|
On February 15 2007 22:49 Wysp wrote:
FearlessFlyingFrog: I don't believe I said anything about them being good.
good night, too late to be arguing about music.
I'm not arguing, and that statement was directed at the article. It inferred(spelling) that this was a worthy competitor to the old Beatles vs. Rollingstones. In which the Beatles win hands down 
Edit: And yes 2:00 in the mrning is to early for music discussion or late whichever way you look at it.
|
The most ridiculous thing about this is no one even seems to be in consensus on which album of the two bands is the best. Stupid magazine article.
|
First song i heard today from OK computer, no suprises
awesome.
thx! gogo music!
|
On February 15 2007 20:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2007 20:38 Wysp wrote:On February 15 2007 20:34 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On February 15 2007 20:26 gLyo wrote:I downloaded the whole Radiohead discography since everybody says they're so awesome. I didn't like them much...  Something must be wrong with me. No, there's something wrong with people who like them... terrible band. why would you say something so inflammatory? They are popular and critically accliamed, clearly not bad even though they arn't your preference. But on topic, when I started listening to radiohead I hated them. I heard 1 or 2 songs I liked and a couple that set me off them. Some of those songs that set me off are now my favorites. If you're just starting to get into them listen to The Bends, OK Computer and Hail to the Thief. They are definately the easiest albums to start to like, but I would contend kid a is better and amnesiac just as good. I've never even listened through pablo honey. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Nirvana sucked ass, too, for the record.
On February 15 2007 20:34 Flaccid wrote:
edit: ZOMG nevermind. Fuck I lost.
Nirvana made music better. Radiohead made music shittier. For me it's that straight forward.
edit2: The problem with Radiohead is that they gained their greatest commercial success following the release of some of their least accessible music. Any music fan can love The Bends, but something like Kid A turns off a lot of people.
I don't think radiohead are good because they are popular, and I don't think they are good because they are not popular. I think they are good because they are:
highly innovative and original
unbelievably poignant and emotional
lyrically sophisticated and complex (as contrasted with, say, Coldplay -_-
catchy while being "inaccessible" at times
possessing of incredible range and breadth and yet maintaining an extremely personal vision
ridiculous in concert
long-lasting and transcendent of trends
nostalgic, sentimental, dramatic and evocative without being even slightly cheesy
one of two bands that has ever made me cry (corny, but still true, and to me at least, a mark of great achievement. I never cry outside of a theater.
|
I would put Mellon Collie up there with these two.
OK Computer is strides better than Nevermind. Though as I mature a little bit I am not blindly hating Nirvana like I use to.
|
I think Thom Yorke's album is excellent, especially the title track, which i listen to 10 times a day. I just want to offer another perspective on radiohead-loving, which is apparently much different than a lot of others' experiences. I had heard some of the OK computer stuff, and liked it but didn't feel urgently about it. When someone burned me a copy of Kid-A, I flipped the fuck out and got a copy of everything they've done that I could find. For me, their best album is Amnesiac.
I didn't start liking their early work until I understood it through the lens of kid-a/amnesiac.
|
On February 15 2007 20:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2007 20:38 Wysp wrote:On February 15 2007 20:34 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On February 15 2007 20:26 gLyo wrote:I downloaded the whole Radiohead discography since everybody says they're so awesome. I didn't like them much... Something must be wrong with me. No, there's something wrong with people who like them... terrible band. why would you say something so inflammatory? They are popular and critically accliamed, clearly not bad even though they arn't your preference. But on topic, when I started listening to radiohead I hated them. I heard 1 or 2 songs I liked and a couple that set me off them. Some of those songs that set me off are now my favorites. If you're just starting to get into them listen to The Bends, OK Computer and Hail to the Thief. They are definately the easiest albums to start to like, but I would contend kid a is better and amnesiac just as good. I've never even listened through pablo honey. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Nirvana sucked ass, too, for the record.
And that is why we call it a subjective response. Many people would disagree. You cannot argue the fact that they pushed the wheel and kept reinventing themselves. Some people listen for the music/beat others the poetry/verse.
You guys are missing something here. You don't get popular for nothing. I don't think you understand their music that well at all. =_-
|
you dont get popular for nothing?
have you heard most mainstream music?
|
On February 15 2007 17:19 choboPEon wrote:ok computer is much better im a big fan of nevermind, but come on its not even the best nirvana album (that being in utero)
def in utero was better, but nevermind was what broke them in. im still a huge nirvana junkie =p. never really got into radiohead tho.
|
I think Radiohead are shit
|
I don't like OK Computer at all but Kid A is the most important album for me by far.It completely changed my taste in music and shifted me really away from mainstream. So I've started to search my own music and experimenting with a lot of other kinds of music , and now i listen everything obscure and i haven't watched any music tv or listened radio for like 5 years. So currently i really don't know the most hot singers and stuff. Just give me my Nick Cave and i'm happy. And now i'm shifting more and more towards jazz.
Kid A started it all.
|
Cobain was a really good songwriter (in the sense that he could write something catchy), but FWIW the songs are fairly basic... personally I find Nirvanas replay value to be relatively low. I also agree with those who say in cootero was the better album.
I do think people often overestimate how innovative Radiohead have been, though. Their albums and influences are diverse, and I respect them for that. But what exactly have they done that has never been done before? I thought their sound on OK Computer was pretty amazing, but their producer (Nigel Godrich) had alot to do with that... just listen to Beck's Sea Change and you will hear what is essentially the same production.
To their credit, it's incredibly hard to really be innovative in music anymore, and even then, innovation has less to do with the actual writing of music (classical pretty much took care of that for western music before popular music came about) and MUCH more to do with the sound of the production or crap like guitar playing techniques.
"Best" is a retardedly subjective term to describe/compare music with, but if you think Radiohead and Nirvana are the most talented bands or put out the most amazing records in the 90s, consider trying out Mr Bungle's last 2 albums.. for me it's not even close.
|
zoast.
Beck's Sea Change came out -02 and Ok Computer -97.
That's five years. And I've listened to both the record several times and really can't see what you mean by they sounding the same 
Personally i love KidA far more then Ok Computer.
|
From what I have heard I think Radiohead is a very overrated band...some of the songs on OK computer are just dull and pretentious.
I do like Kid A a bit more though and especially "everything in it's right place" gives me the chills everytime I listen to it.
Seems like people either think Radiohead are godlike or trash.
Nirvana never did much for me, I got into hardcore and straight edge at the time instead and I couldn't stand all the hype about Nirvana.
|
On February 15 2007 20:34 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2007 20:26 gLyo wrote:I downloaded the whole Radiohead discography since everybody says they're so awesome. I didn't like them much... Something must be wrong with me. No, there's something wrong with people who like them... terrible band.
im guessing your top few bands include the likes of creed and lamb of god or something. once again, rolling stone has proved themselves to be absolutely retarded by comparing ok computer and nevermind, two totally different albums on two entirely different levels. MAYBE bends vs. nevermind, but ok computer? wtf?
|
On February 15 2007 23:19 bine wrote:
I think Thom Yorke's album is excellent, especially the title track, which i listen to 10 times a day. I just want to offer another perspective on radiohead-loving, which is apparently much different than a lot of others' experiences. I had heard some of the OK computer stuff, and liked it but didn't feel urgently about it. When someone burned me a copy of Kid-A, I flipped the fuck out and got a copy of everything they've done that I could find. For me, their best album is Amnesiac.
I didn't start liking their early work until I understood it through the lens of kid-a/amnesiac.
thom yorke's album is awesome. i wasn't a huge fan at first, but it grew on me (like radiohead does as well).
I fell in love with OK Computer before the rest of radiohead's albums, but share a similar story with The Bends, as i didn't enjoy it at all until i was a huge fan of the rest of their albums.
And similarly, i didn't really enjoy Kid-A until i fell in love with Hail to the Theif.
I've always liked Amnesiac and OK Computer though.
Life in a Glass House is propably the most emotional/touching song of theirs (at least for me). For that reason it's my favourite. (however, it's pretty much a tie with like 20 other of their songs).
|
This is so subjective, it all depends on personal opinion. It's like comparing apples with oranges. Im a huge Nirvana fan myself so my opinion is definitely biased, but i think Nevermind is the most significant album in rock music for the last 30 years. That album basicly killed a whole genre in rock music which ruled the airwaves for a decade and completely changed the face of music.
I like Radiohead a lot, but i dont think the band itself or the album OK Computer had an impact on music even remotely close to what Nirvana's Nevermind had.
But then again thats just my personal opinion.
|
On February 16 2007 12:36 Storchen wrote:zoast. Beck's Sea Change came out -02 and Ok Computer -97. That's five years. And I've listened to both the record several times and really can't see what you mean by they sounding the same Personally i love KidA far more then Ok Computer.
Right... my point was that their producer was responsible/deserves more of the credit, and not as much the band themselves although it isnt exactly a black and white thing and I didnt watch them record it so I'm not 100%.
I didnt mean the records on the whole sounded the same... I'm saying the production of the records sounds very similar. That was just what struck me about sea change when I first heard it, and when I found out godrich was involved it made alot of sense to me.
|
On February 16 2007 13:02 HaiVan wrote:
This is so subjective, it all depends on personal opinion. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
i fucking hate that analogy.
apples are disgusting. oranges are delicious.
seriously. and anyone who likes both will always prefer one over the other. fucking stupid saying.
edit - additionally:
who the fuck cares what kind of impact music has on a genre? I hear this alot of time when comparing bands of music, and i just don't get why anyone cares. It's ART. You either like it, or you don't. It's beautiful or it's not. The only relevant comparison is whether you think one thing is more beautiful than another. Nevermind influencing the genre has no influence on how beautiful an album it is.
|
On February 16 2007 13:12 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2007 13:02 HaiVan wrote:
This is so subjective, it all depends on personal opinion. It's like comparing apples with oranges. i fucking hate that analogy. apples are disgusting. oranges are delicious. seriously. and anyone who likes both will always prefer one over the other. fucking stupid saying. edit - additionally: who the fuck cares what kind of impact music has on a genre? I hear this alot of time when comparing bands of music, and i just don't get why anyone cares. It's ART. You either like it, or you don't. It's beautiful or it's not. The only relevant comparison is whether you think one thing is more beautiful than another. Nevermind influencing the genre has no influence on how beautiful an album it is.
Ok use this analogy then: Some people like to fuck in the ass, others like to get fucked in the ass. To each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
