Why has indie rock devolved into Radiohead ripoffs?

blue · Post by **blue** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 pm

Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
Velvet Teen
Doves
Euphone

four popular bands that are indistinguishable on a casual listen from Radiohead.

why?

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:28 pm

out of those i've only heard clap your hands say yeah, and i don't think they sound anything like radiohead. they're way too bouncy to be compared to radiohead at all. i always thought it was more popular bands like coldplay and travis and muse and switchfoot that sound too much like radiohead.

ken · Post by **ken** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:35 pm

Probably because Radiohead was successful both commericially and artistically.

Ken

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:42 pm

The trouble with comparing anything to Radiohead is that every person in the world has a different idea of what the quintessential Radiohead album is. I discovered that when I added them to Pandora, only to be offered up a plate of Bends-y crap. It took me forever to figure out what happened: when I think Radiohead I think Kid-A/Amnesiac. Because they have gone through about 4 distinct musical phases they become the wildcard comparison band (unless you're talking about York's voice).

blue · Post by **blue** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:04 pm

york tends to sing lines in a certain way, and the guitars tend to play certain types of chords a lot, and the songs, electronica-inspired stuff aside, tend to follow certain progressions.

ken is probably right, but god damn. do these people have no pride?

j$ · Post by j$ » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:27 pm

Since when has music and pride had anything to do with each other? Unless you're talking 'I'm coming out' of course ...

j$

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:41 pm

Oh but it's worse, CYHSY is riding a wave a hype and pretending to not understand it.

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:49 pm

doves?

is this the same doves ? 'catch the sun' doves?

they don't sound like a 'rip off band' to me.

heh.

Freddielove · Post by **Freddielove** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:21 am

Doves, sound like a Radiohead ripoff? Take that back now.

Anyway, as far as that goes they all sound like Jeff Buckley repeats to me, Radiohead included.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:22 am

Hear hear! Jeff Buckley + My Bloody Valentine = music as we know it.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:46 am

To me, it's silly to suggest that a genre is falling victim to self-similarity. The very fact that we use the term 'indie' to bunch these bands together implies the likelihood that these bands will share similar traits.
So it was (is) with 'alternative'. Is that as ridiculous a music classification as can be made? Indie runs a close second with me. Although they're all pretty silly in the end. Classical? Classic Rock?
One could say that to be an 'indie' band/recording artist, you really just need to be making your way independent of the industry bigwigs. Fair enough. But there's plenty of music out there that satisfies this condition that doesn't fit the common (or developing, or maybe even co-opted) conception of indie music.

Bah, I'm preaching to the choir, I'm sure. So I digress. Let those who need to pigeonhole music divvy up the bands however they want. You say Nirvana, I say Nevada, let's call the whole thing off.

blue · Post by **blue** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:17 pm

j$ wrote:Since when has music and pride had anything to do with each other? Unless you're talking 'I'm coming out' of course ...

j$

as pissed off as you get about bad reviews, are you really going to say you don't take a great deal of pride in your music?

blue · Post by **blue** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:26 pm

jimtyrrell wrote:To me, it's silly to suggest that a genre is falling victim to self-similarity. The very fact that we use the term 'indie' to bunch these bands together implies the likelihood that these bands will share similar traits.
So it was (is) with 'alternative'. Is that as ridiculous a music classification as can be made? Indie runs a close second with me. Although they're all pretty silly in the end. Classical? Classic Rock?
One could say that to be an 'indie' band/recording artist, you really just need to be making your way independent of the industry bigwigs. Fair enough. But there's plenty of music out there that satisfies this condition that doesn't fit the common (or developing, or maybe even co-opted) conception of indie music.

Bah, I'm preaching to the choir, I'm sure. So I digress. Let those who need to pigeonhole music divvy up the bands however they want. You say Nirvana, I say Nevada, let's call the whole thing off.

nah, come on man. "indie rock" has had a sound - or a couple of sounds - for many years. sonic convergence in this genre is worth noting. the last time it happened was around the "dashboard" sound, which ended up yielding a large crop of super-awful emo bands. hell, why is that silly to note? it did happen, it was patently obvious, and it made some record companies a lot of money. did metal bands not form up around the metallica sound in the 80's? did hair metal not happen? what about power ballads, were those all a bad dream? shit man, every single fucking song on MTV for three years in a row featured a long-haired asshole playing an Ovation roundback. it's not like i'm making the phenomenon up.

so i'm asking, why now, and why radiohead? i mean, we probably know the answer - it's easy, and it's (these days) accessable, and RH theyselves haven't put out an album in a long time.

but of all the bands to copycat.. radiohead are interesting. they hit it big pretty early, but seemed to try hard to stay true to at least Tom's ego. the album after the bends seemed pretty intentionally difficult, especially for a big-label pop rock band.

so now their stamp is showing up all over the place - with some bands going so far as to just outright lift the whole sound.

so i'm asking - i don't get it. you're a musician, you're out to write some songs. how do you let that much of something else into your music? do you do it on purpose? do you do it on purpose and lie to yourself about it?

Leaf · Post by **Leaf** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:31 pm

As far as copying a sound, I think people do it cause they love it. I think others buy it cause they love it too.

It defeats the whole purpose of originality, but music performance isn't neccessarily about orginality...

And, from a language point of view, I think the copycats are trying to speak about what they have to say...like how people started saying "alrighty then", or "hey man", or "g'day mate".

To me, this doesn't seem like a big mystery. It seems kinda obvious.

But the why RADIOHEAD part? I dunno. I'm no fan, so I'm baffled by that choice. I guess they spoke to a bunch of followers... and they followed.

jack · Post by **jack** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:48 pm

it's marketing. it's making money. it's having a nice car to drive, and a nice crib, instead of working temp jobs and sharing a flat with 3 dudes.

it's giving the people what they want. they are willing to pay for it, and there are plenty of people willing to take their money in the name of art.

it's a business.

pegor · Post by **pegor** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:16 am

Radiohead went thru distinct changes for each release but I think they had the same producer ,Nigel Godrich, all along. The soundscape feel and, using electronic noise as a musical voice was a common thread threwout. That and Im sure other production stuff that I'm not sophisticated enough to recognize.

The unexpected sounds thing is part of the indie esthetic, isn't it?

of course my main exposure to 'Indie' is songfight and I've only got like 3 Radiohead CDs. ( I like Pablo Honey the most, bite me)and of course the same producer did paul mccartneys latest. And it sounds simple and boreing.

I had a point when I started typing , really I did..............

Post by jb » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:34 am

I don't have a comment on the topic, but I will say that Radiohead's songs kick fucking ass, and the other bands mentioned seem to have a few ok songs and good production, but they tend not to speak to me in the way that the Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A did. I mean, I get chills just sitting here thinking about them, that's what those records do to me. I've heard Coldplay, Travis, etc, and I like some of their stuff, but after a while it becomes hard to differentiate one song from the next within their catalog. Or rather, they have some standout songs but lots of songs that blend into each other. Whereas I could probably sing every word on The Bends or Kid A.

Um, that is to say, that I like Radiohead.

ken · Post by **ken** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:42 am

Reading Blue's last post made me think about how in the 60s bands influenced each other. Beach Boys make Pet Sounds, which influence the Beatle to make Sgt. Peppers. Byrds go country, Grateful Dead go country, Rolling Stones go country. Rod Stewart goes disco, Rolling Stones go disco.

I can only guess that there were a bunch of other bands riding these same trends, that fell by the wayside. I suspect the same is true of all the indie bands now.

Ken

boltoph · Post by **boltoph** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:46 am

jb wrote:the Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A

YES!

the Bends: culmination of ultra hooky pop rock. The band is developed.

OK C: now continuing with the hooky phrases but starting to experiment

Kid A: now into a full-on experiment, but retaining hooky pop undertones, still managing to be catchy.

Beyond that, well, we got a bunch of new bands that probably all like the Bends, the best. And a Radiohead that can't formulate the same kind of hooks and catch that they had over the course of those three albums.

I played 4 songs off of the Bends with some guys I jam with, last Saturday. It was the most fun I'd had all week.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:56 am

blue wrote:why now, and why radiohead?

Because: when I was 12/13 probably half the older boys I knew were in love with Radiohead (I didn't discover them until Kid A). They were 15ish, and Radiohead was the first CD they had bought that wasn't easily accessible rock, so it completely blew their minds. Those boys all got guitars for Christmas.

Now they're in their mid twenties. I have no clue about the ages of CYHSY or Doves or any of the bands you mention, but Matt Bellamy from Muse (who cites Radiohead as a big influence when he was young) and Whats Hisface from Coldplay are around that age. I think it's a musical Baby Boom (Radiohead Boom?), and I think it's happening in both mainstream and indie music.

So that's both "Why now?" and "Why Radiohead?".

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:18 pm

I think there are way more bands that could be figuring into this equation. Like, for CYHSY I hear a lot of Violent Femmes and like Decemberists vibe. But then you start thinking, well the Decemberists are basically a lesser Neutral Milk Hotel. Doves? They're kind of like Oasis who's kind of like My Bloody Valentine trying to be the Beatles (only a million times shittier). In the end, there's a lot of emulation going around, and it's hard to track down where it's all coming from. By the way, I see Muse isn't on your list and that blows my mind considering I've heard entire keyboard parts from Radiohead songs in Muse songs.

blue · Post by **blue** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:14 pm

My list is just from listening to somafm all day - but I believe you are correct about Muse as well.