[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

The There Will Be Blood soundtrack gives amazing evidence in support of my claim.

Discuss.

[nicfit]

All I know is that seeing them live made me appreciate his contribution and at the same time did not feel like he was "wasted"...neither on stage, nor on record.
BTW, he can always release solo stuff at will.
That soundtrack is really nice, bodysongs had interesting bits too. He's really good.

[batreleaser]

i dont think the score to there will be blood was anything special, and as amazing as the film was, the music was one of its weaker aspects. and johnny greenwood has made some great music in radiohead too, so i think hes doing fine.

[uhler]

i think he's fine doing both. he seems like a multi-tasker.

I can listen to Bodysong much more than any Radiohead record, so in way I support that claim. I haven't heard this latest solo effort. Perhaps it is the effect of Thom Yorke's voice on the ear that puts me off from liking Readiohead. Still, he's a competent and at times cool musician, but not exactly brilliant.

[Glice]

Very competent. But like McCartney, no-one would commission his work were it not for his celebrity. I know quite a few people who deeply despise 'vanity' 'classical' composers such as Greenwood because it's the most impossible thing, if no-one knows who you are, to get a 'proper orchestra' to perform your work.

I have no strong opinions on whether he's better in Radiohead or solo, as I appreciate both quite a lot.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

I can listen to Bodysong much more than any Radiohead record, so in way I support that claim. I haven't heard this latest solo effort. Perhaps it is the effect of Thom Yorke's voice on the ear that puts me off from liking Readiohead. Still, he's a competent and at times cool musician, but not exactly brilliant.

Yeah, Thom Yorke is like nails on a chalkboard for me too. And he sings everything as if he's singing about the saddest thing in the world.

[atsonicpark]

I don't think his talent is wasted, unless you're actually saying that he appears to be a very talented guy in a merely average band. Then, I'd agree. Of course, 4/5ths of Radiohead appear to be very talented, and yet they make average music (except for a few songs that honestly are "brilliant").

I have to agree also that Thom is by far the weak link in that band. I don't mind his voice so much... but his solo record is terrible.

[pbradley]

I disagree, I enjoy the duality of songwriting styles between Thom Yorke and Johnny Greenwood in Radiohead. They compliment each other extremely well has separate tracks as well as in one song in an amalgamation. I would even claim that compliment each other more than even Sonic Youth's approach. However SY's dynamics were always their strong point while Radiohead's single voice is theirs.

That said, I do really enjoy Johnny Greenwood's solo instrumental work but it requires Thom Yorkes vocal melodies to be grounded as a full package, for me.

[PAULYBEE2656]

jonny greenwood wasted in radiohead!!!! HA! THATS FUCKING FUNNY ON A FEW DIFFERENT LEVELS!

[val-holla-ing]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

Yeah, Thom Yorke is like nails on a chalkboard for me too. And he sings everything as if he's singing about the saddest thing in the world.

agreed. it's so hard being in the world's biggest rock band right now and not even having fans bother you b/c they know you're maladjusted and weird.

i've always known johnny greenwood was wasting his time in that band, but it kinda gives them an interesting dynamic.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

I have to agree also that Thom is by far the weak link in that band. I don't mind his voice so much... but his solo record is terrible.

while the solo record is shit, we have to accept that for a large part, radiohead songs are his songs expanded with the help of a fanstastic band. and also that silly solo record was just produced terribly, a lot of those tunes came out very well solo-live. in fact, having heard those tunes live before the record, I recall be very let down because the material itself was sparkling, the album version was just terrible.

[val-holla-ing]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

while the solo record is shit, we have to accept that for a large part, radiohead songs are his songs expanded with the help of a fanstastic band. and also that silly solo record was just produced terribly, a lot of those tunes came out very well solo-live. in fact, having heard those tunes live before the record, I recall be very let down because the material itself was sparkling, the album version was just terrible.

i didn't even like the bases for the songs, though. it was just an all-around poor album, i believe.

[Everyneurotic]

radiohead is band that's greater than the sum of their parts and those parts are very talented, by the way.

still, i liked thom's solo album a whole lot better than in rainbows; i just hope they stop being lazy and actually start playing songs while trying shit they haven't before.

[batreleaser]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

I don't think his talent is wasted, unless you're actually saying that he appears to be a very talented guy in a merely average band. Then, I'd agree. Of course, 4/5ths of Radiohead appear to be very talented, and yet they make average music (except for a few songs that honestly are "brilliant").

I have to agree also that Thom is by far the weak link in that band. I don't mind his voice so much... but his solo record is terrible.

i agree about yorke's solo record, only one good song of which was the single anyways, but i loved radiohead from the ok computer to amnesiac, all great records, but hail to the thief, meh, in rainbows, double meh,. maybe theyve just overstayed their welcome? i like yorke's lyrics though. im not gonna be an asshole either, kid a is still one of the best records of the 00's in my opinion.

[batreleaser]

yknow, ive decided radiohead's problem is not their music, but the music press. instead of just being a great rock band that has put out some great rock records, all these commercial music pubs, spin, rollingstone, pitchfork, nme, whatever, theyve just rubbed radiohead in our faces so much over the last ten years its like, why the fuck wouldnt we get bored over them? if youre constantly being told how genius something is, the natrual reaction is gonna be, "fuck you it aint that fuckin great", and that is what's happened to radiohead. especially people like us, who listen to so many bands, some of whom are better than radiohead, were obviously just gonna not wana hear about them. so from now on, i refuse to read ANYTHING about radiohead, and i will only listen to their recorda when i feel like it, and will not let chuck klosterman inform me of my inferiority for not thinking radiohead is christ reincarnated as music. thank you.

[atsonicpark]

I like Hail to the Thief okay, it's got some AMAZING songs (and probably their worst song ever, "drunken punchup at a wedding")... but I think In Rainbows is by far their worst album.. I'd rather listen to Pablo Honey honestly.

Kid A IS totally great, and I will go so far to say it is an IMPORTANT album in the history of music. I mean, honestly, it was somewhat Radiohead saying, "Hey, we like Eight Frozen Modules, Autechre, and Brian Eno!" .. but the whole thing honestly was pretty damn daring and well-made. A straight-up mainstream HUGE rock band doing cold electronics, free jazz, ambient drone (!), and even some noise (see the end of "In Limbos"...)? Pretty fucking amazing, honestly, and it could've been terrible.

[uhler]

i thought in rainbows was pretty good. i like it better than hail to the thief. pablo honey is just a boring piece of crap. i mean some songs are good, but i'm glad they evolved from that.

favorite radiohead albums in order.
1. ok computer
2. kid a
3. the bends
4. amnesiac
5. in rainbows
6. hail to the thief



















7. pablo honey

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

I remember enjoying Hail to the Thief, but I haven't listened to it in awhile

[pbradley]

I dug Yorke's solo album.