Loading ...
Hold Steady guitarist Tad Kubler has caused the Internet to go nuts with his comments on Radiohead, which he made over the weekend to BBC6 Music. “I think they’ve lost the plot,” Kubler said when asked the now-standard-in-every-music-interview question about Thom Yorke et al’s recent album In Rainbows. “What are they doing? Where are they going? What’s happening? I don’t get it any more. They lost me. I still appreciate what they’re doing, or what they’re trying to do. But I think they’re trying too hard not to be Radiohead. That seems a little ridiculous to me.” Kubler then went on to praise… Oasis. Ooh, burn! Yorke and his bandmates were unavailable for comment, but the Internet was more than happy to rush in and fill that particular void.
Perhaps my favorite reaction came from former Idolator guestblogger Matthew Perpetua, who wrote–in a post titled “Apples vs. Dim-Witted No-Talent Hacks”–”The most charitable description of The Hold Steady would be ‘a glorified bar band with a tone-deaf asshole shouting over the top.’ … [they] are essentially just Nick Hornby as a rock band.” (Which isn’t far away from others’ assessments of the group.) Meanwhile, Pitchfork’s Marc Hogan referred to Kubler’s quote as the band’s “Sister Souljah moment.”
Somewhat surprisingly, not all the reaction I’ve seen so far has been pro-Radiohead; another former guest of this site, Sam Yurick, said that he’s kind of tired of the Radiohead hoopla and that praising In Rainbows for its distribution scheme is not unlike saying that Cloverfield should get an Oscar for its ads.
So readers, once and for all: How do you feel? (I was going to write “who could win in a fight,” but if we’re talking about sheer brawn, I think the winner is obvious.)
Hold Steady vs Radiohead [BBC6 via half of my Tumblr friends]
Apples Vs. Dim-Witted No-Talent Hacks [Fluxtumblr]
not unlike saying that Cloverfield should get an Oscar for its ads
Actually an Oscar for an ad campaign isn’t a bad idea.
that sound you heard was ever head in williamsburg exploding. hahahaha.
Wow, you’d think he spoke ill of Barack Obama or something.
@Ned Raggett: I concur…but then of course, The Dark Knight would win.
Dark Knight wins all! DARK KNIGHT!!!
My favorite Hold Steady releases of the last five years wound up getting five-starred on my iPod and slipped into my (usually dance and rap-dominated) year-end top tens. My favorite Radiohead release of the last five years was that Toots and the Maytals cover of “Let Down”.
I actually really enjoyed In Rainbows. So much more than Hail To The Thief (which plods along and is just so dreary). Maybe it’s because it wasn’t so computer-dominated (but still with plenty of blips and tricky beats to make sure there was no straight-forward rock song on there).
@Dead Air ummm Dead Air: I like the way you think. (I’m not sure if it’s the best ad campaign, though…one of the more elaborate, yes.)
It’s not hard to follow where Radiohead’s going. It even says that on my PHD (Pablo Honey Degree).
I like Radiohead, but I don’t think they’re geniuses or saviors or anything. As for the other guys, Matthew P. summed up my feelings precisely.
It is things like this that make me keep listening to fourfour’s “Ashley’s Roachclip” break on repeat.
I had to vote for Radiohead. I’d side with “Hot in the Shade”-era KISS over the Hold Steady.
The burning question for me: Which band attracts more douches (percentage-wise, to account for Radiohead’s much bigger following) to their shows?
@HarveyWallbanger: I can’t speak for Hold Steady fans, but there were about 5,000 pothead losers at the Camden, NJ show a few weeks back.
Radiohead is only OK.
The Hold Steady isn’t even that.
The newest Radiohead album is the only album of theirs I’ve liked other than OK Computer. I think the Hold Steady are just voicing what about 3/4ths of the people I know who know who Radiohead are were saying two albums ago.
The one thing that statement can’t do is make The Hold Steady sound good.
I say God bless that man. Nothing against Radiohead (although I could go on ad nauseum on that subject), but at least someone out there is willing to go against the prescribed rules of his sub-culture and admit that maybe the sacred cow is just a cow. Albeit, a very lovely one.
Wow, glad to see from these comments I’m not the only one not convinced of Radiohead’s “genius.” Of course, as Silverfuture succinctly pointed out, they’re still better than The Hold Steady.
Also, there’s something I’ve been trying to figure out: Is The Hold Steady the American Art Brut, or is Art Brut the British Hold Steady?
You know what would be great? A cage match between both bands. Maybe they’d all destroy each other and I’d never have to read about EITHER ONE EVER AGAIN. That would be nice.
@Marth: I’m not sure, but they put on a helluva show when I saw them together.
Do Idolator commenters ever think a band isn’t terrible and over-rated?
Radiohead: overdue for a critical takedown
Hold Steady: not the people to do it
@mhulot: Sure but where’s the fun in that?
@Marth: Sacred cow makes the best sacred hamburgers, no?
@mhulot: yes, but for me, it ends up being the “wrong” band: Between the Buried and Me, Lykke Li, Natalie Merchant… I’m not sure what the right answer is. Jonas Brothers?!
The fact that this is a “controversy” is some sad shit. Almost as sad as the fact that I have to side with a guy from a band I can’t stand because he’s one of the only other people I’ve ever heard of who thinks In Rainbows was a really lousy Radiohead album.
@gregcoff: Yeah, that just about nails it.
@TheRunningboard7: Agree with the first paragraph — Kubler’s statement would’ve made more sense (to me, anyway) 12 months ago, not now — In Rainbows was the first Radiohead album I’ve fully enjoyed since OK Computer.
I’d still rather listen to the Hold Steady, but evidently I’m in the minority here…
Have any of you Radiohead naysayers seen the band live? I’m a week removed from two incredible shows and if you haven’t experienced it then you clearly do not know that of which you speak…surprise, surprise. There’s a reason they’re one of the most sought after bands on tour. Now apologize for your ignorance and we can all move on.
@beezskis: Oh yeah, sure, I ALWAYS shell out $100+ for a ticket to see a band I can’t stand!
I was with the Hold Steadydude, then he lost me with the Oasis bit. Totally invalidated his arguments. I used to really like Radiohead up to and including Ok Computer. The worldwide hoopla surrounding Kid A and subsequent releases have unfortunately overshadowed the fact that they have not earned the praises they get over their actual musical output. I’m sorry but Kid A, Amnesiac, Hail To the Thief and In Rainbows are snoozers. Never could listen to any of those in one sitting. Don’t know the Hold Steady and don’t care.
I have zero love for the Hold Steady, but I give the guy credit for voicing his opinion (gasp!) on music. He’s not saying anything worse than anything I’ve ever read anywhere on the internet about Radiohead in the last five years. Not that I agree with him – it’s just not that bold of a comment. (And he probably didn’t think it was a bold comment when he said it, either.)
Does the fact that he makes music mean he can’t voice his opinion on other bands? Or that his band must hold its own against any band he ever deigns to speak critically of?
I’m just surprised that nobody else heard Kubler’s prOasis stance back when he & Craig Finn did the NYTimes Playlist a few weeks ago:
KUBLER “Stop the Clocks” (Columbia) is kind of a best of, but they’ve refused to call it a greatest hits. It’s kind of a love-hate thing for me. The chord structures in the songs are brilliant, the melodies fantastic. They’re not reinventing the wheel, but it’s fantastic songwriting. I enjoy that there’s a lot more to them than meets the eye. When you initially hear it, it sounds like sugar-coated pop music. But when you listen, it’s a lot more intricate than you expected. It’s like Michael Jordan makes basketball look easy, but when you actually try to apply that to what you do, it’s incredibly more skillful than you had initially thought. They had four No. 1 singles off their first album. There aren’t a lot of bands that can do something like that. They have continued to write good songs. Like Oasis when we go into the studio, we go in with more material than we know we can put on an album.
FINN I’m not super familiar, I don’t have any Oasis on my iPod or anything. Since I’ve been in the U.K., I’ve seen that since the Beatles they’re the biggest band. They’re huge stars in the media. I don’t really listen to them. When it comes on I like the hits, but I don’t own any records.
Let’s see where Tad Nut-gobbler and his Hold Steady are in 20+ years… my prediction? Delivering pizzas to the fat and irrelevant boys in Oasis (if they’re still alive). Just sayin’…
@Marth: Aren’t Art Brut really the euro Electric Six? I say this as an E6 fan, btw.
@the rich girls are weeping: *golf clap*
Oooh, yeah, the old “you have to see them live” defense. God, if I had a nickle for every time I’ve heard that one, from the Dead and Phish to all manner of shitty locals and now Radiohead, I’d be able to hire all the above to play my backyard. Yeah, sorry, if I find the records dull as dry toast, I don’t think the live show is going to do anything for me.
I’m actually kind of shocked there’s only been one fanboy/fangirl comment so far.
I’m actually just sick of people bitching about music on the internet. Takes all the fun out of it. I guess people forget that taste is subjective. I mean, Linkin Park still sells albums.
Fuck Radiohead and The Hold Steady – they are both overrated and B O R I N G.
Q:Radiohead or Hold Steady?
A:Suicide.
Since 2005, Radiohead have given me “Bodysnatchers,” the marketing tactic I alluded to earlier, and some stuff I could care less about. The Hold Steady have given me 30+ songs that constitute a whole universe to get lost in, quote from, light into, geek out over, and live alogside a a few minutes at a time. They’re both a massiveley simple and incredibly complex pleasure while Radiohead are just this kind of monolithic, resoluteley upper-middlebrow morass of “greatness” at it’s most plausible.
@disasterevolved: Pfft, Alan Vega’s no great shakes either.
@RaptorAvatar: Incredibly well put. It’s pretty simple. I’ve had fun listening to The Hold Steady at some point this decade, which is more than I can say about Radiohead.
@RaptorAvatar: The Hold Steady have given me 30+ songs that constitute a whole universe to get lost in, quote from, light into, geek out over, and live alogside a a few minutes at a time.
I approve of this sentiment (I am indifferent to the band) but at the same time the first comparison that leapt to mind upon reading this was Magic: The Gathering.
First of all, “The Hold Steady” didn’t say anything. Tad Kubler did. And he has the right to say whatever he wants. I agree with him on Radiohead, disagree on Oasis. So what? As for RH v. THS? RH has put out 3 well-received albums (average 82.7 score on metacritic) since 2001. THS has put out 4 albums since 2004 with an average metacritic score of 83.5. Whether you like them or not, THS is every bit as well received critically as RH and twice as prolific. That’s damn impressive.
It seems to me that what Kubler is saying is that there is still a lot that can be done within the parameters of a straight-forward rock band – but that Radiohead has turned away from that approach in favor of a style that omits any kind of hooks or riffs in favor of an electronic, atmospheric sound. By doing this, Kubler implies, Radiohead has squandered their potential by distancing themselves so far from their origins.
By contrast, he praises Oasis – a band that has put out a lot of music but which still uses the canonical components of rock music (guitar / bass / drums /vocals) on every new album.
I’m on Kubler’s side – I have tried to listen to Radiohead, but there’s nothing that grabs me about their music. It just seems so abstract – and frankly, not very rock and roll. Which is not to say that there isn’t a place for experimentalism in rock music – heck, I’ve got a million Fall albums at home – but to agressively purge your music of most of the conventional elements of rock is to rob it of its power.
@Ned Raggett: So now we’re hating on M:TG? Good Christ.
I wouldn’t say that Radiohead are total geniuses… they’re just more genius than The Hold Steady.
Um, really, this sort of comment ignites the internet? Kubler’s point is perfectly valid, and I don’t think he’s actually implying that The Hold Steady are better than Radiohead, just that Radiohead no longer sound like the band that recorded The Bends. And that’s true, isn’t it?
Not exactly sure why that ignited Perpetua’s ire so fiercely…
@natepatrin: Ooh, shut yo’ mouth! He’s still going, and given his history, that’s pretty darn impressive.
@D.R. Mosby: I almost forgot about Noel Gallagher’s beef w/ Radiohead & the pay-what-you-want scale. Now it’s all starting to make sense!
@D.R. Mosby: to agressively purge your music of most of the conventional elements of rock is to rob it of its power
There’s a presumption in your post, though, that there’s an overarching idea of what ‘rock’ is — ‘a straight-forward rock band’ is a fetishized idea being brought to bear, and what that is supposed to be and ’supposed’ to sound like is way, WAY up for grabs. If Kubler likes his own particular fetish, he’s welcome to it, but he’s no universal judge and jury, no more than any of us are.
@Eugene Langley: Who’s hating? Merely observing. (I mean I could have just as easily said Vampire: The Masquerade.)