until after they have perfected them in the studio. all the recordings of new songs i've heard just sound so empty and unfulfilled. then when they bust into something like "nat'l anthem" or "how to disappear completely" it's like a whole different band...the energy is different and it sounds so much more accomplished. kind of a bummer that they're going to play at least like 5 new ones when i see them.

MODS PLEASE DELETE THREAD K THX

you realize that 90% of the reason for these threads is to get responses out of you. i just generally hope for better ones than this.

You are such a weird chick.

yeah it's cause i have a weird relationship with my mom.

ha ha ha ha.

I sorta agree with this.

Whenever I hear new live stuff from I band I like it almost always disappoints me (see The Strokes, Bloc Party). Then when I finally hear the studio versions of the same songs later they sound better and completely different.

<---- not a fan of the live recordings generally.

what do you think of the topic though dri? i think the audience would get more out of hearing already polished stuff. i mean, sure, the band gets to work on the songs as they play them live, but they just don't have the same impact.

You should write a letter.

these radiohead threads are getting on my nerves......

ALL bands play new songs (not been released) if they are ready to perform them live.

to say they shouldnt is rubbish

i know they do. i'm saying in this case specifically that i get a lot more out of tunes that have already been studioized because the band knows exactly what they're doing. i'm not a fan of the jamband-esque mentality of "we'll rehearse/work it out on stage." I know that when some of these new songs make it to disc they'll blow me away. They probably won't on June 13th.

i can tell you are TOTALLY pumped to see them plus hear their new album...

yeah but not exactly pumped to see certain of the new songs live when i could be hearing "backdrifts" instead.

The worst part about the radiohead threads is that radiohead isn't all that good. If you're going to swamp the board, at least make it worthwhile.

i just think that statement is completely false. who else? the beatles?

What about the Beatles? Do you want to talk about how Paul McCartney is not worthy to lick the shit out of Keith Richards' asshole?

i hate paul. i'm wondering what band you think is worthy of so much discussion if radiohead isn't. i guess your suggestion would be The Rolling Stones.

Chase,

I'm curious if you feel this way about Wilco when Tweedy breaks out new songs?

OF COURSE The Rolling Stones are worthy of this much discussion, they been around 40+ years.

i kind of do. Wilco and Radiohead are definitely my two favorite bands making music right now. I've done similar things trying to track down live versions of new Wilco songs. Hearing the new Loose Fur was incredible for me because I got to see how good the stuff Tweedy was using for his side project is. Very encouraging because I know he saves his best stuff for Wilco. I geek out equally as much about Wilco. The difference is that I've seen Wilco live like 8 times so I'm a bit more over them. I've only seen Radiohead once and I was 10 years old so I geek pretty hard over them.

have the last 5+ (perhaps even 10 or more, I don't really know anything about the Stones) been anything to write home about? I'm sure that Radiohead will still be making incredible music in some form 30 years from now, whether it's Thom and Jonny solo or still as RH.

Fuck yeah, The Stones are The Stones...and Radiohead will/already has run out of ways to "push the limits of sonic evolution" or whatever nonsense people like about them now, so I doubt they will be relevant in any form, in 30+ years.

I do have to add, tho, that I caught a snipet of them live in Showtime recently, and liked the stuff like Idioteque much better than I did when it came out.

Still think they are full of shit, tho.

NP: Over the Rhine (thanks POD)

first stones album is 1964. the last good one (arguably) or perhaps last great one i guess, Some Girls, came out in 1978. Since then the Stones have been mostly bullshit. Again, maybe I'm wrong but at this point they're basically a big nostalgia act. I don't listen to their new stuff but it can't really be that great, can it?

Pablo Honey was 1993. It's 2006 now. That's approximately the same timeframe from Stones LP1 to Some Girls. I don't know if either of us is going to be able to arrive at any sort of consensus on which 14 year period was better, but that's irrelevant.

So basically, if Radiohead puts out one more good to great album after 2007 and then continues on in some form until 2035 they will be approximately equivalent in a certain way. I think that some member of Radiohead will be making interesting music at that stage in life, if still alive. It'll probably be Johnny or Thom solo and not "Radiohead" per se, but that still counts in my book.

I think they'll be relevant in 30+ years.

"Don't Stop" from the 40 Licks Comp is better than all Radiohead songs, and that was 2002....

the thing about The Stones is that they have a template, and follow it, and it still kicks ass...they don't feel the need for expirementation or boundary pushing just for the sake of it (yeah, sometimes Mick thinks it'll make money, but what're you gonna do?)

I think we have had this discussion a million times, so let's just say I disagree on Radiohead's potential future relevance.