| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:18 pm 
giant_ wrote: fakeplastic wrote: I've always wanted to hear somebody cover Kid A I believe John Mayer has... Yeah.. i meant electronically. Mayers is creative.. but doesn't have much emotion (to me, at least.) _________________ www.myspace.com/benjones www.xanga.com/benjones70 |
|
|
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 | Posts: 234 | Location: Everywhere
|
|
     |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:15 pm
I think "How To Disappear Completely" could sound really cool with some Eisley harmonics... |
|
|
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 | Posts: 743 | Location: Herning, Denmark
|
|
  |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:13 am
Awesome Glenn!!! I totally agree!!! up until this point, no one has mentioned Creep...what do you guys think if Eisley cover that song??? Honestly, that's the only song i like from Radiohead...so there you go...  _________________ 
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 | Posts: 528 | Location: Hannover-Deutschland, Germany, Allemagne
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:34 am
Creep actually would sound pretty sweet covered by Eisley. Stop Whispering might be nice as well. Perhaps. _________________ No no no no no no way, sir. |
|
|
Joined: 07 Apr 2005 | Posts: 58 | Location: Long Island, New York
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:01 am
lets put it this way folks. I believe Radiohead to be the springboard that Eisley used to go to the next level.. and that level is mixing heartfelt melody with very crafty musical underpinnings. Radiohead was their starting off point, just as the Beatles, etc were for me. Kid A for me reminds me of the old tale of The Emperor has no clothes. OK Computer was a brilliant record, in an Art School kind of way. And of course I love that record. Look it's all our opinions... If you dig Radiohead that's cool, because I think they are awesome... But being a songwriter, with a certain amount of talent, I have to say that when I heard Eisley, I felt like Scaliari from the movie Amadeus. That is how amazing I feel this music is, in it's level of artistry and emotion and communication. I was awed...I have a HUGE collection of classical, Jazz, rock, folk, bluegrass--etc... What is the difference between Schoenberg's music and that by Beethoven ?. after all, it is just notes after all... It is the joy --pain and humanity you get from hearing Beethoven's music. Schoenberg was equally brilliant, but he did not access his heart, and thus does not communicate to me. A big stretch, in terms of comparing Eisely to Ludwig? I guess so. But at this moment for the next few weeks, I'd rather listen to this Eisley CD than Ludwig or any other of my Classical LPs.. |
|
|
Joined: 24 Apr 2005 | Posts: 104 | Location: Los Angeles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:38 am
Glenn wrote: I think Radiohead is a good band, but are slightly overrated. Please allow me to explain my position before hitting reply and beginning a counter-argument.
Radiohead as a band is obsessed with the notion of being avant garde. Their music is different for the sake of being different, rather than simply existing as something that would have been created naturally. I'll give them the proper respect for pushing the envelope and reinventing themselves at every turn, but it is all extremely calculated and posed. I think that Chris Flynn nailed it very much on the head when he said that their music is intellectual rather than emotional. Their music is deliberately cold and mechanical whereas Eisley's is quite warm and flowing. Now I'm not neccesarily saying that one is better than the other, but they are radically different styles and can not be accurately compared. Saying that Radiohead is better than Eisley is like saying that Pink Floyd is better than The Beach Boys. Pink Floyd wrote masterfully artistic psychodelic rock opuses, but The Beach Boys crafted perfectly simple pop tunes. We're talking apples + oranjes* here. But beyond that, I find it bothersome how people like to diefy Radiohead. They've reached this Godlike status where it is impossible for them to do a single thing wrong. At this point in his career Tom Yorke could drool on a microphone and drop a drum sample underneath it, and people would go crazy for it. I object to that and I think that they have taken advantage of it as a band. Kid A is a great experiment in sound, but it does not deserve the type of accolades that it receives. The record has a handful of excellent songs but is filled in with material that would be labeled unlistenable had any other band released it. I'll say that again because I think it is an essential point in my case. Certain Radiohead songs that are considered brilliant would be thought of as unlistenable if they had been recorded by any other band. I know that's a bold statement, but give it a nice long and honest thought. If you picked up a cd by an unknown band and heard Everything In It's Right Place, you would be hard pressed to call it amazing, or even decent. Radiohead's career as of late has been built on the myth that they are infallible. They can do whatever they want and people will believe it's genius. I do enjoy 90% of the work that Radiohead turns out. I am in no way a Radiohead hater. But I find it ridiculous that they should be viewed as the standard by which all music should be compared to. A person should not be thought of as crazy for being of the opinion that Eisley's music is on par with Radiohead's. The reaction that Chris Flynn got from his comment was a little bit over dramatic. There is one thing that Eisley undeniably has over Radiohead, and that is being 100% honest and unpretentious. As much as I enjoy Radiohead, they are indeed on the pretentious side. There's a whole lot of math going on behind the scenes of a radiohead album. I don't hear that in Eisley's music at all. It comes across as being much more from the heart. And lastly, OF COURSE the members of Eisley would never say that they were better or even on the same level as one of their favorite bands. Great artists frequently do underestimate their own work. It is this which drives them to create what we as fans are able to appreciate in ways they cannot because they are too close to it. Any modest person would have a difficult time placing their own art in a leage with that of their inspiration. Eisley hits me in a way that not many bands are able to, and I think that a lot of people feel that way. Why then should we restrain from saying that they are as good as any other big name band that makes us feel the same way? That was a terribly long-winded way to say that I think Eisley is great and Radiohead isn't perfect. For the record . . . I find Amnesiac and The Bends to be rather fantastic, while OK Computer is probably as close to perfect as I've felt the band has yet to come. k, i'm done * Pumpkins reference intentional. You talk too much for me to care. |
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004 | Posts: 839 | Location: Aurora, IL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:03 am
yep Glenn, I agree with you. Eisley are a young band. Part of their inspiration was Radiohead. I do hear that influence.. as well as the Beatles. I hear influences or melodies that they must have been given as gifts, that they plucked from the air... and those are quite beautiful, and remind me very much of classical artists like Ravel, Debussy or Poulenc. Their music is so inspired.. it has that little extra thing. The extra secret ingredient... that moves it from good to great to inspirational for us listeners. Look, why else would I be here. I'm old enough to be their father. I'm probably 3 times as old as many of the teenagers here. But I know greatness when I hear it. I am humbled by it. my music: http://www.virtualstudiosystems.com/artistPage.php?ArtistID=91 |
|
|
Joined: 24 Apr 2005 | Posts: 104 | Location: Los Angeles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:19 pm
Karma Police _________________ waiting for someone to kill James Bond www.wmucradio.com |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 | Posts: 75 | Location: Hyattsville, Maryland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:21 pm
I'd love them to take idioteque, mainly just to take the lyrics and slow the song right down...it would sound cool  _________________ 
MY SPACE |
|
|
Joined: 13 Jan 2004 | Posts: 1236 | Location: England/Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:24 pm
it would be kickass to hear stacy(or sherri) go all "YOU dont remeber,you dont remember,why dont you remeber my name?off with his head man off with his head man" hahaha,would be kickass but like,thats the only radiohead song i dont let fall on my lil kids' ears,kinda disturbing _________________ in my mind,ill dream http://www.xanga.com/kinzguybrush |
|
|
Joined: 01 Jul 2003 | Posts: 263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:48 am
Saellys wrote: Glenn wrote: I think Radiohead is a good band, but are slightly overrated. Please allow me to explain my position before hitting reply and beginning a counter-argument.
Radiohead as a band is obsessed with the notion of being avant garde. Their music is different for the sake of being different, rather than simply existing as something that would have been created naturally. I'll give them the proper respect for pushing the envelope and reinventing themselves at every turn, but it is all extremely calculated and posed. I think that Chris Flynn nailed it very much on the head when he said that their music is intellectual rather than emotional. Their music is deliberately cold and mechanical whereas Eisley's is quite warm and flowing. Now I'm not neccesarily saying that one is better than the other, but they are radically different styles and can not be accurately compared. Saying that Radiohead is better than Eisley is like saying that Pink Floyd is better than The Beach Boys. Pink Floyd wrote masterfully artistic psychodelic rock opuses, but The Beach Boys crafted perfectly simple pop tunes. We're talking apples + oranjes* here. But beyond that, I find it bothersome how people like to diefy Radiohead. They've reached this Godlike status where it is impossible for them to do a single thing wrong. At this point in his career Tom Yorke could drool on a microphone and drop a drum sample underneath it, and people would go crazy for it. I object to that and I think that they have taken advantage of it as a band. Kid A is a great experiment in sound, but it does not deserve the type of accolades that it receives. The record has a handful of excellent songs but is filled in with material that would be labeled unlistenable had any other band released it. I'll say that again because I think it is an essential point in my case. Certain Radiohead songs that are considered brilliant would be thought of as unlistenable if they had been recorded by any other band. I know that's a bold statement, but give it a nice long and honest thought. If you picked up a cd by an unknown band and heard Everything In It's Right Place, you would be hard pressed to call it amazing, or even decent. Radiohead's career as of late has been built on the myth that they are infallible. They can do whatever they want and people will believe it's genius. I do enjoy 90% of the work that Radiohead turns out. I am in no way a Radiohead hater. But I find it ridiculous that they should be viewed as the standard by which all music should be compared to. A person should not be thought of as crazy for being of the opinion that Eisley's music is on par with Radiohead's. The reaction that Chris Flynn got from his comment was a little bit over dramatic. There is one thing that Eisley undeniably has over Radiohead, and that is being 100% honest and unpretentious. As much as I enjoy Radiohead, they are indeed on the pretentious side. There's a whole lot of math going on behind the scenes of a radiohead album. I don't hear that in Eisley's music at all. It comes across as being much more from the heart. And lastly, OF COURSE the members of Eisley would never say that they were better or even on the same level as one of their favorite bands. Great artists frequently do underestimate their own work. It is this which drives them to create what we as fans are able to appreciate in ways they cannot because they are too close to it. Any modest person would have a difficult time placing their own art in a leage with that of their inspiration. Eisley hits me in a way that not many bands are able to, and I think that a lot of people feel that way. Why then should we restrain from saying that they are as good as any other big name band that makes us feel the same way? That was a terribly long-winded way to say that I think Eisley is great and Radiohead isn't perfect. For the record . . . I find Amnesiac and The Bends to be rather fantastic, while OK Computer is probably as close to perfect as I've felt the band has yet to come. k, i'm done * Pumpkins reference intentional. I disagree with you 100%, but you make some darn good points that have challenged my opinions of why I like Radiohead. Lyrically and probably instrumentally, I think Eisley have a ways to go before they'll be better than Radiohead. Melodically, they're already there. Performance-wise, they're not nearly as dynamic, but once they start headlining regularly that could change. I still think Stacy needs to get a keytar and spasmodically twitch around the stage during "Plenty of Paper." Frankly, the reason I didn't listen to Radiohead for so many years was Radiohead fans. The pretension was truly staggering...it has taken me a while to disassociate the band from a lotof the fan base, and that is a direct result of this forum. I'm not pinging on anyone here by any means, but I always associated Radiohead fans with pot-smoking art students who were always on the lookout for some way to demonstrate their individuality, preferably in a way that would irritate their parents. Being avant-garde shouldn't be a reflex. Oh, uh, Radiohead rocks! (So does Eisley) _________________ Aaron blackandgoldfan@hotmail.com Xanga - http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=AaronShellback |
|
|
Joined: 07 Mar 2005 | Posts: 52 | Location: Haze Grey and Underway
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:52 am
Glenn wrote: I think Radiohead is a good band, but are slightly overrated. Please allow me to explain my position before hitting reply and beginning a counter-argument.
Radiohead as a band is obsessed with the notion of being avant garde. Their music is different for the sake of being different, rather than simply existing as something that would have been created naturally. I'll give them the proper respect for pushing the envelope and reinventing themselves at every turn, but it is all extremely calculated and posed. I think that Chris Flynn nailed it very much on the head when he said that their music is intellectual rather than emotional. Their music is deliberately cold and mechanical whereas Eisley's is quite warm and flowing. Now I'm not neccesarily saying that one is better than the other, but they are radically different styles and can not be accurately compared. Saying that Radiohead is better than Eisley is like saying that Pink Floyd is better than The Beach Boys. Pink Floyd wrote masterfully artistic psychodelic rock opuses, but The Beach Boys crafted perfectly simple pop tunes. We're talking apples + oranjes* here. But beyond that, I find it bothersome how people like to diefy Radiohead. They've reached this Godlike status where it is impossible for them to do a single thing wrong. At this point in his career Tom Yorke could drool on a microphone and drop a drum sample underneath it, and people would go crazy for it. I object to that and I think that they have taken advantage of it as a band. Kid A is a great experiment in sound, but it does not deserve the type of accolades that it receives. The record has a handful of excellent songs but is filled in with material that would be labeled unlistenable had any other band released it. I'll say that again because I think it is an essential point in my case. Certain Radiohead songs that are considered brilliant would be thought of as unlistenable if they had been recorded by any other band. I know that's a bold statement, but give it a nice long and honest thought. If you picked up a cd by an unknown band and heard Everything In It's Right Place, you would be hard pressed to call it amazing, or even decent. Radiohead's career as of late has been built on the myth that they are infallible. They can do whatever they want and people will believe it's genius. I do enjoy 90% of the work that Radiohead turns out. I am in no way a Radiohead hater. But I find it ridiculous that they should be viewed as the standard by which all music should be compared to. A person should not be thought of as crazy for being of the opinion that Eisley's music is on par with Radiohead's. The reaction that Chris Flynn got from his comment was a little bit over dramatic. There is one thing that Eisley undeniably has over Radiohead, and that is being 100% honest and unpretentious. As much as I enjoy Radiohead, they are indeed on the pretentious side. There's a whole lot of math going on behind the scenes of a radiohead album. I don't hear that in Eisley's music at all. It comes across as being much more from the heart. And lastly, OF COURSE the members of Eisley would never say that they were better or even on the same level as one of their favorite bands. Great artists frequently do underestimate their own work. It is this which drives them to create what we as fans are able to appreciate in ways they cannot because they are too close to it. Any modest person would have a difficult time placing their own art in a leage with that of their inspiration. Eisley hits me in a way that not many bands are able to, and I think that a lot of people feel that way. Why then should we restrain from saying that they are as good as any other big name band that makes us feel the same way? That was a terribly long-winded way to say that I think Eisley is great and Radiohead isn't perfect. For the record . . . I find Amnesiac and The Bends to be rather fantastic, while OK Computer is probably as close to perfect as I've felt the band has yet to come. k, i'm done * Pumpkins reference intentional. I disagree with you 100%, but you make some darn good points that have challenged my opinions of why I like Radiohead. Lyrically and probably instrumentally, I think Eisley have a ways to go before they'll be better than Radiohead. Melodically, they're already there. Performance-wise, they're not nearly as dynamic, but once they start headlining regularly that could change. I still think Stacy needs to get a keytar and spasmodically twitch around the stage during "Plenty of Paper." _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:12 am
ArkLaTexAaron wrote: Saellys wrote: Glenn wrote: I think Radiohead is a good band, but are slightly overrated. Please allow me to explain my position before hitting reply and beginning a counter-argument.
Radiohead as a band is obsessed with the notion of being avant garde. Their music is different for the sake of being different, rather than simply existing as something that would have been created naturally. I'll give them the proper respect for pushing the envelope and reinventing themselves at every turn, but it is all extremely calculated and posed. I think that Chris Flynn nailed it very much on the head when he said that their music is intellectual rather than emotional. Their music is deliberately cold and mechanical whereas Eisley's is quite warm and flowing. Now I'm not neccesarily saying that one is better than the other, but they are radically different styles and can not be accurately compared. Saying that Radiohead is better than Eisley is like saying that Pink Floyd is better than The Beach Boys. Pink Floyd wrote masterfully artistic psychodelic rock opuses, but The Beach Boys crafted perfectly simple pop tunes. We're talking apples + oranjes* here. But beyond that, I find it bothersome how people like to diefy Radiohead. They've reached this Godlike status where it is impossible for them to do a single thing wrong. At this point in his career Tom Yorke could drool on a microphone and drop a drum sample underneath it, and people would go crazy for it. I object to that and I think that they have taken advantage of it as a band. Kid A is a great experiment in sound, but it does not deserve the type of accolades that it receives. The record has a handful of excellent songs but is filled in with material that would be labeled unlistenable had any other band released it. I'll say that again because I think it is an essential point in my case. Certain Radiohead songs that are considered brilliant would be thought of as unlistenable if they had been recorded by any other band. I know that's a bold statement, but give it a nice long and honest thought. If you picked up a cd by an unknown band and heard Everything In It's Right Place, you would be hard pressed to call it amazing, or even decent. Radiohead's career as of late has been built on the myth that they are infallible. They can do whatever they want and people will believe it's genius. I do enjoy 90% of the work that Radiohead turns out. I am in no way a Radiohead hater. But I find it ridiculous that they should be viewed as the standard by which all music should be compared to. A person should not be thought of as crazy for being of the opinion that Eisley's music is on par with Radiohead's. The reaction that Chris Flynn got from his comment was a little bit over dramatic. There is one thing that Eisley undeniably has over Radiohead, and that is being 100% honest and unpretentious. As much as I enjoy Radiohead, they are indeed on the pretentious side. There's a whole lot of math going on behind the scenes of a radiohead album. I don't hear that in Eisley's music at all. It comes across as being much more from the heart. And lastly, OF COURSE the members of Eisley would never say that they were better or even on the same level as one of their favorite bands. Great artists frequently do underestimate their own work. It is this which drives them to create what we as fans are able to appreciate in ways they cannot because they are too close to it. Any modest person would have a difficult time placing their own art in a leage with that of their inspiration. Eisley hits me in a way that not many bands are able to, and I think that a lot of people feel that way. Why then should we restrain from saying that they are as good as any other big name band that makes us feel the same way? That was a terribly long-winded way to say that I think Eisley is great and Radiohead isn't perfect. For the record . . . I find Amnesiac and The Bends to be rather fantastic, while OK Computer is probably as close to perfect as I've felt the band has yet to come. k, i'm done * Pumpkins reference intentional. I disagree with you 100%, but you make some darn good points that have challenged my opinions of why I like Radiohead. Lyrically and probably instrumentally, I think Eisley have a ways to go before they'll be better than Radiohead. Melodically, they're already there. Performance-wise, they're not nearly as dynamic, but once they start headlining regularly that could change. I still think Stacy needs to get a keytar and spasmodically twitch around the stage during "Plenty of Paper." Frankly, the reason I didn't listen to Radiohead for so many years was Radiohead fans. The pretension was truly staggering...it has taken me a while to disassociate the band from a lotof the fan base, and that is a direct result of this forum. I'm not pinging on anyone here by any means, but I always associated Radiohead fans with pot-smoking art students who were always on the lookout for some way to demonstrate their individuality, preferably in a way that would irritate their parents. Being avant-garde shouldn't be a reflex. Oh, uh, Radiohead rocks! (So does Eisley) haha, well i dont smoke pot, never have, and i dont like irritating my parents (most of the time ) i dont like them because its "what every weird art-ish off the wall kid" does, i like them because they arent "the norm" and they are completely unique. their music amazes me. AND I feel the exact same way about Eisley. wooooooo. _________________ Flutter girl killing me with her sunshine... she's so unaware that she's my melpomene. hi www.myspace.com/musicislove |
|
|
Joined: 03 Apr 2005 | Posts: 611 | Location: rice lake, wisconsin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:12 am
Forget all that, what I want to know is: how did I quote Saellys' post when according to the board, she posted *after* me? Time travel! Yes! (I remembered to put the crystals in the machine this time) _________________ Aaron blackandgoldfan@hotmail.com Xanga - http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=AaronShellback |
|
|
Joined: 07 Mar 2005 | Posts: 52 | Location: Haze Grey and Underway
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:24 am
ArkLaTexAaron wrote: (I remembered to put the crystals in the machine this time) It works, Napoleon! You don't even know! _________________ INTELLECT AND ROMANCE OVER BRUTE FORCE AND CYNICISM Smokemonster |
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003 | Posts: 14510 | Location: Alone on an airplane, fallin' asleep against the windowpane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
