will it be better than tkol bloom which they ruined in the studio?

They ruined Videotape in the studio too, just listen to the Bonnaroo 2006 performance of it.

>>75192760
they are both good versions. and desu I think the reason they changed videotape it's because it doesn't really fit the mood of the song and radiohead aren't the kind of band to make songs with the melody oposing the lyrics.

>>75192968
>and radiohead aren't the kind of band to make songs with the melody oposing the lyrics.

no surprises

hans zimmer is a fucking hack

>>75193051
lol?

>>75193051
He's not the best, but he does grasp for catchy pop music. But he really is an asshole.

>>75192978
touché. but no surprises is still kinda melancholic, it's not like los campesinos or someshit like that.

>>75193051
>>75193301
Had a classmate once whose cousin/brother (forget which) got to do tech upgrades at Zimmer's super secret production headquarters. Apparently he's got a whole office floor's worth (something like 30 consoles) of shadow composers working round the clock on his projects for him. He's about as much of a hack in the classic sense as you can get.
Which isn't to say that I hate his music. It's just that imo with pretty much the sole exception of this specific unused track from Interstellar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U05Uo8XA1ig (which is actually just someone else playing the organ for him straight into a microphone) his is just some of the most soulless sounding music you will ever find. And yeah - he's a hack.
Any high-level film composer who churns out tens of film scores on a yearly basis and doesn't die young from exhaustion is most assuredly a hack. Because actually writing music takes time.

>>75192661
>ruined in the studio
Bloom was made in the studio you fucking retard. the only songs on TKOL that weren't were Lotus Flower and Morning Mr Magpie. that's why they didn't tour the album right away, they took some time to figure out how to do the tracks live

>>75193665
i guess you're right but you know what i mean

>>75193642
That's not a hack. A hack is someone who actually does the grunt work. The people working for him are the hacks. He's not even a hack, he's a businessman.

>>75193937
>A hack is someone who actually does the grunt work.
Not exactly. A hack (at least in the art/music world) is someone who produces large volumes of formulaic, impersonal work over short periods of time - oftentimes courtesy of large teams of uncredited collaborators hired to work behind-the-scenes. The reason why people use the word "hack" for it is because the end results themselves often take on an artistic approximation of hackery itself (formulaic, impersonal works -
manual labor in art form.) And people who are responsible for hackery are themselves hacks, by definition.

The concept of a sellout in art/music is also closely related. In fact, the only significant difference between a hack and a sellout is who really holds artistic control in an operation. Hacks get to tell their minions what to do, whereas sellouts have to do what the minions tell them (because of where the cashflow comes from.)
Which is why, if forced to choose, it is better to be a hack than a sellout.

>>75194689
>an artistic approximation of hackery itself

Fuck off, idiot, you're saying that the term "hack" is used for work that resembles "hack" work. Just admit that you misused the word.

>>75194892
>you're saying that the term "hack" is used for work
No, I'm saying that the PERSON identified as the creator of said hackery is the one known as a "hack".

>>75193665
which is quite ironic because all songs sound much better live than in that garbage album.

>>75193642
>Had a classmate once whose cousin/brother (forget which) got to do tech upgrades at Zimmer's super secret production headquarters.

cool story bro.

>>75192661
Reddit the band meets reddit the composer