "meaning" an objective measure?

>>72261858
Nice selfpost. Says the guy that is desperately googling fansites to justifly your baseless claims

>>72261848
Yeah, there's definitely meaning, Unfortunately the meaning isn't very original or revolutionary.

>>72261858
W E W
E
W
>>72261837
Like the cardigan wearing, putrid cockroaches that they are, anon

>>72261923
>isn't very original or revolutionary.
So? Who cares. Music doesn't need to be original or revolutionary. It just needs to be appreciated by a listener on an emotional level
>>72261935
>>72261903
Non arguments. Thanks for playing

>>72261935
Brb off to Starbucks to read some 1984 and hit on the cute barista

>>72261961
Where did I say that there was something wrong with that?

>170 / 2 / 28 / 1
lol

>>72262000
orwell is like sooooooooooo dead on liiiiiikkkkkeeeee how did he even no? Make sure to leave a tip

>>72262025
You're implying music that isn't original or revolutionary can't still be fantastic.

>>72262025
Why else would you use the word "Unfortunately"?

>>72262048
Radiohead encapsulates Orwell's philosophy perfectly! OK Computer and Kid A are masterpieces in pop music!

>>72262120
Dystopian literature transcribed and personified through sound. Revolutionary hymns for the people trampled on by government and technology in the name of "safety". Beautiful. Simply beautiful.

>>72262191
Amazing, I couldn't have said it any better. I need to have Pyramid Song or How To Disappear Completely played at my funeral

>>72260275
This. Have you all ever considered that the guy took like 30 minutes out of his day just to write about how mediocre the band was because he was sick of naive faggots trying to push them onto him.

Radiohead is training wheels, and the kids glorifying them are proud to be riding on training wheels.

>>72262305
>It's OK if you don't like Radiohead. We can still get along.
>WOW STOP PUSHING IT ON ME!!!

>>72261650
this is worth a glance

https://www.hooktheory.com/theorytab/view/radiohead/paranoid-android

>inb4 its re-harmonized

Isn't this the same guy that gave To Pimp a Butterfly a 6 and Trout Mask Replica a 10? Who the hell even takes his opinions seriously?

>>72262291
Couldn't imagine a better way to go, aside from choking on Thom Yorke's cum

The problem is, he hasn't used neither of the words "faux" or "avant garde" in his original, Italian Radiohead review. Probably just a translation novelty you've all assigned a deep meaning to.

>Oh the album has no meaning
“Airbag,” the first track on OK Computer, is not too far removed stylistically from Radiohead’s previous record, their more conventional sophomore effort The Bends, at least in terms of the style of vocals, harmony, and guitar-centricity; but from the very start there are subtle shifts away from their earlier output. The track opens distinctively in the middle of a sound: the attack of the guitar riff’s upbeat is clipped off, creating a split-second of surprise and disorientation to the listener (even one familiar with the recording) who enters the song’s inner temporality suddenly, without the benefit of experiencing a natural sonic attack.1 This effect not only draws attention to the riff that it initiates, by means of its element of surprise, but is the first of several sound effects used throughout the album, heterogeneous in category, that thematize problems with mechanicity or technology.

>>72262968
>>72262968
In this case, the effect suggests some technological barrier in the recording or editing process, like an accidental (or intentional) sound glitch, between the performance of the riff in the studio and the experience of listening to the song. The riff in question (see Figure 2.ii), even before the sense of tonality is conveyed harmonically, immediately exhibits chromaticism: namely an alternation of the minor and major mediant scale degree (C and C-sharp).

>>72263068
The minor submediant (F-natural) is also present, but the tonality is conveyed as being primarily major by a) the C-sharp’s metric placement on the downbeat, b) the presence of C-sharp in a heterophonic counterstratum played simultaneously on another guitar, and c) a strong and stabilizing resolution to A major before the verse begins.

There is a wide spectrum of kinds of counterpoint used in popular music, and it is not too difficult to explain to the streetwise listener the difference between strict note-against-note counterpoint (homophony), and more florid (and sometimes chaotic) polyphony and heterophony. Even where note-against-note counterpoint appears to be absent in this music, however, there are almost always concurrent strata of one kind or another present, which can prove consonant or dissonant either within themselves or with the overall sense of tonic or harmony. Such is the case in “Airbag,” where additional layers are added to the introductory guitar riff (and consequently reappear on their own, later in the song), which are not necessarily consonant with the riff and its implied harmonic oscillation between A and F, at least on a note-to-note basis (see Figure 2.iii).

>>72263176
The result is rich and chaotic, but there is not a strong sense of dissonance conveyed, per se; rather of heterophonic dialogue between two or more parties who agree with each other but add individually particular points to an argument (in this case, the argument of A-major harmony as being central). In the intro to “Airbag,” C-sharps in the upper stratum occur at the same time that C-natural is sounded in the riff (reminiscent of a Renaissance-era false-relation), but this is not heard as being as dissonant as it would be in the context of strict note-against-note counterpoint; rather, the combination of these nominally aligned but non-parallel strata characterizes the intro as being heterophonic, whether the listener realizes it or not. In the context of stricter note-against-note harmony, where chords are adjusted to support melodic tones as consonances (and vice versa), such dissonances would stand out as being particularly disruptive. In this case, however, there is more disruption caused by the heterophonic context itself. The conventional explanation of the previously mentioned chromaticism in the song’s intro is “modal mixture,” which is defined as the “borrowing” of a tone from one of the two tonal modes (major and minor) for use in the other. (Music in major might borrow the flat submediant from the minor mode, for example, and music in minor almost invariably borrows raised seventh scale degree from the major mode.) This is often a perfectly adequate method of explanation, even at the early stages of a student’s music theory education, but makes less sense in the context of a musical genre (“pop,” broadly, or more specifically “rock”) that lacks any obligation to be defined by a single mode in the way that much common practice music is.

>>72262347
This is how normies think. You talk to any artist about Radiohead at the time Kid A was out and they'll have nothing but disdain. I remember reading an interview where they asked a musician what they thought about Kid A.

Radiohead fans act that their band is a precious and all encompassing sum of music, but also humanity. It's so stupid to even keep praising art that has such little depth to it that people who have moved on to other things will find it stiffling. Radiohead has about as much discussion worth as Metallica or Avenged Sevenfold. Move on.

>>72263772
>You talk to any artist about Radiohead at the time Kid A was out and they'll have nothing but disdain
[citation needed]
>It's so stupid to even keep praising art that has such little depth to it
See >>72262968
>>72263068
>>72263176
>>72263261

>>72263772
>"We don't mind influencing people like Super Furry Animals," continues Michael in his precise, (Miss Jean) Brodie-esque brogue. "We know they're really into music. But we've got fed up with the magpies. The people who just pay minions to keep their ear to the ground and check out what's hip."
>Like Radiohead?
>"No. We think they're brilliant," Michael demurs. I think Kid A's the best thing they've ever done," adds Marcus in his thicker Scots slur.
-Boards of Canada, December 2000

>RollUpandShine: What do you think of the new Radiohead (Kid A)?
>Brett: Most of us like it a lot. Chad loves it but he kinda worships Radiohead.
-Juliana Theory, November 2000

>Keenan: I've been listening to a lot of Massive Attack. I broke out
my old Cocteau Twins records. PJ Harvey. The new Radiohead [Kid
A]. That last Nine Inch Nails record [The Fragile]--I just don't
understand why that didn't do better. I think if anyone's going for
a long drive, they should take that record. In the end, I think
that's going to be their big undiscovered record.
-Tool, Jan 2001

"It seems to me Radiohead ducked a certain expectation," says the Edge. "I love what they're doing, and I'm willing to forgive any of their indulgence in making this last record, because I'm into it. But it is a shame that they're not either able to or prepared to try and appeal to a wider audience. I'd love to see them at Number One in America in the singles charts."
The Edge, U2 - Jan 2001

>We played a lot of that music while we were making it. And that’s when the movie starts to get a feel and that starts in the writing. And those bands, particularly Radiohead - we listened to Kid A constantly -- especially here in New York. And I still think of it constantly, walking the streets.
Cameron Crowe, Dec 2001

>>72257241
why does this guy despise radiohead so much?