Stealing, copying and recycling
Some quoting (mainly myself) from ILM of a recent thread about Radiohead:

"I loved Creep when it came out. Nowadays I find it unlistenable. Somehow this image of Yorke as a creep has stayed in my mind. After that nothing touched me for a while. Then there was the Help sampler for the children of Bosnia and the standout track was Lucky, the best song they ever made I guess.
Kid A did not impress me, Soft Machine and King Crimson have made similar stuff in the early seventies. I used to love those groups but somehow progrock has become a bête noire for me.
A week ago I purchased Amnesiac and I am still not sure what to make of it. The first track I liked was Knives out where the sadness in Yorke's voice really hit me. Of course Pyramid Song is great as well. The progressive stuff I have to listen to again. But the big problem with Radiohead I guess is Yorke's voice. It really touches me in the beginning but after listening to one whole album or several times to one song, it really gets annoying.
I do not really hate Radiohead but I hate all the fuss about them. They are a group like all other groups. They will not save rock music. On the contrary I think maybe rock has saved Thom Yorke's life (remember that Lou Reed song?). "
-- alex in mainhattan (alex63@...), July 18, 2001.

"which King Crimson album would that be?Radiohead have committed the crime of releasing albums that have to be listened to in their entirety,and all of a sudden they are prog-rock?they do one song that's got a bit that's not in 4/4 time and they are prog-rock? examples,please - but try not to list Pink Floyd.it's partly the truth,but it's also lazy. "
-- Damian (spacelab@...), July 19, 2001.

"What's wrong with being prog? Oh, and RH were only prog circa OK Computer. "
-- Sterling Clover (sterling_clover@...), July 19, 2001.

"Radiohead were prog for a few minutes in Paranoid Android,and as far as I'm concerned,that was it.I don't hate prog - hell,I like King Crimson and Yes - but just because Radiohead made something thematic and remotely complex,it doesn't mean they are prog,does it?They used mellotrons - does that make them Genesis?I don't think so. "
-- (spacelab@...), July 19, 2001.

"Ok. Ok. I guess I have to row back a little. The prog-rock comparison is maybe a little dubious (OK Computer nevertheless is not so far off this drawer) considering that Radiohead reinvent themselves every two albums or so. But the point is something else. They are deeply eclectic. And not in a way like Beck who I think is the genius of eclecticism (where is he now, haven't heard of him for a while). They do not create anything groundbreakingly new. The sum is not more than the parts in their case. But the press celebrates them as the most innovative group of our times which they are definitely not. When I listen to them I always feel that I have heard it before. They are chameleons. Yesterday brown today green. They do not have a distinctive sound except Yorke's voice. And that is something I really have to reproach them. Every great band has a unique sound, be it The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Fall, The Cure, Joy Division, The Cocteau Twins, The Gun Club, My Bloody Valentine, Nirvana just to name a few. "
-- alex in mainhattan (alex63@...), July 20, 2001.

"I don't really know what to say to that to change your mind, but I really disagree. At the very least, I think that the guitarists, drummer, and vocals together make them pretty distinctive, when they're playing like a "real band" with instruments in real time etc. The last two albums are pretty distinctive, too, in my opinion. One might cynically say that they just sound like the sum of their influences, but for the most part they still sound distinctive even when you might be able to say, e.g., 'this sounds like a Warp Records outtake'. "
-- Josh (kortbein@...), July 20, 2001.

"I thought that part of the beauty of the new Radiohead was that you could turn your radio on and hear something fucked up and there was always a possibility that it could be a new Radiohead song - there's an element of surprise that none of the wouldbe Radioheads can provide.A distinctive sound is something that surely can only be established through repetition,isn't it?And that's something that can only sustain itself for so long,which is why it was fitting that you used Joy Division and MBV as examples - their music is great,but there isn't much of it. "
-- Damian (spacelab@...), July 20, 2001.

Strange thing here as soon as one person criticises Radiohead there are at least two people joining in to defend them. Yesterday I listened for the first time to Amnesiac in its entirety. It is probably their best album (though I do not really know them). But there they do not have any sound whatsoever, every song is different and there is this surprise element but I still do not think they are innovative. The album seems like patchwork to me. Not the sequencing of the album is bad, but the songs do not fit together. Radiohead still have ordered them in the best possible way. Mostly alternating between an experimental and a more tuneful track. What I like about them nevertheless that they are keeping such a low profile. What we really do not need nowadays is another Sting or Bono.