Talk:Radiohead/Archive 1

message: My source: http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/
::Erm... I think it was erm... a... joke.--Richj1209 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think we can afford to wait and see where this goes (it might be a one-off flippant comment, or they might run with it for a bit) before we mention it in the article. If we try too hard for up-to-the-second accuracy, and if we try too hard to believe everything Radiohead say, we will end up with egg on our faces. Take it with a pinch of salt. --rbrwr± 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiohead changed their name into "The Carlyle Group"

message: Are all of those fan sites necessary? We don't want this to become a link-list for upping contributers' Page ranks. I've no problem if each of those sites deserves to be in the list, but I think it's important to note what they are/aren't adding to the information content. I would think an official site and one or two good fan sites (w/ news etc.) should be enough. I can't see that the fifth fan site listed adds anything that the other four lack.
--Rory ☺ 13:54, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree. Let's give one fan site, preferably the most popular (Green Plastic?), and leave it at that. Maybe two, but anything more than that looks suspiciously like advertising. Everyking 13:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought so. Especially leading up to OKC, they were one of the first bands to truly capitalize on the internet. It deserves a mention. However, if I was going to do it I would do at least a little research so I could say something that wasn't totally nebulous. I can't be bothered with that at the moment.--24.190.122.122 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Sites 

message: I added vocals to Ed O'Brien's contribution to the band on both guitar and vocals, as he does pretty much all backing vocals live and often on record. Is it neccesary to add Phil Selways contribution to There There, where I believe he sings? It doesnt say so in the HTTT booklet.
I am working on doing an early history, school days style thing on the 'head. Anyone want to lend a hand? --Newdawnfades 22:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional vocals - Ed O'Brien 

message: I've made a few changes over the last few days, mostly adding some more info on albums, tracks and editing the prose style into what I understand is the house style here at Wik. But one question though - why don't people add a little more detail about what Radiohead (and many other rock band entries) actually sound like? Just some basic information would be good, explaining to the uninitiated what a "rocking sound" actually sounds like. A little extra info on how one album sounds different to another would also help the Encyclopedia stylee. Nesbitt 05:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia Style, Question 

message: Ok, I did what I could. I'm proud of it, I must say and I'll make it bigger. I indend to put more material about Pablo Honey and the Bends and Ok Computer sections, because as you can see the last two album sections surpass their first two. So far - so good. It's a real pleasure working on Radiohead... If you plan something bigger change on the page, which you think will make it better - please, let's discuss it first. As a major contributor for the page I think I've earned my right to know what's happening with the article. --Painbearer 20:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: So far - so good

message: Excellent work I think. If you want to - do some corrections, but I like what happened. It's my greatest pride to see this...--Painbearer 21:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Okey

message: The header of the OK Computer section says "the height of their popularity," but in fact despite the fame and critical acclaim of that album, it either didn't quite or only barely (don't remember) go platinum, possibly due to the fact that OKC only started getting the fawning reviews by the magazine end-of-year lists - it didn't make a huge splash upon its release.  In contrast, Kid A went platinum in its first week.  So while OKC may be the source of their popularity, it wasn't the height of it; that came with Kid A (though they haven't fallen much from there).
::I agree with this. Shouldn't the phrasing of the 'OK Computer' section be changed therefore to "The *source* of their popularity" instead of *height* of? As a consequence should the Pablo Honey/Bends section be changed to "Hit singles and *early* success, to take this into account? --Richj1209 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height of Popularity? 

message: I seems to have become common consesus that thom and jonny are the principal song writers. I would argue against this notion, i think saying that thom writes the songs and jonny builds on them is over simplistic.
this is pure speculation.
how do we know how they write music as a band? phil could play guitar in the studio for all we know (thom plays bass on "National Anthem" on the album recording, for example).
anybody else feel the same?
evilswan
The band always credit everyone with regards to songwriting. They try to avoid Pink Floyd-esque situations this way, and divide royalties equally. But Thom and Jonny are the 'brains' behind Radiohead, however. Thom is the sole lyric-writer, whereas Jonny can be seen as the most 'creative' member of the group musically. --Richj1209 11:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  thom and jonny 

message: Where are people getting their information about the release date of the new album?  People have added info ranging from November 2005 to June 2006, with little sourcing. Ario 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Album (Album 7)

message: Whoever keeps adding the Matt Carter/Subconscious Dream plugs, it's really useless, futile, and not even very funny.  "Jack Mehoff" would even be more clever, but continuing to add your inside joke and re-add it after it is removed is just pointless.  If you have some legitimate reason for this, please list it here.  And yeah, it doesn't matter if you switch IPs or usernames every time you make that edit, we can still see it and change it back. Ario 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Carter/Subconscious Dream (repeat vandalism)

message: :The band's early music compares with artists such as Elvis Costello, Pixies, Pink Floyd, R.E.M., U2, Talking Heads, The Beatles, The Smiths, and Mancunian post-punk acts The Fall, Joy Division, and Magazine. Later albums resemble German art-rock band Can, the avant-garde electronic group Kraftwerk, electronic artists such as Autechre and Aphex Twin, and jazz pioneers such as Charles Mingus and Miles Davis.
I don't see how Radiohead's music "compares" to any of them. This list seems to have been created for the purpose of namedropping as many respected artists as possible. If the editor meant to list influences cited by the band (for instance, Yorke cites Talking Heads' Remain in Light as in influence), then this information should be moved to an appropriate section (not the lead) and properly sourced. If it's meant to be a list of "unconscious" influences not neccesarily cited by the band, then the connection between them needs to be demonstrated.—jiy (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion. Ario 07:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  I wouldn't expect a mathematical proof, but, at the very least something like "Listeners have compared the band to...[cite critic, official website, official fan forum, whatever]" or "...have influenced musicians such as...[cite music critic, artist in question's statement at an interview, etc.]".  I'd suggest, when it comes to musicians, we should be fairly liberal about what sources are reasonable to cite, but absolutely strict on no original research, which becomes more important, not less, when dealing with art and other fuzzy subjects.  Jkelly 21:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Jeff Buckley as one of Radiohead's early influences. This doesnt make sense as both artists emerged at around the same time. Perhaps the editor was thinking of Tim Buckley, I don't know. Yes, Jeff Buckley did influence Radiohead, particuarly with regards to Fake Plastic Trees (the vocal was recorded after the band saw him live in 1994) but this was after the band broke through, not before it. --Richj1209 16:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare to? 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of that "infamous relationship with napster" mentioned in the ok computer article in the main article as well?
Shouldn't think so, as I don't think Napster was around in 1997. --Richj1209 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's there, in the Kid A article .. give it another look :) -EdisonLBM 00:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  napster 

message: I propose that there at least should be some small mention of Radiohead's involvement with political issues, particuarly in regards to the Free Tibet campaign, Drop the Debt, CND, Trade Justice groups and most recently, Friends of the Earth. It could be argued that this has rubbed off on 'Hail to the Thief' and some elements of 'Kid A' and 'Amnesiac'. --Richj1209 11:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the politics ought to be covered, but a distinction should be made between the personal efforts of individual band members, and the attitudes reflected Radiohead's music/actions taken using the band's visibility.
More crucially, I agree that the article is lacking. There is plenty of information, but we have much to do to improve the writing. I've removed the Good Article template. (omphaloscope talk) 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiohead and Politics 

message: "as the bandmembers are capable enough to produce it themselves"
I don't really like this.  It's awfully speculative, and from what interviews I've read, the Kid A and Amnesiac sessions would have collapsed if not for Nigel.  Perhaps I'm being a bit picky over one sentence, but it seems much out of place in what is supposed to be an encylopedia.  Gamiar 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Album + Nigel Godrich 

message: Which is better?
( in article history)
...comprising five musicians:
:*Thom Yorke, the lead singer, who also plays acoustic guitar, rhythm guitar, and piano;
:*Jonny Greenwood, who plays lead guitar, keyboards, the modular synthesiser, the Ondes Martenot, the glockenspiel, and creates sounds with a laptop;
:*Ed O'Brien, who plays supplemental guitar, often with effects pedals, and provides backing vocals and auxiliary percussion;
:*Colin Greenwood, who plays bass guitar, keyboards, and synthesisers; and
:*Phil Selway, who plays drums, other percussion, and provides backing vocals.
(current version by 64.201.77.221)
...comprising five musicians:
:*Thom Yorke, lead voice, rhythm guitar, piano;
:*Jonny Greenwood, lead guitar, keyboards, modular synthesiser, Ondes Martenot, glockenspiel, laptop;
:*Ed O'Brien, supplemental guitar, effects pedals, backing vocals, auxiliary percussion;
:*Colin Greenwood, bass guitar, sampler, synthesiser;
:*Phil Selway, drums, percussion
I suggested the wordier one. I think it's more professional: if the NYTimes or the Guardian had info on band members, I wouldn't expect to see it done like a Powerpoint presentation. It also clears up some false parallelisms: Jonny plays lead guitar, but he doesn't play the effects pedals or the laptop. Still, maybe it's frilly, or gets awkward. Feelings/suggestions on this? --Omphaloscope 04:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the wordier version more. Although I just corrected a minor typo in it. Cassandra Leo 08:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback, Cassandra! I've implemented the change, although I expect at least one editor to differ. (omphaloscope talk) 06:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing the musicians 

message: The Britpop article suggests Radiohead is Britpop (and they sound like Britpop to me). Should they be added to :Category:Britpop musical groups? —Ashley Y 07:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...not really. Radiohead were never part of the Britpop movement. While Blur and Oasis were slugging it out, the whole thing just passed Radiohead by. --Richj1209 09:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But bands always claim not to be in a genre, don't they? And their fans always agree... —Ashley Y 01:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This new sentence is incorrect: "Radiohead – widely praised a year after the album's release – took part in Cool Britannia, battling famous acts like Oasis, Blur, Pulp, and Suede." Its incorrect as Radiohead didn't 'battle it out' against Oasis, Blur and Pulp, et al. Firstly, if the guy who put that sentence should know that, in relation to singles success, and radio airplay and the like, Radiohead were nowhere compared to Oasis and Blur in 1994-5. Secondly, Radiohead were not a Britpop band. Lyrically and musically. Have you heard Thom signing about 'cigarrettes and alcohol', a 'charmless man' who lived in a 'country house', enjoying a 'disco in the year 2000'? Radiohead were above that. OK Computer partly killed off Britpop! --Richj1209 10:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Radiohead are definitely not a Britpop band, but there's a whole wave of new British pop bands that are commonly classified as Britpop, like Coldplay and Muse, that wouldn't be able to exist without Radiohead, which causes a considerable amount of confusion. (Notably, however, several of these artists also deny being Britpop). Perhaps a mention of this should be worked into the article somehow. Cassandra Leo 08:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britpop 

message: This article is riddled with claims about the success of Radiohead, its influences, its sound. It's not surprising; I certainly find it difficult to resist the urge to contribute my own idea, or my friends' ideas', of what Radiohead is. But all of this is original research.
What's I've begun doing is to add "" or "" next to such claims, e.g.:
:"Fans, music critics, and fellow musicians tend to regard them as among the most fearlessly creative bands of their era, although they are not universally popular."
What I'd like to see is some substantiation to these claims, and others. Or I'd like to see all of these claims erased until some citations of music reviews, discussion fora, or accountants' sheets appear. (omphaloscope talk) 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations! 

message: They are POV. They are used inconsistently. On the other hand, they are cool and funny. But I'm taking them out. (omphaloscope talk) 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs in section titles 

message: EDIT: I'm adding U2 and Nirvana to this rant just in case someone in the future tries adding them in as well. All three of these bands could be mentioned in the article, they all have similarities the media has remarked on so much that they could be mentioned, whether or not they have any validity. In terms of musical style it is obvious Pablo Honey and parts of The Bends either are inspired by U2 and Nirvana or are inspired by similar bands as U2 and Nirvana.
However, since the band rarely mentioned U2 and intentionally never mentioned Nirvana as an influence, THEY CANNOT GO IN THE "INFLUENCES" SECTION, WITHOUT A DISCLAIMER. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH A GIVEN EARLY OR EVEN LATE RADIOHEAD SONG SOUNDS LIKE U2, NIRVANA OR PINK FLOYD TO YOU PERSONALLY, OR TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW. WITHOUT THE BAND HAVING CLAIMED THEM AS AN INFLUENCE, THE FURTHEST YOU CAN GO IS TO REMARK THAT THESE BANDS ARE OFTEN NAMED AS INFLUENCES BY THE MEDIA. Or, you could mention them in another section of the article-- for example it would be accurate to say that Radiohead is "often seen as assuming the mantle of U2 or Nirvana or Floyd," because whatever that actually means, it is something they are often "seen" to be doing, whether or not they have done it.
This is not to say Radiohead's opinion should determine the text of the article. In fact, members of Radiohead may love Nirvana and U2 for all I know (and some members may love Pink Floyd). The point is, for "influences" to mean anything worth having a separate section on, they cannot be subjective, you find them out in band interviews. For every time they've mentioned U2, they've mentioned a hundred more obscure artists, even in the old days.
original rant follows:
Stop adding Pink Floyd back into the article. It's okay to cite Floyd as similar to Radiohead, although that is completely a POV thing, but THEY ARE NOT AN "INFLUENCE." Influences is something we have to take the band's own word on. Do you guys who have never read an interview with Radiohead want me to start quoting them for you?
Imo, there are only a few Radiohead songs that even sound like Floyd, "Sail to the Moon" and then the rest are on OK Computer or The Bends. Kid A doesn't sound even remotely like Pink Floyd, and Pink Floyd meets Aphex Twin is stupid. I never saw that quote outside Wikipedia, I think it's original research. I get the feeling people editing that back in have very little experience of arty rock outside artists as big as Radiohead and Floyd, otherwise they would stop comparing the sound of the two's music. Yes, they both have Orwell influences. that doesn't mean Thom has to have studied Animals, maybe he studied 1984 and Animal Farm instead. Yes, they are both synthy and multilayered. But so is Neu!, an admitted RH influence from Floyd's same era, maybe that's where they got their ideas.
Bottom line is, zero evidence Radiohead has ever claimed Floyd as an influence, much less an early one. What were they were listening to while recording OK Computer? The white album and Ennio Morricone. Jonny Greenwood actually said in an interview from the '90s that he hated Pink Floyd but he heard the Meddle album sometime around when OK Computer came out and liked that one. Ed said his girlfriend made him watch a documentary about Pink Floyd's working methods making Dark Side... and he realized despite never identifying with the band there were eerie similarites between their working method. The only other time I remember Floyd being cited is in the Meeting People Is Easy documentary, as an example of a corporate rock band that just sits around and has board meetings (described in very negative tones by the band). If that is considered a major early influence, I don't get it. It seems Radiohead set out from the start inspired by punk and post-punk, wanting to become a band as different as possible from Pink Floyd, only to end up fulfilling a remarkably similar function in the music industry.
--A. (I will now go by this for courtesy sake, I'm the one who edited the article and made the previous anonymous rant)
:A., thanks for your hard work. I agree with some of what you're saying here (although I think ranting, while a lot of fun, is probably not the best way to contribute to the discussion.) There are few tasks more Sisyphean than reaching an objective notion of what has influenced a particular artist or group of artists, and I think this applies especially to a band as complex as Radiohead. I agree that we need to demarcate, perhaps remove, claimed influences that lack citation.
EDIT ok lets be honest.1) of course you can hear floyd in radioheads music.2)just because they havent said in interviews therir an influence doesnt mean they arnt
:On that note, I disagree with the idea that we must "take the band's own word". I think we must say what each band member claims, what the fans claim, and what the critics claim. We trust the reader from there.
:Omphaloscope » talk 08:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Death to Pink Floyd... and U2 and Nirvana

message: I am just listing plain errors in the article now, if you need more elaboration or source for my info tell me.
*no evidence from interviews that Radiohead's early music was "heavily influenced" by U2, other than POV of individual on sound of later On a Friday/Pablo stuff which could just as easily be Smiths-influenced.
*Who the hell is Brett Boucher?
*Calling On a Friday "rather uninspired" is POV. That's not why they changed their name anyway, the record company thought it would confuse people as to concert date on posters.
*was the first gig really 86? or 87? I've often seen 87 given as forming date. jonny wasnt involved yet, or was he? time is unclear in phrasing. the date the band "formed" needs to be before the date they played first gig. and they can't be considered formed without jonny.
*I think they rehearsed some weekends too, they would drive down to Oxford or take the train maybe? They were much more committed to the band at that point than some sources imply, given many of them had their own different bands throughout college.
*depending on meaning of "demo," Manic Hedgehog was not the first. as well as probably numerous demos made privately earlier (one for "Creep" is mentioned in band comments, which thom sent to other members while they were in uni.), there was a 14/15 track demo they used to get their managers, Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, to take them on. it leaked in 2002 but had never been sold in stores in Oxford as the later, short ones were.
*Jonny was to be studying psychology AND music at Oxford Polytechnic. ironically, though the only one without university experience, jonny is also the only member of the band WITH formal training in music. i.e. he can read it, they don't.
*as said, On a Friday name not changed in response to a critic, but record label.
*Talking Heads' True Stories has never been mentioned as a "major influence" on Kid A. that would be Remain in Light.
*I hardly think Radiohead is the type of band to spend a year "trying to break into the consciousness of the British music press." ok, it's just bad wording.
*Creep may have first come out in 1992 but it did not become well known until much later in 93. its success started at a radio station in the US that began playing it, then it hit big in America first. it had to be rereleased in the UK before being a hit. I have also heard rumors Israel was the first country Creep was a hit. the US radio station may have been in san francisco.
*why are we going back to their debut EP (Drill) after talking about Creep, Pablo Honey and subsequent tours?
*"the album" being Pablo again. confusing. needs reordering.
*how can we verify the song "You" was popular as claimed? it's popular now with fans on message boards I've seen, relative to other Pablo songs, but it was never a single. same for Thinking About You.
*is John Leckie quite a "legend"?
*"touring Australasia" wouldn't that mean touring New Guinea and Indonesia? they didn't do that.
*"pop-like" is a questionable adjective to describe Pablo, or anything for that matter. what does it mean?
*"striking" may be acceptable, but "original and profound" goes too far off NPOV. sounds like a music review.
*"growing as musicians" and "on their way to lasting fame" are very different things. I would argue The Bends (and every other post-Pablo album) is indicative of the former, but not the latter, which seems to come to the band almost by accident.
*"took part in Cool Britannia"? it was a slogan, not a battle of the bands. and Radiohead never publicly supported Blair to my knowledge.
*Godrich was co-producer of OKC, not just engineer. he had previously been engineer on parts of The Bends.
*"the bands next steps." uh yeah, grammar
*"the band learned that creative tensions isn't necessarily a bad thing" this is both grammatically wrong and needs evidence to support it. sounds like a moral of the story imposed by the writer.
*the album was not released till July 1 in the US.
*"first and foremost" shows, not "tours"
*"powerful alternative" are bad descriptions or POV for Urban Hymns, and irrelevant too in a Radiohed article. alternative means nothing. as to powerful, it's a great album, but honestly saying it provided a boost to a dying movement, which is true, is higher and more objective praise than calling it that.
*of those bands only Nirvana is routinely considered among the greatest of the '90s by a wide range of people. U2 & REM = 90s work controversial with 1 or 2 exceptions. Pearl Jam = good but dubious reputation among non-fans post-Vs. OKC is often listed up there with Nevermind, an album that has huge cultural influence and was way more commercially big than OKC was, that's the important fact to get across. without sounding too pro-OKC.
*Romeo & Juliet and soundtrack was a year before OKC.
*no name to keep calling it Against Demons, that may have been just the title for the Asian part. they didnt brand their tours with the same fervor of U2.
*I have never before heard the claim about New Years eve 98 and it seems irrelevant even if true.
*Thom was Stipe's friend from earlier I think. they toured together in 95.
*"from which they chose 30." wrong. there are 21 songs on the next two records, and less than 9 Amnesiac b-sides TOTAL, even ignoring the fact that the only b-side known to have been recorded at the same time as the albums is Cuttooth. they usually hole up later to record b-sides.
*"that complemented the lyrical and musical hooks..." this part should be deleted, it makes no sense.
*Paul Lansky was not so much an influence, it was just his piece of music Mild Und Leise that was sampled for Idioteque.
*Alice Coltrane not sure about either, more an influence on Amnesiac from I read. this is restricting it to interviews, otherwise we can pick and choose influences, like I personally hear King Crimson's 21st Century Schizoid Man in The National Anthem.
*again, who likened them to a meeting of Floyd and AFX? no one I've ever heard. even if verified that person's opinion doesnt have any place in this article. look, I like Pink Floyd, they're brilliant, but that is not the point. RH needs to stop being treated as Floyd's little brother at times in this article.
*it biases the article a little too pro-Radiohead to have critics complaining it was radio-unfriendly. I actually don't think anyone was that lame. they complained it was too inaccessible. even Nick Hornby's (writer of controversial review) favorite melodic and accessible indie music is not radio friendly these days.
*use of "finest" in two sentences in a row. questionable.
*"a growing number of critics." it's not as if your average rock critic has been talking a lot about Amnesiac and having the chance to re-evaluate it in writing since about end-of-year 2001.
*"I Might Be Wrong" was actually the first Amnesiac single in the US. No Pyramid Song there.
*"unreleased track" is unclear. it had never been on an album before, but it was still just a live rendition, not studio.
*the band never denied the Hail to the Thief title "had ANY reference to George Bush's election win," much less denying that it had ANY reference "to the subsequent Bush presidency." what they did was attempt to distance it in interviews from the use of "Hail to the Thief" as a slogan protesting the Florida recount and all that. obviously they knew the current political context. and the presidency, although not the disputed election, is certainly relevant to parts of the album's lyrics. while thom claims to have heard of the phrase in a BBC show with regard to an 1800s disputed US election, even that BBC show was probably being done due to the 2000 results. the title is not supposed to be about an election, but the full denial was never so explicit.
*"orwellian-referenced." you mean "orwell-referencing."
*"lukewarm reviews." totally wrong. reviews were mixed but largely positive in the UK, and very very positive in the US. most mainstream critics couldnt give a damn about genre redefining or whatever. they liked HTTT cause it WASN'T, and they'd only just caught up with Kid A. but even pretentious indie critics gave this blah album great reviews.
*"infused with a certain swagger." POV. imo, it's not. the band said they felt a swagger in recording sessions, that can be mentioned in quotes. no one with any sense has ever called the final product swaggering, for good reason. ok ok, it's not that bad, but still.
*"the band showed a relaxed attitude..." irrelevant. were they un-relaxed in previous shows? no, actually not, that was a media image. the same dancing and grinning was done in 2001 performances of Idioteque and You and Whose Army, it's choreographed.
*"with the help of his brother" implies Colin was equally responsible for Bodysong. not true, he just played on a couple tracks.
*it should be made clear that Com Lag, like Airbag, contained material that had already come out on singles as "b-sides." it features only 1 live take and 1 different version of a HTTT song and 1 acoustic number. but unlike Airbag, Com Lag as a unit whole is not very important, it should really not even be mentioned.
*"acclaimed performance" is a bit much, considering Yorke's voice gave out. it was acclaimed, but not especially more than any other Radiohead performance.
*NO.NO. Do not mention "The Wyrd Sisters." Seriously, Wikipedia may get sued. They tried to sue Warner Bros., Radiohead, Pulp etc. and even to ban the release of the film in Canada for that. it's a real life folk band, so the movie one now goes nameless.
I stop my comments here.
:: Well done to the anonymous guy here who has (quite clearly) devoted a lot of time and energy to sorting out the discrepancies within the article. I agree with many of the points and opinions made (like for instance the constant annoyance I feel when I hear people compare RH to Pink Floyd). The article needs to be re-assessed with relation to the way it conveys information about the band. I did some editing to the article around a month ago. But I knew then that the article was not perfect. Its good that someone has actually articulated the exact problems with the article. 
::Just one or two points:
 
::The website 'I'm Tired Sleep Tonight' has a section on OAF, which explains that the first performance was in August 1986. I think the information was gleaned from 'Q' magazine. Hence I changed the bands formation to 1986. However I do know, although not enough to be completely sure, that the band existed in some form prior to 1986. I've read somewhere that Thom and Colin actually met in 1982 and formed a punk band called 'TNT' before moving on to 'OAF'. Interesting. Does anyone know more?
::I said that HTTT got 'lukewarm' reviews because generally thats what they got. NME gave it 7/10 and Q gave it 3/5. Some of the criticism (particularly in the NME review) were based on the assertion that RH were 'directionless', or that they ran out of ideas (HTTT can be viewed as a melting-pot of RH past and present).--Richj1209 16:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors I found 

message: I've changed the description of Abingdon school to fall in line more  with the linked article. I have used the term private as this will be clearly understood by non-English readers whereas public, although accurate, is misleading. The use of the term grammar did not help so I have removed that too. (Redkaty 11:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A while back, I edited "band were" to "band was", because the latter uses the wrong conjugation of the verb "to be".  It was switched back.  Why?  According to Wiktionary's entry on be, was would be the proper form:
                      	Present indicative   	Past indicative        	Present subjunctive	Past subjunctive
First-person singular 	am                   	was                    	be                 	were
Second-person singular	are or, obsolete, art	were or, obsolete, wast	be                 	were or, obsolete, wert
Third-person singular 	is                   	was                    	be                 	were
First-person plural   	are                  	were                   	be                 	were
Second-person plural  	are                  	were                   	be                 	were
Third-person plural   	are                  	were                   	be                 	were
Since band is singular and not plural, shouldn't it be followed by was and not were.  For instance, instead of "Even though the band were already fairly certain that they wanted to keep playing together..." try "Even though the band was already fairly certain that they wanted to keep playing together...".
I don't know, maybe my grammar stinks, but it sounds weird to me. --Thebends 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Painbearer 10:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I see what you're trying to say with band representing a group of people, but I don't think it's correct.  For instance, you say "the family was happy", not "the family were happy" (family being the collective noun).  On the other hand, if you were talking about more than one family it would be "the families were happy."  See what I'm saying? "Band", whether it is collective or not, is still a singular noun. --Thebends 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a British English vs. American English thing. See American and British English differences#Singular_and_plural_for_nouns. Seeing as how Radiohead are a British band, it follows according to Wikipedia policy to follow British usage in their article. Nohat 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, it all makes sense to me now!  The only reason I brought it up is because I saw the cleanup banner at the top of the page and thought that this might have been (one of) the issue(s), but I guess it's not. Anyways, thanks for the clarification.--Thebends 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Band were" vs. "band was"

message: The article currently reads
:Radiohead has sometimes been cited as an "outsider" band within the mainstream, or vice versa.
What exactly does this mean? Assuming we replace "vice versa" with whatever it stands for, what do we get? "Radiohead has sometimes been cited as a "mainstream" band within the outsider? It doesn't make any sense. Can someone please explain what this sentence is supposed to mean, and then change it so it say that? Nohat 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose replacing that sentence with the following: "Radiohead have sometimes been cited as an "outsider" band within the mainstream. However they have also been cited as perhaps the most potent example of an 'mainstream' band that remains rooted to the alternative music scene".--Richj1209 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or how about, instead of "outsider" the link is "Wiktionary:outsider", since Wikipedia does not have an article related to how the word is being used in this sentence? --Thebends 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: Why is there an external link to W.A.S.T.E., a site that sells Radiohead merchandise? Aren't the external links supposed to deepen the reader's understanding of whatever they're reading about? Buying a shirt doesn't deepen my knowledge of the band! --Thebends 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed. --Richj1209 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I have to disagree.  With all the other links, it wouldn't take someone too long to figure out tour dates and recent news.  Plus, W.A.S.T.E.'s main purpose is to sell merchandise, not to keep fans updated.  Also, if you scroll down (to Feature Music Project evaluation) you'll see that one of the suggestions to improve this article is to get rid of some external links.Thebends 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: W.A.S.T.E. is a waste

message: Has (Have) Radiohead changed their name to The Carlyle Group or is it just a joke?  On the blog from their website it says they have, but they have been known to joke around on there.  I've also found a couple of sites   saying that the name change is real, but I'm still skeptical.  Honestly, I don't believe it, but if anyone knows the truth it would be helpful. --Thebends 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course its a joke, the same as regards to Thom's claim that they were 'splitting up'. Its tongue-in-cheek of course, an ironic joke. Its a shame that some people actually believe it...--Richj1209 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, I don't believe it either, but all I wanted was someone who knew for sure. The only reason I raised the question in the first place is because I saw in the history that someone had attempted to change the band's name. And yeah, you're right Folkor- the (very unofficial) sites are basically the exact same. :) --Thebends 01:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change