Head To Head
Log In
Register
Unsung Forum »
Why I prefer Van Halen to Radiohead
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
keith a
9574 posts

Re: Why I prefer Van Halen to Radiohead
May 06, 2008, 11:25
I hope you enjoy yourself and all that, but what have Radiohead got to do with it? I really can't see the point in comparing them.
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited May 06, 2008, 14:54
Re: Why I prefer Van Halen to Radiohead
May 06, 2008, 12:58
That's a fair question but I think the point about the extent to which VH inspired people to play is a good one.

In that respect VH were as important in the mid to late 70s as say The Ramones. Both went against the hard rock status quo of the time and should not suffer just because the imitators that both bands spawned were, by and large, utterly awful.

Eddie himself is as important as a guitar player as Larry Graham or Bootsy were for bass players. Not that he was completely original but he took a bundle of possibilities from the likes of Billy Gibbons and made them all his own. Like the way Hendrix took the Townshend / Beck thing and built an identitiy out of it.

What Eddie could do on the guitar was a testement to thousands of hours of hard work but the band's dedication to short songs and high energy performances masked a lot of great technique from all three players.
Mars Volta are kind of doing the same thing today by playing complex music with wild abandon.

Funny how all that technique stuff is less intimidating when the band in question don't pull it down as veil between them and the audience. Which brings us to Radiohead ...

I really can't see Radiohead inspiring anyone to pick up an instrument for the first time as they make it seem such a joyless and purely technical / intellectual exercise - the exact same accusations that used to be laid at the door of the likes of Yes and ELP in fact. I like some of their records but it's a very rarified and ungiving musical area that they occupy. Kind of like Fripp / Crimson. Which brings us all the way back to VH and The Ramones.

It's not technical ability that is the issue but the attitude with which you make use of it.
red peony
red peony
645 posts

Re: Why I prefer Van Halen to Radiohead
May 06, 2008, 13:35
Wow! Sounds like you're in for a great birthday, Red.

Never been to America before? Madison Square Garden is HUGE.

Have a GREAT time and don't forget to visit a Denny's restaurant.
It's not haute cuisine, but it's clean, and the tri-fold menu with full color photos and staggeringly low prices will blow yer mind!

Have a fantastic time, and Happy Birthday.

x
keith a
9574 posts

Re: Why I prefer Van Halen to Radiohead
May 06, 2008, 14:33
I don't mean to be rude, Ian, but saying that VH are as important as the Ramones is bollocks. I can think of loads of bands that I like more than The Ramones, but I wouldn't under-estimate their importance. It's like saying Def Leppard are more important than the Pistols!!

But anyway...

My point was that Van Halen were being mentioned here as 'fun' and 'entertainment' (which they may well be if you like that sort of thing), and Radiohead clearly aren't either of these two things.

Not even the staunchest Radiohead would suggest that Radiohead are a barrel of laughs. Now I like comedy as much as anyone I know (The Damned tick my 'fun' and 'entertainment' boxes!), but I don't see why should a band be criticised because they're serious about their music. And to be fair, I've read interviews with them and they don't seem to take themselves too seriously as people or 'artists', unlike say Johnny Burrell of Razorlight who seems to think he's a new Bob Dylan.

People get into music for different reasons. I'd love to be in a successful band, but it wouldn't be because I wanted to spend my life on the road playing arenas and getting pestered by Muppet-like fans. It'd be because I could make the music I wanted to make. And Radiohead, for better or worse, do that. I know you probably won't agree with me, and neither will all the people here who believe in some great lost pre-punk rock myth, but I think Radiohead deserve better than to be slagged off for not being as much fun as some old rock dinosaurs who sounded old hat first time round.
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited May 06, 2008, 16:09
NWOBHM
May 06, 2008, 15:13
keith a wrote:
I don't mean to be rude, Ian, but saying that VH are as important as the Ramones is bollocks. I can think of loads of bands that I like more than The Ramones, but I wouldn't under-estimate their importance. It's like saying Def Leppard are more important than the Pistols!!


You're not being rude. No offence taken. One man's utter bollocks is another man's New Order album.

However, if you will forgive me for saying so, that's something of an isolated British Indie Rock world view you're taking there.

I think it is totally appropiate to measure a band's influence by how many people they inspire to play themselves and in that respect VH are as influential an act as The Ramones. Maybe more so. Perhaps not in Ladbroke Grove or Brick Lane but certainly in most of America and mainland Europe.

Actually Def Leppard *are* in their own way just as important than the Pistols. NWOBHM was just as much a genuine national grass roots movement as Punk or "New Wave". Probably more so and just as revolutionary in the cutting of HM away from the Blues and Prog roots. Punk was much more of a media construct. The young metal bands got very little coverage until it was nearly all over and Sounds got on the bandwagon.

Def Leppard also helped to revolutionise heavy metal's relationship with its audience by releasing their own indie single which John Peel, of all people, played the shit out of. And they were not alone. This was a huge shift for a genre that had always eaten from the major label table. Marillion went the same kind of route though via radio sessions rather than a self-release single. The NWOBHM singles collectors' scene is just as vibrant as anything else we read about here.

Whether it is your (or my) favourite kind of music or not is neither here nor there. The scene was huge and remains very influential. Which quite frankly is a lot more than we can say for a lot of the music Peel played back in 78. The NME was choc full of bands that couldn't draw 50 people outside of London.

I just can't see how people can warmly embrace Cheap Trick as being perfectly ok to incorporate into their alt.rock sensibilities and yet give VH and Kiss the crticial bum's rush.

It's not like they are on my turntable morning noon and night but respect is due.
keith a
9574 posts

Re: NWOBHM
May 06, 2008, 16:18
IanB wrote:



Actually Def Leppard *are* in their own way just as important than the Pistols.



I'm starting to think I'm on the wrong forum.
Vybik Jon
Vybik Jon
7720 posts

Re: NWOBHM
May 06, 2008, 16:45
I think I get what Ian B is getting at, but if an example is needed it sure as hell isn't Def Leppard.

Quite possibly Iron Maiden. Or Mythra, Sledgehammer, Girlschool, Diamond Head, Witchfynde...
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited May 06, 2008, 16:55
Re: NWOBHM
May 06, 2008, 16:53
Vybik Jon wrote:
I think I get what Ian B is getting at, but if an example is needed it sure as hell isn't Def Leppard.

Quite possibly Iron Maiden. Or Mythra, Sledgehammer, Girlschool, Diamond Head, Witchfynde...


Diamond Head deffo more musically appropriate to what I am saying (funnily enough I was just playing their White Album). I only used Def Leppard as an example because of the indie single thing and the fact that Peel played it to death (no fool he). They were a very different band back in 78 from the one that got into the clutches of Mutt Lange. Judge them not by their albums! "On Through The Night" is pale shadow of what they were really capable of.
machineryelf
3681 posts

Re: NWOBHM
May 06, 2008, 16:53
Actually it is Def Leppard, who are also a shining example of good intentions gone bad, Def Leppard [ or most probably Joe Elliot] wanted to be the biggest band in the world and he achieved it, along the way he took a reasonably talented hard rock band with some interesting ideas and pissed all away in the name of commerce imho Pretty much the same route Maiden took but not quite so dreadfully
If like Keith A you have zero interest in hard rock you probably don't care and can't see the difference between then and now
I'll be back, it time for tea.
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited May 06, 2008, 17:07
Re: NWOBHM
May 06, 2008, 16:58
machineryelf wrote:
Actually it is Def Leppard, who are also a shining example of good intentions gone bad, Def Leppard [ or most probably Joe Elliot] wanted to be the biggest band in the world and he achieved it, along the way he took a reasonably talented hard rock band with some interesting ideas and pissed all away in the name of commerce imho .


You're not wrong. The majors sucked all those the bands dry of ther true poison but still made a fortune in the process. Sad but true.

Nutz were kind of the immediate predecessors of all that. Saw them a couple of times supporting the Sabs on the Technical Ecstasy tour and again on their own at The Marquee and they were potentially the most interesting of the lot. Not to be though.
Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

Unsung Forum Index