Listening to Radiohead around the time of OK Computer was a revelation. The group presented a complex, interconnected statement that was introspective and political, peppered with subtext and hints of modern counter-cultural expression. While rooted in suburban angst, the album identified depression, anxiety and self harm as symptoms of a failing society. Accusing capitalism, globalism, imperialism and neoliberalism with surgical precision, they sowed the seed of activism in the minds of millennials. For many years following their breakthrough, the group would take an active stand and provide resources. And then, one day, things came crashing down.
Last week, Thom Yorke released an open letter via his Instagram. In the multi-page statement, he addressed his fanbase’s ongoing request to speak out on Gaza. This interest in Yorke’s position was partially rooted in Radiohead’s long history with Israel, which they played in 2000 and 2017, as well as ongoing inquires regarding Jonny Greenwood’s perspectives, following his tour with Dudu Tassa. But, as noted earlier, it is also informed by Radiohead’s history of outspoken activism.
The statement quickly led to a myriad of online discussions – often heated – and commentaries of various music critics and artists. Coming months after Yorke was confronted during a performance in Australia last October, the statement is curiously late. While well-intentioned, the open letter also seems laboured and clumsy. It is, for many reasons, worthy of dissection.
The statement opens with Yorke talking about the effects the brief interaction in Australia had on him, including the toll that public opinion had on his mental health. As Yorke states on the following slide:
“I would hope that for anyone who has ever listened to a note of the music of my band or any of the music I have created over the years, or looked at the artwork or read any of the lyrics, it would be self-evident that I could not possibly support any form of extremism or dehumanization of others.”
This part is valuable, and accurate. Following the American incursions in the Middle East as a direct results of the attacks of 9/11, Radiohead’s Hail to the Thief was a blistering attack on imperialism, with the group opposing the then rampant rise in American nationalism and the most insane embodiments thereof – freedom fries still remain a bafflingly bizarre example of such!
Following on the third slide, Yorke takes an unequivocal political position, which is strongly worded and leaves no room for interpretation: “I think Netanyahu and his crew of extremists are totally out of control land need to be stopped […].”
However, the open letter continues with a further five slides. Following, Yorke speaks of “the unquestioning Free Palestine refrain that surrounds us all”, and seemingly directly equates any support for Gazans, and the public outcry regarding the ongoing harm that is enacted upon them with support for Hamas.
It is this strange stance which has caused many strong responses, such as that of Anthony Fantano, whose video on the open letter is simply titled “pathetic”. For one, there exist a multitude of voices, groups and organisations that involve themselves with the ongoing struggle of Gazans in an attempt to raise money, provide transparency or educate. Those include many which Radiohead have supported throughout the group’s history, such as Doctors Without Borders; and those also include many Jewish groups and activists that have called for a ceasefire as far back as late 2023 – and these are just some examples in a wide ranging chorus of different voices. Plus, Yorke has shown in the past that he has a wealth of knowledge available to him, rendering it bizarre that he would not be aware of the multitude of options to his disposal, to not only show and manifest support, but also help guide fans into the right direction for a good cause.
Not to mention that he was gifted with fellow musicians reaching out to have conversations on the topic. Yet Yorke continues the statement on the next slides, where he complains about “social media witch-hunts” and pressure enacted upon artists to voice politics publicly, likening those calls to extremism.
“I sympathize completely with the desire to ‘do something’ when we are witnessing such horrific suffering on our devices every day. It completely makes sense. But I now think it is a dangerous illusion to believe reposting, or one or two line messages are meaningful, especially if it is to condemn your fellow human beings.” Here, Yorke seems to completely ignore that it was his unwillingness to confront ongoing inquiry with grace, and even contradicts himself. On one hand, he correctly identifies the role social media has played in identifying, by quite literally “live-streaming” atrocities and humanising Gazan civilians by tearing down the wall that the ‘fog of war’ upheld for decades, only to turn around and claim that it is not the role of an artist or celebrity to show support for those civilians dying who remain ignored by world leaders.
“What is the alternative? I can’t answer that easily,” Yorke writes. But take note: after many months, recent weeks have shown multiple public figures take a strong stance, which just half a year ago would have led to them losing their jobs. Imagine Dragons came ahead of Yorke’s statement displaying their position, and even Piers Morgan – the most conservative of neoliberals – voiced publicly that he had changed his position before Yorke released his letter. Instead of showing that he was willing to learn, listen and educate himself, Yorke conjured an abstract notion of keyboard warrior extremists, who “will spend time picking holes and looking for reasons to continue” attacks on him and his band. Why centre the discussion on himself (and his band) in a message that should be highlighting the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza?
Yorke closes stating that he wrote “this in the simple hope that I can join with the many millions of others praying for this suffering, isolation and death to stop, praying that we can collectively regain our humanity and dignity and our ability to reach understanding” – but compare that coda to the inclusive and humanist statement of Jonathan Glazer at the 2024 Academy Awards. Glazer closed his Oscar acceptance speech by asking “How do we resist?” He continued: “Alexandria Bystron Kolodziejczyk, the girl who glows in the film as she did in life, chose to,” dedicating the award to her. Glazer invoked the very courage that Yorke only hinted at, choosing to speak about how his unwillingness to hold even the most mild position (which would have been uncharacteristic in light of the band’s activist history) resulted in his fans’ growing frustration. Contrary to what the open letter insists, Yorke doesn’t need to take an extreme position to have a positive impact. To invoke the power of prayer ultimately sidesteps any intellectual curiosity and evades the very human exchange Yorke nostalgically claims to seek.
Obviously, Yorke is not a heartless or ignorant snob, but it is his intelligence as well as insightful and calm rationale when it came to revealing the over-reach of politicians and governments – and his unique privilege of having a global platform – that made the long silence on the matter so infuriating to many. And now, releasing an open letter on a humanitarian disaster whose majority is about himself and online discourse, not to mention includes many mischaracterisations, is what resulted in the many harshly-worded responses.
The video from Fantano is only one example. Reggie Watts posted a response online that quickly went viral. Another well-known English language musician interviewed for this piece, who asked to remain anonymous, was deeply frustrated with the letter: “Thom Yorke’s pathetic attempt at clarifying his positions – which conveniently came as he released an album – went so much further than Radiohead’s usual, spineless bothsidesism when it comes to Israel’s history of human rights violations,” they said, going on to voice their anger that Yorke spent the most lines of his statement on his quarrels with his critics, misusing his immense privilege and influence.
Conclusively, it is evident that Yorke needs to reflect further on the way he engages with those topics, and his fans. An open exchange can only exist in light of acceptance and availability. Isolating oneself in silence only to later on misjudge criticism as online extremism and speaking out when it is convenient – and in a manner riddled with accusations – fuels this fire. If anything, the angry outcry should lead Yorke to take a break, think and realise: You do it to yourself, just you, you and no one else.
