My comment about post Syd Floyd was sort of a joke, I like later Pink Floyd stuff and can see why people love them.

I think the influences of Pink Floyd on Radiohead are somewhat overstated and not direct. I think Radiohead sounds like Floyd only because similarities in the emotional landscape were they operate. If you want to write a sort of sad, non literal mood based song, using the tools available to a pop band, you are going to sound like Floyd whether you have heard them or not. Just like if you try to write a happy pop love song, you are going to sound something like The Beatles. Floyd deserves alot of the credit for doing it first, but it shouldn't diminish Radiohead for exploring the same abstract themes imo.

MDPoker - Thanks for your thoughts. I don't know how interested I am in going that much further into trying to 'appreciate' RH really. I mean, would you be interested in going the other way? I break down some of their music and try to convince you why your favorite band kind of sucks and why you shouldn't be as impressed by them?

I think my taste in music is fine. I'm probably too snobby on things that "I" like but I also think I'm pretty open-minded. And still get excited when I hear something new that I think kicks ass.

I remember hearing some Smashing Pumpkins bootleg some friend of mine had in 1991. He grabbed me and said, "Bob...you've got to listen to this" and I said, "whoa...who the F are these guys?" Same the first time I heard The Verve in 1993 or so and raced off somewhere to see them in concert. And last night I was listening on my headphones to some internet-mix station on pandora or slacker-radio or something and yet again I found myself turning to my GF and saying, "another Yo La Tengo song just came on and can I say again how much these guys seriously kick ass?" (where the hell have I been on these guys?)

So I guess Smashing Pumpkins, Verve and Yo La Tengo are three bands that are immediately occurring to me. I'm not a huge fan-boi of any of them but I do like them. I'm just throwing some bands out there.

But that's just the tip for me of course (like it would be for anyone) and I kind of listen to various other rock or jazz that's a bit all over the place from The Who to Ben Folds to Miles Davis to Luscious Jackson to My Bloody Valentine, etc as well as other bands that most people aren't going to be familiar with anyway. More recently, the Yeah Yeah Yeah's are a band that caught my attention as well as those Pumpkins-clones who call themselves the Silversun Pickups.

Thanks for your thoughts Max. As incorrect as I may be on RH I am ultra-unimpressed by many of the arguments being made in their favor as well.

Hamonrye and a few others have contributed some really interesting thoughts. But I do think that the idea that I simply must not know/understand music to think what I think is somewhat narrow-minded.

I can at least recognize that some of their songs are not done in the standard 4/4 time whereas I suspect some of the people accusing me of not knowing music perhaps weren't aware of that (maybe it's some well known trivia thing among their fans though...similar to Pink Floyd's Money being done in 7/4 time...not sure). That probably doesn't mean very much but I'm not sure really how to defend myself from all the, "you're too stupid to appreciate them" style of arguments which it seems many are making.

The main thing that I have learned from this thread is that if I want to keep douchebags out of my life I need to avoid Radiohead fans.

if you only look at the white stripes first album this statement has some merit, they were somewhat similar. if you can listen to White Blood Cells and tell me it sounds like the flat duo jets i'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.

Meh. At least Radiohead fans aren't 100% aligned with DMB fans, who are douchey and promoting a terrible band.

No.

This thread needs to be locked up. It's 99% awful, and getting worse...

well i very much so do enjoy RH,

i'm going to say red hot chili peppers have a big edge on best band of our time.

I like Radiohead, they are a good band, though I like almost all music.

With that said, they are not the best band of the past 20 years, and not in the top 5, though they are in the top 10, imo of course.

Which handi said radiohead sound too much like Pink Floyd? I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. And yes, best band of our time, up there in song writing skills next to Bob Dylan, Lennon and McCarthy imo. I know I'll get flamed for saying it but it's true, just cos they write songs which aren't as conventional as The Beatles doesn't mean they can't write songswhich are as good.

yeah, saying that radiohead sound too much like pink floyd is a pretty awful argument.

If they sound too much like another epic band that came before them, they can't be the "The Best Band of Our Time". At least not for me.

as someone who owns the large majority of the discography of both bands i can safely say anyone who makes this claim hasn't spent any length of time listening to the either band. please link me to a radiohead song and a pink floyd song that sound similar

i think about 10% of the radiohead stuff i've listened to is phenomenal. pure genius. but the other 90% is boring ****e.

This is nonsense. I've seen Phish a couple times live..DMB many many more, but to say improv is not their thing is crazy. Almost every song they play that is not a "radio song" is improved during the show for 5-10 minutes at least. At least twice during a show you will hear DMB improv a 6 minute studio version song to 20 minutes. They are absolutely the best band I have seen live. You are right that each performer by themself would excel in any aspect of music, very talented.

For the discussion. Pearl Jam, Chili Peppers, Metallica, and DMB are the most qualified. All have been around and extremely successful for 20 years running and dont seem to be slowing down (except Pearl Jam..but just a little). Radiohead though..meh..not so much. Good, but not great.

its insulting to compare RH to PF.
For one thing, PF comes from an era where good bands were plenty.

Pink floyd was methodical, original and always progressing its sound. Each sound they made was as if it was made for a reason. Images come to mind. They were somehow able to mix visual images with music.

here are some lesser known tracks progressing chronologically (more or less):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKkzolgLmn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7056aAuz-g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIQB1oAVbvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQvG2SMVl84

Echoes: some causal PF listeners might not know about this. Unfortunately I could only find it synced w/ the ending of 2001: A space odyssey. So if you don't want the ending of the movie spoiled, dont watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f88NZ1sxWX0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIt3uO8aziw

And here is the final song, of the final album of the pre Dark Side of the Moon era, as if they are departing from their native home and getting ready to become recognized:

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

If you had to pick an album, that was the greatest album of all time, DSOTM could easily win that. Though I think w/ MJ's recent passing, most would rate Thriller over DSOTM (fair, imo, both are amazing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon

After DSOTM, it is all down hill (imo), yet they still produced excellent two excellent albums: Wish You Were Here and the Wall. Animals, I would consider just shy of excellent.

Some post DSOTM highlights:

SOYCD I and II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkUR0xe6Pmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol14NeJwBRA

amazing how different their music is. I mean SOYCD was totally diff, compared to DSOTM and Obscured by Clouds, but by the time animals comes around, it is totally diff. Possibly b/c Roger Waters was taking things in his direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq5qME0gnjc

Wall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGvkebKlM_4

An analogy I would make is, PF is to RH like a HSNL soul crusher is to a NL400 grinder.

The NL400 grinder will put ~99.5 % of poker players to shame.
The HSNL player is by whom standards are set.

Why do you think that? Just curious...

This thread is hilarious though.

Almost every band has done something on par with OK Computer, because OK Computer is terrible. I just re-listened to it to make sure that I wasn't misremembering it. Its nothing but song after song after song of bland melodies, boring drums, and horrible wall of sound production with zero dynamics. What does anyone see at all in this album? Its a muddled mess.

A huge WTFLOL goes to you comparing Radiohead to the Beatles. No one has had the combination of popularity and critical acclaim that the Beatles had. Maybe when Radiohead does something anywhere close to having the top 5 positions on the charts at the same time, this comparison won't be as lol-worthy, but I won't be holding my breath.

I know you directed this at MicroBob, but if you don't mind, I'll take you up on your offer.

Some of this doesn't apply to me, because I think the Beatles are great, and I'd like to think that I have a fairly extensive knowledge of rock music history. As for the bands, here's ten off the top of my head, and I'm sure I could easily add ten more if you move the start date back 5 years:

Modest Mouse
Death Cab for Cutie
Built to Spill
Smashing Pumpkins
Elliott Smith
Pavement
Queens of the Stone Age
Spoon
The White Stripes
Beck

Did you really bridge "OK Computer is terrible" to "Sure I'll have an intelligent discussion with you?" Really?

Uh yes. Across the whole album there's no dynamic range, none of the instruments have any definition and half the time the vocals don't either. Paranoid Android displays those qualities the worst, but they are there in every track. Its a recipe for an album that is wholly unlistenable.

I'd like to see someone post what they actually like about this album, preferably without using the words "amazing", "innovative", "technically difficult", or any of their synonyms. Actually describe what qualities of the music appeal to you.

The post you made earlier is just as non-specific as all the others

i mean, is there any reason to respond to someone who says OK computer has no dynamic range and is poorly recorded? there are a lot of subjective points one can disagree on when it comes to radiohead but those are fairly objective observations that happen to be totally bogus. it kind of makes it obvious that you either don't understand what those words mean or don't have ears.

Not that they are particularly similar or anything but I find it weird that you can have so much appreciation for SP and so little for RH, most people I know either love both are can't get into either.

Thanks to the guy who mentioned Death Cab For Cutie when asked to name bands better than Radiohead. Not sure I would agree just yet, but they are really really good!

yeah, this pretty much sums it up


i don't get people that call radiohead bland and boring. my girlfriend thought that too, on a hot night i darkened the room and put on myxomatosis at a loud volume. she couldn't believe that was radiohead, and has since become a pretty big radiohead fan. i'm not saying everyone should be a fan, but bland, what the f? ><


for people having trouble with the emoness or with yorke's voice, the easy all stars cover album might be a good way for you to try and appreciate the 'basic' quality of the songs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeGzqbcHhY