In response to a comment that Sebastiaan from the band Ridinghood made elsewhere on this site today, that “the cultural significance of Aqua far outweighs that of Radiohead”…
It’s an assertion that warrants a lot more careful consideration than the typical and instinctive knee-jerk WTF response that most people will have when confronted with such a suggestion. Personally, I wouldn’t have chosen these acts to make this point if I was him. Perhaps I’d have gone with Rihanna and Melt Banana. Or Take That and Art Brut. Still…
I should say for the sake of openness here that I know Sebastiaan. That is to say, I met him once with his bandmate Rhiannon over coffee and sandwiches in Cardiff once, and I’ve had dealings with Rhiannon since. I have an enormous amount of respect for his level of craft when it comes to pop songwriting. He knows his stuff and is far and away one of the UK’s best hidden pop production talents.
But that doesn’t stop him being fundamentally and monumentally 32-flavours-of-wrong in this instance.
Let’s consider what we’re dealing with here:
Aqua – Barbie Girl
______________________________
Radiohead – Fake Plastic Trees
Now, despite the fact that I have a friend who makes a very good case against Radiohead simply on the grounds of how whiny and morose they are, I’d have to say I think they’re hugely culturally important on a lot of levels. But even so, you can see where it’s conceivable that while most New Music Strategies readers would express a preference for the latter rather than the former, there could be a case made for the mainstream appeal of the Aqua pop hit.
And while it might be questionable, it’s possible that a preference for Aqua could fall within the bounds of reasonable difference of taste.
Just so we’re clear, Sebastiaan’s band Ridinghood clearly favours the pop mainstream in a Roxette-ish kind of way, and there’s something to be said for that schooled tradition of pop songwriting. And that could explain the bias. My own background is in jazz and other improvisational musics, where ‘they’re just making it up as they go along’. Which might explain my own bias.
But niche musics, to the extent that Radiohead can be said to fall into that category, have always been where the action is, culturally speaking. And that remains true to this day.
‘Popular’ music and ‘important’ music aren’t often the same thing. Oddly, in the instance that Sebastiaan picked to illustrate his point, they are. Radiohead are one of the most popularly successful acts on the face of the planet. To my mind, it’s inexplicable, but somehow right. I know why I like Radiohead – but I can’t figure out why everyone else does.
I digress.
Being great at writing pop songs, knowing what key music is in, having the received wisdom of the formal structures of music are what used to be called ‘being of the academy’. And traditionally, the academy has been quite sniffy about art forms that lie outside its sphere of influence.
Yet the art that lies at the margins — the art that is comfortable with naively pushing against the boundaries of form, technology and popular acceptance — has always been the art that influences and informs all later art forms, for better or worse. Its impact on culture is exponentially more profound, and demonstrably so.
In other words, Sebastiaan is entirely right (from an Academy perspective) to prefer Aqua to Radiohead, because Aqua do what they’re supposed to and they know what they’re doing, how they’re doing it, and to what end. It is a ‘knowing’ music.
Radiohead, on the other hand are wilfully naive, experimental, culturally perverse and regardless of their enormous popularity (despite clearly being ‘dilettantes’ and ‘hobbyists’), are willing to take risks with popular art to the detriment of their own importance.
And it’s exactly that which makes them important. They’re also quite technically proficient, though they seem to prefer to avoid traditional popular song structures and production aesthetics these days.
You could argue quite articulately that Aqua have more cultural impact simply because they understand musical rules, musicianship, popular appeal and the craft of popular songwriting. But you’d just be wrong.
Radiohead, regardless of what you think of their music, are simply more important because they are more influential. There are far more bands because of Radiohead than there are because of Aqua. They also happen to be more popular by quite some significant margin, but even if they weren’t, this argument would hold.
Very few artists who would be recognised as good practitioners of the kind of music typical of a time and genre are remembered as important (if they’re remembered at all). Their impact upon culture is pretty much negligible. Yet those artists that cause riots, mass walkouts, indignation, shock and discomfort are quite often the ones that end up in the history books. They may not always make large sum of money in their lifetimes, but what they do matters.
I’ve long maintained that there’s a difference between art and craft in all forms — but especially music. There are some true artists with very little craft (say, Bob Dylan), some people who are all technical skill but nothing worth saying (for instance, Kenny G), and some people who are phenomenal technicians through and through, and also contribute to culture through the far-reaching impact of their art (Hendrix springs to mind here).
But technical ability and an understanding of the ‘rules’ of music will always play second fiddle to the Art (capital A) of music. True Art always calls into question what exactly art is, it pushes against every boundary it can find, challenges its audience, experiments with form and content, tries to move the entire artistic genre forward in some way, and — for the most part — screw the mass audience.
And most importantly for our purposes, popular music has arguably always been at its most influential when it pushes against the pre-conceived boundaries of technology. Look at Pet Sounds, Sgt Peppers, My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, and – yeah – OK Computer.
But Important Music and Good Pop are not at odds with each other. Sometimes there’s significant overlap. I don’t think you can criticise the one for not being the other. Look at Ridinghood’s music, for instance. You can’t really criticise it in terms of its pop appeal and its craft.
Sebastiaan’s musings on subjectivity in popular music notwithstanding (and honestly, it’s a great use of the blog, however incongruous it may seem), it’s not going to change the world or spark a revolution, and nor is it going to forever change the approach that musicians will take to the recording process or live performance.
But as pop music, it’s hard to fault it, and it deserves to do well.
3 Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://newmusicstrategies.com/2008/02/12/aqua-radiohead/trackback/
[...] whatever you make of the Aqua vs Radiohead thing, it’s fair to say (as Maurice points out in the comments) that it’s a dead end that, had it been a promotional exercise for Sebastiaan’s band, [...]
[...] A few more stray thoughts on the discussion that was held here. [...]
[...] Aqua > Radiohead New Music Strategies (tags: music) [...]
20 Comments
Well ok. Let me preface this response by admitting that I am not quite sure I have grasped the true subject / center of this debate. Having said that, I will now proceed to ramble on about what I THINK is being discussed here:
First: JEEZ! and of course, WTF?
Being a musician (drums, bass, guitar, piano), DJ / turntabalist, electronic music producer, filmscore composer…Each one of these in different capacities throughout the last 25 years…Along with ballet lessons in between Iron Maiden, Rush, and Van Hallen concerts as a child…I like to consider myself rather well exposed to a wide variety of music arts culture.
I enjoy just about all music with rare exception to 99% of contemporary country and 99% of thuggish, shallow “gangsta’ rap” (To which I draw a specific distinction from other forms of Rap / Hip Hop i.e.: say a Mos Def and even Jay-Z. Both of which I consider to be extremely relevant and talented).
As a former DJ and current electronic music producer I am fond of many forms of music some “purists” would consider to be quite mundane and disposable (and in some instances I could agree).
My point (I think) is that Aqua may have its place but it is no Quincy Jones hit machine and Aqua wil be (thought it was already) forgotten long before we stop listening to countless other “Pop Hits”. Christina Aquilara will be a cherished pop star for years to come because that kind of talent (her voice) is the kind that has “Gusto” / staying power. Elton John, Michael Jackson, Janet even…Although these are not some of my favorite artists I recognize their talent to make LASTING pop music moments. Aqua has not done this and the example of them as a comparrison to Pop music importance is just, well….WTF?
Orbital, The Orb, Pet Shop Boys, Depeche Mode…These are the types of electronic music / radiohead comparrisons I might have made. Meat Beat Manifesto, Moby (even), Coldcut….”Gusto”! Aqua? Not so much.
And how about that Herbie Hancock? Godd for him! That was truly refreshing!…Sorry, lost my train of thought!
OK, to wrap this novella up! Pop music like Aqua and for that matter Roxette is easily forgotten and not the stuff of Beatle’s-esque history making moments in the musical archives of grand achievements (Not even close!)
SO, if I have missed the subject of these posts please forgive my ranting and rambling. Also please forgive my potentialy random stream-of-consciousness response!
Fell free to correct me if I have misunderstood. Keep up the good work.
JG
Let the music nerd wars begin.
(Radiohead are awfully whiney for a bunch of millionaires however.)
Cultural Significance
‘Barbie Girl’ by Aqua is a remarkable pop masterpiece. Its immediate tradition can be traced back through Pixar, Abba, Disney, ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ all the way to Lewis Carol’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’. The thing these artistic expressions have in common is that they appear to be harmless fun for kids, whilst carrying a profound, highly subversive, adult message. It is this ambiguity that lends them their aesthetic power, their cultural significance. It is in any case only the symbolic aspect of a work of art that truly resonates with audiences: not the real people in the narrative, but the archetypes they represent.
Barbie is furthermore in the mainline of Western femme fatales of the fluid, malleable kind, such as Hitchcock’s Marnie and Carlotta Valdes, from ‘Marnie’ and ‘Vertigo’ respectively, Eliza Dolittle from ‘My Fair Lady’ (and by extension: Shaw’s as well as Ovid’s ‘Pygmalion’,) Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Christine, from ‘Phantom of the Opera’, even the Marquis de Sade’s Eugenie and my own Rhiannon from ‘Ridinghood’, all heroines whose ‘owners’, in a sense, create them: dress them, make them sit up, sing, dance, speak properly etc, in short: treat them like dolls. The owners always pay for their authorship with their souls. In that sense finally, Barbie is Robert Graves’s ‘White Goddess’ and Coleridge’s ‘Nightmare Life in Death’, dicing with Death for the soul of Ken. She contributes to an ancient tradition whose cultural significance will endure for millennia to come: she is archetypal.
Thom Yorke is a geek (creep) and while there is a flimsy case to be made that the modern figure of the ‘smart but disintegrated youth’ is taking on archetypal proportions, Thom Yorke does not represent him, he is him. Thom Yorke represents nothing. Even the Beatles understood the importance of inhabiting a role and promptly turned themselves into a cheesy cabaret act called Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, the silliness of which might even rival that of Aqua’s ‘Barbie’. Aqua are more Beatle-esque than Radiohead, for there is no art in Radiohead.
It may have been misleading to state in my previous post that the cultural significance of Aqua outweighs that of Radiohead. From a historical perspective (the only relevant one in aesthetic matters) Radiohead are not culturally significant at all. I cannot denigrate Radiohead’s collective achievement as businessmen: they make a lot of money. However, to grant them cultural significance on account of the fact that millions of people buy their albums is ludicrous. To say it again: there is no art in Radiohead, they contribute to no vibrant ancient tradition; they can achieve exactly nothing on a cultural level.
Long after Radiohead will be mercifully forgotten, poets will still be invoking the eternal Goddess, singing songs in her honour, keeping alive the legacy of the ancient muse, who, for the shortest moment, thanks to the magnificent Aqua, came in our time to look a little like Barbie.
One last thing: What is fake plastic?
I’ve read Seabstian’s original comment three times and if I’m getting it correctly, Aqua is culturally significant just because they know how to use the rules of making pop music to achieve a global hit record. And by implication, Radiohead don’t have that technical facility. If that’s right, it’s a really myopic view. Just how “culturally significant”, exactly, is Aqua? Compared to The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Roxy Music and David Bowie (or are their hit singles periods “rock”?), Depeche Mode, The Smiths, or The Pet Shop Boys? Andrew makes a good case for the misfits of music being the ones who influence the future, but all the above named bands made fabulous pop music/records and influenced large swathes of musicians who came after. At the end of the day it’s the quality of creation that matters.
OK, again; WTF?
“Barbie” herself…the doll, the toy…That fake female shaped in plastic and resin will and does have a cultural impact and is archetypal. Aqua did not. Their song (singular, take note of that) did not…(at least not until this bordering on ridiculous discussion)…and has not had a cultural impact any more than say Right Said Fred.
“Where are they now?” scenario comes to mind. A scenario that includeds the likes of Roxette, Winger and Rupaul…and even one of my personal favorite acts: Deee-Lite.
This argument trying to defend Aqua as great pop artists is really absurd to me. Brittney Spears can’t even qualify as memorable music with staying power so I really do not see how Aqua becomes your Pop Poster Child??? You dismiss Radiohead so quickly i think because you may find yourself in the company of Aqua-esque artists rather than potential classics such as Radiohead and say, the Foo Fighters.
Maybe you are just pulling my chain here Sebastion and I am falling for it hook, line and sinker (gosh I hope that is the case!). You claimed that there is no art in Radiohead. That the contribute/achieve nothing on a cultural level. Again; WTF?
You don’t have to like them to acknowledge their contribution to music and art. Not to mention their contribution to innovation in their art and their business dealings. I’m sorry, where is Aqua again? What exactly are they doing these days? I don’t even think they could succeed with one of those “come-back casino” tours.
I am NOT a die-hard Radiohead fan. I do not own all their music or have even heard all their music. You chose the comparisson and so I took it from there. Maybe you should remove the specific Bands or artists from the point you are trying to make. Maybe it would make more sense? Maybe not?
My final say in this response is this: Sebastion, WTF? I will need to have a listen to this unmistakingly essential “Pop Hit” formula you must have with you Ridinghood endeavors…surely this will fill in the missing pieces to this horribly skewed view I percieve you as having.
Good luck with those “Hits”.
PS – proof reading really pays off…I should try it.
The difference between “art” and “pop” in two broad (but applicable) generalizations:
- When “art” fails to gain commercial success, the artist still has something to stand behind.
- When “pop” fails to gain commercial success, the artist moves on.
I would rather have thousands of musicians writing “art” songs every day, with a very few of them crossing over to popularity, than thousands of musicians writing “by-the-rules” “pop” songs with a few of them catching on, because the “failures” will, by and large, be more valuable.
OK, went to Ridinghood.com
Had a good listen to this (until now) unheard of “Hit Machine” and somehow I missed the “Hit”.
“Daddy don’t pay the ransom….” again; WTF? I will give credit to musicianship and even creativity kudos to the “whimsical” and “witty” video / lyric concept…but please don’t hold out for your Grammy (it will be a long and futile wait).
Where and in who’s god’s name does the inkling to compare such forgettable verse/hook/verse/hook mediocrity to Radiohead and worse yet to the Beatles?? Are you serious?
I can not claim to write songs of Lennon / MacCartney calibur but I find what is presented at Ridinghood considerably off the mark as well. There is really no comparrison of any substance to be made.
More power to you and your musical endeavors and by all means keep on keepin’ on but I would be wary of bringing yourself into a conversation or debate about the “Art” of music (as subjective as it can be) because Pop and Art do not always (hardly ever) have an equal cultural impact.
I present to you Roxette, Aqua, New Kids on the Block, and Vanilla Ice. “Flash in the pan” or “Forgettable”.
Really Sebastian, for someone who writes as well as you do (your posts I mean) I find it surprising your position on all this…But having heard the music on your site I suppose I understand a little more now.
Good luck with that stuff. Maybe you can make it to number 42 with a bullet on some chart somewhere?
The Billboard chart is the place that can deem popular music of this type as “relevant”. If for no other reason than it will end up in the history books 10 years later as a “where are they now” snippet.
Pop music that “follows the rules” is only culturally significant when it moves a lot units.
e’gad! ……. hey mr dubber – i wouldn’t have picked dylan as a craftfreezone myself……. too many classic and succinct examples of skillfull storytelling/lyricism ( tangled up in blue – you’re gonna make me lonesome when you go – simple twist of fate etc )
hmmm i supposed i would’ve picked the likes of yoko ono or maybe the plasmatics (remember them!) as someone with more ‘art’ than ‘craft’ but it’s pretty subjective.
interesting comments about which artists are of more ‘cultural significance’ – are you ‘aving a laff by any chance?
although i do see your point i am not sure i personally can define ‘significance’ by how many bands been influenced by a particular act . radiohead were influenced by someone before them …… can you measure the influence of this historic act and their ‘cultural significance’? etc – nah – wrong tree
Karen: I only mean that Dylan can’t really sing ‘properly’. Most of my favourite vocalists can’t. His lyricism, storytelling, etc – and particularly his incredible use of metaphor – pure poetry. Dylan, in my book, is all art.
As far as cultural significance through influence is concerned, see Velvet Underground. Must have sold about 40 copies of their records when they first came out – and everyone who bought them went out and formed bands. :)
Aqua yes, Radiohead no
The genius of Radiohead lies in their ability to market their mainstream music as underground art. They are the Starbucks of the underground. They target music lovers who have never been able to get their heads round truly underground sounds and provide them with the opportunity to categorise themselves with the cool crowd. In analogy to this, people go into Starbucks and pay three pounds for a ‘latte’ so that they can feel middle-class. Now they drink ‘caffe latte’ instead of ‘milky coffee’ down the café. Both Radiohead and Starbucks are aspirational. The reason for their success is clever marketing. Art has as little to do with Radiohead as it has to do with Starbucks.
Many people, whether they are willing to admit to it or not, are today of the opinion that pop is rubbish. The open, as well as covert, snobbery in this blog alone is palpable. The irony is that nowadays Radiohead are infinitely more pop than Aqua. Everyone on this blog keeps asking where Aqua are now and proudly stating that Radiohead are one of the biggest bands in the world. It is the type of music that Aqua make (apparent bubble gum with a deeply disturbing and dark undercurrent) that is no longer understood by a mass audience, i.e. Radiohead fans. It is Aqua that requires repeat listens, a sophisticated sense of humour and an informed view of popular culture. Indie Rock, as it is played and propagated by Radiohead, appeals to the masses. Aqua is for the enlightened few.
Aqua is the new underground.
Of course, once a person has made the transition from milky coffee to cafe latte, he naturally distances himself from his former unenlightened ways. The more recent the switch, the more hysterical the denial. Radiohead is a brand, and one cannot pour sufficient scorn on people who, because they listen to said brand, think they are serious music lovers: you are being had. Just drink ya milky coffee, 90p from your nearest cafe.
Also, I must insist: over your next cup of latte, would you please give consideration to this question: what is fake plastic?
@ Sebastiaan (who is doing a very good job of stirring up a debate … Respect …):
“It is in any case only the symbolic aspect of a work of art that truly resonates with audiences: not the real people in the narrative, but the archetypes they represent.”
Really? Really?? I think you’re wrong. That’s an absurdly reductive view. The best – most moving – artists surely show us the complexity that lies behind and within crude symbolism.
Is the ancient narrative on which the main plot of Othello is based (for instance) moving in itself? Do we read a plot synopsis – reduced to symbolism and archetypes – of a Greek tragedy and weep? We certainly do not. Because the symbolism and archetypes are deeply familiar to us, and have lost their ability to move.
Familiarity allows our brain to go into autopilot. The great artist knows this, and – whilst (s)he may base a work upon ancient myths, symbolism or tropes – will go out of his/her way to flesh them out, develop and modify them, *make them new*. Joyce’s Ulysses may be based on the Odyssey, but the casual reader would hardly know.
In my opinion, the best artists undermine symbolism and cultural expectations – whether subtly or overtly. Art is only art when it’s pushing against a barrier.
Going back to Othello … The movement of the symbolism is to liken Othello increasingly to a jealous, irrational beast. The maddened cuckold trope. The shape to his character’s development is (according to the reductive, symbolic analysis) remorselessly downward. In a fit of jealousy – scarcely human, at this stage – he kills his symbolically pure, blameless wife.
This plot – the simple interaction of archetypes – isn’t going to make me cry. No indeed. What *will*, though, is when Shakespeare *then* puts into Othello’s mouth the beautiful, broken, almost self-deluding speech beginning, “Soft you, a word or two before you go …”. TS Eliot wrote about this … and it’s brilliant because it reminds you that this *isn’t* a simple symbol, but a human. As complex, self-contradicting and stubbornly unclassifiable *as any of us*. That’s the key.
I’m going to stick with Walt Whitman: “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.” The greatest art has always been about showing the inconsistencies, the idiosyncracies – the messiness – behind those tempting, seductive but empty symbols.
As much as it pains me, I’ll probably have to agree that Radiohead are more influential. I doubt that it’s a good thing. This gives them cultural significance certainly, though I doubt it’s a good one.
I am in many ways the average joe, when it comes to appraising music I don’t particularly enjoy. I know one Aqua hit (guess) and one Radiohead hit (ditto). I certainly have come across the NAME Radiohead a lot more often – mostly in the context of how great they are. I happen to disagree in this respect and I think that in more than one respect they represent the worst of the nineties. I have this feeling however that people at large are going to be listening to that one Aqua hit for a longer time than to Radiohead. Just compare the two to their Seventies counterparts. I hear disco hits all the time, but have to really struggle to hear any of the alternative (then punk) stuff analogous to Radiohead. The Sex Pistols spot is of course already taken by Nirvana.
It seems to me something of a shame that cultural significance is being discussed with respect to these two particular artists – sadly, we can hardly find anyone better from that period.
For what it’s worth, I’d never heard of Aqua until today, and I’ve been listening to Radiohead for over a decade. I’m an American 26 year old male.
Culture is what matters and what lasts. This is why people have serious discussions about the Sopranos, despite the fact that Baywatch and Walker: Texas Ranger had exponentially higher ratings.
Wow.
Oh yeah, and: WTF???
Somebody mention Zappa or They Might Be Giants please!
Tom Waits? Rick Okasek even! (Aqua & Radiohead? Really?)
Maybe someone will mention The Police? Sting’s pop abilities or Stewart Copeland’s scoring talents. John Paul Jones success -vs- Robert Plant success?
If only for the sake of hooking up a Korg “Kaos-Pad” to a guitar in the nineties…Radiohead get the innovation nod. But it goes much further than that…..I digress, cuz’ as i have said I would not have chosen Radiohead for this comparative discussion……and…..
…Just because YMCA is a karoake favorite or gets monster airplay on disco night dance floors doesn’t make it an “Impacting” “Cultural Shifting” monument to music…It makes it fun to sing and dance to. Maybe Aqua can find a home in history in that regard?
OK, Im done with this. I am even sorry i had this much to say…I should have been making music.
Gintz
Don’t be sucked in. This isn’t about Aqua vs Radiohead at all
Congratulations on coming up with your version of a ‘sponsored’ post Dubber.
What we have here in the responses to the post ‘Like Theatre for Television’ are two brit-pop ingenues exploring the British penchant for hoisting themselves up on their own petards by engaging in a pissing match and a Kiwi’s savvy attempt to sell tickets to the event.
Meanwhile Dubber jumps on the smallest part of Sebastiaan’s argument in a long and winding trip down a road that everyone who has even touched upon critical theory has been before, paradoxically overlaid with some shilling for Sebastiaan’s music project that is so blatant it would give Krusty the Clown an integrity attack.
On the whole, I’d rather be talking about new forms of media ecology and how it might be a means by which artists (including musicians) might use it to make new art and maybe a little cash. I dunno . . . I think I’m done here.
@ Sebastiaan:
“It is the type of music that Aqua make (apparent bubble gum with a deeply disturbing and dark undercurrent) that is no longer understood by a mass audience, i.e. Radiohead fans.”
You’re very sweeping about this. I wouldn’t call myself a Radiohead fan, incidentally, though once I might’ve. But take a look at their listeners on Last FM. That’s a heck of a lot of people whose ability to grasp a simple concept you are disparaging. I mean, it’s not exactly as if there’s much to understand about Aqua. Like you say, apparent bubblegum with a dark centre. That pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? Is there any further complexity? A chest with a lock that easy to pick doesn’t seem likely to conceal too much treasure …
And == “The open, as well as covert, snobbery in this blog alone is palpable.”
Er … That’s coming from someone who writes, “Indie Rock, as it is played and propagated by Radiohead, appeals to the masses. Aqua is for the enlightened few.”
I’m positive you’re not a fool, Sebastiaan. And – for the record – I don’t go in for a Dubber-Sebastiaan conspiracy theory. But I do find it hard to believe that you can *actually* hold the extreme views you’re expressing so forcefully – and not at least recognise the fact that your view is extremely contentious – and therefore needs more than merely rhetorical justification.
“dicing with Death for the soul of Ken”
now if that’s not a great title/name for something….
There’s really two debates going on here, as someone pointed out – one philosophical discussion about ‘art’ vs. ‘pop,’ which is a very interesting one and I would happily rant on were it not past my bedtime.
The other one is specifically about the two bands. I can’t listen to ‘barbie girl’ without puking in my mouth so I have no evidence there.
But Radiohead is by far my favorite band currently making music, and I actually puked a little when I read “Radiohead is not art.”
These guys are pushing the envelope, revolutionizing music as we know it. They’re tastefully combining rock, jazz, and electronica the likes of which has never been done before.
“Fake Plastic Trees”, which came out about thirty years ago, was in their initial and least innovative phase, although it’s still a great song. What is fake plastic? Really? This is poetry, not a grammar textbook. The term “fake plastic” is obviuosly an attack on our material-driven society. It wouldn’t sound as good or be as powerful of an image if he said “fake trees” or “plastic trees.” And after all, the freaking point of poetry is sound, imagery, and meaning. Breaking grammatical rules is a necessity!
More recently, on the last four albums from Radiohead over the last ten years, they have turned a 180 from the days of Fake Plastic Trees. Listen to Hail to the Thief, Kid A, Amnesiac, In Rainbows, and then come back and tell me that it’s just clever marketing.
The whole brilliance of this band, as I read somwhere perfectly described is that they “consistently defy expectation.” People expected another 90′s pop rock followup to The Bends, and they got an avant garde electronic rock album. These guys are art at the highest level, and that kind of mastery gets the attention even of the ignorant masses.