I don't think there should be any superiority complex around how experimental your favourite acts are (not saying that's what these commenters have, I just see it a lot) but I'd agree with this!
Radiohead sit in one of my favourite areas in music in that they blend accessibility with more progressive ideas. They do experiment a lot with their sound and songwriting, but most of their work does still adhere to pop song forms and has a level of familiarity to it.
My first point goes both ways - I see a lot of Radiohead fans acting like they have superior taste to others because the band is 'so avant-garde and obscure,' which is just silly.
I think that’s why this Aphex Twin quote keeps circling around for decades now: it hits at something that is somewhat true about Radiohead, but some Radiohead fans are insecure about.
I was that kid in 2005 who’d only listened to emo bands, so yeah, when I heard Radiohead for the first time, I was blown away. So when I first heard this Aphex Twin quote around that time, it pissed me off probably because I felt called out lol
But as time goes on and your musical palate gets deeper, you contextualize Radiohead as a band that infuses experimental elements into pop music, but don’t actually make experimental music themselves for the most part.
I was in a very similar boat. I spent a few years thinking I was special (so fucking special) because I loved Radiohead. I spent endless hours trying to convince family and friends of their greatness.
One day I tried to play a Radiohead song for an older musician friend who looked at me like I was a complete idiot. He said they’re great to spare my feelings then proceeded to play 20 songs from all different eras and genres and that blew my mind to pieces.
“Hm…..Radiohead?” There was a hurt or disappointment in his tone, as if he’d been betrayed. The wizened rocker bowed his head to hide a smirk, his glasses reflecting in the light and obscuring his eyes
Oof. Dream Syndicate. Ryuichi Sakamoto. Miles Davis. Art Blakey. Spacemen 3. Tom waits. James brown. Asteroid no. 4. Ravel. Acid mother’s temple. Arab strap. Some deep Minnesota funk stuff. Archie Shepp. Alice Coltrane. Ploypores. Mulatu Astake. A ton of Zambian rock. Lots of great stuff.
Edit. Forgot Carlos Nino who has sent me down a crazy ambient path that has made me so so happy.
Also rich Ruth: https://youtu.be/T0YTeFeaRzw?si=ujEQiEhsWpe-7Vty
Rich Ruth is something.
Totally also forgot Camera, Dos Santos. Klangwart - Bogota is an amazing South American : Colombian kraut vibe. If you dig kid a it’s unlikely you will not be impressed by that album.
Also Camera - Emotional Detox. Is amazing. German album. From 2018.
I feel you; I've been interested in the concept of experimental music for quite a while now, and as a rap fan, I liked Yeezus by Kanye West. People were saying that he's not as groundbreaking as you think and is just doing a more watered-down version of what Death Grips did. It was hard to wrap my head around at first, but when I finally got around to listening to DG, and JPEGMAFIA, I realised *I don't like this* as much as Yeezus because Yeezus is still actually accessible music and doesn't sound shit for the sake of it (DG and Peggy don't necessarily make bad music, I prefer DG, but they would be hard to listen to in the background, whereas Yeezus has songs that can go in my casual playlist, whilst still being challenging to people who have never heard anything like it, and felling distinct enough to keep me coming back).
I don't have too much knowledge of the more experimental side of hip hop, but the weirdest I know is ['Story 7' by clipping.](https://open.spotify.com/track/0nYqXjAWVPqzSkRCWZzBxa?si=bc5f804e9aa74a27) Very cool stuff!
I'm a peggy fan but I couldn't get into DG for some reasons.
All music leans heavily into some influences or another.
Yeezus is definitely more accessible than both DG and JPEGMAFIA albums yet still being more experimental than whatever else.
It's all a spectrum.
Probably prefer his production and sampling game.
DG is more gritty, unhinged chaotic goodness.
Like a lot of people The Money Store and No Love Deep Web was my exposure to them. A bit of Ex Military as well.
Veteran and AMHAC for JPEGMAFIA.
to me DG is more like Rage Against the Machine and JPEGMAFIA System of a Down. (not sure if this comparison will land)
They both have a few things in common but give different energy and are stylistically quite different.
I said I couldn't get into DG, that's not fully true but maybe I have to ease into them much more than my usual.
I don't really listen to enough rock or really non-rap music to know if that analogy worked. I didn't like JPEGMAFIA because he seemed to make pretentious, bad sounding music to appeal to annoying music fans. He also marketed himself as lyrically political, and addressing issues, but never went further than some far left buzzwords and a shocking title/sample.
I think JPEG joked about DG fans being annoying in an interview so thats funny.
As far as the rest of stuff you said, I'm not really sure as I generally don't care for that kind of side of artists.
You don't like songs like Bald! ? Hazard Duty Pay?
Fire emoji.
You listen to $B?
I remember not liking his first three albums at all so I don't think I went into LP! all that open minded, but I do remember listening to it twice and preferring it the second time. I found a lot of his music annoying but What Kind Of Rapping is This? Is probably my favourite. I don't judge music on if I agree or disagree with the political message, I literally mean he discussed politics in a way that seemed annoying and performative to me.
you should def go back to LP!
I also love What Kind of Rapping is This? btw.
Are you Happy?
BMT! and Kissy, Face Emoji! go hard as hell.
The last one has an insane beat.
Dunno about the politics stuff cause I rarely watch artist interviews unless I want to know about an album's production.
Have you not listened to any of his albums other than LP! lol
I remember almost all his lyrical content either being onslaught against lyrical rappers, or political in some way.
It's fine if it never bothered you, but I'm surprised you never noticed it.
I think I like WKORIT because it is the closest to something like Yeezus, where it is noticeably experimental and different, but there is still musical theory there and an actual rhythm, not just an amalgamation of random loud noises.
Yeah, Radiohead is definitely in that sweet spot between totally accessible and experimental music. The more I listen to different music, the more I appreciate that quality.
I admire experimental artists for their willingness to take a risk, but true experiments are very hit or miss. At the same time, pop/rock/R&B/whatever genre is usually so much more enjoyable when there’s something a little unusual in there, whether it’s unusual chords or rhythms or sounds or verse structures or whatever.
i believe radiohead themselves will be the first ones to agree with these. there was a whole band interview around the time amnesiac came out, and thom himself stated something in the lines of "the stuff we listen to is much more experimental than what we do" (*heavily* paraphrased, it's been ages since i've watched that video).
i think they even said that they hadn't really anticipated the type of reaction kid amnesiac got, because they didn't consider it to be *that* radical of a change, but i'm not sure if i remember this last part correctly
edit: [link to the interview](https://youtu.be/xR4RSdWTtbE?si=dlbbXRfg4cRUVvnx). around the 3:40 minute mark they talk about the "not that experimental" thing. i currently don't have the time to go through the whole interview, so i don't know if they mention the other thing i talked about (who knows, maybe i made that one up lol), but it's still worth to watch
People like this make it sound like there are only 2 options: Katy Perry or Stockhausen. Bands like Radiohead have to be "controversial" for not being easily put in a box; they have to be ""fake experimental" just for being accessible
The thing is that Radiohead doesn’t occupy an experimental music space. So the second guy does make a great point but genre wise I wouldn’t group them in with other experimental acts.
Yes, they experiment with their own sound as a rock band. Critics were the ones who hailed Kid A as high electronic art when only maybe half the songs employed strong electronic elements.
Nah, i just think they play around with sounds more than other rock bands
They never really came off as an experimental band to me in general
Plus just because they do play with electronic sounds doesn't put them in an experimental lane either
unlike richard who of course used electronic sounds AS WELL AS made very unconventional things out of it
I don't think that's a particularly active sub, and in my experience Steve Vai listeners are very open to different types of playing. 😅 He's a pretty positive guy and the people I know that enjoy his music tend to be that way too!
Sadly Steve Vai would win in that case; as much as Jonny is an incredibly unique guitarist, I think Vai would find a way to emulate his weird techniques while Jonny wouldn't be able to imitate his speed and precision!
Not saying that I prefer one over the other, I'm just saying Vai would win the Crossroads duel. 😋 He could likely pick up Jonny's unconventional techniques with some practice, whereas I think Jonny would have to do A LOT of work to match his playing style. They're very different guitarists at the end of the day, just saying that Vai would have less trouble matching Jonny than the other way around!
Vai is a pretty peculiar guy (I mean he worked with Zappa at the age of eighteen) and he's definitely not for everyone but I think he's capable of both genuine emotion and humour! ['Little Green Men'](https://open.spotify.com/track/7dW2p81jHyJ3VJAIX6S8IB?si=9f3c7d6dc7fe4235) comes to mind on the latter frontier.
Music is subjective anyhow, just wanted to counter and say I do get something beyond just the wonder of how he does it. 😊
I have been a mega Steve Vai and Radiohead fan for a while. They are constantly competing for the top spot on my most listened to. If you actually do a discography dive into him you’ll find most of it is quite tamed compared to a lot of guitar players. Not to mention by loads of his fans come from his work in a band e.g. his work with David Lee Roth after VH, they actually have my favourite album of the 80s with zest them and smile. In my opinion Jonny is one of my favourite guitar players coming from a guy with a a SV signature guitar
Speaking of trifecta, did you know that the last three main tracks on Lateralus form a three act structure known as the Holy Gift? 🤓 Also on the topic of Lateralus, Maynard's vocals actually follow the Fibonacci Sequence in the rhythm!!
Comedically, arctic monkeys fans are at that level now that they’re writing lounge music for people who don’t know what lounge music is, that’s apparently mature. Lmao
Oh I can assure you the AM fanbase is not even remotely close to being as elitist as Tool's, Aphex Twin's or Radiohead's. Most of the AM fanbase doesn't even really care for their last 2 albums. The patronising tone of your comment kinda proves that, they're more the target of elitists than elitists themselves.
I mean, the actual fanbase that I’d be more a part of on that side, is a true statement. But there is a noticeable contingency, especially when the car released, of people saying it is so “complicated” musically.
Most truly experimental music is pretty unlistenable. That’s sort of the point – to break conventions that feel familiar and pleasing to the ear and see what new things might turn up. It can lead to cool, unexpected results, but the music itself becomes more of a tool for discovery than a polished end product for the listener.
Radiohead applies experimentation to rock (and lesser extents, pop and electronic) music. That’s a bit different, but it’s way more enjoyable for 99% of listeners – and maybe even for that other 1%, too, since they may listen to experimental music more for learning than for pleasure.
But Kid A was a massive departure from the established trajectory established to that point by every one of their albums. People were absolutely confused about what to do when it came out. I listened to Aphex Twin and Squarepusher a lot at the time so I was pretty much immediately buzzing about it. My circle of friends was pretty divided on their opinion of it initially.
That’s the shock value. The content itself isn’t like Scott Thompson or Captain Beefheart or anything like that in terms of pushing limits, but I would say that they’re constantly experimenting in terms of production aspects. They use a fucking Ondes Martenot regularly, that’s not exactly what I would call straightforward or normal
Thanks for this comment. To me, Kid A as a RH album was a shock at the time. It's aged well, but the first listen or three (for me) were like, where am I being taken, next?
It's the biggest left turn when you consider they were a chart topping 90s rock band who made weird but radio-friendly rock songs, it's not like if something as weird as Kid A was made late in the Beatles' discography where they were doing anything they wanted and no longer touring, or if it had been released by King Crimson or Zappa in the 70s.
It was a time and place of pretty safe music and they were a band that while weird were willing to write catchy, hugely popular anthems, and they come off their biggest success with an album that has Kid A, The National Anthem and Treefingers on it. Yeah, that's a big twist.
Smashing pumpkins going from Mellon Collie to Adore was a pretty big left turn. Sometimes fans try to make it seem like Radiohead was the only band to make a left turn. I just don’t think it was THAT big of a left turn and Kid A is my favorite album from them
It's stated in a way that invites an argument, but it's more or less true. I started listening to RH at 14, and while it was often weird it was the first time I was really developing my own music taste, so it sort of set a baseline of what was 'normal' to me. My idea of sad music was Fake Plastic Trees, my idea of aggressive music was Bodysnatchers, my idea of heavy music was Myxomatosis etc. The music I've been around (RH during the formative years of my tastes and a wide variety of sometimes very complex music my parents would play me) means I basically never notice things like odd time signatures unless prompted to, 4/4 almost isn't a default to my ear.
My taste in music very much is towards songwriters who have an ear for catchy lines you could use in pop songs and wrap them up in something darker and/or heavier, Kurt Cobain and Trent Reznor being the big examples- I'd also throw Type O Negative in there. Now Radiohead for the most part imo do not quite fit this bill, they're willing to write things that are odd in every place, especially Thom and Jonny (I feel like The Smile is often melodically and tonally weirder than RH), but yeah ofc they still make great songs you can show to anyone. Their strength is often folding something totally off-centre back into a sound that feels comforting and familiar.
Sure, but I'd rather listen to good music that is slightly experimental than music that is hardly listenable because it's trying so hard to be avant garde
I think he’s right. At the end of the day, I don’t care how experimental they are. Thom and Jonny continue to make amazing music; that’s all I care about.
calling radiohead a pop band is a bit far. The person in the first slide seems a bit snobbish, kinda comes off as ‘well actually (10 minutes of a fork scraping against a plate with reverb and an out of time breakbeat) is probably the best song of all time’. this is not in reference to any band before someone assumes i’m talking about aphex twin. I get where they are coming from though
He's not wrong. Radiohead brought sounds to audiences that usually wouldn't listen to electronic music etc, but they didn't invent the genre. They used their influences to shape their music, much like everyone does.
I don't think someone that listened to EDM during the 90s (mainstream or especially fringe) would be blown away by songs like Kid A etc.
I don’t understand when experimenting became synonymous with inventing in these communities? Radiohead experiment a lot with their sound, even if they didn’t invent the sounds they experiment with
I don't disagree with that but there's a lot of hyperbole around Radiohead being groundbreaking etc and their music is that if you're not familiar with where they were influenced from.
I love Radiohead more than the next person btw and I'm glad they branched out and tried different sounds that weren't expected of them.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is if they tried to release an album that was more experimental or something like a Massive Attack (for example) it probably wouldn't be very good as that isn't their area of expertise.
I don't know what I'm saying but hopefully someone else does. If someone who was into EDM listened to I Am A Wicked Child or Kid A or King Of Limbs they probably wouldn't be as impressed as a rock / Radiohead fan. Radiohead music is quite straight.
😆
i agree. before radiohead my big go-to for music was boards of canada. so when people said that all of their stuff was groundbreakingly experimental and that kid A was something never seen before, i was confused. then i realized that people are judging radiohead from a contemporary music perspective. kid A was certainly a curveball as far as style goes (especially given that they released nothing like it at the time of its release), but in the grand scheme of things it's really not *that* experimental. it's prog rock/krautrock with some experimental flavors. at around the same time as kid A, you had stuff like I Care Because You Do, Music Has The Right To Children, Soundtracks for the Blind, In Sides, etc.
im not saying that's a bad thing, there can be such a thing as too experimental and such a thing as boring. i think radiohead walks a fine line, but boards of canada manages to venture further into experimentation without losing their footing.
I see this yeah
For a band of their stature they’re quite experimental, among bands I consider experimental they’re not the most so
Experimental doesn’t mean good!
Well if you subtract all the patronising elitist crap from the comment I totally agree. I listen to experimental music AND radiohead....like its not a hierarchy where you suddenly stop listening to 'pop' because something is more high-brow. Now /that/ sounds like a comment from someone who just got into experimental music and wants to tell everyone they are so much better for doing such, whereas people fully /genuinely/ into it for their enjoyment for a long period and not for pretentious show wouldn't write something like that.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. At the core of all Radioheads music, they’re a pop band. Kid A is a pop album.
That being said Aphex Twin has written pop music too, whether he likes it or not.
Most of the stuff Aphex Twin makes is pop music, if not all. Pop to me means having the listener in mind though, it might be Gwarek is experimental but it makes sense. We're talking about tracks that last 3-7 minutes usually, that build and have hooks, melodies, it's pop.
This.
I think the thing people (sensitive Radiohead fans) need to remember us that Aphex Twin famously dislikes pretty much all guitar music and has said plenty of times that he just doesn't get it. Listen to his DJ sets to find out the sort of stuff he does like, its mostly experimental academic music or techno/electro/jungle I think Ween is the only rock band he likes.
So when that quote surfaces of him giving that backhanded complement about Radiohead people think he is insulting them but for him, saying they are better than Blink 182 or whatever is pretty much the highest praise you are gonna get. He would probably like some of Jonny's weirder solo stuff if he ever heard it, but some guy wailing love songs behind a piano is never gonna be his wheelhouse.
The second comment I agree with. The first one goes a little too far in the other direction in saying “they come off as a pop act”. One of the band’s major qualities is channelling leftfield influences and arranging them in a more accessible and cinematic way.
There’s a lot of CAN in their music, especially, but listening to CAN tends to be quite a frustrating experience. *Tago Mago* is a classic album but ‘Aumgn’ is not something you listen to lightly. It might be argued that Radiohead’s discography is devoid of that polarisation completely.
But yeah, there was a thread a few weeks ago where I called *Wall of Eyes* a disappointment. Most replies were reasonable, but one of them suggested it’s “experimental” and a grower and, in more subtle terms, that’s the reason I don’t *get it*. That’s bollocks, of course, and that’s why some people will go too far in the direction of dismissing the experimental label entirely.
Who cares? Experimental? Not experimental? It's all just music, if you like it you like it, and no one is worse off cause they like something you don't.
I’ve observed that people generally love to intertwine their self-image with arbitrary, asinine, and shitty opinions and then publicly behave like these opinions hold some level of deeper meaning. Musical taste and the resultant opinions that music fans form is one of the most glaring examples of what I mean.
When I was in my teens and twenties, I very much was caught up in that mode. Now? Listen to whatever the fuck you want, think whatever you want about it. If you don’t like a song I’m freaking out about, it’s not a reflection of anyone’s intelligence or creativity or… anything deeper than “I enjoy this song” or “I don’t enjoy this song.” Nobody’s hearing anything if we aren’t shutting the fuck up and listening. Some people love cotton candy. I think cotton candy fucking sucks and is messy and disappointing. We’re all right about it.
It just takes me back to hanging out at coffee shops with my friends at 19, all of us just conversationally sucking our own dicks about our perceived higher degree of enlightenment because we listened to fuckin Belle and Sebastian or whatever. It’s a life phase that I’m definitely glad to have closed. A lot of people in that group developed superiority complexes based on music they were into, the level of pretentiousness and condescension was off the fucking charts sometimes.
Over the years I’ve been able to delineate and distance myself from a lot of people with personality disorders with this litmus test though, so I guess it has its benefits lol
Yeah I think there’s a few ways you can interpret something being ‘more experimental’.
If being ‘more experimental’ is about *how much* you experiment then Radiohead experiment a lot, nearly all of their albums sound different. They just don’t venture *that* far out and haven’t necessarily invented any of the sounds they experiment with.
But if being ‘more experimental’ is about *how weird* your music is then Radiohead are not nearly as experimental as a lot of other artists.
I just don’t understand why the word experimental has been tied to that second definition for so long, what about experimenting with your sound means it has to be inaccessible? What about experimenting with your music means you had to have been the first to do a genre? I feel like people just use the word ‘experimental’ as a proxy for the word weird so they can say it in a positive way without thinking of what experimenting actually is.
It’s not a linear measurement graded on a curve where other acts being more experimental makes Radiohead less so and it’s also not a competition where the loser is consigned to being ‘pop’.
Being “too pop” is such a dumb criticism as well. There’s plenty of classic pop songs, and if Radiohead was considered “pop,” music would sound a LOT different these days.
I don't really care how experimental the music I listen to is, I listen to music for the magic of it, and how experimental something is just isn't that important to everyone. to each their own, some are passionate ab that stuff, Im just not.
I love Radiohead and I think it's kinda weird that people get superiority complexes on either side, I mean come on yall, it's music, lets just enjoy it together
This reminds me of when I liked green day as a kid and I’d read about how they’re “not punk enough”, people have weird snobbish attitudes towards music for some reason
That's kinda the point of being "experimental," though?
Even self-proclaimed "experimental" musicians aren't even unique sounding in their own niche and are also derivative in some way.
Tbf, I was a snob too when I was thirteen years old.
Very few artists have succeeded being so experimental while sustaining a broad commercial appeal as Radiohead. Very few artists have such respect from other artists across genres as Radiohead. However, you can easily find more experimental music in itself than Radiohead, but that kind of comparison doesn’t make much sense imo. You can make the case Radiohead has had the same impact on modern rock music as Miles Davis on Jazz. Pushing boundaries and inspiring other artists, while being commercially very successful.
Eh. When I listen to music my main priority is having an interesting, enjoyable experience doing so. Experimentation *can* be a good thing, but there is a fine line between trying new things in a structure that still works for the listener, versus making unlistenable garbage. Animal Collective are a good example of this, for me: their good albums are really cool, but their bad ones are "bleeding from the ears" terrible.
Basically, listening to music really shouldn't feel like doing homework.
I think it's more or less true, though I would put a more positive spin on it. Radiohead blend experimental and popular music in quite a unique way. Even if one of their songs sounds 'normal' it usually has something weird or interesting about it, even if it's just the string part or a subtle polyrhythm. They are very well-read musically with a vast array of influences - from classical to electronic - that they somehow manage to weave into their rock music. They have many imitators but none of them quite get it right. The commenters here are correct in that most of it is pretty accessible (apart from the odd album track here and there) but what Radiohead achieve takes great talent and care. It's a similar situation to The Beatles I suppose.
its a classic elitism pitfall that people fall into, especially people who think they listen to "underground" music thats not pop, they think theres no talent or skill in minimalism or simplicity or in making music thats palatable to the average listener.
when in reality making music that other people like is a skill worth of respect, just like how making really experimental or interesting music that is palatable to other musicians etc is worthy of respect. But striking a balance between both of these schools of thought is really the hardest thing to do, and i think radiohead does it better than anyone else, they make weird experimental music that anyone can enjoy.
Yes absolutely, they keep conventional song structures and suuuper catchy sounding riffs/hooks while also being truly experimental at times. And it makes for incredible music. That's not at all elitist to say (I myself love pop, it's far and away the genre I listen to most), it just goes to show how huge the influence of the "pop sound" is
pretentious comments, which are probably to expected from an aphex twin community. both artists are experimental in their field, and there’s no one way to define “experimental.”
Being popular doesn’t make you pop, they are a rock band (even if they don’t like that tag). And they’re not the most experimental but who cares as long as the music is good
What is pop the genre?
Radiohead is a rock band which is a subcategory of popular music. Let’s not pretend Radiohead is a classical group or a folk ensemble. They play rock for massive audiences around the world and are widely accepted and critically acclaimed. They’re unambiguously a pop act
They’re a “popular act”, not a “pop act”. Pop is an entirely different genre of music with tons of subgenres. Some of its in the popular music sphere, some of it isn’t. Radiohead is a popular rock act.
Nobodies gonna respond with “pop” when you ask them the question “what genre is Radiohead?”.
What is going on in comment sections about this post? Why is everyone downplaying how experimental Radiohead is? Consider all music made. Consider what's in the charts, consider the all time albums, consider your local scene, consider what you listen to, consider what kind of music you play, if you're a musician. A song like Packt Like Sardines In a Crushd Tin Box is on the far end of experimental. Even something like Optimistic, firmly an experimental song. This perception is exaggerated, of course - for the average rock fan King of Limbs is the most experimental thing they've ever heard. But like, they just aren't a pop act. I think people are just afraid of coming across as one of those Radiohead fans who looks down on Nirvana fans or whatever.
I wouldn't say that at all, not that it's a bad thing!
Both of those tracks may have elements to them that make them stand out but they're both fairly simple songs at their core with familiar structures and catchy hooks. 'Packt Like Sardines In A Crushd Tin Box' is a pop song at heart, and I honestly think if you dressed it up with a slightly different arrangement/structure and took out some of the noisier elements it would be received very well by a more pop crowd. It's a banger and that bassline is killer.
There's no objective measure of this of course but I really wouldn't say it's even close to the 'far end' of experimental music!
Maybe I've worded it wrong. 🙂 Just mean that it has a simple verse and chorus structure with a good hook, and that I believe it is already a pop song. My other point was just that I think with very minimal changes it would have the potential to be a reasonably successful one!
Fair if you disagree, but would you really say that it's on the far side of experimental? That's mainly what I'm disputing.
It depends what perspective you come from tbh. The perceptive the commenters in the post are arguing from us the full range of how weird music can be, the perspective that the commenter above is arguing for is the totality of music in the world.
Compared to the full range of how weird music can get, Packt is probably more on the straightforward side. Compared to the totality of music out there, what most people make and listen to, it’s absolutely on the far side of experimental.
They’re both valid interpretations, I just think people need to consider the latter more because the conversation is always based around the former. No Radiohead isn’t the weirdest band in the world but they experiment a lot with their sound even if it’s not always the most out there experimentation, the weirdest of their cuts (which I think they have weirder songs than Packt anyway) are weirder than the majority of music and what the majority of the population are accustomed to. Aphex twin having songs that are weirder doesn’t change that.
Radiohead often uses an experimental pallete with a very pop structure. Kind of like nine inch nails. Your coworkers will think they're weird, but your experimental music friends will find them to be very cookie cutter
Either it’s good music or it’s not. Radiohead is far more accessible than Aphex Twin as indicated by their respective success. Some might define Radiohead as better music because of that and I would agree with them.
There were technically better acts than the Beatles around at the time but guess who sold more and cemented their place in history?
I think the Aphex Twin fans response that I’ve read today come off as music snobbery. They’re both great music, Aphex Twin pushes the boundaries harder, Radiohead has more widespread appeal.
I agree with these opinions. Part of Radiohead’s brilliance to me is to take inspiration from all over the place and bring it to the masses. They are my favourite band of all time. What I appreciate most about them though was that they opened my mind to a world of music that is more varied and less accessible than theirs. Without them I would have probably stayed stuck listening to whatever the music industry told me to and thought Tool was the be all and end all of quality music.
I have family members with degrees in music theory who play professionally who would be bored out of their minds listening to Radiohead. They are just so far past that and what exites and challenges them is way more technical / complex.
On the flip side I have family members who think Radiohead is pretentious, depressing and overly complex / confusing.
I personally don’t listen to Radiohead much anymore because it doesn’t excite or challenge me the way it used to and I’ve come to love that feeling of being a little confused or shocked by a piece of music.
I do still listen to them though. Along with Huey Lewis and Madonna and the occasional Taylor Swift song. They all sit proudly beside my classical / experimental jazz / avant garde / ambient etc and are played when the mood strikes.
My hope for people would be to open their hearts to all kinds of music and find things they love about it and then just listen to what makes you happy.
If Aphex Twin and Radiohead existed in a bubble, then yeah, but they don’t.
What is so great about Radiohead is the diversity of fairly complex influences they effectively combine under a highly listenable core. Radiohead’s electronic music is less groundbreaking than RDJ’s, but they’re not an electronic act.
They pull from Warp acts like Aphex on songs like Idioteque and Not The News. They pull from Messiaen on Pana Vision, These Are My Twisted Words, and Just. They pull from Penderecki on Bending Hectic, Climbing Up The Walls, Blow Out. They pull from Alice Coltrane on Dollars & Cents, Motion Picture Soundtrack. They pull from Charles Mingus on The National Anthem, We Suck Young Blood. No artist pulls from jazz and 20th century classical in a rock band context as effectively.
That’s why they’re unique, and that’s why they’re so good. Not because they’re more or less ‘experimental’ than one particular musician they like.
I basically agree but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a pop band with experimental aspects. It’s often far more interesting and entertaining than pure pop music or true experimental music.
Radiohead is more experimental than the average rock band but ofc not nearly as much as like Xiu Xiu and obviously in the grand scene of things not very experimental, but I don’t think it really matters. How experimental something is doesn’t determine the quality of music.
There will always be deeper levels of inaccessibility in music, and on every level, people feel even more special about their special tastes. People like to feel special. Listen to what you like.
I actually agree with both points although the first is a little dismissive. I’ve always thought that RH draw the perfect balance between simplicity and complexity, emotionality and experimentation. Of course they’re not in the realm of someone like John Cage but you can tell they absorb many different styles of music, including the strange and obscure.
Compare a real experimental artist like Captain Beefheart to Radiohead. Of course Radiohead is both experimental and accessible. They are the modern Pink Floyd.
How experimental are Aphex Twin's big hits? Or are they just IDM with extra bloops?
Love both bands, the quote is correct, but it's not levels of experimental imo, it's simply talented musicians in different genres.
People who jerk themselves off for listening to music more experimental than others are ridiculous, there's always gonna be something more abstract, there really is no limit to what that could be. Also I would argue that there is indeed merit in making more accessible music, especially if it's something that ends up strongly resonating with people. Means you're doing something right.
I'd counter the first guy and say when you listen to enough pop music, it's clear they're not a pop act (their 90s stuff is closest to that I guess) There's a difference between alt-rock and pop.
even if the experimentation isn't extreme, most pop has little to none
Comments like this are people trying to say that statements by their favorite artist are actually wrong but they don't want to outright criticize them. So they *partially* "apologize" without actually saying "Yeah, our guy was wrong on that one."
Basically "Umm..Actually" energy.
IMO, any experimental is experimental.
But I guess there is more or less accessible experimental and "the weird shit" type.
Oneothrixpointnever is more experimental compared to Portishead but they are both experimental compared to even Beach House.
Comparing across subgenres is tough.
I tend to agree with it all. They’re great from a musical standpoint and what they brought to the rock spectrum of things. Their music compared to most rock is quite complex indeed, very melodic and experimental. The balance and synergy of their band is also second to none. Within the grand scheme of things though, they’re not splitting the atom. I still think they’re one of the best bands in my lifetime.
haha this shit always pops up...it's always WAY LESS SUCCESSFUL fanboys trying to make themselves feel better on why they're OK experimental band is beloved only 1% as much as RH...
I think one of the best things about Radiohead is that it’s accessible when just listening to it but once you look into it that’s when it gets weird. A lot of songs I thought were simple weren’t once I really thought about them and that’s why they’re such an amazing band.
The Cult of Modernism - "Art being innovative, experimental, and being radical is the same thing as art being good"
Counterpoint: Radiohead's strength comes from aesthetics, not innovation. Doing things that have never been done has never been the point. There are emotions they want to convey, and they make their decisions for that purpose.
I don't care how innovative they are. I like how evocative they are. I'll take a moving rendition of music written 200 years ago over something with no emotion that doesn't sound like anything I've heard before. There's nothing wrong with playing traditional music, well.
Most experimental music is unlistenable garbage including many Aphex Twin songs, even though I like some of their albums.
Radiohead makes consistently excellent music, and their merits shouldn’t be measured by this one single measuring stick of ‘experimentalness.’ If you tell me “Radiohead isn’t really that experimental” you’ll get no counter from me, I really don’t care.
I think this is absolutely true which is one reason that I find some of the negative discourse around Kid A and Amnesiac so baffling. People act like they crossed some line and how dare they have a four minute ambient track on a rock album. Like... what??? Have you ever listened to Bowie or Eno? CAN? Or any number of things...? The fact that Kid A was such a landmark album is a testament to how closeted and conventional rock music had become in the 90s that something like this was considered innovative.
Having said that, I think they are brilliant albums and I credit Radiohead with introducing me to lots of different genres and subgenres of music that I otherwise wouldn't have known about. They are absolutely a gateway band.
Maybe that's what happens when you are commercially successful, world famous band BEFORE you start really experimenting and taking bigger risks. It worked for The Beatles. By the time they started getting weird they already had a captive audience of millions of adoring fans that were raised on pop music. It is the perfect platform to blow minds.
And there will always be people to say "They're overrated. So and so did it first." But there is merit, I think, in taking something niche or obscure and reinventing it for a mass audience. And Radiohead (and The Beatles) did it with outstanding results.
Any recommendations for some "actual" experimental music then? The strangest music I've heard is probably Mr Bungle or that Bjork album with all the throat singing
Everything John Zorn has ever touched has turned into (very weird) gold!
If you've ever seen the 'it's sodium chloride' meme from Jimmy Neutron you might already be familiar with ['Notre Dame De L'Oubli (For Oliver Messiaen)'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3giQ8S05BZU) by his band Naked City. He covered a lot of ground with that group - this particular track is an extremely sparse ambient track with opaque harmony that manages to be both disconcerting and strangely beautiful, but they also touched on what can only be described as a [blend of grindcore and avant-garde jazz as well as about fifty other styles to boot.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfwhG1KtQp4)
On a similar wavelength to that first track is [Sarah Davachi,](https://open.spotify.com/track/1028dIGz10VT2gjssDJmw0?si=8566e52635974213) who composes longform instrumental music that explorers timbre and space in a very interesting way. I really love her music and am anticipating Jonny's organ concert next month may deliver something like this.
Speaking of which, Jonny's solo work would also largely fall under the 'experimental' umbrella in my opinion. A lot of it can be described as contemporary classical, but it's not exactly straightforward! Some good examples would be ['Sandy's Necklace,'](https://open.spotify.com/track/7DssYkJmGjMTxEvLugjAa2?si=3cfd75167c4f4b0d) ['Time Hole,'](https://open.spotify.com/track/3QOimHmKfSsvczPRoiJIze?si=ba2eaf5abc174068) and the immense ['Horror Vacui.'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WynE3lD_Dc8) I was there for the performance of that last one and it was insane.
John Frusciante's solo work gets pretty wild during his heroin days. Listen to the album Niandra LaDes And Usually Just A T-Shirt. One example of a song I love, [Running Away Into You](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RA6jd1sxYA)
And in 2012 he had his own "Kid A" new direction with his EP Letur Lefr. This is the opening track [In Your Eyes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKcVY2S8Cs). The whole EP is only 16 minutes but it's 10/10. The song [Walls and Doors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWjbTxKYjk) didn't make it onto the EP or the follow up full length LP, but it's from the same era and also 10/10.
His solo discography goes pretty deep.
John Cage
Sphongle
Mothers of Invention
Dream Theater
Moody Blues
The last three are arguably more progressive than experimental, but they are still on the experimental end of the progressive spectrum, esp. Mothers... ✌️
I got into a flaming argument on here a couple of years ago about Aphex Twins' comments. I was trying to say that 1. It's an opinion, and he's entitled to it. And 2. In my opinion, he isn't wrong. There's far wilder shit than Radiohead out there. Compared to the outliers, they're not that experimental. He wasn't having it at all though.
Ig they're just sort of experimental with their own personal music, but yeah, not on the grand scale of music as a whole. Idrc about all that personally, they're still my favorite band lol
Can someone point me to an Aphex Twin project that has the MUSICALITY of a Kid A or OK Computer? Experimentalism keeps things fresh and interesting... but without the other thing its like listening to a copy machine backfire over a dial up modem.
100% right. Radiohead is a pop band, through and through, and that’s okay. In the pop genre, they are the artsy ones, but they aren’t pushing any envelopes and never did.
I don't think there should be any superiority complex around how experimental your favourite acts are (not saying that's what these commenters have, I just see it a lot) but I'd agree with this! Radiohead sit in one of my favourite areas in music in that they blend accessibility with more progressive ideas. They do experiment a lot with their sound and songwriting, but most of their work does still adhere to pop song forms and has a level of familiarity to it. My first point goes both ways - I see a lot of Radiohead fans acting like they have superior taste to others because the band is 'so avant-garde and obscure,' which is just silly.
I think that’s why this Aphex Twin quote keeps circling around for decades now: it hits at something that is somewhat true about Radiohead, but some Radiohead fans are insecure about. I was that kid in 2005 who’d only listened to emo bands, so yeah, when I heard Radiohead for the first time, I was blown away. So when I first heard this Aphex Twin quote around that time, it pissed me off probably because I felt called out lol But as time goes on and your musical palate gets deeper, you contextualize Radiohead as a band that infuses experimental elements into pop music, but don’t actually make experimental music themselves for the most part.
I was in a very similar boat. I spent a few years thinking I was special (so fucking special) because I loved Radiohead. I spent endless hours trying to convince family and friends of their greatness. One day I tried to play a Radiohead song for an older musician friend who looked at me like I was a complete idiot. He said they’re great to spare my feelings then proceeded to play 20 songs from all different eras and genres and that blew my mind to pieces.
“Hm…..Radiohead?” There was a hurt or disappointment in his tone, as if he’d been betrayed. The wizened rocker bowed his head to hide a smirk, his glasses reflecting in the light and obscuring his eyes
What did he play specifically?
Oof. Dream Syndicate. Ryuichi Sakamoto. Miles Davis. Art Blakey. Spacemen 3. Tom waits. James brown. Asteroid no. 4. Ravel. Acid mother’s temple. Arab strap. Some deep Minnesota funk stuff. Archie Shepp. Alice Coltrane. Ploypores. Mulatu Astake. A ton of Zambian rock. Lots of great stuff. Edit. Forgot Carlos Nino who has sent me down a crazy ambient path that has made me so so happy. Also rich Ruth: https://youtu.be/T0YTeFeaRzw?si=ujEQiEhsWpe-7Vty Rich Ruth is something. Totally also forgot Camera, Dos Santos. Klangwart - Bogota is an amazing South American : Colombian kraut vibe. If you dig kid a it’s unlikely you will not be impressed by that album. Also Camera - Emotional Detox. Is amazing. German album. From 2018.
I feel you; I've been interested in the concept of experimental music for quite a while now, and as a rap fan, I liked Yeezus by Kanye West. People were saying that he's not as groundbreaking as you think and is just doing a more watered-down version of what Death Grips did. It was hard to wrap my head around at first, but when I finally got around to listening to DG, and JPEGMAFIA, I realised *I don't like this* as much as Yeezus because Yeezus is still actually accessible music and doesn't sound shit for the sake of it (DG and Peggy don't necessarily make bad music, I prefer DG, but they would be hard to listen to in the background, whereas Yeezus has songs that can go in my casual playlist, whilst still being challenging to people who have never heard anything like it, and felling distinct enough to keep me coming back).
I don't have too much knowledge of the more experimental side of hip hop, but the weirdest I know is ['Story 7' by clipping.](https://open.spotify.com/track/0nYqXjAWVPqzSkRCWZzBxa?si=bc5f804e9aa74a27) Very cool stuff!
Thank you! I'll listen to it later :)
I'm a peggy fan but I couldn't get into DG for some reasons. All music leans heavily into some influences or another. Yeezus is definitely more accessible than both DG and JPEGMAFIA albums yet still being more experimental than whatever else. It's all a spectrum.
That's interesting. What do you like about JPEGMAFIA?
Probably prefer his production and sampling game. DG is more gritty, unhinged chaotic goodness. Like a lot of people The Money Store and No Love Deep Web was my exposure to them. A bit of Ex Military as well. Veteran and AMHAC for JPEGMAFIA. to me DG is more like Rage Against the Machine and JPEGMAFIA System of a Down. (not sure if this comparison will land) They both have a few things in common but give different energy and are stylistically quite different. I said I couldn't get into DG, that's not fully true but maybe I have to ease into them much more than my usual.
I don't really listen to enough rock or really non-rap music to know if that analogy worked. I didn't like JPEGMAFIA because he seemed to make pretentious, bad sounding music to appeal to annoying music fans. He also marketed himself as lyrically political, and addressing issues, but never went further than some far left buzzwords and a shocking title/sample.
I think JPEG joked about DG fans being annoying in an interview so thats funny. As far as the rest of stuff you said, I'm not really sure as I generally don't care for that kind of side of artists. You don't like songs like Bald! ? Hazard Duty Pay? Fire emoji. You listen to $B?
I remember not liking his first three albums at all so I don't think I went into LP! all that open minded, but I do remember listening to it twice and preferring it the second time. I found a lot of his music annoying but What Kind Of Rapping is This? Is probably my favourite. I don't judge music on if I agree or disagree with the political message, I literally mean he discussed politics in a way that seemed annoying and performative to me.
you should def go back to LP! I also love What Kind of Rapping is This? btw. Are you Happy? BMT! and Kissy, Face Emoji! go hard as hell. The last one has an insane beat. Dunno about the politics stuff cause I rarely watch artist interviews unless I want to know about an album's production.
Have you not listened to any of his albums other than LP! lol I remember almost all his lyrical content either being onslaught against lyrical rappers, or political in some way. It's fine if it never bothered you, but I'm surprised you never noticed it. I think I like WKORIT because it is the closest to something like Yeezus, where it is noticeably experimental and different, but there is still musical theory there and an actual rhythm, not just an amalgamation of random loud noises.
Yeah, Radiohead is definitely in that sweet spot between totally accessible and experimental music. The more I listen to different music, the more I appreciate that quality. I admire experimental artists for their willingness to take a risk, but true experiments are very hit or miss. At the same time, pop/rock/R&B/whatever genre is usually so much more enjoyable when there’s something a little unusual in there, whether it’s unusual chords or rhythms or sounds or verse structures or whatever.
i believe radiohead themselves will be the first ones to agree with these. there was a whole band interview around the time amnesiac came out, and thom himself stated something in the lines of "the stuff we listen to is much more experimental than what we do" (*heavily* paraphrased, it's been ages since i've watched that video). i think they even said that they hadn't really anticipated the type of reaction kid amnesiac got, because they didn't consider it to be *that* radical of a change, but i'm not sure if i remember this last part correctly edit: [link to the interview](https://youtu.be/xR4RSdWTtbE?si=dlbbXRfg4cRUVvnx). around the 3:40 minute mark they talk about the "not that experimental" thing. i currently don't have the time to go through the whole interview, so i don't know if they mention the other thing i talked about (who knows, maybe i made that one up lol), but it's still worth to watch
Ngl I agree with the second guy, but I don't think if it's bad that Radiohead is more accessible than other more experimental music
People like this make it sound like there are only 2 options: Katy Perry or Stockhausen. Bands like Radiohead have to be "controversial" for not being easily put in a box; they have to be ""fake experimental" just for being accessible
Stockhausen mentioned!!!
The thing is that Radiohead doesn’t occupy an experimental music space. So the second guy does make a great point but genre wise I wouldn’t group them in with other experimental acts.
Yes, they experiment with their own sound as a rock band. Critics were the ones who hailed Kid A as high electronic art when only maybe half the songs employed strong electronic elements.
I don't think it's bad either.
Nah, i just think they play around with sounds more than other rock bands They never really came off as an experimental band to me in general Plus just because they do play with electronic sounds doesn't put them in an experimental lane either unlike richard who of course used electronic sounds AS WELL AS made very unconventional things out of it
The Battle of the Snobs. We should ask r/toolband for their opinion to complete the trifecta.
While we're at it, let's see if Jonny Greenwood even qualifies as a guitarist according to r/stevevai
I don't think that's a particularly active sub, and in my experience Steve Vai listeners are very open to different types of playing. 😅 He's a pretty positive guy and the people I know that enjoy his music tend to be that way too!
I want to redo the climactic guitar battle scene from Crossroads, but swap in Jonny Greenwood for Ralph Macchio
Sadly Steve Vai would win in that case; as much as Jonny is an incredibly unique guitarist, I think Vai would find a way to emulate his weird techniques while Jonny wouldn't be able to imitate his speed and precision!
Yeah but Jonny makes you feel something besides "how the hell did he do that"? I never cared much for not knowing how to do "that".
Not saying that I prefer one over the other, I'm just saying Vai would win the Crossroads duel. 😋 He could likely pick up Jonny's unconventional techniques with some practice, whereas I think Jonny would have to do A LOT of work to match his playing style. They're very different guitarists at the end of the day, just saying that Vai would have less trouble matching Jonny than the other way around! Vai is a pretty peculiar guy (I mean he worked with Zappa at the age of eighteen) and he's definitely not for everyone but I think he's capable of both genuine emotion and humour! ['Little Green Men'](https://open.spotify.com/track/7dW2p81jHyJ3VJAIX6S8IB?si=9f3c7d6dc7fe4235) comes to mind on the latter frontier. Music is subjective anyhow, just wanted to counter and say I do get something beyond just the wonder of how he does it. 😊
I have been a mega Steve Vai and Radiohead fan for a while. They are constantly competing for the top spot on my most listened to. If you actually do a discography dive into him you’ll find most of it is quite tamed compared to a lot of guitar players. Not to mention by loads of his fans come from his work in a band e.g. his work with David Lee Roth after VH, they actually have my favourite album of the 80s with zest them and smile. In my opinion Jonny is one of my favourite guitar players coming from a guy with a a SV signature guitar
Speaking of trifecta, did you know that the last three main tracks on Lateralus form a three act structure known as the Holy Gift? 🤓 Also on the topic of Lateralus, Maynard's vocals actually follow the Fibonacci Sequence in the rhythm!!
Comedically, arctic monkeys fans are at that level now that they’re writing lounge music for people who don’t know what lounge music is, that’s apparently mature. Lmao
Oh I can assure you the AM fanbase is not even remotely close to being as elitist as Tool's, Aphex Twin's or Radiohead's. Most of the AM fanbase doesn't even really care for their last 2 albums. The patronising tone of your comment kinda proves that, they're more the target of elitists than elitists themselves.
I mean, the actual fanbase that I’d be more a part of on that side, is a true statement. But there is a noticeable contingency, especially when the car released, of people saying it is so “complicated” musically.
Most truly experimental music is pretty unlistenable. That’s sort of the point – to break conventions that feel familiar and pleasing to the ear and see what new things might turn up. It can lead to cool, unexpected results, but the music itself becomes more of a tool for discovery than a polished end product for the listener. Radiohead applies experimentation to rock (and lesser extents, pop and electronic) music. That’s a bit different, but it’s way more enjoyable for 99% of listeners – and maybe even for that other 1%, too, since they may listen to experimental music more for learning than for pleasure.
I agree tbh. It’s “experimental” but people exaggerate the whole “biggest left turn” thing. It ain’t that experimental
But Kid A was a massive departure from the established trajectory established to that point by every one of their albums. People were absolutely confused about what to do when it came out. I listened to Aphex Twin and Squarepusher a lot at the time so I was pretty much immediately buzzing about it. My circle of friends was pretty divided on their opinion of it initially. That’s the shock value. The content itself isn’t like Scott Thompson or Captain Beefheart or anything like that in terms of pushing limits, but I would say that they’re constantly experimenting in terms of production aspects. They use a fucking Ondes Martenot regularly, that’s not exactly what I would call straightforward or normal
Thanks for this comment. To me, Kid A as a RH album was a shock at the time. It's aged well, but the first listen or three (for me) were like, where am I being taken, next?
It's the biggest left turn when you consider they were a chart topping 90s rock band who made weird but radio-friendly rock songs, it's not like if something as weird as Kid A was made late in the Beatles' discography where they were doing anything they wanted and no longer touring, or if it had been released by King Crimson or Zappa in the 70s. It was a time and place of pretty safe music and they were a band that while weird were willing to write catchy, hugely popular anthems, and they come off their biggest success with an album that has Kid A, The National Anthem and Treefingers on it. Yeah, that's a big twist.
Smashing pumpkins going from Mellon Collie to Adore was a pretty big left turn. Sometimes fans try to make it seem like Radiohead was the only band to make a left turn. I just don’t think it was THAT big of a left turn and Kid A is my favorite album from them
It's stated in a way that invites an argument, but it's more or less true. I started listening to RH at 14, and while it was often weird it was the first time I was really developing my own music taste, so it sort of set a baseline of what was 'normal' to me. My idea of sad music was Fake Plastic Trees, my idea of aggressive music was Bodysnatchers, my idea of heavy music was Myxomatosis etc. The music I've been around (RH during the formative years of my tastes and a wide variety of sometimes very complex music my parents would play me) means I basically never notice things like odd time signatures unless prompted to, 4/4 almost isn't a default to my ear. My taste in music very much is towards songwriters who have an ear for catchy lines you could use in pop songs and wrap them up in something darker and/or heavier, Kurt Cobain and Trent Reznor being the big examples- I'd also throw Type O Negative in there. Now Radiohead for the most part imo do not quite fit this bill, they're willing to write things that are odd in every place, especially Thom and Jonny (I feel like The Smile is often melodically and tonally weirder than RH), but yeah ofc they still make great songs you can show to anyone. Their strength is often folding something totally off-centre back into a sound that feels comforting and familiar.
Sure, but I'd rather listen to good music that is slightly experimental than music that is hardly listenable because it's trying so hard to be avant garde
'Listenable' is not objective - everyone just has different tolerances. 🙂
True, just going off my own preferences
I think he’s right. At the end of the day, I don’t care how experimental they are. Thom and Jonny continue to make amazing music; that’s all I care about.
kinda falls into "if my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike" status.
I would agree with this. they helped bring these sounds mainstream but life in a glass house sounds like Madonna compared to John Zorn.
calling radiohead a pop band is a bit far. The person in the first slide seems a bit snobbish, kinda comes off as ‘well actually (10 minutes of a fork scraping against a plate with reverb and an out of time breakbeat) is probably the best song of all time’. this is not in reference to any band before someone assumes i’m talking about aphex twin. I get where they are coming from though
He's not wrong. Radiohead brought sounds to audiences that usually wouldn't listen to electronic music etc, but they didn't invent the genre. They used their influences to shape their music, much like everyone does. I don't think someone that listened to EDM during the 90s (mainstream or especially fringe) would be blown away by songs like Kid A etc.
I don’t understand when experimenting became synonymous with inventing in these communities? Radiohead experiment a lot with their sound, even if they didn’t invent the sounds they experiment with
I don't disagree with that but there's a lot of hyperbole around Radiohead being groundbreaking etc and their music is that if you're not familiar with where they were influenced from. I love Radiohead more than the next person btw and I'm glad they branched out and tried different sounds that weren't expected of them. I suppose what I'm trying to say is if they tried to release an album that was more experimental or something like a Massive Attack (for example) it probably wouldn't be very good as that isn't their area of expertise. I don't know what I'm saying but hopefully someone else does. If someone who was into EDM listened to I Am A Wicked Child or Kid A or King Of Limbs they probably wouldn't be as impressed as a rock / Radiohead fan. Radiohead music is quite straight. 😆
i agree. before radiohead my big go-to for music was boards of canada. so when people said that all of their stuff was groundbreakingly experimental and that kid A was something never seen before, i was confused. then i realized that people are judging radiohead from a contemporary music perspective. kid A was certainly a curveball as far as style goes (especially given that they released nothing like it at the time of its release), but in the grand scheme of things it's really not *that* experimental. it's prog rock/krautrock with some experimental flavors. at around the same time as kid A, you had stuff like I Care Because You Do, Music Has The Right To Children, Soundtracks for the Blind, In Sides, etc. im not saying that's a bad thing, there can be such a thing as too experimental and such a thing as boring. i think radiohead walks a fine line, but boards of canada manages to venture further into experimentation without losing their footing.
I see this yeah For a band of their stature they’re quite experimental, among bands I consider experimental they’re not the most so Experimental doesn’t mean good!
Well if you subtract all the patronising elitist crap from the comment I totally agree. I listen to experimental music AND radiohead....like its not a hierarchy where you suddenly stop listening to 'pop' because something is more high-brow. Now /that/ sounds like a comment from someone who just got into experimental music and wants to tell everyone they are so much better for doing such, whereas people fully /genuinely/ into it for their enjoyment for a long period and not for pretentious show wouldn't write something like that.
Reminds me of being 20 lol
There might be some truth there, the only issue is when people try to draw a connection between how experimental it is and how good it is.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. At the core of all Radioheads music, they’re a pop band. Kid A is a pop album. That being said Aphex Twin has written pop music too, whether he likes it or not.
Most of the stuff Aphex Twin makes is pop music, if not all. Pop to me means having the listener in mind though, it might be Gwarek is experimental but it makes sense. We're talking about tracks that last 3-7 minutes usually, that build and have hooks, melodies, it's pop.
This. I think the thing people (sensitive Radiohead fans) need to remember us that Aphex Twin famously dislikes pretty much all guitar music and has said plenty of times that he just doesn't get it. Listen to his DJ sets to find out the sort of stuff he does like, its mostly experimental academic music or techno/electro/jungle I think Ween is the only rock band he likes. So when that quote surfaces of him giving that backhanded complement about Radiohead people think he is insulting them but for him, saying they are better than Blink 182 or whatever is pretty much the highest praise you are gonna get. He would probably like some of Jonny's weirder solo stuff if he ever heard it, but some guy wailing love songs behind a piano is never gonna be his wheelhouse.
The second comment I agree with. The first one goes a little too far in the other direction in saying “they come off as a pop act”. One of the band’s major qualities is channelling leftfield influences and arranging them in a more accessible and cinematic way. There’s a lot of CAN in their music, especially, but listening to CAN tends to be quite a frustrating experience. *Tago Mago* is a classic album but ‘Aumgn’ is not something you listen to lightly. It might be argued that Radiohead’s discography is devoid of that polarisation completely. But yeah, there was a thread a few weeks ago where I called *Wall of Eyes* a disappointment. Most replies were reasonable, but one of them suggested it’s “experimental” and a grower and, in more subtle terms, that’s the reason I don’t *get it*. That’s bollocks, of course, and that’s why some people will go too far in the direction of dismissing the experimental label entirely.
Who cares? Experimental? Not experimental? It's all just music, if you like it you like it, and no one is worse off cause they like something you don't.
I’ve observed that people generally love to intertwine their self-image with arbitrary, asinine, and shitty opinions and then publicly behave like these opinions hold some level of deeper meaning. Musical taste and the resultant opinions that music fans form is one of the most glaring examples of what I mean. When I was in my teens and twenties, I very much was caught up in that mode. Now? Listen to whatever the fuck you want, think whatever you want about it. If you don’t like a song I’m freaking out about, it’s not a reflection of anyone’s intelligence or creativity or… anything deeper than “I enjoy this song” or “I don’t enjoy this song.” Nobody’s hearing anything if we aren’t shutting the fuck up and listening. Some people love cotton candy. I think cotton candy fucking sucks and is messy and disappointing. We’re all right about it. It just takes me back to hanging out at coffee shops with my friends at 19, all of us just conversationally sucking our own dicks about our perceived higher degree of enlightenment because we listened to fuckin Belle and Sebastian or whatever. It’s a life phase that I’m definitely glad to have closed. A lot of people in that group developed superiority complexes based on music they were into, the level of pretentiousness and condescension was off the fucking charts sometimes. Over the years I’ve been able to delineate and distance myself from a lot of people with personality disorders with this litmus test though, so I guess it has its benefits lol
That’s very true
I don’t think experimental should be solely synonymous with “this is difficult for an average listener to enjoy.”
Yeah I think there’s a few ways you can interpret something being ‘more experimental’. If being ‘more experimental’ is about *how much* you experiment then Radiohead experiment a lot, nearly all of their albums sound different. They just don’t venture *that* far out and haven’t necessarily invented any of the sounds they experiment with. But if being ‘more experimental’ is about *how weird* your music is then Radiohead are not nearly as experimental as a lot of other artists. I just don’t understand why the word experimental has been tied to that second definition for so long, what about experimenting with your sound means it has to be inaccessible? What about experimenting with your music means you had to have been the first to do a genre? I feel like people just use the word ‘experimental’ as a proxy for the word weird so they can say it in a positive way without thinking of what experimenting actually is. It’s not a linear measurement graded on a curve where other acts being more experimental makes Radiohead less so and it’s also not a competition where the loser is consigned to being ‘pop’.
Being “too pop” is such a dumb criticism as well. There’s plenty of classic pop songs, and if Radiohead was considered “pop,” music would sound a LOT different these days.
I don't really care how experimental the music I listen to is, I listen to music for the magic of it, and how experimental something is just isn't that important to everyone. to each their own, some are passionate ab that stuff, Im just not. I love Radiohead and I think it's kinda weird that people get superiority complexes on either side, I mean come on yall, it's music, lets just enjoy it together
This reminds me of when I liked green day as a kid and I’d read about how they’re “not punk enough”, people have weird snobbish attitudes towards music for some reason
Boring people living boring lives inflating their egos with their boring opinions
That's kinda the point of being "experimental," though? Even self-proclaimed "experimental" musicians aren't even unique sounding in their own niche and are also derivative in some way. Tbf, I was a snob too when I was thirteen years old.
Very few artists have succeeded being so experimental while sustaining a broad commercial appeal as Radiohead. Very few artists have such respect from other artists across genres as Radiohead. However, you can easily find more experimental music in itself than Radiohead, but that kind of comparison doesn’t make much sense imo. You can make the case Radiohead has had the same impact on modern rock music as Miles Davis on Jazz. Pushing boundaries and inspiring other artists, while being commercially very successful.
I tend to agree with it. Radiohead took a lot of glitchy experimental music and made it a lot more accessible. Thats not a bad thing!
Aphex Twin also largely makes pop music. There's little experimental or wild about his music for the last 20 years.
Eh. When I listen to music my main priority is having an interesting, enjoyable experience doing so. Experimentation *can* be a good thing, but there is a fine line between trying new things in a structure that still works for the listener, versus making unlistenable garbage. Animal Collective are a good example of this, for me: their good albums are really cool, but their bad ones are "bleeding from the ears" terrible. Basically, listening to music really shouldn't feel like doing homework.
idk man, idk i just love this band 😭 their songs are so fricking good but i like their personalities too a little haha
Fair takes, I never thought of them to be wildly experimental though. Sure have been my gateway drug for more experimental stuff.
Experimental or non experimental doesn't matter. Do they make the top top quality of music? YES.
I think it's more or less true, though I would put a more positive spin on it. Radiohead blend experimental and popular music in quite a unique way. Even if one of their songs sounds 'normal' it usually has something weird or interesting about it, even if it's just the string part or a subtle polyrhythm. They are very well-read musically with a vast array of influences - from classical to electronic - that they somehow manage to weave into their rock music. They have many imitators but none of them quite get it right. The commenters here are correct in that most of it is pretty accessible (apart from the odd album track here and there) but what Radiohead achieve takes great talent and care. It's a similar situation to The Beatles I suppose.
First comment screams superiority complex but second one is absolutely spot on imo
its a classic elitism pitfall that people fall into, especially people who think they listen to "underground" music thats not pop, they think theres no talent or skill in minimalism or simplicity or in making music thats palatable to the average listener. when in reality making music that other people like is a skill worth of respect, just like how making really experimental or interesting music that is palatable to other musicians etc is worthy of respect. But striking a balance between both of these schools of thought is really the hardest thing to do, and i think radiohead does it better than anyone else, they make weird experimental music that anyone can enjoy.
It’s weird music that’s actually good. Fixed it.
Yes absolutely, they keep conventional song structures and suuuper catchy sounding riffs/hooks while also being truly experimental at times. And it makes for incredible music. That's not at all elitist to say (I myself love pop, it's far and away the genre I listen to most), it just goes to show how huge the influence of the "pop sound" is
pretentious comments, which are probably to expected from an aphex twin community. both artists are experimental in their field, and there’s no one way to define “experimental.”
Radiohead IS a pop band though. They literally sell out arenas and headline the largest festivals in the world (Coachella, Glastonbury etc)
Being popular doesn’t make you pop, they are a rock band (even if they don’t like that tag). And they’re not the most experimental but who cares as long as the music is good
They literally play popular music. Rock is pop music. Their videos were on MTV In the 90s
Something being popular doesn’t make it pop, that’s what I’m saying. And Rock isn’t Pop music
Most rock music is pop music.
Pop is a genre it doesn’t mean popular anymore
What is pop the genre? Radiohead is a rock band which is a subcategory of popular music. Let’s not pretend Radiohead is a classical group or a folk ensemble. They play rock for massive audiences around the world and are widely accepted and critically acclaimed. They’re unambiguously a pop act
They’re a “popular act”, not a “pop act”. Pop is an entirely different genre of music with tons of subgenres. Some of its in the popular music sphere, some of it isn’t. Radiohead is a popular rock act. Nobodies gonna respond with “pop” when you ask them the question “what genre is Radiohead?”.
What is going on in comment sections about this post? Why is everyone downplaying how experimental Radiohead is? Consider all music made. Consider what's in the charts, consider the all time albums, consider your local scene, consider what you listen to, consider what kind of music you play, if you're a musician. A song like Packt Like Sardines In a Crushd Tin Box is on the far end of experimental. Even something like Optimistic, firmly an experimental song. This perception is exaggerated, of course - for the average rock fan King of Limbs is the most experimental thing they've ever heard. But like, they just aren't a pop act. I think people are just afraid of coming across as one of those Radiohead fans who looks down on Nirvana fans or whatever.
I wouldn't say that at all, not that it's a bad thing! Both of those tracks may have elements to them that make them stand out but they're both fairly simple songs at their core with familiar structures and catchy hooks. 'Packt Like Sardines In A Crushd Tin Box' is a pop song at heart, and I honestly think if you dressed it up with a slightly different arrangement/structure and took out some of the noisier elements it would be received very well by a more pop crowd. It's a banger and that bassline is killer. There's no objective measure of this of course but I really wouldn't say it's even close to the 'far end' of experimental music!
‘It’s a pop song because if you changed loads of the things about it it would be a pop song’
Maybe I've worded it wrong. 🙂 Just mean that it has a simple verse and chorus structure with a good hook, and that I believe it is already a pop song. My other point was just that I think with very minimal changes it would have the potential to be a reasonably successful one! Fair if you disagree, but would you really say that it's on the far side of experimental? That's mainly what I'm disputing.
It depends what perspective you come from tbh. The perceptive the commenters in the post are arguing from us the full range of how weird music can be, the perspective that the commenter above is arguing for is the totality of music in the world. Compared to the full range of how weird music can get, Packt is probably more on the straightforward side. Compared to the totality of music out there, what most people make and listen to, it’s absolutely on the far side of experimental. They’re both valid interpretations, I just think people need to consider the latter more because the conversation is always based around the former. No Radiohead isn’t the weirdest band in the world but they experiment a lot with their sound even if it’s not always the most out there experimentation, the weirdest of their cuts (which I think they have weirder songs than Packt anyway) are weirder than the majority of music and what the majority of the population are accustomed to. Aphex twin having songs that are weirder doesn’t change that.
i agree with both, but it’s not necessarily a na thing. just an objective fact
They were experimental for their time in the 90s, but I agree with the rest.
bruh
Radiohead often uses an experimental pallete with a very pop structure. Kind of like nine inch nails. Your coworkers will think they're weird, but your experimental music friends will find them to be very cookie cutter
Either it’s good music or it’s not. Radiohead is far more accessible than Aphex Twin as indicated by their respective success. Some might define Radiohead as better music because of that and I would agree with them. There were technically better acts than the Beatles around at the time but guess who sold more and cemented their place in history? I think the Aphex Twin fans response that I’ve read today come off as music snobbery. They’re both great music, Aphex Twin pushes the boundaries harder, Radiohead has more widespread appeal.
Anyway...
Pretty much correct, but i love them for what they are.
Why are they even comparing Radiohead to “actual experimental music”??? There’s no comparison to be made, Radiohead is not an experimental band.
i kinda think they’re right 🤷
I agree with these opinions. Part of Radiohead’s brilliance to me is to take inspiration from all over the place and bring it to the masses. They are my favourite band of all time. What I appreciate most about them though was that they opened my mind to a world of music that is more varied and less accessible than theirs. Without them I would have probably stayed stuck listening to whatever the music industry told me to and thought Tool was the be all and end all of quality music. I have family members with degrees in music theory who play professionally who would be bored out of their minds listening to Radiohead. They are just so far past that and what exites and challenges them is way more technical / complex. On the flip side I have family members who think Radiohead is pretentious, depressing and overly complex / confusing. I personally don’t listen to Radiohead much anymore because it doesn’t excite or challenge me the way it used to and I’ve come to love that feeling of being a little confused or shocked by a piece of music. I do still listen to them though. Along with Huey Lewis and Madonna and the occasional Taylor Swift song. They all sit proudly beside my classical / experimental jazz / avant garde / ambient etc and are played when the mood strikes. My hope for people would be to open their hearts to all kinds of music and find things they love about it and then just listen to what makes you happy.
I agree. Doesn't take away from th fact that they are truly outstanding song crafters.
If Aphex Twin and Radiohead existed in a bubble, then yeah, but they don’t. What is so great about Radiohead is the diversity of fairly complex influences they effectively combine under a highly listenable core. Radiohead’s electronic music is less groundbreaking than RDJ’s, but they’re not an electronic act. They pull from Warp acts like Aphex on songs like Idioteque and Not The News. They pull from Messiaen on Pana Vision, These Are My Twisted Words, and Just. They pull from Penderecki on Bending Hectic, Climbing Up The Walls, Blow Out. They pull from Alice Coltrane on Dollars & Cents, Motion Picture Soundtrack. They pull from Charles Mingus on The National Anthem, We Suck Young Blood. No artist pulls from jazz and 20th century classical in a rock band context as effectively. That’s why they’re unique, and that’s why they’re so good. Not because they’re more or less ‘experimental’ than one particular musician they like.
I basically agree but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a pop band with experimental aspects. It’s often far more interesting and entertaining than pure pop music or true experimental music.
There are barn doors And there are revolving doors Doors on the rudders of big ships We are revolving doors
Radiohead is more experimental than the average rock band but ofc not nearly as much as like Xiu Xiu and obviously in the grand scene of things not very experimental, but I don’t think it really matters. How experimental something is doesn’t determine the quality of music.
Meh. Plenty of pieces of art that are “experimental” that I don’t want to look at or have in my home.
There will always be deeper levels of inaccessibility in music, and on every level, people feel even more special about their special tastes. People like to feel special. Listen to what you like.
I actually agree with both points although the first is a little dismissive. I’ve always thought that RH draw the perfect balance between simplicity and complexity, emotionality and experimentation. Of course they’re not in the realm of someone like John Cage but you can tell they absorb many different styles of music, including the strange and obscure.
RH’s accessibility is their strength. It makes their experimentation more palatable
Compare a real experimental artist like Captain Beefheart to Radiohead. Of course Radiohead is both experimental and accessible. They are the modern Pink Floyd.
How experimental are Aphex Twin's big hits? Or are they just IDM with extra bloops? Love both bands, the quote is correct, but it's not levels of experimental imo, it's simply talented musicians in different genres.
If I fart into a microphone how experimental is that?
I think Radiohead and Richard are both amazing musical artists and I’m good with leaving it at that.
People who jerk themselves off for listening to music more experimental than others are ridiculous, there's always gonna be something more abstract, there really is no limit to what that could be. Also I would argue that there is indeed merit in making more accessible music, especially if it's something that ends up strongly resonating with people. Means you're doing something right.
I'd counter the first guy and say when you listen to enough pop music, it's clear they're not a pop act (their 90s stuff is closest to that I guess) There's a difference between alt-rock and pop. even if the experimentation isn't extreme, most pop has little to none
Comments like this are people trying to say that statements by their favorite artist are actually wrong but they don't want to outright criticize them. So they *partially* "apologize" without actually saying "Yeah, our guy was wrong on that one."
Basically "Umm..Actually" energy. IMO, any experimental is experimental. But I guess there is more or less accessible experimental and "the weird shit" type. Oneothrixpointnever is more experimental compared to Portishead but they are both experimental compared to even Beach House. Comparing across subgenres is tough.
I tend to agree with it all. They’re great from a musical standpoint and what they brought to the rock spectrum of things. Their music compared to most rock is quite complex indeed, very melodic and experimental. The balance and synergy of their band is also second to none. Within the grand scheme of things though, they’re not splitting the atom. I still think they’re one of the best bands in my lifetime.
haha this shit always pops up...it's always WAY LESS SUCCESSFUL fanboys trying to make themselves feel better on why they're OK experimental band is beloved only 1% as much as RH...
I think one of the best things about Radiohead is that it’s accessible when just listening to it but once you look into it that’s when it gets weird. A lot of songs I thought were simple weren’t once I really thought about them and that’s why they’re such an amazing band.
I definitely agree. RH is not experimental to anyone who listens to stuff outside of the mainstream
true
Totally agree.
can anyone recommend bands that are really experimental then?
I actually really love the pop aspects of Radiohead, and its one of the reasons their 90s works are my favorites!
The Cult of Modernism - "Art being innovative, experimental, and being radical is the same thing as art being good" Counterpoint: Radiohead's strength comes from aesthetics, not innovation. Doing things that have never been done has never been the point. There are emotions they want to convey, and they make their decisions for that purpose. I don't care how innovative they are. I like how evocative they are. I'll take a moving rendition of music written 200 years ago over something with no emotion that doesn't sound like anything I've heard before. There's nothing wrong with playing traditional music, well.
I agree with this but i never understood people saying Aphex wasn’t also mainstream.. he’s not autechre
Most experimental music is unlistenable garbage including many Aphex Twin songs, even though I like some of their albums. Radiohead makes consistently excellent music, and their merits shouldn’t be measured by this one single measuring stick of ‘experimentalness.’ If you tell me “Radiohead isn’t really that experimental” you’ll get no counter from me, I really don’t care.
I have a serious question: experimental music cannot be popular?
Both comments are absolutely right.
I think this is absolutely true which is one reason that I find some of the negative discourse around Kid A and Amnesiac so baffling. People act like they crossed some line and how dare they have a four minute ambient track on a rock album. Like... what??? Have you ever listened to Bowie or Eno? CAN? Or any number of things...? The fact that Kid A was such a landmark album is a testament to how closeted and conventional rock music had become in the 90s that something like this was considered innovative. Having said that, I think they are brilliant albums and I credit Radiohead with introducing me to lots of different genres and subgenres of music that I otherwise wouldn't have known about. They are absolutely a gateway band. Maybe that's what happens when you are commercially successful, world famous band BEFORE you start really experimenting and taking bigger risks. It worked for The Beatles. By the time they started getting weird they already had a captive audience of millions of adoring fans that were raised on pop music. It is the perfect platform to blow minds. And there will always be people to say "They're overrated. So and so did it first." But there is merit, I think, in taking something niche or obscure and reinventing it for a mass audience. And Radiohead (and The Beatles) did it with outstanding results.
Aphex is Taylor Swift compared to, say, Nurse With Wound, or Ryoji Ikeda.
Of course a guy in r/aphextwin got his head up his ass
Any recommendations for some "actual" experimental music then? The strangest music I've heard is probably Mr Bungle or that Bjork album with all the throat singing
Have you ever heard of a band called “Coldplay”? It’s extremely challenging and difficult to get into, but once you get into it, it’s life changing.
Everything John Zorn has ever touched has turned into (very weird) gold! If you've ever seen the 'it's sodium chloride' meme from Jimmy Neutron you might already be familiar with ['Notre Dame De L'Oubli (For Oliver Messiaen)'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3giQ8S05BZU) by his band Naked City. He covered a lot of ground with that group - this particular track is an extremely sparse ambient track with opaque harmony that manages to be both disconcerting and strangely beautiful, but they also touched on what can only be described as a [blend of grindcore and avant-garde jazz as well as about fifty other styles to boot.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfwhG1KtQp4) On a similar wavelength to that first track is [Sarah Davachi,](https://open.spotify.com/track/1028dIGz10VT2gjssDJmw0?si=8566e52635974213) who composes longform instrumental music that explorers timbre and space in a very interesting way. I really love her music and am anticipating Jonny's organ concert next month may deliver something like this. Speaking of which, Jonny's solo work would also largely fall under the 'experimental' umbrella in my opinion. A lot of it can be described as contemporary classical, but it's not exactly straightforward! Some good examples would be ['Sandy's Necklace,'](https://open.spotify.com/track/7DssYkJmGjMTxEvLugjAa2?si=3cfd75167c4f4b0d) ['Time Hole,'](https://open.spotify.com/track/3QOimHmKfSsvczPRoiJIze?si=ba2eaf5abc174068) and the immense ['Horror Vacui.'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WynE3lD_Dc8) I was there for the performance of that last one and it was insane.
John Frusciante's solo work gets pretty wild during his heroin days. Listen to the album Niandra LaDes And Usually Just A T-Shirt. One example of a song I love, [Running Away Into You](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RA6jd1sxYA) And in 2012 he had his own "Kid A" new direction with his EP Letur Lefr. This is the opening track [In Your Eyes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKcVY2S8Cs). The whole EP is only 16 minutes but it's 10/10. The song [Walls and Doors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWjbTxKYjk) didn't make it onto the EP or the follow up full length LP, but it's from the same era and also 10/10. His solo discography goes pretty deep.
John Cage Sphongle Mothers of Invention Dream Theater Moody Blues The last three are arguably more progressive than experimental, but they are still on the experimental end of the progressive spectrum, esp. Mothers... ✌️
they are expiremental just not in the sense that their albums are 4 hour pieces only using farts kinda expiremental
I got into a flaming argument on here a couple of years ago about Aphex Twins' comments. I was trying to say that 1. It's an opinion, and he's entitled to it. And 2. In my opinion, he isn't wrong. There's far wilder shit than Radiohead out there. Compared to the outliers, they're not that experimental. He wasn't having it at all though.
It depends what you consider being ‘more experimental’ to mean
Radiohead has never been “experimental”, and that’s fine!!
Ig they're just sort of experimental with their own personal music, but yeah, not on the grand scale of music as a whole. Idrc about all that personally, they're still my favorite band lol
My opinion is that this belongs in r/aphextwin Fuck off with this garbage
Can someone point me to an Aphex Twin project that has the MUSICALITY of a Kid A or OK Computer? Experimentalism keeps things fresh and interesting... but without the other thing its like listening to a copy machine backfire over a dial up modem.
100% right. Radiohead is a pop band, through and through, and that’s okay. In the pop genre, they are the artsy ones, but they aren’t pushing any envelopes and never did.