Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

Radiohead


Recommended Posts

Have you seen the uncensored version?

I know. T h e h o r r o r.

No I haven't :uhoh:

 

 

...Is it worse than the mustard gas victims!? D:

 

 

The carpet does not match the drapes.

Which is a fashion no-no. :no:

Indeed it is, UGH! :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I haven't :uhoh:

...Is it worse than the mustard gas victims!? D:

 

Indeed it is, UGH! :no:

 

Actually it's a pretty poetic, serene sight. Not gonna lie, I cried. It's glorious. Made me understand some Radiohead lyrics, and the meaning of life.

 

OMG THOM YORKE HAS A PENIS HE MUST BE A FAGGOT!!1!!!!

 

Is truth. :nod:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But seriously, some awards are decided by popular vote, some are voted by professional critics.

 

But they're NOMINATED based on what will score the ratings for the program. It's what draws stupid people to watch the show.

 

Do you think that as many people would have watched the Coldplay performance if Rihanna wasn't there? Not to say that Coldplay isn't popular, but to say that the show is maximizing the demographics of people who would watch it.

 

And there are a LOT of Rihanna, Bruno Mars and Chris Brown fans that would have not tuned in if their respective artists weren't nominated. And the recording academy knows this, so they nominate artists that will bring in more viewers. More viewers = more money.

 

It is therefore not a reflection of what's good, but a reflection of what's popular. Yes, the best album or artist will usually win the award, but it's the best of the worst. The least smelly shit.

 

So you can't measure an artist's talent based on the metal they have on their shelves.

 

Like, Bon Iver was one of the most critically successful albums of the year, and people were uproariously angry when he won "Best New Artist" over shitheads like Nicki Minaj:

 

bonnybear2.jpg

 

It's bogus.

 

When someone who deserves an award wins an award, a lot of the time they lose sponsorship dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they're NOMINATED based on what will score the ratings for the program. It's what draws stupid people to watch the show.

 

Do you think that as many people would have watched the Coldplay performance if Rihanna wasn't there? Not to say that Coldplay isn't popular, but to say that the show is maximizing the demographics of people who would watch it.

 

And there are a LOT of Rihanna, Bruno Mars and Chris Brown fans that would have not tuned in if their respective artists weren't nominated. And the recording academy knows this, so they nominate artists that will bring in more viewers. More viewers = more money.

 

It is therefore not a reflection of what's good, but a reflection of what's popular. Yes, the best album or artist will usually win the award, but it's the best of the worst. The least smelly shit.

 

It's all subjective, it's all a big sham, decent artists dont really give a shit if they win these things anyway, I don't see why anyone cares in general. It's just entertainment, it's not meaningful in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me last year:

"Radiohead y u no come to Detroit."

"Radiohead y u no play The Amazing Sounds of Orgy live."

 

 

Me this year:

"Thank you."

"Thank you."

.

.

"Thom y u no come to DEMF."

 

 

* crossing my fingers he'll make a pitstop on his way from Coachella to the East Coast shows on that Saturday or Sunday *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bwent

 

In short: I agree. Award shows are a moneymaking farce (now). But popular doesn't always = bad.

And who's to say what's "good"? You? Me? Some critic? The planet? How do you measure art? Music has a dichotomous quality to it: art and entertainment.

You know, some people don't want to contemplate the meaning of life through music every minute of their waking hour, they just wanna fuckin dance.

Sometimes it all comes in one package - The Beatles were popular and critically acclaimed.

MJ also. If your album sells 100 million copies and wins 8 Grammys and gets awarded 5 stars from most critics, you undoubtedly have something special there.

This is not so simple, and I can go on forever, but the bottom line is - I think that Radiohead excels in the art department, but lacks in the entertainment part.

But that's just me. I'm sure they're quite entertaining to you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed

 

RIHANNA was nominated for the grammy for Album of the Year.

 

RIHANNA. And BRUNO MARS. Both of whom suck balls.

 

NOT Bon Iver or Radiohead.

 

It's clearly for ratings bullshit.

wah, rihanna has released some of the best music ever made

bruno mars sucks

bon iver has released some of the best music ever made

radiohead are the best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wah, rihanna has released some of the best music ever made

bruno mars sucks

bon iver has released some of the best music ever made

radiohead are the best

 

I think the doe in your avatar would be more capable of penning a tune than Rihanna would be.

 

She's a decent singer, but I just don't have respect for her.

 

Bruno Mars does, however, totally suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...