|
|
Post by RocketMan on Nov 3, 2011 13:23:16 GMT -5
i can understand the hate about radiohead. after ok computer they did something unexpected and got to a nerd-band. also thom yorke takes himself to serious.
but you can't argue about them musically. they're one of the best bands ever. but nothing for the mass in the last 10 years
|
|
sbajf
Madferrit Fan
Posts: 69
|
Post by sbajf on Nov 3, 2011 18:25:44 GMT -5
Going to see these boys tomorrow at the NEC.
I'd say Kasabian are the best band around now, Arctics coming in at a close second.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Nov 5, 2011 18:16:01 GMT -5
There is no way of telling which band is the best because of the vast variety of genres available today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2011 18:47:57 GMT -5
I have to agree with Liam here: I just don't get Radiohead. They annoy the hell out of me. Fucking hate them really.
But, then again, I don't really listen to much from new groups like Arctic Monkeys, Arcade Fire, or Kasabian. They really do nothing for me. Not sure why.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Nov 5, 2011 19:04:54 GMT -5
I'm not really going to argue with anyone here. Radiohead are the Beatles of our time. That doesn't mean that they can hold a candle to The Beatles it just means that in comparison to the acts around them in the world today, their significance and creative output is paramount.
Thom Yorke is a weirdo, sure, I know he masturbates a lot and drinks unicorn blood out of a golden vial every day, but who honestly gives a flying fuck? Most bands I like have unlikeable frontman/members, does it take away from the music? Clearly Not. To Go from one masterpiece (The Bends) to an even grander masterpiece (OK Computer) to an even more inexiplicably beautiful, era-defining zeitgeist masterpiece to follow it up (Kid A) and then to produce music today which is still head and shoudlers above most of their competitors (In Rainbows) is something that is unparalleled in a post-Beatles/post-Sixties world.
|
|
|
|
Post by J.B on Nov 5, 2011 19:22:22 GMT -5
Radiohead are the Beatles of our time. So yes, they are the best. Absolute bollocks; Radiohead take the worst aspects of the Beatles and don't bother to try and replicate the melodies and euphoric glory in their songs that make the Beatles so great. In terms of popularity, music, rock n roll attitude and legacy it is indisputable to say that Oasis are the Beatles of our time. |
|
|
|
Post by J.B on Nov 5, 2011 19:24:21 GMT -5
His description of Street Spirit is one of my favorite things ever.  How far up your own asshole can you be? Was just gonna bring that up. Him and his snobby, holier than thou fans can fuck right off as far as i'm concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by Bittersweet Split on Nov 5, 2011 20:40:52 GMT -5
Radiohead fucking sucks. Sorry mate, I was trying to be polite about it before, but the fact is, you are conned into thinking you like it, but there is seriously less music content in one of their albums than in a first-time French Horn lesson for third graders. (Generalisation, I'm sure a few of their songs have some discernable melody)
Radiohead is music for people who like to be alone, feel isolated and shit about their lives. Have fun mate, I'm sure theyre the best ever - and maybe they are, but I'd rather not be enlightened, finding messages in those walls of sound.
Instead, toooniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, Imma rock n roooll staaaarrrrrrrr
Sooome miiight saay, that we will fiiind a brigghter daaaay
Kickin' up a storm, from the day that I was born
seriously, what bands forum do you think youre on?
Arctic Monkeys > Radiohead
Let's face it, while it may be disputed on this forum and this thread, to me, they are my faves. I doubt they will (personally) be beaten - I will be checking out most of the bands people say they prefer.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Nov 6, 2011 4:46:47 GMT -5
There is seriously less music content in one of their albums than in a first-time French Horn lesson for third graders. Right... |
|
|
|
Post by takemethere95 on Nov 6, 2011 5:50:51 GMT -5
Back on topic, AM are the best band of the 21st century. Kasabian are good, but haven't produced one flawless, defining album for
me, and still attract that "lad rock" crowd.
|
|
|
|
Post by J.B on Nov 6, 2011 9:21:24 GMT -5
still attract that "lad rock" crowd. And what's wrong with that? So do Arctic Monkeys. So did Oasis, The Stone Roses, The Rolling Stones, The Libertines etc. Stop being such a snob. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 6, 2011 14:35:29 GMT -5
still attract that "lad rock" crowd. And what's wrong with that? So do Arctic Monkeys. So did Oasis, The Stone Roses, The Rolling Stones, The Libertines etc. Stop being such a snob. Yeah but everyone of those bands mentioned have made at least one great album, and their fans are a bit more diverse to be honest - who can seriously say that about Kasabian? As for Radiohead, they lost the ability to write music with heart and soul in it, probably to do with the fact Thom Yorke can't write melodies for shit these days and covers up his shortcomings by putting 'creative' blips and blops and rhythmic beats in mind numbingly boring tunes. And if I want a proper interesting front man who writes obscure lyrics, I'll go to REM who are an infinity times better than anything Radiohead have produced. |
|
|
|
Post by takemethere95 on Nov 6, 2011 14:48:12 GMT -5
And what's wrong with that? So do Arctic Monkeys. So did Oasis, The Stone Roses, The Rolling Stones, The Libertines etc. Stop being such a snob. I'm not being a snob, but having been to Kasabian, Oasis and Monkeys gigs, AM attract a far wider demographic. Humbug probably got rid of a few Mardy Bum hangers-on. |
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Nov 6, 2011 18:44:00 GMT -5
As for Radiohead, they lost the ability to write music with heart and soul in it, probably to do with the fact Thom Yorke can't write melodies for shit these days and covers up his shortcomings by putting 'creative' blips and blops and rhythmic beats in mind numbingly boring tunes. Lotus Flower though, dude. Lotus Flower. Genius melody. If you can't get past the beat behind the melody, check out this acoustic cover version: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2011 21:26:33 GMT -5
Arcade Fire are. #1 on both sides of the Atlantic, headlined Coachella, Lollapalooza, Reading/Leeds, Big Day Out, and a bunch of other European festivals. No other band mentioned has as much wide spread success and critical acclaim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bittersweet Split on Nov 8, 2011 16:29:57 GMT -5
Arcade Fire are. #1 on both sides of the Atlantic, headlined Coachella, Lollapalooza, Reading/Leeds, Big Day Out, and a bunch of other European festivals. No other band mentioned has as much wide spread success and critical acclaim. I always find it a little hard to take when someone say that Arcade Fire are better than Arctic Monkeys, to me they are just another band I never successfully got into. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 16:44:17 GMT -5
Arcade Fire are. #1 on both sides of the Atlantic, headlined Coachella, Lollapalooza, Reading/Leeds, Big Day Out, and a bunch of other European festivals. No other band mentioned has as much wide spread success and critical acclaim. I always find it a little hard to take when someone say that Arcade Fire are better than Arctic Monkeys, to me they are just another band I never successfully got into. You don't need to like them to realize that, objectively, they are better. More critical acclaim and more sales. |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Nov 8, 2011 17:16:31 GMT -5
I saw the Monkeys on Saturday night in Newcastle, it's all subjective, however if there is a better live band than these guys out there at the moment, I'd love to see them. They were fantastic. the boy Helders is a beast on the drums.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunshineLullaby on Nov 8, 2011 22:02:38 GMT -5
I always find it a little hard to take when someone say that Arcade Fire are better than Arctic Monkeys, to me they are just another band I never successfully got into. You don't need to like them to realize that, objectively, they are better. More critical acclaim and more sales. Putting aside the fact there is no such thing as objectively assessing rock music, I'll play along: Metacritic Average Career Scores: Arctic Monkeys - 78 Arcade Fire - 88 Worldwide Sales (For First Three Albums Only, as it would be unfair to Arcade Fire otherwise): Arctic Monkeys - Approximately 4 mil Arcade Fire - Approximately 2 mil |
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Nov 8, 2011 23:26:48 GMT -5
For me it's Sonata Arctica, it's not just about sales. And befoire anyone says "Oh Artic Monkeys are better then that shit band," let me remind you that they have a dedicated fan base worldwide and aren't having a magazine kneel and kiss teir collective arse every week.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunshineLullaby on Nov 8, 2011 23:50:01 GMT -5
I really shouldn't have even made that post. Things like this always get too heated and end up going nowhere interesting, discussion-wise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2011 0:31:52 GMT -5
You don't need to like them to realize that, objectively, they are better. More critical acclaim and more sales. Putting aside the fact there is no such thing as objectively assessing rock music, I'll play along: Metacritic Average Career Scores: Arctic Monkeys - 78 Arcade Fire - 88 Worldwide Sales (For First Three Albums Only, as it would be unfair to Arcade Fire otherwise): Arctic Monkeys - Approximately 4 mil Arcade Fire - Approximately 2 mil If there's no objectivity in rock music, then there's no objectivity in any music. One can always step back and look at things from a purely statistical standpoint, as cold as that may seem. Arctic Monkeys have sold more now, but they're pretty stagnant popularity-wise. Arcade Fire will only get more popular with their next album, unless they really mess things up and create a jazz odyssey. I think Arctic Monkeys are a fantastic band, but Arcade Fire just take the cake. They got all of the awards, #1 in the UK and US, and headlined all of the major festivals and arenas. They were, when they were active, the biggest rock band out there. So maybe they aren't currently, now that they're (for all intents and purposes) inactive at the moment. But from August 2010 to October 2011, they were the very top and I can see them reclaiming that crown with their next album. |
|
|
|
Post by Bring It On Dan on Nov 9, 2011 5:12:10 GMT -5
I saw the Monkeys on Saturday night in Newcastle, it's all subjective, however if there is a better live band than these guys out there at the moment, I'd love to see them. They were fantastic. the boy Helders is a beast on the drums. Saw them at the 02 last sunday night and they were good, nothing special, but a good singalong spectacle. I'm looking forward to seeing Kasabian more. |
|
|
|
Post by SunshineLullaby on Nov 9, 2011 10:54:22 GMT -5
Putting aside the fact there is no such thing as objectively assessing rock music, I'll play along: Metacritic Average Career Scores: Arctic Monkeys - 78 Arcade Fire - 88 Worldwide Sales (For First Three Albums Only, as it would be unfair to Arcade Fire otherwise): Arctic Monkeys - Approximately 4 mil Arcade Fire - Approximately 2 mil If there's no objectivity in rock music, then there's no objectivity in any music. One can always step back and look at things from a purely statistical standpoint, as cold as that may seem. Arctic Monkeys have sold more now, but they're pretty stagnant popularity-wise. Arcade Fire will only get more popular with their next album, unless they really mess things up and create a jazz odyssey. I think Arctic Monkeys are a fantastic band, but Arcade Fire just take the cake. They got all of the awards, #1 in the UK and US, and headlined all of the major festivals and arenas. They were, when they were active, the biggest rock band out there. So maybe they aren't currently, now that they're (for all intents and purposes) inactive at the moment. But from August 2010 to October 2011, they were the very top and I can see them reclaiming that crown with their next album. There isn't objectivity in anything, I'd argue. Any experience we've had will skew the way we look at things. Of course we can look at things like sales, but then we'd have to both agree that Coldplay are the best band in the world, wouldn't we? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2011 13:53:08 GMT -5
If there's no objectivity in rock music, then there's no objectivity in any music. One can always step back and look at things from a purely statistical standpoint, as cold as that may seem. Arctic Monkeys have sold more now, but they're pretty stagnant popularity-wise. Arcade Fire will only get more popular with their next album, unless they really mess things up and create a jazz odyssey. I think Arctic Monkeys are a fantastic band, but Arcade Fire just take the cake. They got all of the awards, #1 in the UK and US, and headlined all of the major festivals and arenas. They were, when they were active, the biggest rock band out there. So maybe they aren't currently, now that they're (for all intents and purposes) inactive at the moment. But from August 2010 to October 2011, they were the very top and I can see them reclaiming that crown with their next album. There isn't objectivity in anything, I'd argue. Any experience we've had will skew the way we look at things. Of course we can look at things like sales, but then we'd have to both agree that Coldplay are the best band in the world, wouldn't we? That's why I have sales and critical acclaim. Coldplay isn't really respected and they get shit on a lot by the media. Arcade Fire have the media on their side and, while they don't sell nearly as many albums, they still headline huge gigs and have incredible sales for a band on an indie label run by Superchunk. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5