Talk:Thom Yorke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Thom Yorke was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 29, 2007
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
Alternative music Portal
This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Misc. Personal section is not relevant

I propose to remove this section. I mean whats the point when all the most relevant information there is already in the main article. And the 'Wicked Child' line I thought was "Radidate his light"? And one shouldn't be making assertions about what a song means unless the author has explictily said so. Its also ok if its a questioning assertion (i.e. "This MIGHT suggest..." instead of presupposing it as fact. Apart from that, the article is good. Much better than it was this time last year.--Richj1209 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If everybody is fine with this, I shall delete it tomorrow, so speak now or forever hold your peace...--Richj1209 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Done.--Richj1209 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4th June Copyedit; please peer review

I've done a basic but expansive copyedit of this article. As such I have removed the Copyedit Needed tag - I'd say now it isn't! It should read better at least; the flow in places felt strange, as it kept leaping back to points already established. I feel it contains less arguably-irrelevant information now. (An encyclopaedia entry it may be, but only in regards to Yorke, not Radiohead) And importantly: Most if not all the information directly pertains to Yorke himself. I'd prefer it if that aspect was kept solidly in mind for future edits.

Please feel free to modify it without running it by me; there are some instances where I am unable to track down a source for a nontheless known fact, I've marked these with the usual citation needed disclaimer. This was a broad copyedit, not a massive rewrite, and not a reassessment of sources or where they are needed.

Another point to bear in mind for the future: I removed a few chunks in this article, basically about Radiohead as a whole or Andy Yorke. The problem is, Radiohead's article has the required depth if someone wishes to be told everything about them; if it is not about Thom or doesn't pertain to him in a notable way it doesn't really need to feature here, so don't be afraid to redirect people to other, more expansive articles instead.

The Radiohead section basically revolves around how Thom works in, with, and around that band, and his role in it. Please keep in mind that if a user wants to read about Radiohead, they will read about Radiohead; this article's extent is Yorke's role within it and not the band's actions as a whole. That said it wasn't too bad.


Other things: just minor arrangements, rather than editing. I'm sure it won't please everybody, heh, but I think it's a start. Maul away ;)

- ToneLa

"His singing voice has been compared with those of Jeff Buckley and Matthew Bellamy. "

Given Yorke's singing style was established years before Bellamy's was even heard, is his mention necessary? There are many singers you could compare Yorke to, and I think someone who preceded Radiohead would be more relevant. I've seen Bellamy compared to Yorke, yes, but never actually heard someone say "Thom Yorke sounds like Matthew Bellamy". Whereas with Buckley, Buckley came first and indeed inspired Thom, so citing someone who openly admits to using Thom as inspiration just doesn't sit right. It's like saying Jeff Buckley's singing voice is compared to Yorke's; it's not a vice-versa context, comparison is not always two ways. If you decide to keep Bellamy in this, please use the phrase "his voice / singing style is seen as similar to that of " . . . - ToneLa

Vandalism. Skinnyweed 03:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, Thom is possibly an auditory synaesthetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaesthesia for description) - I remember this from some old Q? interview circa 1997, and it intrigued me greatly, though I can't verify it. He also alluded to it himself on the official RH message board around HTTT time. Perhaps better left out for now, but if anyone stumbles across any more allusions, it may be worth considering entry. - ToneLa

I think the list of Thom's musical influences needs to be updated...Jimi Hendrix?? I've never heard him mention that one. I think people from the atease message boards should take a look around here... -passionisafashion


I actually believe Thom Yorke to be a much greater musician than lyricist. Yes, his lyrics are often evocative of "urban-existentialism", alienation and such. But I've never seen a convincing published argument for the case of Thom Yorke as one of the finest lyricists of pop music. There are much better lyricists and this strikes me as a very fanish thing to say.

Dan Duggleby


It's a shame that just about all wikipedia articles on rock/pop musicians have to be so fanish. Here's some examples from this article: "While the early success of hit-single 'Creep' led to the band being written off as a one-hit wonder, a succession of increasingly complex albums has led to Radiohead becoming one of the world's most respected bands" (emphasis mine) Also: "He is considered by many to be one of the finest lyricists in popular music." Well, you know what? He is also "considered by many" to SUCK!

Weasel words, nothing more than weasel words. Nothing more than one person's opinion disguised as the general world consensus. Look: I'm a fan, alright? I love the man's music as much as anyone if not more than. But my fan grovelling has no place in an encyclopedia article and nor does anyone elses. It makes me sick how music fans can't write a proper NPOV article. One of these days I might take a torch to the weasel words in this article.--Me, 65.100.56.163 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, i think there are some serious NPOV issues with this article. Claims such as 'worlds most respected bands' and 'finest lyricists in popular music' need to go, unless they are quoted out of magazine articles or something. Compared to the Radiohead page, this one is pretty poorly done. goodsmonth 03:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to claim that the excess praise on the page shouldn't be neutralized, it annoys me too, but I think "Life in a Glass House" for one is a pretty impressive set of pop lyrics, even apart from its music. Whatever it means, and even if it means nothing. The Radiohead page has its own problems. In some ways this is more effective than that. All you have to do with a page like this that captures the essence of its subject is correct factual innaccuracies and bring it strictly into NPOV rules, which admittedly are extremely important but shouldn't be too hard. With a page like that which is so dully written and formulaic it's clearly within NPOV, more drastic measures would be needed to improve it to the point where it informs someone with no knowledge of its subject in a way they won't forget five seconds after finishing.

Calling them one of the worlds most respected bands is not fannish, it's objectively true by nearly all standards. They are well known to be a musician's and critic's favorite, and those are usually the people who are refered to when the word "respected" is used in music. "Popular" is used when talking about the general population - they are popular but I don't know that I'd count them among the world's MOST popular.--Terminal157 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Taste being a matter of subjective appreciation for a particular art form, and "respect" being an impossibe notion to operationally define or quantify, I think that any and all aesthetic judgments of Yorke or Radiohead should be excised. Non-neutrality is fine on a fansite, they have no place in an encyclopedia. But if anyone is particularly bothered by POV-issues, why complain about it ad infinitum on discussion pages? Edit the damn article, already! Fishhead64 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I've done some major re-editing on the article, writing some more, clarifying a bit here, moving a sentence there. I think it flows more as an article and gives the reader a clearer perspective of Yorke the musician, that is what he is best known for, after all! Hopefully all the NPOV issues have been resolved, although, it is of course up to anyone to point out any errors or suggestions for further improvement.--Richj1209 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Choice

The '2000s, older self' photo is inaccurate of Yorke's present-day appearance. The photo is unique in showing him in uncharacteristically old-man clothes with a tired expression. Was this a deliberate choice to match the caption or the authors' ideas of his maturation as an artist? Thom Yorke often looks as young in modern photographs as he did in the The Bends era. This is sacrificing accuracy for an editiorial effect.


He's only 10 or 11 years older than he was when Pablo Honey came out, for the love of God. It's 2005 right now--Thom Yorke will turn 37 next month. He's hardly eligible for Medicare yet. The "older self" thing might be apt if we were talking about someone who'd been famous for decades, someone you could clearly see the progression of age. Someone like Leonard Cohen. But we have not seen Thom Yorke age significantly since 1994. Someone fetch me a torch...65.100.56.163 21:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A note on genre

"Genre labels being loaded as well as approximate terms, it should be noted that the idea of Radiohead being in the progressive rock (prog) tradition is solely from the perspective of some listeners." (more follows, including a quote of Thom's views on prog rock.)

What is the meaning of this section? First of all--the article is about Thom Yorke, not Radiohead. Second of all--where in the article does it say Radiohead is a prog rock band? (Hint: nowhere. Hence, this is a non-issue). Third--"loaded" is a "loaded" word. This is your opinion. This is about as POV as it gets. Fourth--all this section is really saying is, Radiohead is not prog and Thom Yorke does not like prog. Thom has views on all kinds of things--what is special about prog rock in particular that deserves mention?

Today is September 15. I will wait a week for a convincing reason to keep this section. If, by the end of that week, no case has been made, I will remove the "note on genre" section. Frankly, it is at odds with what wikipedia is all about. 65.100.56.163 21:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree. Looks like you forgot to get around to it... removed goodsmonth 04:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political significance of Hail to the Thief

I can't be fecked to look for references right now, but HTTT really has nothing to do with George W. Bush or 9/11. Come on, people. Thom Yorke doesn't smack you over the head with the "meaning" of his lyrics like that. He's a bit more subtle than that, you know? Another change I'm going to make to this article, if I ever get around to it. 65.100.56.163 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Couldn't find any good quotes, execept for the one on the wiki Hail to the Thief page. (While i agree with you totally) you have to admit, a lot of people interpret that as the message behind the title of the album, so I've tried to fix it to show that.... and have possibly failed. Somewhat better that it was before anyway. goodsmonth 03:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Bit much of a coincidence. I have to believe that the title was somehow influenced by the election, however indirect.

Every member of the band that has commented on this has said several times that the title is not a reference to the GWB's election. I'm just going to strengthen the bit that says the band denies it.--Terminal157 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't suspect HTTT represents a sole political stance although I see the theme of anti-corporate dominance throughout. I think the record is a general attack on the endorsement of unconscious ignorance and the associated superficial values promoted by negligent, yet exploitative, management of consumerism. The title reminds me of the much used term of ideology as theft. I think the single Go To Sleep represents the cultural cleansing by corporate monopoly of the remains of true independent pre-subsidiary business and a revolutionary response to that attitude. The video for the track says it all to me; buildings are torn down to be replaced by something else. NM 14/04/06

[edit] Tom Jones?

I have no idea where this came up. Why is Tom Jones listed as having worked with Thom? This is strange. Does anyone have any proof? If not, then I shall get rid of it. --Richj1209 01:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TV Appearances

Added Notable TV appearances. Not a complete list, source material IMDB. laurens.whipple 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Critics opinions"

Somebody added a section about 'critic's assessments on Yorke. I removed that section because it was largely irrelevant and basically there to give a one-sided view of his/Radiohead's work and himself, drawing on the traditional, negative stereotypes and opinions (his eye, preteniousness, etc). As such, I treated that edit as a case of vandalism. The same with this assertion that Yorke was born in Fife. Thats wrong, and changed back to the correct data. Thom did live in Scotland as a child briefly, but was not born there!--Richj1209 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References section

Add more html refs to this section. Skinnyweed 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fill in citations. Skinnyweed 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What more editing? 24.12.236.93 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Seth

[edit] Leaky torrents?

The album was leaked onto the Internet in its entirety using torrent files on 30 May 2006.

Is this meant to imply that someone was running a torrent tracker and a seed on some computer in the record company? BitTorrent is just one way of distributing transfer load, there's hardly a need for reinforcing the RIAA's line of thought that it's primarily a tool for breaking copyright laws. By now the same leaked tracks have probably been spread using at least FTP, CD-R discs and several file sharing networks, and without reference there's no telling that one of these methods wasn't in fact the point of origin. --Lorkki 11:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thom's droopy eye

I changed a bit about his eye - Thom doesn't have a lazy eye. If you don't believe me, just read the wikipedia article that was previously linked to from here (making the error a bit embarassing). A visible lazy eye is an eye that points off in another direction from the healthy eye, clearly not what Thom has. Thom has a drooping eyelid caused by a partial muscle paralysis around the eye. This is called Ptosis. The "botched" quote is a direct quote from Thom, though I don't have a citation unfortunately. I'm sure someone can find one. --24.190.122.122 07:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

True, and I've read that quote too... can't think where. Nikevs 15:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy

I don't think he should be included in Grammy winners unless he wins one with his solo work. --Macarion 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, maybe we can make a category for geniuses.

[edit] Hail to the thief once and for all

In a recent interviewabout the eraser, Thom admitted that it was in refernce to the US election and as such I have quoted him. The interview can be found on YouTube and is from a German TV program called FastForward. Thanks Here's the link [1]

[edit] Radiohead section - too long

Hi. It seems to me that the Radiohead section of this article is far too long. Surely what is needed is a brief paragraph, with the remainder in the main article. This page is after Thom as an individual after all, and therefore detailed information on the band, album release data etc. is irrelevant. What do others think? Hongshi 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased... again.

Err, it seems to me that the line "His singing voice has been directly compared, and indeed partially attributed to, that of Jeff Buckley, although it is not as accomplished in range, sustain or pitch, and is thinner..." might be slightly biased. The article isn't a comparison of Thom and Jeff-- it's a page about Thom. And even if it were true (starting to sound biased myself), the majority of people reading this page are probably Radiohead fans, and won't want to read anything... uhh, "mean" about Thom. --JSF99 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short-lived "Height" section

Somebody added a "Height" section today, which was very brief and just said that Thom Yorke was a "small man." heh, it even said "Tom" instead of "Thom" for part of today.

Anyway, I don't really see the point of mentioning that Thom Yorke is short, unless he was like a midget or something or if there had been some controversy, and in any case it was unsourced, so I deleted it. I think that is straightforward, but I like to back up any major changes on the talk page. If anyone feels the Height thing is actually important, discuss it here before you revert please. Thanks! --Jaysweet 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I'm failing this article for GA. The article is underreferenced, especially the Musical approach section. The album cover does not have a fair use rationale for this article and doesn't meet WP:NONFREE how it's used anyway. The EP cover doesn't have a rationale at all. ShadowHalo 05:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Addition to musical approach

should Rabbit In Your Headlights by UNKLE be added to the list of songs at the beginning? it seems like a fairly hard song to sing and he has to sustain some hard notes during it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.235.28 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Scanner Darkly

Thom Yorke did the soundtrack for a Scanner Darkly. Can this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.179.244 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It should not be added as it is inaccurate. Thom contributed at least one track to the film ["Black Swan" is played over the closing credits], but he by no means "did" the soundtrack. Most of it was done by a band called "Tin Hat Trio"ROG 19 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to "Live collaborations"

I attended a Radiohead concert at UBC Thunderbird Stadium in Vancouver. I believe REM had performed the night before, and Michael Stripe joined in on singing Karma Police. I actually managed to find an MP3 as well, and I would add it to the list, but I'm not sure of the year. Anyone?

- Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.134.149 (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

I found a good citation for the small "Band Aid 20" section, showing that he played on it and also the music video, with him.

http://www.last.fm/music/Band+Aid+20

I don't know how to do citations, so could someone please do this for me? --RaphaelBriand (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Rap-like delivery"

I question the appropriate-ness of the term "rap-like delivery" for the 2003 songs Myxomatosis and A Wolf At The Door. Several music criticism sites, notably Pitchfork Media, described the delivery as scat-like, which seems more appropriate. 24.108.194.53 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)