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.
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.
This is true to a certain extent, but influence can be a good way of judging the artistic merit of a work other than by it's mainstream popularity, because if an album was influential, musicians (ie people who know about and probably listen to a lot of music) thought it was good enough to style their own works after. Ultimately personal opinion is what matters most when it comes to choosing what music you *continue* to listen to, but influence can be a good way of finding new music to try .
Neither of these bands did anything for anyone...You want a band that changed the way music was played look at The Beatles or led zeppelin...pink floyd and even early metallica albums were all far better then anything Nirvana or radiohead has ever done
On February 15 2007 22:49 BroOd wrote: 1. radiohead has never catered to fans or snobs. they've shunned every chance they've been given to repeat a commercially successful formula. the fact that so called "music snobs" have latched on to them should in no way be a reflection on them.
I read somewhere, that the line "I gave it all I could but we're still on the payroll" in Karma Police refers directly to the fact that they "tried to make unpopular music" (at least they didn't care), but they wound up selling thousands of albums. OK Computer already is far from commercial and that Kid A and Amnesiac sold like they did is incredible. It's not playable on radios, not in clubs, I can't imagine to whom you could sell this. But when they published Kid A they were already like Metallica (comparing Kid A to Load). It didn't matter if you liked their albums, when they made a new CD the fans bought it, and, it appears, most learned to like them. Load howver got shitty critiques whereas OK Computer was hailed as one of the best albums ever. by any band.
On February 18 2007 14:29 Fr3nzY wrote: Neither of these bands did anything for anyone...You want a band that changed the way music was played look at The Beatles or led zeppelin...pink floyd and even early metallica albums were all far better then anything Nirvana or radiohead has ever done
this is laughable. Nirvana were a phenomenom just like the Beatles were. They didn't last as long though. And what did Led Zeppelin do? (not intending to flame, tell me please.)
On February 18 2007 14:29 Fr3nzY wrote: Neither of these bands did anything for anyone...You want a band that changed the way music was played look at The Beatles or led zeppelin...pink floyd and even early metallica albums were all far better then anything Nirvana or radiohead has ever done
welcome to the 1990s. Now get the fuck out. I'm getting tired of these people coming out of nowhere with their silly opinions. If you want to be an arrogant fuck do it elsewhere. You are off topic.
On February 17 2007 15:09 CharlieMurphy wrote: Never heard OK, Computer , never heard radiohead. Probably because they suck. Nirvana FTW
Maybe since you're American?
Radiohead is so way above Nirvana it's a joke that these two are even compared. While Nirvana had a burst of popularity amongst emo teens from '91 to '94, they didn't have any staying power (ofc Kobain), and also did not influence/inspire many other except copycat bands. Radiohead has given birth to various styles of music, just compare 'paranoid android' and 'karma police' to their later work 'kid a' and 'amnesiac'. Artistic value is just way higher.
There is too much subjectivity that comes with Art/Music why bother arguing? It goes back and forth... I'd like to hear some objective thoughts. Lets be academic in here Gawd.
'Subjective remarks are bullshit. We don't want to hear your bullshit. Until you hit 70-80... only then can you have your own opinions. Right now you aren't entitled to one.'
From my cinema prof. Fucking brilliant man. Cut away all the bullshit and get to the root of the matter. Both bands had influential merit as they open the flood gates to many bands. What did they do that no one else did? How did they 'break the code' in their own genres respectively? Prove your worth.
On February 17 2007 15:09 CharlieMurphy wrote: Never heard OK, Computer , never heard radiohead. Probably because they suck. Nirvana FTW
Maybe since you're American?
Radiohead is so way above Nirvana it's a joke that these two are even compared. While Nirvana had a burst of popularity amongst emo teens from '91 to '94, they didn't have any staying power (ofc Kobain), and also did not influence/inspire many other except copycat bands. Radiohead has given birth to various styles of music, just compare 'paranoid android' and 'karma police' to their later work 'kid a' and 'amnesiac'. Artistic value is just way higher.
Nirvana wasn't popular amoung emo teens, especially since Nirvana is comepletley different than emo music, especially emo in the late eighties and early nineties (bands like Fugazi and Rites of Spring defined emo back then). Grunge is completley different. Cobain was a stellar lyricist and songwriter. Maybe his music wasn't as "different" as Radiohead's, but it was still pretty fucking good, and it launched an entire genre. To say Nirvana has no staying power is an equally ridiculous. A poignant song in the 90's is still a poignant song today.
Just in case some of you didn t know the sites, site 1 and site 2 provide a lot of live mp3 with lot of new songs as well : videotape, 15 step and bodysnatchers are all going to be amazing on the album
(note : it's legal stuff as the band itself advertised on the websites during the 2006 tour :o )
Radiohead is realy something which cant be explained, and cant be imposed to anybody. I still dont know what bring me to it... That is nothing comparable to any other band. I really liked Nirvana when i was younger, but thats not even a match.
As for the albums, i feel a lot like mora explained. I fell directly in love with OKC and Amnesiac, thought the later's not so easy to get. I think its hugely due to 'Life in a glass house', which killed me when i heard it first time. Then i discovered and loved The bends.
I still have dificulties to fully enjoy KID A though, apart from some tracks which are fabulous.
About HTTT, i still think its hugely underrated. Maybe as a whole album he's not so strongly built than the previous ones, but these songs............................. 'I will' is a masterpiece, and probably their most moving song in my opinion. 'A wolf at the door' is genious, 'There there', '2+2=5', 'Sail to the moon', 'Punchup', 'Where I end and you begin' and so on...
Also i think their music is so large that nobody will ever agree on which tracks or albums are the best. Im currently discovering all the b-sides and lives, and so many are incredible. True love waits, Polyethylene 1&2, How i made my millions, FOG ( live piano version ;| ), How can you be sure, Banana co, Like Spinning Plates Live or I will LA version... I could continue but theres no point.
EPT
