What are your opinions on Thom Yorke?

[Buzzkill]

Originally Posted by CSL The main thing I dislike about the likes of Thom Yorke/Radiohead fans btw, the overwhelming false sense of superiority, this horribly deluded sense that music can only be made one way and for one purpose and that is to please a certain, specific type of fan And lol "no offense", because the fact I listed them means I must care what anybody thinks about them as opposed to simply realizing they're "bigger" than every band you've listed, the fact Muse are opening for U2 on the highest grossing concert tour in history later this year gives that one away. And what do you mean "what influence do they have?". Simply making somebody pick up and guitar and learn how to play is influencing music. And even if we're specifically talking about influencing other artists, I'm not about to list anybody that you could consider influenced by Radiohead. U2, Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Avenged Sevenfold, Seether, AC/DC, Metallica, Bon Jovi, The Stones and so on. Those are the bands I'm talking about, the ones Average Joe Jeans could name. Whether most of them are actually any good or not or whether you care about any of them is completely irrelevant, your artistic and creative preference isn't any kind of factor in deciding how big or influential a band is. It's just typical self righteous nonsense from your "hipster" variety of music fan.

It has nothing to do with what "proper" music should be. I love Radiohead, but Lil Wayne is one of my top 20 favorite artists of all time. Paparazzi by Lady GaGa has 19 plays on my iTunes. Now, there are definitely people who don't really know anything about Radiohead and just follow the herd and say they are awesome, but that's the case with anything really.

All of the bands you are listing are essentially pre-Radiohead, or at least established their sounds before the time frame we're talking about. I don't really consider them part of "this" generation of music (late 90's onward). And I'm not saying they're bad, I love pretty much every band you mentioned (except U2). I even acknowledge how great Metallica is, even though I don't exactly jam out to them.

And what's your definition of an average joe? A late thirties middle class guy? Either way I don't really understand what point you're trying to make.

But yeah, kinda getting over this. It comes down to taste, and obviously there's no objectively true answer to the question.

In the end tho, who do you think tops Radiohead in terms of consistent excellence, forward thinking influence, and overall impact than them? Every generation had their "greats"; the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd...

So from this generation of music, who do you think deserves to be ranked along side them? U2? That's fair if so, that's your opinion. I'm just trying to figure out who else could fit the bill.

[FakeLaser]

I don't think U2 counts as this generation as well

For instance, I'd say Sonic Youth is one of the most important bands of the past 20 years, but I'd extend that to 30 years and say they were more associated with the 80s and 90s. They still make excellent music today, and seem timeless (sort of in the same vein as U2, of whom I am not a fan), but they're not of this "era"

And of course, they have nowhere near the amount of commercial acclaim that a band like U2 or Radiohead does, though their influence on music is undeniable, as is the quality and innovative quality of their music.

Radiohead may not be commercially the biggest band in the world, but they're up there, and coupling that with the level of critical acclaim that they've attained, respect amongst fans of independent music who will generally dismiss anything remotely mainstream and their brilliance... that's what makes them the best and most important band of the past 20 years.

Also. I hate Passion Pit. Just sayin

[FakeLaser]

I think you can argue that "hipster" types may consider a band "bigger" than they actually are in a commercial and exposure sense, hence overvalue "how big they are" but to say that these acts don't have any kind of far-reaching influence is ignorant, because you're ignoring their influence on "underground" type of music completely, which is something that has always and will always exist.

[FakeLaser]

Was hoping for this thread to go this way, tbh

[Buzzkill]

Bro, Passion Pit is one of the most important bands of this decade

[Buzzkill]

Seriously

[FakeLaser]

I don't really see it

[Buzzkill]

jk but I do like Passion Pit a lot. Just great over the top pop music.

[Shisen Kopf]

Ive seen radiohead in concert twice and nothing compares to it. They are one of these rare bands that only come along so often that leave their mark on the music scene. Ok that's the pretentious hipster answer. I will say this though, nothing tops the National Anthem, Idioteque and Let Down. Id say they are like Pink Floyd in releasing whatever the hell they want. But still greatest band of all time is Queen. So there you go.

[Sean]

Have any Miley Cyrus fans ever heard of Radiohead?

[Kapoutman]

I just want to say this.

FakeRazor, Pablo Honey was a great album. Different from their other stuff, but a great album nonetheless.

[The Destroyer]

What I'm taking from this thread is that I have no idea who Passion Pit are.

[FakeLaser]

Originally Posted by Kapoutman I just want to say this. FakeRazor, Pablo Honey was a great album. Different from their other stuff, but a great album nonetheless.

Creep
Anyone Can Play Guitar
Thinking About You
Stop Whispering

Good songs

[FakeLaser]

I know it's Pitchfork and they suck Radiohead's cock (like the rest of us hipster homosexuals) but this pretty much sums up the importance of Kid A:

Nine years ago this month, Brent DiCrescenzo reviewed Radiohead's Kid A for this website. As far as its rating, no one blinked. Pitchfork was still a blip then, but if you cared at all about the broad sphere of music that included Radiohead, chances are that you heard something very special in Kid A. It was that exceptional artifact of modern culture-- something about which most people could agree. To ears that'd had the second half the 1990s to ingest the rapid developments in electronic music, ears weary of the bankruptcy of post-Nirvana alternative rock, Kid A sounded like a next development in rock music that was both logical and surprising. And, of course, a lot has been written about this record since. "What's left to be said about Kid A?", Pitchfork founder Ryan Schreiber wondered when we published our Top 20 Albums of 2000 list. Good question. First, I go back to the old reasons, the ones that were kicked around from the moment the record hit: Thoughts about millennial techno-dread; fragmentation, broken transmissions, garbled communication; the feeling of helplessness that comes from having access to so much information about the world while not having the power to change any of it; the subtle and dramatic ways that electronics are altering our landscape and our consciousness. And there's still something there, though in some ways it's all now more intense. Part of our brains moved online in the last 10 years, and this will continue; it's not a good or bad thing; it's just the way it is. Refracting these developments through the prism of Kid A, it still resonates, even if so much has changed since. Radiohead were not only among the first bands to figure out how to use the Internet, but to make their music sound like it, and they kicked off this ridiculously retro decade with the rare album that didn't seem retro. Kid A-- with its gorgeously crafted electronics, sparkling production, and uneasy stance toward the technology it embraces completely-- feels like the Big Album of the online age. But you know what? I almost never think about that stuff. It all feels true, of course, but when I slide Kid A into the CD player (how's that for a retro image?), something else happens. Once that drawer closes and the first chords of "Everything in Its Right Place" start-- those haunting, clicking keyboard textures and Thom Yorke's warped voice-- all these other ideas feel secondary. Instead, I get lost in the dissonant horn blasts of "The National Anthem" and hypnotized between the play of the drones and the hissy beats in "Idioteque"; I feel the deep pang of yearning and sadness with the title track, and I rest during the gorgeous Brian Eno-like interlude of "Treefingers". I'm listening to a brilliant album by an especially creative rock band functioning at its peak. Such records have strong melodies, exciting chord changes, unexpected arrangements, and tricky rhythms that you want to hear over and over again. Songs. Kid A has those, too. Ten of them, all great, here, in this order, working together perfectly. For a record with so much baggage and such a reputation for density, the appeal, in the end, is pretty simple: Other records were catchier or better for dancing or more appealingly nostalgic. But no other record captured the complex feeling of the era in such an elegant and beautiful way. --Mark Richardson

[Tom Guycott]

Originally Posted by Guru Dave I have heard that he is known for being rude and inconsiderate. Miley Cyrus vowed to ruin "stinky" Radiohead after they denied an invitation to hang out with her backstage. Even Kanye West reported that Thom snubbed him when introduced himself. IMO, Thom can do whatever he wants as long as he makes good songs for me to listen to. Feel free to post your opinions

There's your answer right there. Fuck Miley Cyrus AND Kanye West. "Fuck them up their stupid asses!"

SRSLY. Miley is a queen of vapid, product moving "music", and Kanye shouldn't throw stones about someone acting self-centered. Arrogant bastard. I'd snub him too, and I'm a nobody.

Ultimately, who gives a fuck what those two think?

Radiohead is awesome, thus Thom is awesome.

That is all.