bjaiken

I have never really followed the Beatles' solo careers, so I can't make a statement regarding their quality of work. I do, however, wish they would have taken a hiatus to see if they could, once again, find themselves on common ground. Bands today get sick of each, and they only put an album out every 4 years or so. The Beatles were putting out more than an album a year. The fact that Abbey Road is such a solid final album (depending on how you view Let it Be), and written within a tumultuous and contentious studio environment, simply tells me that there was plenty left in the tank. From that standpoint, I am sad that it never materialized.

In the spirit of the anniversary, I will spend the day disliking Yoko.

I like High and Dry. Wish they had more songs like it and Fake Plastic Trees.

This. Plus, other big U2 albums.

We are all just dust in the wind. You're my boy, Blue!

I agree. It is the beatles most impressive song.

I liked the Cambridge set list. That's what I was hoping for. Oh well, I still enjoyed it. I just didn't think The Eraser was that great of an album. That probably is at the core if my disappointment. I certainly wouldn't have minded if he had played ok computer.

I liked the Cambridge set list. That's what I was hoping for. Oh well, I still enjoyed it.

Me too. Why not, right?

^ I couldn't agree more. I was happy to see them a second night, too. The first night was a blur. A very cool blur, but a blur nonetheless. The 2nd night allowed me to take everything in. I am, by no stretch of the imagination, saying they should not play songs off the Eraser. But do they need to play the entire album in order every single night? One of my favorite Thom solo shows was the Bridge School Benefit he did several years ago. As much as I love Jonny, it was a rare chance to hear the songs in a more raw form, and they were simply amazing. I was hoping for something similar. I think the band sounds great, as well. But I also see this as an opportunity to be more spontaneous and creative than they have been. That's what I would have hoped for out of Thom. But I also have issues with the fact that Radiohead seemed to play every single song off In Rainbows on their last tour. I mean, I love that album, but I don't need to hear the entire thing (7-8 songs would be good) when you have a catalogue as deep as Radiohead.

After seeing the show twice, are you happy with thom's setlists or do you think he could do better? I have argued the latter, but I wanted to get the opinion of someone else who has seen the show a couple times. By the way, that's cool you got so close to thom.

Haha...we all need our outlets.

I usually don't say anything about people posting outside the main thread because it really doesn't hurt anything, but I do get tired of seeing Radiohead threads. There's no harm; it just gets old. I love Radiohead (probably top 5 band), and I still don't think they are as good as people make them out to be. Mostly, I get tired of people saying that Radiohead are genius when, in doing so, they know it's a safe and criticism-free thing to do. Not saying that's the case here, but it seemed like an appropriate opportunity to voice my gripe. That was therapeutic for me :)

Hello Goodbye - The Beatles

That's very cool. Glad you had a good time!

He's not being defensive; he's being factual. I thought your comment sounded crazy, too. Sorry to be harsh.

He didn't tour behind the Eraser at all. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any solo shows. I know he was touring with Radiohead when it was released. I don't want to hear an album that is almost 4 years old unless it is a classic like Pet Sounds. Even then, the Pet Sounds tour was in honor of the 40th anniversary. I hadn't heard anything about Pet Sounds being played differently than it was on that tour, which I actually attended. I can't imagine Brian was capable of playing the album live until recently due to the fact that he is/was so screwed up.

I've seen the show twice, and there is tons of room for improvement. That's all I can say.

You mean to tell me it would be that hard to learn 15-20 radiohead songs on acoustic guitar/piano and 5-7 good covers. Then, just sprinkle them in and switch them up every show (5 radiohead songs; 1-2 covers). Come on, any musician could do that; it's just a matter of effort. That's all Eddie did.

I don't get why it's boring when it could be interesting. For starters, it doesn't make sense to have an album released almost 4 years ago be the center piece of your show. He never toured behind it when it was released, and to do so now is anticlimatic. Even worse is playing one above average album in exact sequence in a mechanical manner. Anyone who has viewed setlists in advance of attending a show can attest to the fact that it's a let down to know exactly what's coming next. He should be working in more radiohead songs, more cover songs, and changing the set list drastically each night. See Eddie vedder's into the wild tour to see how it should be done.

Glad you had a good time. In my opinion, the set list is crap. 9 of his 16 songs come from an album that is almost 4 years old. Plus, sequential order is just boring. I don't get it. And why does Flea want to be a part of this?

^ Cool. I'll take a listen.

This is a random comparrison. I mean, I prefer Kirk, but that's only because I listen to more metallics than ozzy solo. But what about all other metal guitarist. I'd take Tony iommi over either.

To me, the Eraser is certainly above average but not outstanding.

I love scotch. Scotchy, scotch, scotch. Here it goes down, down into my belly...