i am ultra biased but i don't think anyone comes close to him, if you listen to to the ridiculous range of music he has played in addition to the originality he has shown there is not anyone in the same discussion that started after 1990. anyone who questions this, please watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1_ETuWIbE

No, I don't especially care for heavy metal. I mean, I've heard some heavy metal that I like I suppose but I'm mostly not very into it. I don't really like Metallica very much at all but I can appreciate their greatness.

Radiohead's "thing" is more in line with my interests actually (semi-emo stuff or whatever in that kind of genre). But I truly think they are lousy. I disagree that they are good which I don't think necessarily has to mean that I am being hostile.

I think the Cure are worthy of consideration as a top band of "our time" or whatever so I might count in the same bracket as many of the people he was talking about.

I really can't stand Depeche Mode at all. I'm really luke-warm on The Smiths. I don't detest them or anything but I'm not really that thrilled by them either.

I think it's pretty strange to compare The Cure to Depeche Mode or The Smiths and am not sure where that comes from to be honest.

I can think of one better off the top of my head, John Mayer. There are definitely others. So to answer your question, no.

Edit: Just remembered John Frusciante

This is just such an incredibly bizarre thing to say. I like almost nothing of the "chart topping" scene. I listen to other emo and indie stuff just fine. I just don't like Radiohead. It's incredibly bizarre and narrow-minded to think that liking Radiohead is a requirement to have decent taste in music.

Also, you are going to have to define the term "best guitar player"

A lot of Radiohead's work is not naturally accessible to me - I have to be in a certain headspace to even contemplate listening to them. They have such a great sound, but the underlying themes of self-hate and cynicism in Yorke's lyrics do not lend themselves to easy listening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIFLtNYI3Ls

this sums it up pretty well

Radiohead is a great barometer for identifying who has great taste in music and who has terrible taste in music. You have terrible taste in music.

Just because it was present on something RH did doesn't mean it wasn't done elsewhere if you know what I mean.

Also, I like Cold Play decently (at least I'm okay with Parachutes).

I think there's some Verve and My Bloody Valentine influences on RH as well as some other bands...and those are two of my all-time favorite bands (early stuff for Verve moreso than later) and they were both doing their stuff before RH came along.

When I think of a band like Doves I feel like they were more influenced by Verve and maybe Stone Roses than Radiohead in some ways. But I also feel like the Radiohead fans would hear that band and go, "ohhh...they're a RH influenced band obviously."

When I hear a band like Portishead or Sneaker Pimps I kind of think, "see...weird Euro-style keyboardy trip-hoppy awesomeness is out there."

With everything else that was going on before and around the time RH was coming out I just don't think they deserve as much credit for current things as some people want to give them. It just all seems way overblown to me.

I've been listening to some of the suggestions to try to understand better what the big deal is all about. I'm honestly curious. But it just doesn't sound that amazing nor innovative.

oh, **** no.

Pitchfork best album of 1990s: OK Computer

Pitchfork best album of 2000s: Kid A

Just sayin'

I'm sorry I don't have the same taste in music you do and decided to take part in a discussion about a band I dislike.

If the thread had been titled "Radiohead Fans Unite!" I wouldn't have even opened it. But it asked a question about whether they were the greatest and I thought that meant it was okay for people who don't like them as much to have an opinion too.

FWIW, I used to think exactly the opposite of what you said to me: That it's easy to find those who have terrible taste in music....if they like Radiohead then the answer is yes. I no longer think that partly thanks to this thread and my attempts to approach this with an open mind.

Radiohead is certainly underrated itt

has to be a level

.

I love it when people think they're so smart with their analysis.

You've said you enjoy Coldplay and think Radiohead is bad at what they do. There's a reason people are arguing with you and why you're going beyond the opinionated and into the "plain wrong" territory over and over.

When people have said they think Phish/U2/Metallica etc are the best of our time, no one has started flaming them. When people think Radiohead is awful, people are laughing at them. That's the difference between people disagreeing and those who are trolling itt. If you don't think Radiohead is the best of our time, post at least one band you find better, with a reason rather then "lol radiohead is teh worst." While I think the last 3 Weezer albums have been awful, St. Anger was atrocious, I respect those suggestions and most others posted.

Bicolar with another awful contribution to this thread, thanks for posting! 50 albums as good as Kid A? We had this thread last month. It took hundreds of posts and no one was even trying to come up with 3.

If we were debating whether say Metallica is the best time, people would be flaming them. I don't think Kid A is a standout album at all.

ao - Honestly, how can I be "plain wrong" about a band that doesn't appeal to me? When I first heard Parachutes I was quite impressed before I knew the name of the band or anything about them. I found their music interesting and I guess somewhat 'catchy' for whatever that's worth (and I think Viva la Vida is uninspired crap fwiw).

There's nothing about RH's music then I can even find remotely interesting to me. Why that is exactly I don't know. I find it bland and boring. I've listened to them quite a bit the past couple of days and have heard them off and on (in passing) for several years.

I think many of the people laughing at the RH dissenters are a bit overly snobbish about their own preferred band to be honest. And some are making some unfair and strange assumptions about how horrible someone's taste must be to not like RH....like the guy who said I must like Heavy Metal, or the other guy who said I must not listen to any good music and just soak in whatever 'chart topper' is there, or anyone who assumed that I don't like slower or emo or more introspective music (or whatever you would want to call it). All of those assumptions are wrong and show some pretty narrow-minded thinking.

HamonRye has been pretty mature in this discussion and respectful of my thoughts even though he disagrees with me on this particular band. And I appreciate his input and feel I'm learning something from his posts.

Others have said directly to me, "Microbob, you have to agree that THIS...." or "you can't deny THIS about them" when, in fact, I do. So does me responding to the people telling me this stuff about what I must listen to or what I must agree with them about RH mean that I'm trolling?

Sorry to disappoint the people who thought I must listen to whatever chart-topper is popular at the time but it simply isn't true.

Even if you don't like them, you have to concede that they are one of the greatest bands of this generation. I don't really like the Beatles all that much, but I'd be delusional if I didn't recognize them as the greatest band of their generation. Same with U2 and several other bands. Oh, and Beastie Boys? C'mon.

Seriously, is MBob just the most elaborate troll ever? I feel like I disagree with his posts like half the time, and the other half are tl;dr.

Your Mom - arrrgh. Here we go again with what one "HAS" to do even if they don't like them. No, I do not think one has to concede that. Obviously there are many who think they are. I understand that this is different than liking them or not. I mean, if you are just going by sales or general popularity than I guess it's concede-able. But I don't think that's what you were driving at with the term "greatest".

I'm similar to you on the Beatles fwiw. I don't really listen to them or like them all that much but I obviously recognize them as the greatest of their time (even though I like the Rolling Stones and The Who much better among other bands).

In his defense, I'd imagine it's hard to have 40k quality posts.

MB, I said you're plain wrong when you say they're not good. No one should flame anyone who comes into this thread and say "I don't really like them" or "X decent suggestion is better and heres why."

I think Animal Collective is overrated (I like them, but don't want to really get into it), but don't spend 8+ posts trolling the AC fans here. I just don't see the point in doing that and appreciate them enough.

The difference between liking a band and appreciating their importance/talent is pretty large and not that hard. No one in this thread is forcing you to like Radiohead or trying overly hard to change your opinion to where you think they're the best thing ever. Lots of people are just confused as to why you honestly believe Coldplay is a better band or why they're just not good.

It's also probably because you got the "don't like them" out in the first post, then took another 3 posts just saying how bad they are, then took another 3 or so before posting anything insightful into the topic about who may be better or elaborating on your opinions early on in this thread.
3 ninja edits

You just need to able to say "They're not bad, I just don't like them". That's all these people are asking MB.