The Who is our generation? Really? Who's next came out 38 years ago. When you're 38 years past your peak on a forum where the average is mid 20s, how are you in this discussion?

I think even Metallica fans realize the band is ~15 years past their peak, Nirvana fans realize the band kind of died over a decade ago and hasn't had the same effect on a lot of this generation. I haven't got around to listening to Backspacer yet, but the reviews didn't push it to the top of my must listen to list. When the White Stripes were here, they performed on a city bus during the day of their show. They're the most accessible and probably coolest of the bands, but they seem a tier below the others listed.

It's why the Jets fan confused me, I'm a 20 yr old college student, Radiohead is the biggest act among my demographic. No one else really comes close, while they're also receiving the accolades with great critical response. I just don't think you can be a consideration for a "greatest recent band" if you've missed my generation. If we ask this question again in 5 years, Radiohead, Metallica and Pearl Jam will still be going. Metallica will be over 20 years removed from their peak more or less the same with Nirvana. I'd assume Radiohead and Pearl Jam will remain doing the same stuff they're doing atm.

MB, in this thread there's been well over a dozen people posting "I don't really like them, but can't think of anyone more influential." Half of the support has come from people who barely like or don't even like the band, but can put that aside to actually contribute to this thread. While you defend yourself, at least 10 people have called you out for trolling, whether you realize you're doing it or not.

fugazi.

or the jesus lizard.

take your pick

the arguments for fugazi are pretty endless actually, and they should easily be considered in this >>argument<<. besides theyre musical achievements which are vast, they are pretty much the cover boys for the way music is being made and the way it is distributed.

i doubt there is a band more important to todays industry climate than fugazi.

Hahaha. So agreeing with you means they are contributing? WTF?

Good for them that they can say that about RH even thought they don't like them. I can't do that if I don't think it's correct. And pointing out to me the number of people who CAN do that doesn't make me think their music is any better or more influential.

I can do that just fine about many other bands that I don't necessary care for that much (Beatles, Nirvana, etc).

Some poster giving essentially a +1 to "I don't like listening to them but I agree on their influence" is not exactly the greatest contributor to the discussion.

I threw out some band names earlier and asked for more feedback in that direction on the "influence" discussion. I think that's contributing (or attempting to). I think many of my other posts where I am directly responding to questions that people are asking me is contributing also. I understand I tossed out some less known bands that I happen to be partial to but I was still kind of hoping for more feedback. No biggie though. But I think it's pretty clear I was making a genuine effort.

I also gave some thoughts on RH's music itself and tried to use more polite language in there and that wasn't received terribly well either. But it wasn't for lack of me attempting to contribute.

MB,

Ever had any formal music training, music theory classes in college, played an instrument very well, or have anything at all that would qualify you to be the judge on what music is and isn't good aside from your personal taste?

art is personal taste, *******. quit being an elitist douchebag.

there isnt good and bad, there is only your personal taste.

wow, just wow. I don't particularly like his music (or any classical/baroque music), but this is just a really really really really really really really dumb post.

Adam - I've never said I was qualified on anything. And I don't think your Q's have anything to do with anything anyway. I note that you are only asking me those Q's instead of anyone else in the thread.

I see a film that I disliked AND I thought was lousy and/or stupid and/or ******edly contrived....other people were deeply moved by it so they voted it Best Picture at the Oscars. It happens.

There is one "art" (to use the term liberally) that I'm guessing I'm more accomplished and more expert at than anyone on these forums and that would be play-by-play sportscasting. Everyone who watches sports has an opinion on who they like on the air and who they don't (which is similar to who "does it well" although not necessarily exactly the same). And their opinion counts for exactly the same as mine even though I actually do it and obviously very few other people on here do.

salt - your post was dumber than his. He was very obviously levelling/making fun of me.

lol

lol well thats what I get for skimming. MB lol at you then.

i can understand if Radiohead isn't someone's favorite band, but if you call them "boring" "bland" or whatever, you're a mouthbreather, just gtfo of this thread and go back to playing limit .01/.02.

surprised there has been no mention of Incubus yet.

As far as greatest of our time, i view that as Gen X and on, so figure 90s, to current. And my favorite band of that time is the Deftones, but I know their style won't appeal to enough people to call them greatest of our time.

Radiohead is in my top 5 though.

That's quite a jump there. If you don't like Radiohead you must play .01/.02. Niiice.

What happens in these threads is the pro-Radiohead fans tell the other people they they "have bad taste" in music. Basically the only opinions they'll entertain are ones that align with their own.

And the anti-Radiohead people end up going out of their way to make Radiohead seem like Coldplay, which is absurd.

Radiohead is very talented, but the attacks from both sides are equally absurd.

What is also absurd is debating about something that requires a qualifier "best band of our generation"

Who cares about our generation. 99% of the music sucks. There are probably at least 4 bands from the 60s who are better. Beatles, Stones, The Who, Zep.

From the 80s, Guns N' Roses probably is. Weezer comes close to Radiohead, but I don't consider their music as serious as the other 5 bands listed.

LOL. Sorry for thinking their music is bland. Thanks for approaching this difference of opinion so well.



prohorn - To be fair, he said it's okay to not like them. The issue is if you think their music is boring or bland.

the point is, I assume you think it's bland because you don't understand enough about music to appreciate Radiohead. Whether you truly enjoy their music or not is another story.

It's like someone saying football is boring because they don't know anything about it, not because it's actually boring, they just don't know what's going on.

Haha. WTF? You assume wrongly. Congrats on your feelings of superiority though.

o rly? what are your credentials good sir?

Ok, everyone who voted no -- sorry, we can't count your results until your 'understanding of music' has been vetted by ludacris. It's quite possible that after he educates you, the blandness will transform into the sublime.

I don't know anything about music theory, I just know what I like. I listen to a wide variety of music. Lately: Tool, Tori Amos, Patricia Barber, Monster Magnet, Infected Mushroom, Rasputina. I listen to these musicians because I enjoy the music, because it moves me, because it lessens the pain of having to constantly breathe through my mouth.

I hate Thom Yorke's voice, I hate his mumbling. I find their music bland.

What credentials are you talking about? I listen to a fair amount of music and appreciate a lot of it. I assume you are calling me a mouthbreather and that I am too ignorant to 'understand' RH because you can't think of a better way to make your point and/or insult me.

In the meanwhile, on the topic of musical variety and stuff like that... my GF is listening to yet another one of her bizarre mixes. It cracks me up how much her mixes make almost no sense sometimes yet I still like them in their weird way.

I think it just went from some salsa thing (which she listens to a lot of) straight to Weezer and then to Paul Oakenfold. Some random Spanish ballad or something is probably next. Cancel that...it's the Kings of Leon instead.

I think his point is that if you knew more about the technical aspect behind writing/creating music, you would understand why a group like radiohead isn't bland. I agree with him, even though I am not a big fan of their music. I have no formal music training, nor have I taken any theory classes, but I have taken three music specific appreciation/history classes and I can say that once you learn more about music, its roots, the innovation of certain people, and from where music has evolved from, you can understand why a group like radiohead is held in high esteem with modern music critics/scholars.

FWIW I voted No in the poll as well.

Yeah pretty much, he was too busy being offended and waving around his huge penis to comprehend anything I typed though.

iuseproxies,

thank you for proving my point about people who get super worked up about their pet artists and lose all perspective or rationality. first, being experimental doesn't mean your stuff has to vary wildly in quality. also, aping different, existing genres doesn't make you avant garde. pink cigarette is a great example. it sounds like a caricature of a leonard cohen song. the girls of porn is a silly song about jerking off. they have lots of goofy sci-fi abstraction or erstwhile psycho-babble... they also have some actual good lyrics. that's what "hit or miss" means. it doesn't mean "he's so weird and complex that ham on rye can only get like half his stuff, and the other stuff goes right over his head." ham on rye was gettin down to faith no more while you were suckin your mother's dick, so step off.

re: jack white, he's certainly good, i'm not a huge white stripes fan and on my more cynical days i think he's basically an overhyped blues revivalist and any half-decent session guy could crush him. but what makes a guy like white good isn't just the guitar playing, it's that as part of a total package.... personally the total package doesn't appeal to me that much so i tend to underrate him but reducing it to a question of purely technical skill is misleading. the same way it's hard to compare radiohead to pink floyd because they are from such different eras, it's kind of hard to talk about best rock guitar players because great guitar playing is much much less important to rock than it was in the 60's or 70's.



fugazi / JL are both better answers to the best band question than most people will think

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of critical acceptance and influence that Fugazi was one of the better selections I'd seen in the thread (in the spirit of disclosure, I should mention that this opinion is based more on reading than on listening, as I'm not terribly familiar with their work.) I do think mainstream acceptance counts for something.

And I'm a 19 year old college student, and I've polled about ~30 people today asking if they like Radiohead, and 4 said yes. Probably about 7 said they never heard of them, and the rest said they were too bland. I asked many of my friends who love rock music, and who I feel are into music (whether die hard listeners, musicians themselves, majors in music) and not one said Radiohead should be best band of our time. Some said top 5, but not the top.

Radiohead is most certainly not the biggest act among our age. ESPECIALLY considering rap took a huge stride in popularity while we were younger, it's probably more focused on that.

If we want to exclude all the rap fans within our demographic and focus on rock, many don't think of them as a top band of our time. Hell, many don't like them.

I don't know what your demographic is; your group of 5 friends, this thread of Radiohead fans, etc, but it isn't right. Of course the majority of people ITT will be RH fans, the title says RH and those fans will come in and post how they agree.

Obviously you go to a ****ty college LOL.

I'm joking, but I actually would expect there to be a correlation, although I expect it has to do more with status markers than intelligence.