it appears radiohead is shreading.
Nevermind vs OK Computer
Forum Index > General Forum |
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
it appears radiohead is shreading. | ||
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
| ||
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
im a big fan of nevermind, but come on ![]() its not even the best nirvana album (that being in utero) | ||
gLyo
United States2410 Posts
I didn't like them much... ![]() Something must be wrong with me. | ||
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
~AreS]
Canada2170 Posts
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. I've found that if I listen to anything enough, I'll start to like it. I hated NIN the first time I started listening to them. Now they're up there with my other favorite bands. | ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
Radiohead isn't something you can force on yourself. I got into them pretty young, and they've steadily grown on me ever since. Their music really infects you, unlike anything I've known, musically speaking. glyo, PM me and I'll give you a list of say, 10~ radiohead songs to give a second chance to. I think they'll change your mind with repeat listenings. | ||
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
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. | ||
Flaccid
8838 Posts
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. | ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:34 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: No, there's something wrong with people who like them... terrible band. simply put: Get Fucked. | ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:34 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: 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. | ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
Maybe you'll like the songs as much as I do (probably not, I'm a total geek about this band), but atleast it will give you a frame of reference as to where I'm coming from. | ||
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:38 Wysp wrote: 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. | ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Nirvana sucked ass, too, for the record. Just because you don't like a band doesn't mean there's something wrong with people who do. You know, for the "record". | ||
IdiotWind
Canada321 Posts
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 mean, I really, really like nirvana, but if you think they made music in general better, like the way bob dylan did, you're just stupid, and if you think radiohead made music worse, you should probably go shoot yourself. They're both amazing bands. | ||
IdiotWind
Canada321 Posts
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Nirvana sucked ass, too, for the record. " Of course, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's bad, either. | ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
Creep (this song is good, not great, but without there is no radiohead) from The Bends: Fake Plastic Trees, Street Spirit and maybe The Bends/Planet Telex OK Computer: Airbag, Paranoid Android, Exit Music (For a Film), Karma Police, Climbing up the Walls, Fitter Happier and for my teacher I included Subterranian Homesick Alien (hes a huge Bob Dylan fan.) Kid A, I'd love to include the whole thing but I just selected the more 'accessible' tracks for new listeners + idioteque(which I used to hate but now completely love.) Everything in its Right Place, How to Disappear Completely, Idioteque and maybe Motion Picture Soundtrack. Amnesiac: Pyramid Song, Knives Out, Life in a Glasshouse. Hail to the Thief: 2+2=5, There There, Wolf at the Door. Thats a shaved down listen, I'll probably shave it down more, too. Hmm, I can't resist to share what my favorite songs are: Street Spirit, Paranoid Android, Exit Music, Climbing up the Wall, Everything in its Right Place, Idioteque (just my two favorite from kid a I like the whole thing a lot), Packt Like Sardines in a Crushed Tin Can, Knives Out, Spinning Plates, Sit Down Stand Up, There There, Myxomatosis, Wolf at the Door, True Love Waits and The Amazing Sounds of Orgy. exhaustive list... top 3 = Idioteque, Everything in its Right Place and True Love Waits. | ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
| ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
| ||
IdiotWind
Canada321 Posts
Can someone explain to me why all the music radiohead has made since (and including) Kit-A has sucked? Some of it sounds like they've got a couple downies in charge of writing the music... | ||
PHauxE
United States69 Posts
On February 15 2007 21:00 IdiotWind wrote: Also : Can someone explain to me why all the music radiohead has made since (and including) Kit-A has sucked? Some of it sounds like they've got a couple downies in charge of writing the music... When I first started listening to Radiohead, it was Paranoid Android (because of the map in starcraft, lol), and at first, I hated most of their other songs. The next song I found I liked was Creep. Eventually picked up OK Computer, didn't listen to many of the songs on it, but eventually, I listened to more and more of the album, and the music just grew on me. I can't really explain it any other way. Now it's so 'bad' that I can't find a Radiohead song I don't like ~_~; They definitely got more 'out there' as their albums kept going on, but ironically, it's those albums that ended up being the better ones for me. The whole process of going through the groups music was a giant paradox in the end. | ||
z7-TranCe
Canada3158 Posts
actual listening value? not so much | ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
On February 15 2007 21:06 z7-TranCe wrote: anyone hear thom yorke's new album? makes a great game - "guess the drug he was on when he wrote.." actual listening value? not so much I honestly think he was just getting some stuff out of his system, especially considering some of the new radiohead songs. I think Analyse and Skip Divided are good songs though. | ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
On February 15 2007 21:00 IdiotWind wrote: Also : Can someone explain to me why all the music radiohead has made since (and including) Kit-A has sucked? Some of it sounds like they've got a couple downies in charge of writing the music... well, thom yorke and co. are a fairly 'weird' bunch. They seen themselves being imitated again after OK Computer and Thom Yorke said in interviews he began to hate his voice because it. (I know this is strange, but this is apperantly how the man thinks.) This along with there love of electronic music made them want to try something different, and they did. I used to loathe Kid A/Amnesiac, but after about 6 months since the first few attempts to listen to them something clicked and I began to love them and gradually over the last year I've started to love the two albums. Hail to the Thief is pretty easy listening to anyone into rock or metal, iunno why you wouldn't like it if you like OK Computer. | ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
On February 15 2007 21:06 z7-TranCe wrote: anyone hear thom yorke's new album? makes a great game - "guess the drug he was on when he wrote.." actual listening value? not so much I think the song "The Eraser" is superb. Harrowdown Hill is really good too. | ||
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
As for Thom Yorke, is album was quite good, in particular ''The Eraser'' and ''The Clock''. Anyone knows when Radiohead's next album is schedualed? | ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
| ||
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
On February 15 2007 21:06 z7-TranCe wrote: anyone hear thom yorke's new album? makes a great game - "guess the drug he was on when he wrote.." actual listening value? not so much the second half of the album is pretty good, i think the first half i barely play. | ||
FearlessFlyingFrog
89 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Nirvana sucked ass, too, for the record. My sentiments exactly. | ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
Thanks for the enlightenment. | ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
"why would you say something so inflammatory? They are popular and critically accliamed, clearly not bad even though they arn't your preference." It doesn't suck ass. You don't enjoy it, but you should respect it. To draw example from a far more acclaimed and popular piece of art, I do not enjoy the Mona Lisa. Do I respect it? Certainly. its disgusting that you would so thoughtless try to agitate people. If you tried to qualify your opinion I could respect you as more than a shit disturber, but you haven't even attempted to. You've just trampled on a respected band with no fucking reason. goddamn tools. | ||
pirate cod
810 Posts
| ||
Flaccid
8838 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:48 IdiotWind wrote: I mean, I really, really like nirvana, but if you think they made music in general better, like the way bob dylan did, you're just stupid, and if you think radiohead made music worse, you should probably go shoot yourself. They're both amazing bands. Meh, I'm <less> drunk now than I was when I wrote that post, but I suppose I should at least make an effort to explain myself: Radiohead is a band that caters to the music snob. They made music worse by giving these vile creatures something to latch on to - something with critical and commercial success that somehow validated their existence as a whole. Radiohead didn't, directly, make music worse - but they made the world of music much harder for a music fan to tolerate. Nirvana on the other hand, opened us up to a world we would have never seen. There is a reason Nevermind is the most important album of the 90s. No Nevermind = no Pearl Jam (Alive), no Soundgarden (Badmotorfinger/Superunknown), no grunge movement at all. Grunge, as a definition, is meaningless, as the bands at the time weren't into any kind of 'movement' - but the music that came out of Seattle at the time has as much of an influence on the rock of today as anything else. Had Nevermind not blown up out of nowhere, none of the other pioneering bands of the area would have been given a second look. Nevermind made the grunge scene. The grunge scene made modern rock. On the other hand, OK Computer is just another Radiohead album. Big fucking deal. And as for Bob Dylan - perhaps I shouldn't argue with a guy who has a Dylan track as his TL.net ID, but I feel that in owning every album/bootleg/live cut/B-side I can get my hands on gives me some insight into the man - he didn't change music. He brought decent song writing into the mainstream but he didn't do anything that others weren't already doing out of the spotlight. Saying Bob Dylan 'changed music' is like saying Elvis Presley 'invented rock and roll'. There is a big difference between changing/inventing and simply making something a bit more accessible. And I say this as a MASSIVE Dylan fan. But then again I'm stupid and should shoot myself. | ||
gravity
Australia1861 Posts
| ||
FearlessFlyingFrog
89 Posts
On February 15 2007 22:21 Wysp wrote: "why would you say something so inflammatory? They are popular and critically accliamed, clearly not bad even though they arn't your preference." It doesn't suck ass. You don't enjoy it, but you should respect it. To draw example from a far more acclaimed and popular piece of art, I do not enjoy the Mona Lisa. Do I respect it? Certainly. its disgusting that you would so thoughtless try to agitate people. If you tried to qualify your opinion I could respect you as more than a shit disturber, but you haven't even attempted to. You've just trampled on a respected band with no fucking reason. goddamn tools. Sure I respect them. I respect the fact that they write there own stuff. I respect that they are diffrent from other bands. I respect the sole fact that they are music makers in a day and age where corporate America pumps out trash album after trash album after trash album. "My sentiments exactly" was more based on his last statement about being popular doesn't make you good and is more towards Nirvana because I really don't know Radiohead so well. I just think that Kurt Cobain and Nirvana are given too much credit for bad music. When I say bad music I mean what is bad to me, so other people might think its great music. When I say bad music though I mean it doesn't sound good, it isn't even slightly catchy, and the lyrics sound like some "has marbles in their mouth" to quote Werid Al Yankovic. I know they "changed" music but to make a comparison of Rollingstones vs. The Beatles is the same as Nirvana vs. Radiohead is complete crap in my opinion. | ||
bine
United States2352 Posts
| ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
good night, too late to be arguing about music. | ||
![]()
BroOd
Austin10831 Posts
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. 2. Nevermind may have certainly introduced grunge to mainstream, but it was not exactly pioneering. Not only were many other bands making this kind of music before nirvana, nirvana wore it's countless blatant influences on its sleeve. nevermind benefited greatly from the musical climate, and i think its reputation grows heavily from that, as opposed to objective musical merit. | ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
I'm glad WMP comes with a playlist shuffle option, that's all I'm saying. | ||
FearlessFlyingFrog
89 Posts
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. | ||
FearlessFlyingFrog
89 Posts
| ||
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
awesome. thx! gogo music! | ||
bine
United States2352 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: 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. | ||
Dahlia...
United States409 Posts
OK Computer is strides better than Nevermind. Though as I mature a little bit I am not blindly hating Nirvana like I use to. | ||
bine
United States2352 Posts
I didn't start liking their early work until I understood it through the lens of kid-a/amnesiac. | ||
Sun
United States551 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: 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. =_- | ||
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
have you heard most mainstream music? ![]() | ||
j0ehoe
United States2705 Posts
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. | ||
doedrikthe2nd
Sweden981 Posts
| ||
sundance
Slovakia3201 Posts
Kid A started it all. | ||
zoast
United States91 Posts
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. | ||
Storchen
Sweden4385 Posts
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. | ||
JensOfSweden
Cameroon1767 Posts
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. | ||
Myxomatosis
United States2392 Posts
On February 15 2007 20:34 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: 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? | ||
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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). | ||
HaiVan
Bulgaria1698 Posts
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. | ||
zoast
United States91 Posts
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. | ||
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
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. | ||
HaiVan
Bulgaria1698 Posts
On February 16 2007 13:12 Mora wrote: 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. | ||
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
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) Imo Incesticide is the best. But that is coz I like the vaselines I guess. Nevermind has no weak tracks and is a classic. Also breed is one of the best nirvana songs. Ohwell. not focused but might as well post. meh | ||
gravity
Australia1861 Posts
On February 16 2007 13:12 Mora wrote: 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 . | ||
![]()
IntoTheWow
is awesome32274 Posts
| ||
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
gLyo
United States2410 Posts
On February 16 2007 13:12 Mora wrote: 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. I think maybe you miss the point of the analogy. ![]() | ||
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
if you haven't heard this song before listen. | ||
Lisk
Latvia376 Posts
| ||
Fr3nzY
United States28 Posts
| ||
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
| ||
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
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. | ||
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
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.) btw Wikipedia has a nice article about OK Computer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Computer | ||
Sun
United States551 Posts
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. | ||
aseq
Netherlands3978 Posts
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. | ||
Sun
United States551 Posts
'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. | ||
JensOfSweden
Cameroon1767 Posts
On February 18 2007 14:19 Lisk wrote: Not music unless it's death metal. Or deathgrind. lol I guess you wrote this in all seriousness but it's still funny | ||
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
But this cant be discussed since it's only a matter of taste. | ||
gLyo
United States2410 Posts
On February 18 2007 15:39 aseq wrote: 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. | ||
![]()
JellyCat
Canada138 Posts
![]() (note : it's legal stuff as the band itself advertised on the websites during the 2006 tour :o ) | ||
Fuu
198 Posts
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. I cant wait for the new one to be out | ||
Lisk
Latvia376 Posts
On February 18 2007 16:10 JensOfSweden wrote: lol I guess you wrote this in all seriousness but it's still funny Obviously wasn't serious. Just that music discussions never seem to get erm... interesting. | ||
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On February 18 2007 18:07 gLyo wrote: Maybe because you're American. I never said I didn't know who they were. I said I never heard it. I don't listen to bands or rock music derivatives anyways. | ||
| ||