Talk:Radiohead/Archive 2

Overview section
I agree that there should be no overview section, but we still should include a lot of the information in that section in this article. Mkaycomputer 19:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, quite sloppy on my part, I apologize. I did not see the link to the article about influences in there.  As for the list of references, I would think the article covers the majority of them.  The first paragraph has some worthwhile information, would that go into the introduction? Johnsorc 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (post-signed)


 * Well, the introduction shouldn't really be that long. Only one or two paragraphs.  I dont know if we should reinstate the overview section or somehow incorporate the influences into the history sections.  Reading the Nirvana article, a rock band featured article, it seems that is what they did.  Its still up to decide.Mkaycomputer 20:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article is a lot crappier than ever before and I think that you should start do some real rewriting work, instead of arguing what to delete and what not. It's pure crap, you've done. Pure shitty crap. As I stated elsewhere it's very easy to destroy and delete, but never to create. "We should rewrite this article!" Ok, rewrite it. Literally! Go and start writing and create things, Einsteins!!! Elan Morin Tedronai 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Since March 31st, when I first adressed my complaint, we've seen drastic changes.  The information is all here, but its ordered and described in such a bad way that the article suffers from it.  Heres a link comparing the newest edition to my first complaint -


 * Painbearer/Elan Morin Tedronai - please stop using offensive (and sometimes personally directed) language in posts to discussion pages and user pages (in particular this page). These are against Wikipedia policy, lead to bad feeling, and if they continued would likely result in you being reported to the Arbitration Committee. Please contribute in a constructive manner, and use your obvious enthusiasm to the benefit of the Wikipedia community. Thanks. Hongshi 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of Radiohead singles
The order of the Radiohead singles in the Radiohead template is way off compared to the order of the singles if you go to the first one and click on the next single in the song box one after another. What gives? zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Members Section
This section might work, especially the way it was set up by 81.98.106.115... I wouldn't delete it so fast, let's discuss this first. The introduction before only seemed to be a summary of the members' contributions. It was relatively well-written, but the intro was not the place for it. It appears this section is. The intro should be a summary of Radiohead's effect on music, its contemporaries, and a brief summary of its history. Mkaycomputer 22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hongshi, I like what you've done. I'd say its just about done, similar to the intro section.  Let's leave them on the to-do list for a little longer, although we've got both sections done for the most part.

Introduction!!!
I have written an introduction that seems to mend to the formula for featured music articles. Discuss if my revision should be kept. Mkaycomputer 22:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It may need some biographical info, but I think it summarizes Radiohead's legacy, history, style, and influences quite well. Mkaycomputer 22:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've done a quite excellent job with it! Johnsorc 02:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I come back after a few months and this article suddenly looked promising enough to bother editing again. I made some changes to your already good introduction to make it better. If it's way overlong, feel free to cut... but I think it's now great, very positive but balanced and as objective as possible, much less tiresome than the panegyric of before. Also however long my edit looks, it's confined to 4 paragraphs, acceptable for intro to a long music article.

I also like the fact that now this article contains no mention of either U2 or Pink Floyd. Sure there are similarities between these bands at times, and they're hardly shameful bands to be compared to, but people can hear those similarities for themselves, or read one of the many reviews making that comparison. Suffice it to say, while Radiohead may have drawn from them, they don't see them as a major influence, so it's irrelevant to this article. (my mention of Nirvana was necessary I think, because everyone's heard of Nevermind, to situate someone unfamiliar with the acclaim of OK Computer.. there was no other quick way to emphasize how much this album that debuted at #18 and spun off one minor hit single is already a bestselling classic and towers over others of its time for the critics)^^^^^Jonny greenwood is a fan of early floyd as im sure other members are.They must be even a small influence at least.i agree about U2 though

I also mentioned that Radiohead are known for their live shows in the first para, although it might seem vague and irrelevant, because Radiohead is so known for their layered sound and studio experimentation (like say the late Beatles) that some readers might assume they were only a studio band-- unable or uninterested to recreate it live, and had retreated from that like the Beatles did. When, in fact, they manage to recreate and reinvent the songs live, their concerts sell out in seconds and probably earn them more income than a small country, and they are widely bootlegged and shared online among fans. They also still test out new songs online. They arent exactly a jam band but it's still a central part of their identity.

172.166.95.12
 * Problems: you have to squeeze your edits down to about uh, say, 1 edit? so we can actually organize your thoughts without having to screw everything up.  second of all, all of your edits are exactly the problem i had when i started with this.  if you're a fan of Radiohead, hold it in, and actually give positively to the ARTICLE.  An introduction is a summary.  You put a lot of good information into it, however a lot of it was loaded with POV, nearly all of it didn't belong in an introductory summary of an article, and some of it didn't even belong in the Radiohead article.  Don't just load up information into the article and leave it.  However, you inexplicably seem to calm down in your POV and random fact spewing in the members section, which is why I left it untouched, and I commend you for fixing that section up, as we had hit a roadblock with it.

why don't you even post your username or IP if you're so high up you can dismiss contributors like that?

I'm not a regular wiki user, I don't even have an account, so I'm aware I don't have any right to edit anything or expect any politeness. but I edited that little by little while I had time working on something else, thus the many separate edits. I am certainly aware of this subject, and I've also followed this article and been equally disgusted as some with the ridiculous hyperbole and poor writing in the past, and occasionally made minor edits to tone things down.

So I'm sorry for the confusion, but it was not just random "fact spewing" thrown on the page as I felt like it. Descriptions of sound were possibly out of place in that section and certainly subjective and overlong, but there was nothing hyperbolic in there, nothing whose implication wouldn't be out of place in at least some section of this article, however poor you found the writing.

you see what is wrong now is all the so-called hyperbole may be gone, but the people editing this down for length have no familiarity with the material, so they don't know what facts are important to keep and what to throw away, and they continue to propagate certain innaccuracies. If new or unsigned-in wiki users who actually know about the subject are writing what you consider too indulgently, fix our contributions or let us know, but don't revert it as if it was vandalism.

That's nice, youre starting a fight, and youre right, you dont have much right in editing wikipedia. Mkaycomputer 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting how you took that bait. Maybe I don't have much right engaging in wars with registered users, but I have as much right making good faith edits to Wikipedia as you do. Or else the whole concept is simply a sham to cover up preferred members' elitism.

The introduction has now been fixed. :)

I personally think the intro is very, very overblown. I haven't seen such an overblown intro on other bands' pages I edit and I don't know fucking why you insist to have such a big, overblown intro. The whole history of the band is in the biography. This is an intro. And like a proper intro. Not a quasi-article, quasi-POV. Not to mention the fact we have another separate article for Radiohead overview and influence - in fact initiated and created by me. Playing elitist? No, I don't give a shit. This is Wikipedia, which is bound to a formula of social darwinism, people relations and embetterment of the... world, because that's how I regard my work here. So, asking me if I think that the cut of the introduction will make the article better? Yes.
 * Regards: Painbearer 08:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's changed since you last looked at it, but I think this intro actually looks very good, and the style of prose is by far the best it's been in a long while. Let's take a moment to note the positives, as a number of people have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this that should be acknowledged.  Thanks Hongshi 22:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo
Other bands' wikipedia articles have their logo above their picture in the infobox. I have a logo here,, should I make it the caption? I understand this logo isn't used too often nowadays, but it was quite official in the past. Mkaycomputer 23:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that logo works great! I'm going to go check out the new intro now. Johnsorc 02:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Check the image's talk page for more input. LIllIi 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Discography
Do you think we should extend the discography to a list of EPs and TOP 10 singles?


 * That's how I'd initially reworked the discography many edits back, but it was subsequently shortened further. A discography in the form you describe is consistent with other feature articles (e.g. Rolling Stones), which would seem to argue in favour of that approach...Hongshi 10:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking further at The Rolling Stones and Nirvana (US Band) it seems that these articles simply have the link to their respective discographies. At the same time, it seems that these bands' discography pages are far more complete.  So it seems that maybe we need to update the discography page then remove the information from the main article.  Thoughts? Johnsorc 12 April 2006


 * You're right - I think the Rolling Stones discography has changed since a couple of months back when I last looked. I'm ambivalent about whether we keep any info on here - if others favour deleting (and thus cutting down the length of this article) I'm happy.  All I would query is how much sense it would make to keep the Multimedia section there with the discography gone.  Perhaps merge that into the discography page too? Hongshi 20:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a little follow-up, as I imagine more people will check here than on the discography page - we could do to add in awards to the discography, move across the 'non-music' videos, and check the current music videos list on there for errors (e.g. I don't remember a "How to dissappear completely..." video and a number of the later ones...)Hongshi 20:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Heh, thanks, I'm terrible about forgetting to sign things, which is not good. As for the multimedia, the videos can definitely be moved over there.  It was on my to do list, but one of my co-workers came over with an assignment for me.  As for discertations and books, I'm having a difficult time finding anything similar to that on any other artist page.  It would seem the discography wouldn't really be the correct place, but I'm not sure where the correct place would be."  The first part was added while you were editing... so I guess we're in agreement, lol.  I honestly didn't remember a HTDC video either, I'm going to do a little research at home.  The National Anthem video was not on the site i listed, however, I have a copy of it at home, so I know it is legitimate.  And I also agree about the rewards.  Johnsorc 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no official video for either HTDC or The National Anthem. There were several officially filmed live performances from the Kid A tour which were available online on the Capitol Records site for Radiohead, which streamed all their videos for a time in 2001-2002. including a beautiful clip for HTDC shot at a Dublin concert. but it doesnt count as a video or you'd have to list hundreds of things there.

As Kid A did not have any proper singles, the only official videos from it that were released on any wide scale, and even then they really weren't, were an alternate version of Idioteque performed live in a studio and filmed from some interesting camera angles to emphasize thom yorke's bizarre dancing (NOT the Saturday Night Live version), and a video for Motion Picture Soundtrack made by combining a lot of the animated "blips"-- the blips were 30 second clips and served as the real promotional vids for that album, were available all over the internet, and were apparently used in between segments on MTV. (and were brilliant and need to be mentioned briefly in the article, re the uniqueness of the Kid A "no-singles" marketing campaign) Optimistic did receive tons of radio play though, so for all intents and purposes it acted the same way as a single the way that meant anything by 2000. radio stations were given the whole album and simply chose that one for its greater accessibility. according to the myth you might think Radiohead only allowed the whole 50 minutes to be played together on air or none at all, but actually not. they also released radio "promo" CDs for Everything in its Right Place, Idioteque, The National Anthem, HTDC and maybe one or two others, but I doubt that got anybody in mainstream radio to play them.

Rewrite template
Given the significant progress on this article, would the template on the main page better be changed to:

If you feel so, please switch them over...Hongshi 20:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Its still a work in progress. I woudn't go that far.

POV lead
Needs to change. Skinnyweed 21:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How so?Mkaycomputer 22:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been reverted now. I saw this version but it's gone now. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiohead&oldid=48332288. Skinnyweed 14:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regionalism: "Britain" and "the UK," vs "England"
while editing this I sensed that someone had carefully made sure to say "England" and "English" a lot, and I couldnt tell if it was out of some anti-Scottish/Welsh(um,Ulstermaybe) animus or just an American who didnt get the difference. I'm an American too but as far as I understand the nation as a whole is the United Kingdom, whatever countries make it up. while it's fine to say Radiohead is an "English band," I don't think anyone is entirely sure all members are originally from England and it might be slightly more appropriate to call them a British band, everyone knows Oxford is in England anyway (or we could say "a British band from Oxford, England.") and then with regard to the later text which said The Bends found favor in "their native England," I changed it because as far as I can tell these days there is a British music press, British music industry, British music taste, and not a separate "English" one. Especially as Radiohead is not one of those London based oh-so-English bands, I doubt their records appeal any less in Scotland or Wales. Or Northern Ireland! ;)


 * Well, when press writes about Welsh bands or singers from Scotland - they are called Welsh, Scottish, etc. I'd say this is more like pro-English sentiment, not anti-something ("why Scots or Welsh can have their separate identity, but English cannot?"). Since the article is written in UK English, and from UK point of view, I don't see any reason why it cannot be "English". Futurix 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And, I forgot, there are separate charts in both Scotland and Wales ;-) Futurix 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopeless
This article is hopeless. We were almost going in the right direction, but I just give up. I'm not going to point fingers (although some know who deserve the blame), I'm just not going to care. I take no responsibility for the insanity this article is going through. Maybe in some months I'll return, but I doubt it. I've got more to do then waste my time with a hopeless article. Mkaycomputer 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given up already? Skinnyweed 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. RIP senor article. Johnsorc 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's take a break and revisit this in a couple of months. I'm afraid I've had enough too.  Thanks to everyone who tried though... Hongshi 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. It was nice working with you.Mkaycomputer 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is not too good at the moment. Progress was being made, but ATM it comes across as clunky and cack-handed. Thanks to everyone who has tried to improve it. Im sure that we can get it on track once again.--Richj1209 00:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of anyone's personal opinions on Radiohead, the existence of articles like this add credence to the idea that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information, but rather a pretentious collection of fan-forum opinions. Also, how long do you think EMI will tolerate Radiohead's political independence?   Edmundssteven 11:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No - the existence of articles like this proves that Wikipedia is an evolving, growing entity, capable of change and progression. Trace any article back to its humble beginnings and you'll see nothing but crap. But Wikipedia has fairly-accurate articles on subjects you won't find anywhere else. Learn to read between the lines and it's one of the best resources on the Internet - highly accessible. Let's improve the articles rather than heckle.203.131.167.26 09:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The main text of this article is very good at this point, in my opinion. Except that someone continually removes the section on Band members' roles in songwriting, and removed the brief summary of each band member's solo work (more examples of DELETION without any discussion). Otherwise I am not sure what you want changed in the body of this article, that seems too "fannish".

If you are talking about the second and third sentences of the introduction as being "hopeless", I also think it may be time to change them. They are certainly verifiable by sourcing, but they don't really fit the encyclopedic style. And the final paragraph of the intro contains enough positive (and sourced) assertions. Leave it up to anyone to make up their mind about how "independent" Radiohead is after listening to their music. It's beyond doubt that Radiohead are very highly acclaimed. But other highly acclaimed musicians, books, films, etc., don't throw it in your face in the intro quite that way. It is appropriate to point out influence and importance, but I'm not sure Radiohead would even enjoy having their own intro start that way.

Any suggestions for how it could be changed, or condensed into something shorter that sounds less fannish? Note: the rest of the intro has gone through a lot of positive evolution already and seems good to me. I'm just talking about a few sentences here. Everything in the FIRST paragraph of the intro after the first sentence describing that "Radiohead is an English rock band from Oxfordshire", and before the last sentence that mentions their upcoming album. 172.161.190.202 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Discography
As per other large artist articles (Rolling Stones, Nirvana, Beatles), I propose that the discography information be removed from this article and just a link to the discography main page left there. In the mean time, I'm going to make sure that all information on the discog page is concurrent with what is on here. Johnsorc 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Just as a note, could people please remember to use Commonwealth (specifically UK) spelling as it isn't an American-centred article. Regards hedpeguyuk 21 June 9:00 (UTC)


 * Righto, me feller me lad.203.131.167.26 09:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Year Formed
"'How to Disappear Completely': Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album"

This says Radiohead formed in 1992. Macarion 27 June 17:11

They actually formed before that, but they started using the name Radiohead then. Originally they were called "On A Friday", but the name was universally hated.--Unopeneddoor 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought --Macarion 05:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Radiohead & iTunes
Maybe someone could put a bit on why Radiohead aren't on iTunes? Its very unusual for a band to do that and I heard that it was something to do with seeling songs seperately but I'm not sure if thats at all correct. Also, this page couod do with making smaller, surely all these discussions aren't still going on? Poiuytre 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

None of them are going on. It seems like no one ever looks at this page or leaves comments even when they make changes in the article.

And yes, I believe most or all Radiohead albums are not available through iTunes, although the lead singer's solo album is available there, and various cover albums. They do sell their music to be downloaded online through the War Child charity. It's probably a combination of wanting to micromanage how it's heard (as a whole album) or maybe they aren't happy with the share of royalties on iTunes that record labels get, or the DRM of iTunes or something. And they'd rather go through a charity if they're going to. I think the members are still fans of Apple, though. 172.147.166.150


 * this is a pretty old discussion but I want to add something. As of when I am typing this radiohead's albums still arent available on itunes (the one song from "Help: A Day In The Life" is available) they ARE available in the zune marketplace.  This is one of the few (only?) examples of the zune marketplace selling major records that itunes does not.  However Radiohead albums must be bought in their entirety, the songs are not sold seperately.  This keeps with Radiohead being against buying single songs digitally.DxPatxb 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

that's messed up. I doubt the band had anything to do with this decision, since they are known Apple fans (at least as opposed to Microsoft). some albums by other artists are only available in full on iTunes, not the individual tracks. interesting that Radiohead's are not.

Jonny and Colin
i have to correct something. I'm about 99% Jonny is not the only classicly trained member of the band. Colin studied classical music. Thom also has some classical voice training.--Unopeneddoor 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I had to correct something else. Jonny's name is not written "Johnny" :)

Creep / Radiohead's first single?
Was NOT their first single. Anyone Can Pplay GUitar was--Unopeneddoor 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good issue to bring up, but you will have to verify that with a source other than Wikipedia.

Here is what that article says: "Anyone Can Play Guitar" was the first true single (not of limited production) taken from Radiohead's first album Pablo Honey.

(It is not sourced. It doesn't define what a "true single" is either.)

There is confusion about what constitutes the band's first single, because the Drill EP, released early in 1992, was their first official release as Radiohead (and the first on EMI, or indeed any label, thus the first with any wide distribution outside Oxford). Since the Drill EP was led off by the track Prove Yourself, which may have been played once or twice on the radio, some consider this to be the band's first "single." However the EP had four other tracks as well, and was not named after "Prove Yourself." A band's debut EP is usually not considered a "single" as such, but a separate thing.

I'm not sure what this is about Anyone Can Play Guitar being first. "Creep" was first released in late 1992, as documented everywhere, though the release was "limited" (whatever that means). The single did not receive much play at first, but it did meet with some reaction. The album and additional singles followed in early 1993. Anyone Can Play Guitar may have been one of those. But "Creep" had already been released! If Anyone Can Play Guitar was counted as the first single, it would only be on a technicality because its release was not "limited". Even the wiki page says Anyone Can Play Guitar is from February 1993, versus Creep from 1992.

I don't think limited production of the single matters, if it was the first to be produced, and if it was sent widely to radio. Creep was briefly on Radio 1 rotation before being pulled "for being too depressing." This should count as the first single. The other singles they released in this period received little radio attention.

And anyway, Creep was re-released in larger quantity later in 1993 in the UK, so ultimately became a "real single."

Trivia
Is this really relevant?

No. It should be removed immediately.--Hypermagic 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Instruments Used In The Studio and during Live Performances
Should there be a list of instruments they have used during studio sessions as well as when performed live?

For example on live performances:
 * Analogue Systems RS8000 Integrator - Idioteque (Live on SNL)
 * Korg KP1 KAOSS Pad - Everything In Its Right Place

--The Rumour 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a question that perhaps someone could research. Around the same time Radiohead became a band, David Byrne produced the movie, True Stories. It was a musical featuring many of the Talking Heads songs. A character in the movie, named Ramon, claimed that he could pick up radio-like transmissions, revealing other people's thoughts. Near the end of the movie, the town was having a talent festival. Ramon and his band sang a song called "Radiohead". The first line was "Radiohead, I'm picking up something good..". Does this have anything to do with their name??

Mass renaming of Singles by artist into Songs by artist
In a recent mass renaming of categories, we renamed nearly every category of Singles by artist into the appropriate subcategory of Songs by artist. We did not immediately rename the few categories in which there was a large number of both singles and non-singles separated, just to make sure there was no absolutely pressing reason that fans of those few acts (the Beach Boys, the Beatles, David Bowie, Nirvana, Oasis, Prince, Radiohead) wanted the singles by artist category kept. So one last chance: Does anyone think that category:Radiohead singles shouldn't be merged into category:Radiohead songs, as all the others except th ones listed have?--Mike Selinker 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Peak of popularity?
According to the article right now: "With Kid A (2000) and Amnesiac (2001), Radiohead reached their peak global popularity". I'd like to see citation for this, as it seems unlikely, or possibly just a slight change in wording to make the meaning more precise. I'm happy to accept that more people bought Kid A in a big hurry, but I imagine that many of them hated it. I'm ashamed to say that I myself have still never managed to listen to the whole of Kid A, although I rushed out to buy it on the day of release. So, just to be picky, are we happy to say that "album X sold more than album Y" means that X was the more popular? Leeborkman 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good issue to bring up. But I think it's defensible wording. it's one part of the intro that is quite clear. what it means is that regardless of the content of those new albums, by that point Radiohead as a band had achieved a position as a world famous (as well as "respected") band that maybe they hadn't quite achieved before. By the end of the OK Computer tour, yes, but not when OK Computer first came out, except in the UK.

That is shown by comparing worldwide opening chart placements. But Kid A was extremely hyped, it's true, just because they hadn't had an album out for so long. So also look at Amnesiac and subsequent releases. Look at the amount of worldwide press attention to Radiohead today, and anecdotal evidence for size of their fan base, when they're working on a new album after three supposedly "poorly received" ones as compared with the amount of attention in 1999 after a massively well received one. The attention on Radiohead today is comparable or higher. The only way to quantify "popularity" really is: press attention+sales+anecdotal evidence (some of which on Kid A was negative, but most of which is now overwhelmingly positive on the band as a whole including recently).

If Kid A had been popular only in terms of numbers sold first week, but was widely HATED, then initial numbers for Amnesiac would shown a major dropoff. In fact they were about equal-- which is to say much higher than for OK Computer in most parts of the world where these things are tracked, including North America. Kid A debuted at #1 in the states, Amnesiac at #2, Hail to the Thief at #3, Thom Yorke's recent solo album (on the strength of Radiohead fan base, obviously) at #2.

granted they had some luck with noncompetitive weeks. but this is a blatantly huge difference in size of fan base in the US from #23 for OK Computer. the rest of the world pretty much followed the US lead on this.

the argument could be, it was OK Computer that built them into such a popular band, gradually over a year, and thus every later release simply benefited from it. there's no way to prove one or the other. but generally if sales remain steady or continue to increase with each new release it signifies "popularity" is steady, whereas they would gradually decrease if people were only buying the new album on the strength of the old, because more and more people would get tired of being disappointed each time. more and more people may have done that and given up on the band, but more and more new fans perhaps of different generations or music taste have also been created with albums like Kid A and what followed, more than enough to replace the ones who stopped buying their albums, that's the point. usually that doesn't happen.

There are plenty of other artists who have done one or two "classic" albums and blow their comeback with something no one likes, and then barely anyone cares about their new stuff anymore or even notices that it's out, although the "classics" continue to sell well through the years. this is clearly not the case with Radiohead yet. not saying the situation is deserved. Radiohead is more like Bob Dylan in 2006 (popular, whatever the quality of his new stuff) than Bob Dylan in 1986 (ignored, whatever the quality of his new stuff). 172.163.124.44 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Singular vs plural "band"
This may seem picky. I was just about to fix the use of the word "band" as a plural when I found this note on the page:

"This article is written in UK English, which favours treating collective nouns like bands as plurals. (ie. Radiohead ARE a band.)"

Does this only refer to proper nouns like Radiohead, or common words like "band" or "group" as well? Frankly there is nothing favoured about such usage in any version of English. It's one band and two bands. Currently throughout the article we see "...band were..." which treats the word band as a plural (it should be "...band was..."). But we also see "...band has..." which correctly treats it as a singular (not "...band have..."). It's obviously inconsistent to use it both ways. The three occurrances of "band were" should be changed to "band was". You would never say "One band were there".

If the comment I mentioned at the start only applies to proper nouns (ie names of things), then it should say so.

Thanks, Rob.

Seventh studio album section
We must be completely clear with we want to say in that section. We must also try to organize and resize it as much as possible, because the album as we all know is still recording. We are approaching 2 years of recording sessions, so we must trim the big amount of information. Thus I think that what I am trying to do - trim it in last few edits and re-reverts related with some anonymous user. So, I think the article will be better and I think that these re-reverts are making me... uneasy.
 * Regards: Painbearer 11:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note about what I did with this section. It's currently divided in two as a temporary organizational measure, until the new album is finalized/comes out. The "overview" subheading contains the most basic information about Radiohead's current state (label status, possible LP7 release date, quotes by band about the direction of their new music/lyrics). The "current work and recording sessions" subsection on the other hand, picks up from the previous sections and contains a brief chronological catalog of important events in the band's history for the period from 2005 to present, during which they've been recording a new album and playing new songs live. Obviously many of these details will cease to be important once the album comes out, but some others will remain notable. After the album comes out, there would be no need for the information in the "overview" section at all. 172.162.149.13 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, that I moved most of the information to seperate section called Radiohead's seventh studio album. I also trimmed this section. However, a user hiding by the IP on 71.252.157.25 doesn't want this and when reverting my work, he calls me "Asshole" (you can see that he made a personal attack on my talk page, which was reverted by User:Persian Poet Gal). I probably should be insulted, but I am more insulted to have someone reverting meaningful and proper edits, of which the article only would progress. I hope this matter will be solved soon.
 * Regards: Painbearer 09:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note
The band pictures seem to be perpetually tagged as "unfree"... The picture I uploaded is free, but it only shows Thom and Ed. This is seemingly the only "free" Radiohead band image on the web, and believe me, I've looked. Both in CC and GFDL meta searches. ErleGrey 02:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"British band" vs "English band"
Don't change it to "English band." They are English, as they are from Oxfordshire, ENGLAND, which is in the sentence. but their official nationality is British. And the band is not hyper-identified with being "English" the way some are. They aren't based in London, they don't sing with heavy accents and their audience throughout the UK is just as great as in England. It is obvious to anyone that they are English, but all the articles on individual Radiohead songs and albums say "...a song/album by the BRITISH band Radiohead."

Featured Music Project evaluation

 * This shouldn't even be considered until I can read the article and not puke. Mkaycomputer 19:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Made a start on discography/general style. Would welcome a hand from others on the rest due to limited time and expertise...! --Hongshi 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Began cleaning up the history sections. Have made it as far as OK Computer. Kid A and beyond still need work. Feel free to revert where necessary as some may feel that I have taken out things that should have been left, but I stand by what I did. Johnsorc 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1)In the Musicians sectiomn it currently reads: For example, bassist Colin Greenwood and drummer Phil Selway are known to have played an influential role in shaping several of the band's pieces.

Now off the top of my head I agree, i believe that Colin wrote Karma Police, but maybe we need a reference for this?

2)I'm not sure its true to say that HTTT got 'lukewarm reviews' - as i recall it got good reviews 8or so out of ten - better than many magazine for example nme or Q gave Kid A on its inital release. I would agree that it wasn't considered as different from their previous work, but still i feel this bit is not quite right.

3)I've started editing the HTTT bit. Michaledwardmarks 21:34 20 April 2006

4) "muted" would be the best word, not "lukewarm." it got extremely positive reviews almost across the board in America, more than the previous two, and quite positive in Britain, just not hyperbolic. it wasn't the same hype object as Kid A although it sold slightly more than either of the previous two albums in its first week... but that only yielded #3 debut in America, compared to Kid A's #1 and Amnesiac's #2, making it look like a decline. it also wasnt up for the Album of the Year grammy as had been the fruits of the previous two recording sessions, showing a slight decline in the establishment's patience for the band, nor did its second two singles make any impact on the charts (not that this happened much with Amnesiac either), or its sales grow large enough that anyone actually cared about its "political" title or lyrics enough to cause Fox News controversy over them. There There received pretty good radio play though even in America, probably the best for any RH single since Karma Police, and the album ended up high on many year end critics polls. HTTT was a major critical success except by previous sky high standards.

it's hardcore internet fans who have (rightly) turned against this (boring) album in the past three years, but the initial response from both fans and critics was unfortunately to overrate it-- i.e. mostly all positive.

Boring? if you say so. They haven't had a boring album.--66.146.59.114 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Boring in comparison. It has its moments. :) 172.163.21.251

Two things
1. Radiohead is a band (rock, alt rock, experimental, electronic, whatever-- some form of popular music) that happens to have five musicians. Calling them a "quintet", while technically accurate and a shorter way of saying it than "a band... comprising five musicians", is more misleading. Serious articles on rock bands don't call them quintets, and they don't call themselves this either. "Quintet" has a specific meaning in classical music and perhaps jazz, which would confuse a reader of this article, as well as sounding very pretentious. Do we call the Beatles or U2 a quartet? I don't think so.

2. The country of England is a part of the nation of the UK. And Radiohead is already being identified as "British" (UK nationality) in the opening sentence-- which is good, since previous versions of the article identified them as "English," which while true, is not relevant, as their music is not considered particularly of "English" rather than "British" character, and their place of origin is obviously listed as in England anyway. I'm not sure why someone continually deletes ", UK" from the end of "England" in the info box on the right. It's not a big deal, but all the info may as well be there.

edit: the confusion may be that an older version of the group/band info box (still found on pages for some bands, like R.E.M.) had two separate lines, one for "Origin" and one for "Nationality/Country." The new version found on this page only has one box, for "Origin," which thus must also include nationality. 172.162.173.2 26 June 2006

Strange Choice of Audio Samples
Can I suggest the five songs chosen as audio samples be changed?

The first 4 are fine, You especially is a good choice to show his early vocals.. but Let Down or Airbag might be a better sample from OK Computer than Lucky, which is great but quite backward looking, not really an example of the evolution that characterized the rest of the album. I suppose it's a good example of Nigel Godrich's smooth production style, but it was written in 1995 anyway, 2 years before the rest of the album.

I also think Life in a Glass House is a very poor choice for this and must be replaced, though it's one of my favorite Radiohead songs, just because the only member of Radiohead involved is Thom Yorke, singing over accompaniment by the band of jazz trumpeter Humphrey Lyttelton. even the drums are not performed by Phil Selway of Radiohead, let alone all the horns. so while it shows unbelievable performances by all and great songwriting skill from Thom and perhaps arrangement skill by Jonny Greenwood (if he wrote out an arrangement), it doesn't show the BAND's versatility with jazz the way the quote says, at least not the same way as National Anthem, where the whole arrangement was written by them and mostly played by them and produced by them and the improvisation by the session players is a small though integral part of the whole.

a clip from a song from Amnesiac or Hail to the Thief such as Pyramid Song, You and Whose Army, Knives Out, Like Spinning Plates or Wolf at the Door would be more appropriate. there is no song there that has the "organic" kind of sound of Pyramid Song/You and Whose/Knives, and there's no real synth/electronic song either, which is strange considering the way the band has gone since 2000. Idioteque or Everything in Its Right Place could be used also, but Plates would be better because there's already one off Kid A, and it's also an example of the type of creativity (or pretentiousness) associated with the band, in that it was sung backwards. you might even have a clip from the electronic studio version and another from the live piano version, to show how Radiohead changed their electronic songs in performance. 172.166.95.12


 * I agree. Like Spinning Plates would be a much better song from the most recent tracks.  Unfortunately, I don't have any sort of .ogg encoder, which I believe is the preferred format for wikipedia. Johnsorc 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dead Air Space
Is it really necessary to add more and more information *every* time DAS is updated? It has a seperate entry of its own now. Exceptions should be if they use DAS to announce a tour, important information that is directly regards to the release/content of LP7, i.e. a post detailing the fact that a song has finished, or to use an example, Thom's post of early February that the band were back to work, with Mark Stent (significant as it was for the first time the band were recording with him). Photos, etc could imply all sorts of things, and perhaps the DAS entry is a better place to discuss these than the main Radiohead article.--Richj1209 23:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Mkaycomputer 23:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Links
I think there are way too many external links in this article. Why are there four links to French and Spanish Radiohead fan sites? There shouldn't be any! If a French or Spanish person wants to find an external link for such a site, (s)he's most likely going to go to the Wikipedia of his or her respective language. I've looked in other band-related articles (Green Day, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The White Stripes, Audioslave, etc.) and none of them have such links. I think that these should be the external links:

Collector links

 * Radiohead Discography
 * Track Resource

General links

 * Official website *Note that Radiohead's official blog is on this site, so there doesn't need to be another link for it.
 * Talks in Maths
 * At Ease Since this site is updated frequently with news on the band, I don't think is necessary.
 * Green Plastic Radiohead *Also note that the site "A comprehensive list of all their songs" is actually part of Green Plastic Radiohead, so it is not necessary.
 * pull/pink revolving doors
 * Pull-Pulk

Lyrics links

 * ez-lyrics This site appears to have every song, so I don't see why we'd need any more lyric sites.
 * This list is probably the most concise yet comprehensive list yet. I'll probably put this up if no one else does it the coming week, unless I can hear a better option. Mkaycomputer 20:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Green Plastic should be the only lyrics link.


 * I would be inclined to leave out the link to the annoying pop-up infested lyrics site too since the Green Plastic site has more accurate and user-friendly lyrics for every song anyway. Daniel 14:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The site Anti Music should probably be under references. If not, then it shouldn't be used at all. Same goes for Greek theater review Of all the band articles I've visited, Radiohead has the most external links. Many of them are redundant, and some of them are so hard to read it's like they're written in a different language... like French... or Spanish. And now I've talked enough.--Thebends 03:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Radiohead: 20 links
 * 2) Pink Floyd (featured article): 17
 * 3) Led Zeppelin: 13
 * 4) Nirvana (feautred article): 11
 * 5) The White Stripes: 10
 * 6) The Crickets (Buddy Holly): 8
 * 7) Audioslave: 8
 * 8) The Beatles (featured article): 8
 * 9) Green Day: 7
 * 10) Soundgarden: 4

The State of this article
This may come off as sounding angry and disgusted. That is exactly how I want it to sound. This article is a second-rate piece of junk, that falls through the seams everyday. It is miserably organized, especially the history section. I dont quite understand why there are separate overview and discography sections, as all they are are clones of the info on this article, ran through a thesaurus, with maybe a few extra tidbits. It has no introduction. Meanwhile, we babble on about what's going on today, copy-pasting tour info and notes from fan sites and blogs. The article needs a radical restructuring of it and its tributaries. Things need to be ordered. To make it easier, I'll tell you the only good things about the article. Its images, and its actual, unorganized information. There obviously is a fanbase out there who know enough about Radiohead to make a great article about it; I am part of it. However, that same fanbase is the reason for this article's shame. People come and go, adding tidbits of unneccessary information in the wrong areas. I understand there is some way we can organize a restructuring of the article. If we can have that happen, I would be glad and interested in participating. However, if the article continues to spiral down, I will continue to ignore and watch in disgust at this article's downfall. Mkaycomputer 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree whole-hardheadedly with your assessment of the article as a whole, and actually think that the generic compliant applies to almost every large article on Wikipeida right now - arguments over small semantic issues and such go on while the larger poor state of the article is ignored. However, I don't understand why you are almost bitterly unwilling to help: make an outline, use a sandbox, put a up to-do list, something - just take some direction, and you'll find many of us will fall in line with our contributions. As for myself, while I enjoy Radiohead's music, I don't know much about them as a band, their history and such, and due to that would just as soon let someone else take charge of the article. I am by no means opposed to taking a more active role - it just seems like others, yourself included, would be better at that. If you think they are needed, wp:bold and let's start going somewhere. --EdisonLBM 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the large pop culture articles.


 * Over the past 2 days, I've cut out a significant portion of what I considered crap from this article. There are still many problems with it.  There are numerous quotes from band members and people related to the band that are not sourced.  Additionally I'm sure there is more that can be removed.  I also took out a couple of the pictures that seemed extraneous.  I also cut the majority of new information because it's both highly speculative and quite irrelevant.  I also cut stuff about most side projects as it seems, imho, that they should be on the artist's respective page.  This is by no means close to finished though. Johnsorc 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I just received a rather scathing message about my edits. If anyone else would like to see them reverted, that's fine by me, I'm just trying to help clean this up into something that is informative and doesn't sound like a gushing fan or a magazine article.Johnsorc 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that your edits have been quite coherent and helpful. Keep up the great work! Mkaycomputer 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - it's moving in the right direction - thanks very much Hongshi 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I just editted most of the opening into its own section. It's still untidy, but works better than it did before.


 * Some of this article is hilariously unbias. I wouldn't look to Wikipedia for a piece of music criticism, but equally, I don't want see a piece of Radiohead glorification and it's hard to take the article seriously due to the number of times a sentance reeks of fan-boy writing. e.g. "Radiohead are considered to be one of, if not the most, important band on the planet and certainly the most fearless men in the business". And that's just the first instance. Come on, seriously, this stuff has got to be rewritten. Does anyone else agree that this article badly needs to be purged specifically of instances of unqualified and unsubjective praise?


 * Sorry - where did you get that sentence from? Certainly not this article, I think... I agree with the need to tone down some of the language further, but stating that Radiohead are influential is borne out by fact, as reading any mainstream (non)music news site or magazine will tell you.Hongshi 10:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)