|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 27, 2012 11:05:40 GMT -5
But ultimately what makes them great is their consistency. It's incredibly difficult to have two breakthrough albums and still remain consistently great. Radiohead are that combination of consistency, along with critical and commercial success. Very few bands are able to hit all three of those cylinders for an extended period of time as Radiohead have. And I haven't even mentioned Radiohead being an amazing live band. As I said before - the exact same things could be said about R.E.M. and the Smiths, and both do have exceptional frontmen. Those two would probably make for better comparisons to Radiohead, and I don't think Radiohead would win against either. Erm, I don't think you could say that the Smiths had an extended period of success. They only released four albums. Radiohead and Oasis released 7. Secondly, I wouldn't say that the Smiths have had as much commercial success as Radiohead. Not even close to be honest. Morrissey is a better frontman, which is why I said that Radiohead does not have the best frontman. But I don't think saying that the Smiths had a longer and more consistent critical and commercial success is accurate at all. REM though, would definitely fit in that category of bands who released a host of albums and were able to have sustained critical and commercial success. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 27, 2012 11:15:13 GMT -5
radiohead is an artificial band. they don't want to be understood by everyone. sometimes it looks like they're trying it to hard but even that is debatable because not everyone get this kind of music And yet they use fairly common pop hooks with lyrics that usually show the feeling of isolation, coldness, and discontent that most people feel. They do have a universal quality to them. It's hard to become as big as they have become without being somewhat universal or somewhat understood. And to be honest, they're not a very complicated band. If they're trying not to be understood, then they're doing a fairly poor job. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Vulgar on Sept 27, 2012 11:16:17 GMT -5
The Smiths did however manage to put out constantly great material, and a lot of it. They did it in a short time span, but their 4 albums + standalone singles (many and good enough to be regarded as a 5th album) are pretty flawless.
"But I don't think saying that the Smiths had a longer and more consistent critical and commercial success is accurate at all."
I didn't say that (sorry if it sounded like I did), of course they don't beat Radiohead in this point, they hold up. I was just replying to the sentences I quoted:
"But ultimately what makes them great is their consistency. It's incredibly difficult to have two breakthrough albums and still remain consistently great. "
That's exactly what the Smiths did, maybe not for an extended period of time, but with so much material that they could have filled a decade at least (you wouldn't say the Beatles never were successfull for a long period of time because they only needed seven years to put their songs out). And tbh, if we're talking about consistency, Radiohead's low points are definitely lower than the Smiths "low" points.
It's definitely true that Radiohead had way more commercial success...but I tend not to care about that. It's the music that matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2012 11:19:26 GMT -5
Pointless conversation on an Oasis forum, but Radiohead are an *incredible*band.
I know that a lot of Oasis fans think listening to music is like following a football team etc, where you choose your side. It isn't. It really, really isn't.
If they dropped their preconceived notions of what Radiohead is, they'd possibly like them.
Or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 27, 2012 11:26:12 GMT -5
Tbh, I think overstating the depth of The Smith discography. They maybe had enough material with b-sides included for two more albums at most. And obviously they had less low points, but by your argument would be like the White Stripes had less low point than Radiohead and are therefore more consistent. In the end, as someone said before, Radiohead puts as many songs out as they possible can and I give them points for consistently putting out as much music as they can at a high level.
And Beatles released 13 albums along with unrelesed tracks. Not really a valid comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Sept 27, 2012 12:11:30 GMT -5
Pointless conversation on an Oasis forum, but Radiohead are an *incredible*band. I know that a lot of Oasis fans think listening to music is like following a football team etc, where you choose your side. It isn't. It really, really isn't. If they dropped their preconceived notions of what Radiohead is, they'd possibly like them. Or not. Listening to music isn't like following a football team, being an Oasis fan at time felt like that what with the atmosphere at the gigs and there own gang mentality especially in the early days. Radiohead are a great band though and they continue to be capable of putting out some good tunes even if I have found most of the more recent albums quite patchy. Radiohead just don't thrill or excite me like Oasis did. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Vulgar on Sept 27, 2012 12:20:06 GMT -5
Tbh, I think overstating the depth of The Smith discography. They maybe had enough material with b-sides included for two more albums at most. And obviously they had less low points, but by your argument would be like the White Stripes had less low point than Radiohead and are therefore more consistent. In the end, as someone said before, Radiohead puts as many songs out as they possible can and I give them points for consistently putting out as much music as they can at a high level. And Beatles released 13 albums along with unrelesed tracks. Not really a valid comparison. If you compare them to the White Stripes, I think we just have different opinions on the quality of the Smiths  It's not like they were consistently mediocre and thus never really bad - to me at least they were consistently perfect. The Beatles comparison was just to remind you that a band can exist for a short time and still put out a lot of great music. The Smiths, as you say, had enough material for 6 albums in that 4 years. Oasis had 8 albums in 15, Radiohead 8 (maybe 9 - don't know their b-sides) in 19. |
|
|
|
Post by Bittersweet Split on Sept 27, 2012 13:48:06 GMT -5
I gotta say, part of the difference has to be in the emotions behind everything. A lot of people here have mentioned emotions and energy, and there's no denying the positive energy flowing from songs like Some Might Say, Live Forever, Lyla (or hell, even Digsy's Dinner). Might just be me, but I often associate songs with memories (which definitely effects how much I like them), and those bring back positivity, feeling on top of my game and general awesomeness.
And you get different emotions, and memories from everthing, Champagne Supernova, Talk Tonight, Slide Away, D'Ya Know What I Mean - the words might not always mean a lot, but the journey does.
Not related, but it would be pretty cool to get some of their best posts put here after a week or so of discussion. It would be even more awesome to link the commenters to their ages and professions - actually that would be great here too, but that one might be a little far fetched
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 27, 2012 21:40:02 GMT -5
A point of contention which I find amusing are some who have spoken of Radiohead's melodies. Me personally, I could see Noel writing melodies like Karma Police, Fake Plastic Trees, Just, High and Dry, Let Down, House of Cards, and Nude. Especially something Karma Police or Fake Plastic Trees which don't sound to dissimilar to some of Oasis' work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2012 21:51:02 GMT -5
A point of contention which I find amusing are some who have spoken of Radiohead's melodies. Me personally, I could see Noel writing melodies like Karma Police, Fake Plastic Trees, Just, High and Dry, Let Down, House of Cards, and Nude. Especially something Karma Police or Fake Plastic Trees which don't sound to dissimilar to some of Oasis' work. Indeed, especially their earlier stuff from Pablo Honey to OK Computer. Melodically, I agree that Thom and Noel have a lot in common, I suppose it all goes down to what they do with the tunes once the melodies are written. Good to see you posting again, by the way.  |
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 27, 2012 22:41:17 GMT -5
i never got into radiohead. i feel like i'm missing out. i've seen them live and listened to their albums. they just never did it for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 10:13:54 GMT -5
i never got into radiohead. i feel like i'm missing out. i've seen them live and listened to their albums. they just never did it for me. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Sept 28, 2012 10:36:39 GMT -5
i liked Radiohead up until Kid A, there were two good songs on that album - National Anthem, forget the other one. i might listen to some of the above mentioned songs.
also, Radiohead are by far the best live band i've ever seen. i saw them in 1997 during the Ok Computer tour in a small high school auditorium. unbelievable.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Sept 28, 2012 10:54:05 GMT -5
Here is my break down
DM vs. Pablo Honey
Winner: DM by miles
Morning Glory vs. The Bends
Winner: Morning Glory my favorite records from both but MG is my favorite and most listened to album of all time
Be Here Now vs. OK Computer
Winner: OK Computer closer than the critics would suggest but BHN's swagger and bloatedness doesn't match Ok Computers brilliance.
SotSoG vs. Kid A
Winner: Kid A although I do listen to SOTSOG more, but when I'm in the mood for Kid A it clicks and it is vastly superior music wise.
Heathen Chemistry vs. Amnesiac
Winner: Amnesiac HC is dull and Amnesiac isn't that good but HC is that dull bar the singles and a couple other tracks.
DBTT vs. Hail to the Thief
Winner: DBTT is just more consistent though HTTT has a handful of good tracks.
DOYS vs. In Rainbows
Winner: In Rainbows DOYS's first half is superb but In Rainbows is my second favorite Radiohead record.
Radiohead: 4
Oasis: 3
So it looks like I prefer radiohead right? Well I don't the fact is I just enjoy Oasis more although they didn't consistently make great albums like Radiohead did/does.
Oasis's imperfections just make me love them more. DM and MG are both in my top 5 favorite albums of all time whereas The Bends is probably in the 10-15 and In Rainbows 20-25. Plus we haven't factored in the b-sides or The Masterplan which are in Oasis's favor though Radiohead has some great b-sides (Talk Show Host, Maquiladora).
Oasis's music hits you and you feel it straight whether its the emotion of Live Forever, the swagger (Supersonic). Radiohead does the same (Fake Plastic Trees) but not with the same consistency that Oasis does.
Music wise Radiohead are far superior but melodic wise Oasis were better. Liam's voice is a big plus for Oasis because it is/was such a voice I mean it is instantly recognizable. Yorke has a great voice but its just not even on the same level as Liam when we was in his prime.
Both bands have their faults. Oasis never really developed themselves like they could whereas Radiohead had the habit of getting too caught up in reinventing themselves they forgot that the song comes first.
As far as live goes. I've seen both once Oasis back in 08 and Radiohead this year at Coachella. Oasis were a lot better in my opinion. I've heard so many good things about Radiohead live but I'll be honest they weren't "superb" or "life changing". They were just good. Not great but good.
One big thing that Oasis also has in their favor for me is that they inspired me to pick up music and helped me discover my passion for music and for me that is one of the reasons why music is around. Radiohead has inspired me but Oasis when I first discovered them was life changing.
Both are superb bands and I get annoyed that some of their respective fans bands insult one another whether its Radiohead being art student vaginas or Oasis being viewed as some pub band.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Sept 28, 2012 13:12:59 GMT -5
Honestly can't say I know very much Radiohead. I like Creep, in fact I play it all the time on my acoustic. I know the obvious songs (Karma Police, Fake Plastic Trees, etc.), does anyone who's a fan of Radiohead want to give me some more obsure, hidden gem-esque songs to listen to? The Bends, Street Spirit Fade Out, Bones, Nice Dream, Airbag, Paranoid Android, There There, Reckoner, Bodysnatchers, Jigsaw Falling Into Place, this list could keep going with the class tunes Radiohead has. |
|
|
|
Post by Shockmaster on Sept 28, 2012 14:03:08 GMT -5
I just don't like Radiohead... As a massive fan of both Kasabian and Muse, you'd think I'd have got into them, but I really haven't. I think they're massively overrated, and are too weird for their own good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2012 18:11:39 GMT -5
I just don't like Radiohead... As a massive fan of both Kasabian and Muse, you'd think I'd have got into them, but I really haven't. I think they're massively overrated, and are too weird for their own good. have you listened to the bends? |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 28, 2012 18:52:41 GMT -5
I just don't like Radiohead... As a massive fan of both Kasabian and Muse, you'd think I'd have got into them, but I really haven't. I think they're massively overrated, and are too weird for their own good. have you listened to the bends? That's what I like about Radiohead. If you don't like their later "experimental" stuff, then you can check out Pablo Honey and the Bends, if you love their experimental stuff then any album after and including Kid A is for you. If you want a happy median, then Ok Computer is for you. Their one of those bands that you may not like all of their music or even a great majority, but if you search, many times depending on your ear preference, there is a decent chance that you'll find something that fit with you. |
|
matt7k
Madferrit Fan
Posts: 79
|
Post by matt7k on Oct 1, 2012 12:31:48 GMT -5
I'm taking Radiohead over Oasis. Maybe it's because I've just become Oasis-out, but over the past year Radiohead has slowly been edging out Oasis as my favorite band. Their roster of songs is fairly staggering: Fake Plastic Tress, National Anthem, High and Dry, Creep, Just, Karma Police, Airbag, Climbing Up the Walls, Let Down, Exit Music, Paranoid Android, Jigsaw, Bodysnatchers, Nude, and Lotus Flower. I find OK Computer to be a near perfect album. The Bends is also brilliant and In Rainbows is blindingly amazing. Oasis were musical and cultural icons, but Radiohead tapped far more into not just what people feel, but what they would feel. The thoughts of isolation, coldness, and the growing of the technological world. They were ahead of the curve in creating a cultural aesthetic for this generation for these feelings before anyone else. Radiohead do not have the best frontman, nor do they the most innovative, nor are the best in any definable category. But ultimately what makes them great is their consistency. It's incredibly difficult to have two breakthrough albums and still remain consistently great. Radiohead are that combination of consistency, along with critical and commercial success. Very few bands are able to hit all three of those cylinders for an extended period of time as Radiohead have. And I haven't even mentioned Radiohead being an amazing live band.
For me, Oasis are a band that reminds me of being a teenager and the thoughts the world was ahead of me and that I could always escape. Radiohead reminds me that I live in the real world and as great as the thought of escapism can be, they remind me that that is rarely and completely possible. Oasis is the great dream world, Radiohead is the biting reality for the most part.Magnificent last paragraph. That's a perfect assessment of both bands. I think your further assessment of Radiohead's variety is the reason I edge towards Radiohead. Radiohead offer that variety in albums along with a sense of realism to their music (that I personally enjoy). When I want to hear some blasting guitars, I can put on Just (the video for that song is as good as any you'll see); when I want to hear something really creepy, I can put on Climbing Up The Walls; when I want to hear a piano-driven emotional song, I can listen to Videotape and when I want to hear something completely crazy, I can listen to The National Anthem or Paranoid Android. The variety is there in the albums. Oasis have 2 albums which fans are likely to consider as their best, Radiohead have 4. That does not necessarily mean you have to like Radiohead though. They are a bit of an acquired taste who don't always sound appealing on the first listen. But what we've seen in this thread is that most people have accepted that Radiohead have been more consistent than Oasis in the long run but that didn't mean that they are the more enjoyable band for them. It's all very subjective at the end of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by Bring It On Dan on Oct 4, 2012 17:10:11 GMT -5
Radiohead bore the tits off me, can't help it.
|
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Sept 13, 2013 18:31:24 GMT -5
Its like asking Juventus fans whether they prefer Juventus or Inter.. But I prfer Oasis nonetheless ..I think Radioheads music is too depressing (most of it) and Thom Yorke's voice does literally nothing for me and tbh I think Oasis' b-sides are better Radioheads music..thats not just me being biased, I just really don't see what the fuss is about Radiohead. The only song I like of theirs is No Surprises and that too is depressing |
|
|
|
Post by jamestoney on Sept 28, 2013 14:27:59 GMT -5
I prefer Oasis, from a 'technical' point of view Radiohead blow them out the water but we all know that's not how music should be judged. Seen Radiohead live once and they were superb, OK Computer is also easily one of the greatest albums of all times. I just think Oasis songs, while simpler and more to a formula, have a bit more soul and that basically comes down to the Gallagher brothers, Noels melodies are more effortless and uplifting that what Yorke and co tend to write and Liam in his prime was one of the greatest frontmen in British history in my opinion. There's also a pretension about Radiohead which a lot of their fans also display which makes me want them to be shit. But they aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by xo0oo0ox on Sept 28, 2013 16:12:28 GMT -5
Radiohead = shitty first album + upward trajectory
Oasis = amazing first album + downward trajectory
I voted Oasis, because even Oasis's worst album is better than Pablo Honey. I think Radiohead from Kid A onward have been amazing though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 18:43:43 GMT -5
I do love them both, I think Oasis just edges it for me but saying that I do think Radiohead are slightly over rated by people on the internet. They always seem to be brought up when someone is trying to say how diverse and intelligent their music taste is which always irritates me to be honest. Actually when I was younger it was the snobbery of their fans that put me off them as opposed to their music.
|
|
|
|
Post by songbird11 on Nov 20, 2013 21:46:13 GMT -5
radiohead are a dull band, his voice is weird & I think to enjoy there music you'd need some drugs first, oasis's b-sides beat all there shit put together.
I doubt they've released a single as good as the masterplan or rockin' chair.
the question should be noel or thom :-)
|
|
It's not like they were consistently mediocre and thus never really bad - to me at least they were consistently perfect. 
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5