The best band ever - Page 3

On October 13 2010 07:13 gtrsrs wrote:
ahahaha
another hipster caught up in pretentious garbage

Rest of post

On October 13 2010 07:13 gtrsrs wrote:
ahahaha
another hipster caught up in pretentious garbage
radiohead has like 3 great songs (creep, paranoid android, there there) and then like 9 albums worth of filler
there are so many bands out there that are more technically skilled, better songwriters, better conceptual writers etc etc etc it's not even funny
but radiohead is definitely a good "surface indie" band for those who need to use music as a way to look down on other people imo imo

On October 13 2010 07:13 gtrsrs wrote:
ahahaha
another hipster caught up in pretentious garbage
radiohead has like 3 great songs (creep, paranoid android, there there) and then like 9 albums worth of filler
there are so many bands out there that are more technically skilled, better songwriters, better conceptual writers etc etc etc it's not even funny
but radiohead is definitely a good "surface indie" band for those who need to use music as a way to look down on other people imo imo

On October 13 2010 07:30 3clipse wrote:
The Beatles is far and away the winner of any "best band" evaluation with any sort of objectivity. Boundless creativity and musical progress, shaping genres that were hardly there before? Check. Astoundingly successful album sales? Check. Enormous body of work? Check. Durability? Check.

Radiohead is very good. One of the best bands of the last couple decades for sure. Up there with the likes of The White Stripes, Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana, and The Mars Volta.

On October 13 2010 07:30 3clipse wrote:
The Beatles is far and away the winner of any "best band" evaluation with any sort of objectivity. Boundless creativity and musical progress, shaping genres that were hardly there before? Check. Astoundingly successful album sales? Check. Enormous body of work? Check. Durability? Check.

Radiohead is very good. One of the best bands of the last couple decades for sure. Up there with the likes of The White Stripes, Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana and The Mars Volta.

On October 13 2010 07:34 Murderotica wrote:

T__________T;

How can... You even... I don't....

On October 13 2010 07:40 3clipse wrote:

You have to "get" raw blues-rock, I guess. They do it better than any band since the 70's. The fact that their style of music is no longer popular and yet they still have managed success as a band speaks volumes about the quality of their work. They pretty much stand alone as a modern representative of their genre, like the Red Hot Chili Peppers do for funk.

On October 13 2010 07:13 gtrsrs wrote:
radiohead has like 3 great songs (creep, paranoid android, there there) and then like 9 albums worth of filler

On October 13 2010 06:02 Offhand wrote:


MBV gets praise from hipsters who pretend to be "really into shoegaze" but have no idea who the Lilys are. They have one good album, and will never release anything else, get over it.

On October 13 2010 02:04 Sqq wrote:


non-conformist much ?

On October 13 2010 00:25 Mrwl wrote:
You should try Tool

On October 13 2010 08:28 jon arbuckle wrote:
Bro, even ignoring MBV's astounding EP track record, they have two great albums and one good compilation, depending on how you feel about C86er stuff.

In contrast, the Lilys aren't even one of the top three bands to release stuff on Slumberland. And they aren't shoegaze, as "shoegaze" qua movement is inseparable from 1987-1992 Creation Records stuff that metamorphosed into brit-pop bandwagon chasing (e.g. Ride, Lush). Anything on American shores came well after shoegaze had run its course and is better described as just "dream pop."

On October 13 2010 07:30 3clipse wrote:
The Beatles is far and away the winner of any "best band" evaluation with any sort of objectivity.

On October 13 2010 08:54 Offhand wrote:


Later-era Lilys was much heavier into britpop then anything else, that doesn't change the fact that they've been around since 1988, released albums like Brief History, etc.

Modern shoegaze generally draws from more then one influence. But bands like Snowden or Autolux have nothing to do with dream pop, they have more in line with noise rock.

On October 13 2010 09:29 jon arbuckle wrote:


Nulla cetera. Early Lilys were MBV worship from the get-go and were one of many bands huddled around Slumberland/SpinART making Creation-jocking JAMC-cribbing noisy dreamy pop music. You can totally like them more than MBV - that's preference - but to say MBV have "one good album" and to draw a strawman of "people who like MBV pretend to be really into shoegaze" is straight quack talk.

"Modern shoegaze" is a misnomer because, again, a lot of "shoegaze" was geographic context, was a certain time and a certain attitude, q.v. "The Scene That Celebrates Itself." Their being a band in 1988 in the United States doesn't make them part of shoegaze any more than Half Japanese were part of no wave.

Which is to say that the Lilys, Black Tambourine, Velocity Girl, etc. are a result of shoegaze greeting American shores. Chronology doesn't matter; they come from a whole different scene than shoegaze and should be recognized as such. Call it "noise pop."

If by "they aren't dream pop, they're noise rock" you mean that Autolux or whoever takes more from the Jesus and Mary Chain side of the ur-shoegaze equation than the Cocteau Twins, fair enough. It's just that "noise rock" isn't expressly defined in terms of sound. "Noise rock" can be anything from Deerhoof to Acid Mothers Temple, so "they have nothing to do with dream pop, they have more in line with noise rock" is a pretty meaningless statement. I mean, "dream pop" isn't either, but when people use "shoegaze" to describe something that just has a lot of pedals and reverb and whispered vocals and some Slowdive influence or something it just makes me so mad I could post on the Internet some more.

We probably shouldn't start arguing about genre tags and the sounds they describe though because it eventually just turns into that Robert Frost poem "The Secret Sits."