@U2 Forum

U2 => General U2 Discussion => Topic started by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 02:36:36 AM

Title: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 02:36:36 AM
We've had our comedy threads (U2 vs Bieber, U2 vs Bon Jovi), our slightly more serious thread (U2 vs Coldplay) but how how about a proper battle of talents: U2 vs Radiohead.

Of course for my money Radiohead wipe the floor with U2 with their emotional intelligence, subtlety (something U2 have never been accused of) and all round cleverness (something U2 only seem to find from outside sources ie Eno). They are also contrary fellows who at the height of their powers refuse to pander to the lowest common denominator (something you can't say about U2 anymore). They are also a superior live act. I caught them two nights in a row at the O2 in London recently. Check out this outstandingly beautiful version of Nude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwoIKbfj14I&sns=em


Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: The Exile on December 02, 2012, 04:12:27 AM
At their respective peaks, U2 wins. But for the last decade-plus, Radiohead makes U2 look like domesticated, greedy, whoring-for-attention tossers.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 04:34:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At their respective peaks, U2 wins. But for the last decade-plus, Radiohead makes U2 look like domesticated, greedy, whoring-for-attention tossers.

Totally agree with the last sentence. In terms of their respective peaks, only ZOOTV trumps Radiohead in terms of creativity IMO. Although that was as much to do with the concept of the tour as it was the record they were touring. And U2 at their peak were more of a celebrity 'phenomenon'.

In purely musical terms Radiohead trump U2 - they're just more creative and make more interesting sounding records. U2 are a fairly pedestrian band musically although Zooropa did a pretty good job of pushing their boundaries.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imedi on December 02, 2012, 06:03:01 AM
i loved radiohead in the 90s creep fadeout  and so on great great music.. but for some reason i just dont like their recent stuff.. what i see about radiohead over the years is that they are the closest thing in music to marmite people i hear talk about them either hate or love them and of coarse they have never hit the stratosphere in the same way u2 have so just like coldplay i sill dont think they compare.. for me you can only compare u2 to zeppelin or the stones or  floyd or the beatles as those bands operate at a different level in terms of exposure and musical longevity as an artical in rolling stone once c alled u2 the last of the mega bands and i agree with that statement .. lets face it i dont see coldplay radiohead or anyone around today who will be playing a 7 million+ tour 30years into their existence .. so thats why i dont think u can compare regardless of anyones personal taste about who does or did a better live show
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 06:27:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
i loved radiohead in the 90s creep fadeout  and so on great great music.. but for some reason i just dont like their recent stuff.. what i see about radiohead over the years is that they are the closest thing in music to marmite people i hear talk about them either hate or love them and of coarse they have never hit the stratosphere in the same way u2 have so just like coldplay i sill dont think they compare.. for me you can only compare u2 to zeppelin or the stones or  floyd or the beatles as those bands operate at a different level in terms of exposure and musical longevity as an artical in rolling stone once c alled u2 the last of the mega bands and i agree with that statement .. lets face it i dont see coldplay radiohead or anyone around today who will be playing a 7 million+ tour 30years into their existence .. so thats why i dont think u can compare regardless of anyones personal taste about who does or did a better live show

I see what you mean in terms of legacy - U2 are part of rock 'royalty' and I doubt Radiohead will ever become that. Therein lies the problem though. Zeppelin split up years ago and made a handful of excellent albums. Floyd stopped making great albums years ago and have split up. Only the Stones from your list are still touring/recording and let's face it, they haven't made a great record since the 70's. And although U2 are still recording, I think the general consensus is their best work is some way behind them.

Radiohead are becoming more creative and exciting not less so. I think the general consensus is they make more interesting records than U2 although they will never reach 'super group' level partly because they're not interested and partly because their music isn't populist enough.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: TheU2Ken on December 02, 2012, 08:11:16 AM
U2











Radio****
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 08:25:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2











Radio****

I think you're confused young man
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: TheU2Ken on December 02, 2012, 08:28:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2











Radio****

I think you're confused young man
not at all
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 08:29:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2











Radio****

I think you're confused young man
not at all

You're certainly in the minority
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: TheU2Ken on December 02, 2012, 08:33:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2











Radio****

I think you're confused young man
not at all

You're certainly in the minority
sorry Prom
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Droo on December 02, 2012, 08:35:58 AM
It's okay, Ken. I don't much care for Radiohead either. I don't find their music enjoyable to listen to, and they're responsible for one of the very worst albums I've ever heard in my life (Kid A).
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: TheU2Ken on December 02, 2012, 08:36:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's okay, Ken. I don't much care for Radiohead either. I don't find their music enjoyable to listen to, and they're responsible for one of the very worst albums I've ever heard in my life (Kid A).
thanks Droo

their music is depressing
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 08:37:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's okay, Ken. I don't much care for Radiohead either. I don't find their music enjoyable to listen to, and they're responsible for one of the very worst albums I've ever heard in my life (Kid A).

Is it your contention that U2 make better music Drooropa?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Droo on December 02, 2012, 08:47:05 AM
I'm saying that Radiohead may technically be better musicians than U2, but in terms of enjoyability U2 beats them. To me, Radiohead is for the musically pretentious crowd who want to sit around coffee shops in skinny jeans and wool scarves talking about how post-modern their chord changes and lyrics are. Which is fine, if you're into that sort of thing. Me, all I want is a song I can connect to that moves me or that is enjoyable to listen to. Radiohead fails on both counts.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 08:47:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm saying that Radiohead may technically be better musicians than U2, but in terms of enjoyability U2 beats them. To me, Radiohead is for the musically pretentious crowd who want to sit around coffee shops in skinny jeans and wool scarves talking about how post-modern their chord changes and lyrics are. Which is fine, if you're into that sort of thing. Me, all I want is a song I can connect to that moves me or that is enjoyable to listen to. Radiohead fails on both counts.

Fair enough - guess I must be one of those pretentious chaps then  :-\
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Droo on December 02, 2012, 08:51:52 AM
I also hate Thom Yorke's warbling vocals. They're like nails on a blackboard for me.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 09:09:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I also hate Thom Yorke's warbling vocals. They're like nails on a blackboard for me.

He has better dress sense than bono - and a better voice
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: mdmomof7 on December 02, 2012, 09:11:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's okay, Ken. I don't much care for Radiohead either. I don't find their music enjoyable to listen to, and they're responsible for one of the very worst albums I've ever heard in my life (Kid A).
thanks Droo

their music is depressing

I'm with you all. Never did much for me.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 09:12:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's okay, Ken. I don't much care for Radiohead either. I don't find their music enjoyable to listen to, and they're responsible for one of the very worst albums I've ever heard in my life (Kid A).
thanks Droo

their music is depressing

I'm with you all. Never did much for me.

When you say 'you all' you mean everyone apart from me and Exile?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: TheU2Ken on December 02, 2012, 09:13:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I also hate Thom Yorke's warbling vocals. They're like nails on a blackboard for me.

He has better dress sense than bono
well duh

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: charlottes_mouth on December 02, 2012, 09:15:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I also hate Thom Yorke's warbling vocals. They're like nails on a blackboard for me.

He has better dress sense than bono
well duh

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


This is typical - ridicule a man because you can't fault his music - or at least articulate why you don't like it  :o
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: TheU2Ken on December 02, 2012, 09:16:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I also hate Thom Yorke's warbling vocals. They're like nails on a blackboard for me.

He has better dress sense than bono
well duh

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


This is typical - ridicule a man because you can't fault his music - or at least articulate why you don't like it  :o
I was just pointing out his "dress sense"

and if you want me to fault music. I will bring out the lyrics to Creep
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imaginary friend on December 02, 2012, 09:17:16 AM
Radiohead: down the crapper after 3 albums, the first of which sucked as well.

U2: still making killer music.

easy choice.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Midnight is Where the Day Begins on December 02, 2012, 09:23:04 AM
I really am not a fan of most of Radiohead's music. I've listened to OK Computer and Kid A and such, and while I do appreciate just how great they are as albums, their music doesn't click for me. My favorite Radiohead song actually happens to be Lotus Flower.

That being said, I think U2 still overall takes the cake for me, as I think they've had a higher overall peak with Joshua Tree, AB and ZooTV, and Popmart.

However, Radiohead to me are better overall musicians, and also are much better creatively than U2 are.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: mdmomof7 on December 02, 2012, 09:34:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's okay, Ken. I don't much care for Radiohead either. I don't find their music enjoyable to listen to, and they're responsible for one of the very worst albums I've ever heard in my life (Kid A).
thanks Droo

their music is depressing

I'm with you all. Never did much for me.

When you say 'you all' you mean everyone apart from me and Exile?

I meant the two I quoted above, but if you'd like to add in others...
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on December 02, 2012, 10:02:08 AM
I'm a R****head fanboy. I'm not an elitist, i don't care if you don't "get it" it's just not for you. I'll rank them as my 2nd fav band despite the depressing lyrics and 100% forgettable recent album.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 02, 2012, 11:04:52 AM
Never ever understood using 'depressing' to fault something, I take that to mean it's honest and emotionally effective, such a lazy label. Mediocrity and banality are much more depressing to me.

Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: xy on December 02, 2012, 11:40:59 AM
Apples and oranges.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imaginary friend on December 02, 2012, 11:49:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Never ever understood using 'depressing' to fault something, I take that to mean it's honest and emotionally effective, such a lazy label. Mediocrity and banality are much more depressing to me.

Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

1. How about this instead: Radiohead are the alt-rock Dream Theater. They both made a beyond-crappy debut, followed those bombs with two brilliant albums, and have each managed 1 halfway decent album since despite the (to put it mildly) very impressive musicianship of the band' members.

2. Idlewild were the best UK band of the last 20 years.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 02, 2012, 12:13:59 PM
Pablo Honey - 'Creep' 'Blow Out' 'Stop Whispering' 'Prove Yourself'. A 'beyond crappy' record simply wouldn't contain those songs.

As for Radiohead's work since OK, I'll take any of them over ATYCLB and Bomb. I'll take Johnny's soundtrack for 'There Will Be Blood' over most of U2's 00's output. Apart from a handful of tracks on 'No Line' U2 don't have anything that competes with the amount of great songs Radiohead have penned over the last ten years. I'll concede that another great album has alluded them since OK, but we're talking fine margins here.

Idlewild are awesome, no probs with that :) It's like choosing between The Stones and The Who. 
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Pocket Merlin on December 02, 2012, 12:34:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We've had our comedy threads (U2 vs Bieber, U2 vs Bon Jovi), our slightly more serious thread (U2 vs Coldplay) but how how about a proper battle of talents: U2 vs Radiohead.

Of course for my money Radiohead wipe the floor with U2 with their emotional intelligence, subtlety (something U2 have never been accused of) and all round cleverness (something U2 only seem to find from outside sources ie Eno). They are also contrary fellows who at the height of their powers refuse to pander to the lowest common denominator (something you can't say about U2 anymore). They are also a superior live act. I caught them two nights in a row at the O2 in London recently. Check out this outstandingly beautiful version of Nude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwoIKbfj14I&sns=em




I take exception to the thought that U2 have no sense of subtlety. I take a lot of exception to that, actually. Listen to all the little details and the delicateness in songs like "If You Wear That Velvet Dress", "Grace", "Promenade", "One Step Closer", "Cedars Of Lebanon"...etc...plus the whole Passengers project.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: JTBaby on December 02, 2012, 12:38:42 PM
"U2 vs. Radiohead"

Ruth's Chris vs. Vegan Chili outlet

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on December 02, 2012, 12:39:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Never ever understood using 'depressing' to fault something, I take that to mean it's honest and emotionally effective, such a lazy label. Mediocrity and banality are much more depressing to me.

Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Wasn't faultin them for that. Just understand its not everyone's cup of tea.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 02, 2012, 12:42:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Never ever understood using 'depressing' to fault something, I take that to mean it's honest and emotionally effective, such a lazy label. Mediocrity and banality are much more depressing to me.

Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Wasn't faultin them for that. Just understand its not everyone's cup of tea.



Wasn't in reply to you dude, was just a general reply to the 'depressing' tag that Radiohead have in the big wide world.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on December 02, 2012, 12:45:35 PM
Oh. Care on then  ;D

I'll take n.l.o.t.h. Over in rainbows and kol anyday
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imaginary friend on December 02, 2012, 12:45:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pablo Honey - 'Creep' 'Blow Out' 'Stop Whispering' 'Prove Yourself'. A 'beyond crappy' record simply wouldn't contain those songs.

As for Radiohead's work since OK, I'll take any of them over ATYCLB and Bomb. I'll take Johnny's soundtrack for 'There Will Be Blood' over most of U2's 00's output. Apart from a handful of tracks on 'No Line' U2 don't have anything that competes with the amount of great songs Radiohead have penned over the last ten years. I'll concede that another great album has alluded them since OK, but we're talking fine margins here.

Idlewild are awesome, no probs with that :) It's like choosing between The Stones and The Who. 

1. Creep = good novelty song. the rest "perform services" on goats.

2. Obviously, you can take far more punishment than I can.

3. The Who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Stones.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 02, 2012, 12:45:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Blur are close contenders.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: TheU2Ken on December 02, 2012, 12:47:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Blur are close contenders.
Oasis>blur>>>>>>>Radio****
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 02, 2012, 12:48:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1. Creep = good novelty song.

Hey, that's my song.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 02, 2012, 12:48:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Blur are close contenders.
Oasis>blur>>>>>>>Radio****

That's only because you're a closet Manc.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imaginary friend on December 02, 2012, 12:49:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1. Creep = good novelty song.

Hey, that's my song.



I didn't say it sucked.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on December 02, 2012, 12:49:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pablo Honey - 'Creep' 'Blow Out' 'Stop Whispering' 'Prove Yourself'. A 'beyond crappy' record simply wouldn't contain those songs.

As for Radiohead's work since OK, I'll take any of them over ATYCLB and Bomb. I'll take Johnny's soundtrack for 'There Will Be Blood' over most of U2's 00's output. Apart from a handful of tracks on 'No Line' U2 don't have anything that competes with the amount of great songs Radiohead have penned over the last ten years. I'll concede that another great album has alluded them since OK, but we're talking fine margins here.

Idlewild are awesome, no probs with that :) It's like choosing between The Stones and The Who. 

1. Creep = good novelty song. the rest "perform services" on goats.

2. Obviously, you can take far more punishment than I can.

3. The Who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Stones.

I love creep, the rest of the album tracks are filler IMO

And yes the who Over stones anyday
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: TheU2Ken on December 02, 2012, 12:49:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Blur are close contenders.
Oasis>blur>>>>>>>Radio****

That's only because you're a closet Manc.
yup
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 02, 2012, 12:54:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Blur are close contenders.



They should be, but the sheer amount of commercials they have done is big mark against them for me. The music on it's own merits puts them up there though. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pablo Honey - 'Creep' 'Blow Out' 'Stop Whispering' 'Prove Yourself'. A 'beyond crappy' record simply wouldn't contain those songs.

As for Radiohead's work since OK, I'll take any of them over ATYCLB and Bomb. I'll take Johnny's soundtrack for 'There Will Be Blood' over most of U2's 00's output. Apart from a handful of tracks on 'No Line' U2 don't have anything that competes with the amount of great songs Radiohead have penned over the last ten years. I'll concede that another great album has alluded them since OK, but we're talking fine margins here.

Idlewild are awesome, no probs with that :) It's like choosing between The Stones and The Who. 

1. Creep = good novelty song. the rest "perform services" on goats.

2. Obviously, you can take far more punishment than I can.

3. The Who >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Stones.


1. Radiohead didn't write a novelty song. It being perceived as that has nothing to do with them. If U2 released 'Stop Whispering' this place would turn into the Ewok village at the end of Return Of The Jedi. 

2. Obviously.

3. Stones.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 02, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Blur are close contenders.



They should be, but the sheer amount of commercials they have done is big mark against them for me. The music on it's own merits puts them up there though. 


They've gotta earn and put food on the table, even if Alex James grows his own.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 02, 2012, 12:58:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Blur are close contenders.



They should be, but the sheer amount of commercials they have done is big mark against them for me. The music on it's own merits puts them up there though. 


They've gotta earn and put food on the table, even if Alex James grows his own.



If that were true Dice, I'd have no problem with it.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 02, 2012, 01:02:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great, great, great band. Easily the best band to come out of the UK in the last 20 years.

Blur are close contenders.



They should be, but the sheer amount of commercials they have done is big mark against them for me. The music on it's own merits puts them up there though. 


They've gotta earn and put food on the table, even if Alex James grows his own.



If that were true Dice, I'd have no problem with it.

It is.  It's not cheap living a rock star lifestyle these days, you know.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 02, 2012, 01:05:03 PM
:)
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: KenpoMatt on December 02, 2012, 01:22:06 PM
I respect the work Radiohead have done and the audience they have built for themselves, but I've tried time and time again, but simply can't connect to their music.

I've actually been sincerely disappointed each time I try because so many of my friends were / are so hooked on them and I feel like I'm always missing out, but like I said, I just can't find that connection point with their music. I generally prefer the "non radio" U2 hits such as A Sort of Homecoming Zoo Station or Daddy's Gonna Pay....etc, so I don't feel I'm looking for "pop" or "fluff" songs of theirs to get hooked, but I just can't get into them.

For what its worth, I do find interviews with Radiohead interesting to read / watch.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 02, 2012, 01:25:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I respect the work Radiohead have done and the audience they have built for themselves, but I've tried time and time again, but simply can't connect to their music.

I've actually been sincerely disappointed each time I try because so many of my friends were / are so hooked on them and I feel like I'm always missing out, but like I said, I just can't find that connection point with their music. I generally prefer the "non radio" U2 hits such as A Sort of Homecoming Zoo Station or Daddy's Gonna Pay....etc, so I don't feel I'm looking for "pop" or "fluff" songs of theirs to get hooked, but I just can't get into them.

For what its worth, I do find interviews with Radiohead interesting to read / watch.

Why feel frustrated by it?  I can't get into Led Zep, and I know people who can't get into Prince's music.  Each to their own.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: AJ on December 02, 2012, 01:25:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I respect the work Radiohead have done and the audience they have built for themselves, but I've tried time and time again, but simply can't connect to their music.

I've actually been sincerely disappointed each time I try because so many of my friends were / are so hooked on them and I feel like I'm always missing out, but like I said, I just can't find that connection point with their music. I generally prefer the "non radio" U2 hits such as A Sort of Homecoming Zoo Station or Daddy's Gonna Pay....etc, so I don't feel I'm looking for "pop" or "fluff" songs of theirs to get hooked, but I just can't get into them.

For what its worth, I do find interviews with Radiohead interesting to read / watch.
I got into Radiohead by listening to Pablo Honey. Everyone says its their worst record but its more my style of music than all their albums after that.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: KenpoMatt on December 02, 2012, 02:14:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I respect the work Radiohead have done and the audience they have built for themselves, but I've tried time and time again, but simply can't connect to their music.

I've actually been sincerely disappointed each time I try because so many of my friends were / are so hooked on them and I feel like I'm always missing out, but like I said, I just can't find that connection point with their music. I generally prefer the "non radio" U2 hits such as A Sort of Homecoming Zoo Station or Daddy's Gonna Pay....etc, so I don't feel I'm looking for "pop" or "fluff" songs of theirs to get hooked, but I just can't get into them.

For what its worth, I do find interviews with Radiohead interesting to read / watch.

Why feel frustrated by it?  I can't get into Led Zep, and I know people who can't get into Prince's music.  Each to their own.



Agreed. I've actually had the same problem with Led Zep myself lol.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: satellitedog01 on December 02, 2012, 02:33:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

1. Radiohead didn't write a novelty song. It being perceived as that has nothing to do with them. If U2 released 'Stop Whispering' this place would turn into the Ewok village at the end of Return Of The Jedi. 


Thank you for the image and the following LOL :-DDD

After I stopped laughing, I pondered the weighty statement, listened to "Stop Whispering" and concluded, would U2 come up with that song today, the mainstream-radiofriendly-U2 fans would be picking up their jaws and taking out the stormtrooper helmets.
But it doesn't compare to U2-prime. It is intense, but way too "sub-someAmericanindieband", and reminds me of an early On A Friday demo, which sounded like U2 lite.

To answer the original question, we are comparing Banana Co-s with Lemons, the sweet meat with Melon, stolen honey with vegetables.

The two bands resonate with very different tastes, often in the same person, like it happened with me.

I fell in love with U2's big anthems as a child and pre-teen, and I grew out of those after Pop, keeping their more intriguing, complex and darker material close, and started appreciating the more subtle musicality and brooding intensity of post OK Computer Radiohead once I got used to Yorke's whiny voice. I hated them for that voice for years.

I still don't care for their pop-rock years (Computer is the earliest I love, and it is of course a pop-rock record, but it's just too perfect in shape and content to ignore, and many of those songs get to me).

Another big difference is U2's current, prolonged state of creative stagnancy - compared to Radiohead's constant evolution (for better or worse, the answer's in the ear of the beholder). Which doesn't mean U2 wasn't a great example of artistic growth, they just turned a dead-end at some point (likely when they started chasing the perfect pop-song).

Radiohead chose not to write anthemic music anymore, at least not in the mainstream sense of the word. U2 chose to ditch intensity in favour of joy.
In case they somehow find their way back into the heart of darkness, I'll be on board once again.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Shark Ericson on December 02, 2012, 07:01:29 PM
I would take Kid A or In Rainbows over any U2 album since Achtung Baby

Overall, I don't know. My experience with Radiohead has been more personal, so I'm somewhat biased
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jick on December 02, 2012, 07:32:12 PM
Radiohead wrote an early 90's hit song, "Creep." It was big and they tried to replicate the success to no avail in their future releases.

They hid under their shell, wrote songs in the guise of "alternative music" so that they no longer had to deal with the burden of expectations.

Their music is derivative but well-disguised as being original because the tunes are intentionally inaccessible.

So I applaud them for avoiding becoming a joke like one-hit-wonder bands of their generation: Ugly Kid Joe (Everything About You), Deep Blue Something (Breakfast At Tiffany's), Dishwalla (Counting Blue Cars), Collective Soul (Shine), Candlebox (Far Behind), Soul Asylum (Runaway Train).

Radiohead actually took the easy way out, and earned fans along the way with their pretentiousness disguised as artistic integrity.

U2, on the other hand, took the fight straight to the belly of the beast. They did not shy away even when it seemed they were starting to lose relevance with POP, which came off the heels of their Grammy for Best Alternative Album won by Zooropa.  U2 have shown with Zooropa that they can play Radiohead's game, but then they did not run away to a shell and fear failure by trying to go full-time alternative. Instead, U2 continued their dominance of stadiums, album sales, and awards.

This thread is quite amusing for me though. When U2 are mentioned in the same sentence with inferior musical acts who hardly share the same musical and artistic values as the band - it always gives me a chuckle.

Cheers,

J

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: JTBaby on December 02, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
See TD. THIS is how you troll !!

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Joe90usa on December 02, 2012, 07:39:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Radiohead wrote an early 90's hit song, "Creep." It was big and they tried to replicate the success to no avail in their future releases.

They hid under their shell, wrote songs in the guise of "alternative music" so that they no longer had to deal with the burden of expectations.

Their music is derivative but well-disguised as being original because the tunes are intentionally inaccessible.

So I applaud them for avoiding becoming a joke like one-hit-wonder bands of their generation: Ugly Kid Joe (Everything About You), Deep Blue Something (Breakfast At Tiffany's), Dishwalla (Counting Blue Cars), Collective Soul (Shine), Candlebox (Far Behind), Soul Asylum (Runaway Train).

Radiohead actually took the easy way out, and earned fans along the way with their pretentiousness disguised as artistic integrity.

U2, on the other hand, took the fight straight to the belly of the beast. They did not shy away even when it seemed they were starting to lose relevance with POP, which came off the heels of their Grammy for Best Alternative Album won by Zooropa.  U2 have shown with Zooropa that they can play Radiohead's game, but then they did not run away to a shell and fear failure by trying to go full-time alternative. Instead, U2 continued their dominance of stadiums, album sales, and awards.

This thread is quite amusing for me though. When U2 are mentioned in the same sentence with inferior musical acts who hardly share the same musical and artistic values as the band - it always gives me a chuckle.

Cheers,

J

Is that how the band explained it to you? Thanks for sharing.

 ::)
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jick on December 02, 2012, 08:17:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is that how the band explained it to you? Thanks for sharing.

 ::)

No explanation from the band as I don't know them personally.

This is just my educated opinion and hypothesis based on observations about Radiohead's music.

But for obvious reasons, I follow U2's career more closely so believe myself to be an authority on U2 facts, but on Radiohead I am just an observer - never been a fan.

So I share my opinion the is relevant to the topic on this thread.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Joe90usa on December 02, 2012, 08:21:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is that how the band explained it to you? Thanks for sharing.

 ::)

No explanation from the band as I don't know them personally.

This is just my educated opinion and hypothesis based on observations about Radiohead's music.

But for obvious reasons, I follow U2's career more closely so believe myself to be an authority on U2 facts, but on Radiohead I am just an observer - never been a fan.

So I share my opinion the is relevant to the topic on this thread.

Cheers,

J

So once again you are presenting conjecture as fact. I don't understand how you can continue to do it when it is dishonest and you are continually called out on it. Maybe you like the negative attention.  :-\
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imaginary friend on December 02, 2012, 09:30:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Radiohead didn't write a novelty song. It being perceived as that has nothing to do with them. If U2 released 'Stop Whispering' this place would turn into the Ewok village at the end of Return Of The Jedi. 

Fitting you mentioned RotJ, as Stop Whispering (and all post-OK Computer Radiohead) is to U2 as RotJ is to The Empire Strikes Back.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jick on December 02, 2012, 09:44:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So once again you are presenting conjecture as fact. I don't understand how you can continue to do it when it is dishonest and you are continually called out on it. Maybe you like the negative attention.  :-\

Never presented as fact, this is a forum where we share opinions.

I don't think this will merit negative attention because I am clearly (in my own humble opinion) favoring U2 over Radiohead in a U2 forum. Had I stated this in a Radiohead forum, surely I will get a lot of negative comments.

And the very premise of this thread (whether started in jest or in blind seriousness) calls for an opinion to compare the bands. One band being better than the other can never be a "fact".

I remember back in the day, there would be online polls or surveys.  Then some member in a U2 forum would provide a link and say "go to this site, vote for U2 so they will win."  Then also, there are times when in forums of other artists, U2 are unfairly bashed.  Members in U2 forums would then encourage their friends to join these other forums to help "defend" U2.

Perhaps the same is happening in this forum? We are getting some fans of different bands who come in just to defend their band? Is there infestation happening here?

We are in the U2 forum, and all presumed to be U2 fans. I really think those people who start threads to compare U2 to other bands must surely be doing it in jest. After all, what other reply can you expect from a U2 forum? If ever, they should do this in some forums of general music with no band affiliations.

If a person wants to compare U2 to his or her band and expect "unbiased" comments, then don't do it in a U2 forum.  And if some actually favor that other band over U2, in a U2 forum, expect negative backlash.

Again, with my clear defense for U2, I do not think this would merit any negative comments. I am the one giving the negative comments about Radiohead. This is a U2 forum, no dishonestly when you state your opinion and defend (even blindly at time) the band you love so much and the driving reason you signed up for this forum.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on December 02, 2012, 09:50:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is that how the band explained it to you? Thanks for sharing.

 ::)

No explanation from the band as I don't know them personally.

This is just my educated opinion and hypothesis based on observations about Radiohead's music.

But for obvious reasons, I follow U2's career more closely so believe myself to be an authority on U2 facts, but on Radiohead I am just an observer - never been a fan.

So I share my opinion the is relevant to the topic on this thread.

Cheers,

J

So once again you are presenting conjecture as fact. I don't understand how you can continue to do it when it is dishonest and you are continually called out on it. Maybe you like the negative attention.  :-\

exactly. lock thread please?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Thunder Peel on December 02, 2012, 09:58:31 PM
I'm a huge Radiohead fan and certainly label them as one of my favorite bands. I think they're brilliant but I can also understand why some people don't connect with them. It took me a few years to really appreciate them and what they're doing. I admire U2 for aiming big and wanting to connect with people; I also admire the way Radiohead continues to defy convention and couldn't care less about mainstream success. I think both aspirations have their merits; they just work in two very different ways.

U2 is still my favorite band and I can listen to their music at any time. As much as I love Radiohead, I do have to be in a certain mood to listen to them. Kid A is fantastic, but not something I can just throw on at random.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jick on December 02, 2012, 10:02:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
exactly. lock thread please?

I second the motion!

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Aqua on December 02, 2012, 10:15:55 PM
Was hoping the thread wouldn't really get going, because Radiohead fans are generally pretty obsessive about Radiohead, and see them as the apex of creativity and originality and emotional communication. And those who don't really enjoy Radiohead feel the need to push back with equal fervour, and then we get a stream of opinions stated as facts, as well as uncritical dismissals of Radiohead's merit.

I personally think Radiohead are creative, they put a lot of thought into their music, and are passionate. And when I reference their thoughtfulness, I include their lyrics. I also think that above all, Thom Yorke can really sing to the heart, and translate pain and related feelings into vocals superbly- this shouldn't really just be dismissed as depressing.

However, it makes perfect sense that some people won't appreciate this; it just won't be as meaningful to some (with their experiences and the type of music that they listen to) as it is to others. And it doesn't mean they don't know the music, it's just purely an issue of taste.

A lot of people on this forum bag ATYCLB, which is an album I love. These people know ATYCLB well, many of them even having caught the Elevation tour.

I think out and out comparisons like these are therefore destined to produce poor discussion, with very few references to almost anything objective. Maybe a who's better live discussion would be healthier.

I prefer U2 for a few reasons, namely their consistent output of amazing music that is in fact quite diverse, and I think Bono has a similar ability to translate real emotion into vocals. There's also a bit more U2 out there than Radiohead, that probably makes a difference. Kid A is my favorite Radiohead album and Zooropa my favorite U2 album (close to AB and ATYCLB).
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Joe90usa on December 02, 2012, 10:20:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Was hoping the thread wouldn't really get going, because Radiohead fans are generally pretty obsessive about Radiohead, and see them as the apex of creativity and originality and emotional communication. And those who don't really enjoy Radiohead feel the need to push back with equal fervour, and then we get a stream of opinions stated as facts, as well as uncritical dismissals of Radiohead's merit.

I personally think Radiohead are creative, they put a lot of thought into their music, and are passionate. And when I reference their thoughtfulness, I include their lyrics. I also think that above all, Thom Yorke can really sing to the heart, and translate pain and related feelings into vocals superbly- this shouldn't really just be dismissed as depressing.

However, it makes perfect sense that some people won't appreciate this; it just won't be as meaningful to some (with their experiences and the type of music that they listen to) as it is to others. And it doesn't mean they don't know the music, it's just purely an issue of taste.

A lot of people on this forum bag ATYCLB, which is an album I love. These people know ATYCLB well, many of them even having caught the Elevation tour.

I think out and out comparisons like these are therefore destined to produce poor discussion, with very few references to almost anything objective. Maybe a who's better live discussion would be healthier.

I prefer U2 for a few reasons, namely their consistent output of amazing music that is in fact quite diverse, and I think Bono has a similar ability to translate real emotion into vocals. There's also a bit more U2 out there than Radiohead, that probably makes a difference. Kid A is my favorite Radiohead album and Zooropa my favorite U2 album (close to AB and ATYCLB).

This is no place for a reasoned, well-thought response. Get out.

 :P
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: The Exile on December 03, 2012, 12:22:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This thread is quite amusing for me though. When U2 are mentioned in the same sentence with inferior musical acts who hardly share the same musical and artistic values as the band - it always gives me a chuckle.

Cheers,

J

Says the guy with the Bon Jovi avatar.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imedi on December 03, 2012, 02:32:43 AM
where do some people get the idea that radiohead could not care less about mainstream success thats rubbish afterall being successful in the mainstream is the ultimate proof of how great your music is
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: The Exile on December 03, 2012, 03:02:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
where do some people get the idea that radiohead could not care less about mainstream success thats rubbish afterall being successful in the mainstream is the ultimate proof of how great your music is
iknowlolthosepeoplearealmostasbadasthosewhodontthinkthatpunctuationmattreshahaharoflmao
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on December 03, 2012, 05:09:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
where do some people get the idea that radiohead could not care less about mainstream success thats rubbish afterall being successful in the mainstream is the ultimate proof of how great your music is

lol it is?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jacob on December 03, 2012, 06:28:55 AM
these comparisons don't make any sense.

whats up next?

u2 vs the smurfs?
Thom Yorke vs Gollum?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 03, 2012, 06:37:23 AM
U2 vs Sgt Slaughter 2/3 falls, no DQ. Book it.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: smee on December 03, 2012, 08:35:48 AM
I love both bands. Forced to choose one to please my ear. U2 wins hands down EVerYtime!
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: bethere on December 03, 2012, 09:08:00 AM
Well, Radiohead is the messiah of the nerdy indy lovers. They are certainly better than Justin Bieber, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Fun, LMFAO, Adele, etc., but they are not nearly as good as U2 and they probably don't deserve such a comparison at all. They will always be worshiped and loved in the small bubble of indy world, but outside that bubble most people couldn't tell you anything the band sings except maybe Creep which after nearly 20 years continues to be their most recognized, and for most people, only known song in the United States.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Shark Ericson on December 03, 2012, 09:20:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
being successful in the mainstream is the ultimate proof of how great your music is

Yes. One Direction's new album (which sold 1 million copies worldwide in its first week) was the apex of music greatness in 2012

 ;)
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imedi on December 03, 2012, 10:20:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
where do some people get the idea that radiohead could not care less about mainstream success thats rubbish afterall being successful in the mainstream is the ultimate proof of how great your music is
sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
iknowlolthosepeoplearealmostasbadasthosewhodontthinkthatpunctuationmattreshahaharoflmao
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: JTBaby on December 03, 2012, 10:27:12 AM
If radiohead was playing in my bathroom I'd close the door and turn off the power.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Midnight is Where the Day Begins on December 03, 2012, 11:01:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 vs Sgt Slaughter 2/3 falls, no DQ. Book it.

I'd rather see them face Rickie Steamboat.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: So Cruel on December 03, 2012, 11:20:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 vs Sgt Slaughter 2/3 falls, no DQ. Book it.

I'd rather see them face Rickie Steamboat.


Steamboat was way to quick for Bono.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Midnight is Where the Day Begins on December 03, 2012, 11:22:51 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 vs Sgt Slaughter 2/3 falls, no DQ. Book it.

I'd rather see them face Rickie Steamboat.


Steamboat was way to quick for Bono.

Iron Sheik?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: An Cat Dubh on December 03, 2012, 11:33:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm a huge Radiohead fan and certainly label them as one of my favorite bands. I think they're brilliant but I can also understand why some people don't connect with them. It took me a few years to really appreciate them and what they're doing. I admire U2 for aiming big and wanting to connect with people; I also admire the way Radiohead continues to defy convention and couldn't care less about mainstream success. I think both aspirations have their merits; they just work in two very different ways.

U2 is still my favorite band and I can listen to their music at any time. As much as I love Radiohead, I do have to be in a certain mood to listen to them. Kid A is fantastic, but not something I can just throw on at random.

Perfect. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 03, 2012, 11:39:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 vs Sgt Slaughter 2/3 falls, no DQ. Book it.

I'd rather see them face Rickie Steamboat.


Steamboat was way to quick for Bono.

Iron Sheik?

Nah, Sheik's crazy, he'd kill him, we can't have that. Khali is more Bono's speed.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm a huge Radiohead fan and certainly label them as one of my favorite bands. I think they're brilliant but I can also understand why some people don't connect with them. It took me a few years to really appreciate them and what they're doing. I admire U2 for aiming big and wanting to connect with people; I also admire the way Radiohead continues to defy convention and couldn't care less about mainstream success. I think both aspirations have their merits; they just work in two very different ways.

U2 is still my favorite band and I can listen to their music at any time. As much as I love Radiohead, I do have to be in a certain mood to listen to them. Kid A is fantastic, but not something I can just throw on at random.

Perfect. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes, bravo!
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: An Cat Dubh on December 03, 2012, 12:08:01 PM
I don't understand how some U2 fans can not get over the fact that many U2 fans love Radiohead's music. It's ridiculous. My list of favorite bands includes U2, Radiohead, Mumford & Sons, Elbow, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Verve, REM, Prince, Primal Scream, Florence & The Machine, Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, The Stone Roses, The Clash, The White Stripes. And many more. Apart from a couple - all totally different sounds and styles.

I would go insane if I listened to only one type of music. Its totally ok to like different bands and totally ok to have favorites. Just beacuse U2 are my favorite, doesn't mean I like anyone else any less. My answer to the threads question is who cares. U2 are best at what they produce, Radiohead are best at what they produce.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on December 03, 2012, 01:08:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
being successful in the mainstream is the ultimate proof of how great your music is

Yes. One Direction's new album (which sold 1 million copies worldwide in its first week) was the apex of music greatness in 2012

 ;)

thank you for pointin this out. his argument is straight Jickian logic. makes me vomit a lil in my mouth thinking sales=talent.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 03, 2012, 01:44:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
being successful in the mainstream is the ultimate proof of how great your music is

Yes. One Direction's new album (which sold 1 million copies worldwide in its first week) was the apex of music greatness in 2012

 ;)

thank you for pointin this out. his argument is straight Jickian logic. makes me vomit a lil in my mouth thinking sales=talent.

x2. There are a few pushing this train of thought, I'd love for one of you to explain it to me.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Midnight is Where the Day Begins on December 03, 2012, 02:02:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand how some U2 fans can not get over the fact that many U2 fans love Radiohead's music. It's ridiculous. My list of favorite bands includes U2, Radiohead, Mumford & Sons, Elbow, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Verve, REM, Prince, Primal Scream, Florence & The Machine, Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, The Stone Roses, The Clash, The White Stripes. And many more. Apart from a couple - all totally different sounds and styles.

I would go insane if I listened to only one type of music. Its totally ok to like different bands and totally ok to have favorites. Just beacuse U2 are my favorite, doesn't mean I like anyone else any less. My answer to the threads question is who cares. U2 are best at what they produce, Radiohead are best at what they produce.

A hundred percent agree.

Two of my top 5 bands ever, Justice and Daft Punk, are House!

Variety is the great thing about music. There always is something for everybody.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jick on December 03, 2012, 06:09:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, Radiohead is the messiah of the nerdy indy lovers. They are certainly better than Justin Bieber, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Fun, LMFAO, Adele, etc., but they are not nearly as good as U2 and they probably don't deserve such a comparison at all. They will always be worshiped and loved in the small bubble of indy world, but outside that bubble most people couldn't tell you anything the band sings except maybe Creep which after nearly 20 years continues to be their most recognized, and for most people, only known song in the United States.

I agree 100%.

I have no issue with Radiohead fans liking U2. It is only natural to like U2, after all they are the best in their craft up to this day.

What puzzles me are U2 fans who gravitate towards Radiohead because U2 are not "alternative" enough or have become "sellouts."  U2 were never designed to be an alternative band, except for Zooropa which they purposely made that way and won a Grammy for it.  For all of their career, U2 are a mainstream pop/rock band.  Some just cannot accept this reality.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 03, 2012, 06:14:31 PM
No wonder people hate U2
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: JTBaby on December 03, 2012, 06:33:33 PM
Why? All band forums have a few resident trolls. 
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 03, 2012, 06:41:30 PM
And a resident angry old man.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Shark Ericson on December 03, 2012, 07:27:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And a resident angry old man.

Do we have an angry middle-aged men/ kind-of-old men? Like Walter White from Breaking Bad?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imedi on December 04, 2012, 11:40:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
being successful in the mainstream is the ultimate proof of how great your music is

Yes. One Direction's new album (which sold 1 million copies worldwide in its first week) was the apex of music greatness in 2012

 ;)

thank you for pointin this out. his argument is straight Jickian logic. makes me vomit a lil in my mouth thinking sales=talent.

x2. There are a few pushing this train of thought, I'd love for one of you to explain it to me.
no no you have missed the point i was trying to make.. yes one direction have sold a million albums and good luck to them..what i was saying was some people on here were making the point that radiohead were not interested in the mainstream. surely every band wants to sell as much of their music as they can if not for money then so as many people as possible will hear their music. i dont think for 1 second that radiohead would not love to sell as many albums as u2 and play to as many people as u2
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 04, 2012, 12:05:09 PM
That's a fair assessment, sorry for misinterpreting. Of course they would love to, but there's no doubt that it's art before commerce as far as Radiohead are concerned (and that's no reason for them or their fans to look down their noses at anyone; Twilight soundtrack anyone?) they would love U2 figures but without compromise. If Kid A had sold 25 million then I'm sure they'd be delighted, but it wasn't a record designed to do that, it was first and foremost a record they wanted to make based on what they were inspired by and listening to at that time, I say kudos for that because their stock was sky high at the tail-end of the 90's and they easily could of put out another guitar based record out that may very well of put them in the big leagues. 
 
Being successful in the mainstream isn't proof of anything other than you were in the right place at the right time. 
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: bethere on December 04, 2012, 01:55:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 
 
Being successful in the mainstream isn't proof of anything other than you were in the right place at the right time.

            Being loved by music critics and the Indy nerds is not proof of anything either.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Bads316 on December 04, 2012, 02:00:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 
 
Being successful in the mainstream isn't proof of anything other than you were in the right place at the right time.

            Being loved by music critics and the Indy nerds is not proof of anything either.

Didn't say it was.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: boom boom on December 04, 2012, 05:08:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, Radiohead is the messiah of the nerdy indy lovers. They are certainly better than Justin Bieber, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Fun, LMFAO, Adele, etc., but they are not nearly as good as U2 and they probably don't deserve such a comparison at all. They will always be worshiped and loved in the small bubble of indy world, but outside that bubble most people couldn't tell you anything the band sings except maybe Creep which after nearly 20 years continues to be their most recognized, and for most people, only known song in the United States.

I agree 100%.

I have no issue with Radiohead fans liking U2. It is only natural to like U2, after all they are the best in their craft up to this day.

What puzzles me are U2 fans who gravitate towards Radiohead because U2 are not "alternative" enough or have become "sellouts."  U2 were never designed to be an alternative band, except for Zooropa which they purposely made that way and won a Grammy for it.  For all of their career, U2 are a mainstream pop/rock band.  Some just cannot accept this reality.

Cheers,

J

I also couldn't agree more.  U2 have never pretended to be anything than who they are.  In fact Bono once said in an interview,  U2 are a big band that make big music for big places.  That's just what we do.  With this in mind, I think they have over the course of their 32 year career have done an excellent job at balancing trying to maintain artistic credibility and critical acclaim and at the same time being a big band in the mainstream. In fact that's what attracted me to U2 in the first place.  The determination to be a big band.  I remember watching an interview with Bono and Adam around 1980/81. They were being interviewed at a downtown coffee shop by city tv in Toronto I think.  I remember Bono sipping his coffee and then saying, I think U2 are destined to be the biggest band in the world, up there with the stones and the who, and if you haven't heard of us yet, I gaurantee you will.  From that point I was hooked. 
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: AJ on December 04, 2012, 05:28:39 PM
Atoms for Peace AMOK Lp is up for preorder on their site
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jick on December 04, 2012, 06:46:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I also couldn't agree more.  U2 have never pretended to be anything than who they are.  In fact Bono once said in an interview,  U2 are a big band that make big music for big places.  That's just what we do.  With this in mind, I think they have over the course of their 32 year career have done an excellent job at balancing trying to maintain artistic credibility and critical acclaim and at the same time being a big band in the mainstream. In fact that's what attracted me to U2 in the first place.  The determination to be a big band.  I remember watching an interview with Bono and Adam around 1980/81. They were being interviewed at a downtown coffee shop by city tv in Toronto I think.  I remember Bono sipping his coffee and then saying, I think U2 are destined to be the biggest band in the world, up there with the stones and the who, and if you haven't heard of us yet, I gaurantee you will.  From that point I was hooked.

Radiohead never made any pretenses or declarations of ambitions to be the "best band in the world."

Surely they know with their limited skill set that they don't have it in them to aim that high.  I will give them credit for that.

Which begs the question: why does this thread even exist?

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: An Cat Dubh on December 04, 2012, 09:38:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I also couldn't agree more.  U2 have never pretended to be anything than who they are.  In fact Bono once said in an interview,  U2 are a big band that make big music for big places.  That's just what we do.  With this in mind, I think they have over the course of their 32 year career have done an excellent job at balancing trying to maintain artistic credibility and critical acclaim and at the same time being a big band in the mainstream. In fact that's what attracted me to U2 in the first place.  The determination to be a big band.  I remember watching an interview with Bono and Adam around 1980/81. They were being interviewed at a downtown coffee shop by city tv in Toronto I think.  I remember Bono sipping his coffee and then saying, I think U2 are destined to be the biggest band in the world, up there with the stones and the who, and if you haven't heard of us yet, I gaurantee you will.  From that point I was hooked.

Radiohead never made any pretenses or declarations of ambitions to be the "best band in the world."

Surely they know with their limited skill set that they don't have it in them to aim that high.  I will give them credit for that.

Which begs the question: why does this thread even exist?

Cheers,

J


As musicians Jick, Radiohead are infinitely better than U2. U2 will even tell you that. I have actually had a conversation with Bono and The Edge about Jonny Greenwood and Thom Yorke and they had nothing but admiration for them. Its a different type of music, they want different things and go about it in totally different ways. You may hate Radiohead, but you can not say they are not good musicians.

They are a lot more humble. They do not need all the admiration and world popularity that Bono wants. They are a like 5 Larry Mullens actually.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jick on December 04, 2012, 10:43:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I also couldn't agree more.  U2 have never pretended to be anything than who they are.  In fact Bono once said in an interview,  U2 are a big band that make big music for big places.  That's just what we do.  With this in mind, I think they have over the course of their 32 year career have done an excellent job at balancing trying to maintain artistic credibility and critical acclaim and at the same time being a big band in the mainstream. In fact that's what attracted me to U2 in the first place.  The determination to be a big band.  I remember watching an interview with Bono and Adam around 1980/81. They were being interviewed at a downtown coffee shop by city tv in Toronto I think.  I remember Bono sipping his coffee and then saying, I think U2 are destined to be the biggest band in the world, up there with the stones and the who, and if you haven't heard of us yet, I gaurantee you will.  From that point I was hooked.

Radiohead never made any pretenses or declarations of ambitions to be the "best band in the world."

Surely they know with their limited skill set that they don't have it in them to aim that high.  I will give them credit for that.

Which begs the question: why does this thread even exist?

Cheers,

J


As musicians Jick, Radiohead are infinitely better than U2. U2 will even tell you that. I have actually had a conversation with Bono and The Edge about Jonny Greenwood and Thom Yorke and they had nothing but admiration for them. Its a different type of music, they want different things and go about it in totally different ways. You may hate Radiohead, but you can not say they are not good musicians.

They are a lot more humble. They do not need all the admiration and world popularity that Bono wants. They are a like 5 Larry Mullens actually.

They may be better "musicians" but that is not what I mean by "limited skill set."  The set should contain everything, and not just music. It includes an instinct to know what the public wants, charisma to win over the crowd, articulate prowess for interviews, willingness to promote their albums in mainstream media, hyperbole in hyping up new releases - those are the kinds of skill sets U2 has that Radiohead doesn't.

This is not about musicianship.  Otherwise, I can just walk to the local bar here in my city and find some cover band who can play the guitar faster with more finger acrobatics than The Edge.  That is all beside the point.  The point is that this thread is pointless.

You can't compare apples and oranges.  But in this case, its more like apples against grains of sand.

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Borack on December 05, 2012, 12:19:21 AM
I respect Radiohead but I've also not been able to connect with their music as viscerally or as effortlessly as I can with a lot of U2 music. That said, TY and the folks do seem refreshingly original AND if I had to be banished to some island with only a few CD's, I'd probably bring along 1 Radiohead album for each 2 by U2. I'll keep trying, but I did like some of RH's earlier stuff like Fake Plastic Trees.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imedi on December 05, 2012, 08:56:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I also couldn't agree more.  U2 have never pretended to be anything than who they are.  In fact Bono once said in an interview,  U2 are a big band that make big music for big places.  That's just what we do.  With this in mind, I think they have over the course of their 32 year career have done an excellent job at balancing trying to maintain artistic credibility and critical acclaim and at the same time being a big band in the mainstream. In fact that's what attracted me to U2 in the first place.  The determination to be a big band.  I remember watching an interview with Bono and Adam around 1980/81. They were being interviewed at a downtown coffee shop by city tv in Toronto I think.  I remember Bono sipping his coffee and then saying, I think U2 are destined to be the biggest band in the world, up there with the stones and the who, and if you haven't heard of us yet, I gaurantee you will.  From that point I was hooked.

Radiohead never made any pretenses or declarations of ambitions to be the "best band in the world."

Surely they know with their limited skill set that they don't have it in them to aim that high.  I will give them credit for that.

Which begs the question: why does this thread even exist?

Cheers,

J


As musicians Jick, Radiohead are infinitely better than U2. U2 will even tell you that. I have actually had a conversation with Bono and The Edge about Jonny Greenwood and Thom Yorke and they had nothing but admiration for them. Its a different type of music, they want different things and go about it in totally different ways. You may hate Radiohead, but you can not say they are not good musicians.

They are a lot more humble. They do not need all the admiration and world popularity that Bono wants. They are a like 5 Larry Mullens actually.
AS MUSICIANS RADIOHEAD ARE INFINITELY BETTER THAN U2!!!!!!! EVEN U2 WILL TELL YOU THAT ROFL..... you better go on youtube and see what bono says about the edge guitar playing.. think the interview is called OFF THE RECORD.. i think you will find that nevermind j greenwood bono likes to compare edge with j hendrix lol.. i love radiohead!! to me they have different styles its like one person like oranges someone else prefers apples if i had a choice who i wanted to listen to then it would be edges guitar that does not make my opinion any better or worse and does not mean greenwood is any less of a guitar player just different . so i agree with most of what you said apart from the first part
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 05, 2012, 08:58:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I also couldn't agree more.  U2 have never pretended to be anything than who they are.  In fact Bono once said in an interview,  U2 are a big band that make big music for big places.  That's just what we do.  With this in mind, I think they have over the course of their 32 year career have done an excellent job at balancing trying to maintain artistic credibility and critical acclaim and at the same time being a big band in the mainstream. In fact that's what attracted me to U2 in the first place.  The determination to be a big band.  I remember watching an interview with Bono and Adam around 1980/81. They were being interviewed at a downtown coffee shop by city tv in Toronto I think.  I remember Bono sipping his coffee and then saying, I think U2 are destined to be the biggest band in the world, up there with the stones and the who, and if you haven't heard of us yet, I gaurantee you will.  From that point I was hooked.

Radiohead never made any pretenses or declarations of ambitions to be the "best band in the world."

Surely they know with their limited skill set that they don't have it in them to aim that high.  I will give them credit for that.

Which begs the question: why does this thread even exist?

Cheers,

J


As musicians Jick, Radiohead are infinitely better than U2. U2 will even tell you that. I have actually had a conversation with Bono and The Edge about Jonny Greenwood and Thom Yorke and they had nothing but admiration for them. Its a different type of music, they want different things and go about it in totally different ways. You may hate Radiohead, but you can not say they are not good musicians.

They are a lot more humble. They do not need all the admiration and world popularity that Bono wants. They are a like 5 Larry Mullens actually.
AS MUSICIANS RADIOHEAD ARE INFINITELY BETTER THAN U2!!!!!!! EVEN U2 WILL TELL YOU THAT ROFL..... you better go on youtube and see what bono says about the edge guitar playing.. think the interview is called OFF THE RECORD.. i think you will find that nevermind j greenwood bono likes to compare edge with j hendrix lol.. i love radiohead!! to me they have different styles its like one person like oranges someone else prefers apples if i had a choice who i wanted to listen to then it would be edges guitar that does not make my opinion any better or worse and does not mean greenwood is any less of a guitar player just different

What's the skill levels of different band's musicians got to do with anything?

 
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: AJ on December 05, 2012, 04:33:43 PM
On Atoms for Peace (thom yorke band) homepage if you click on the clocktower you see if you scroll right there is a free download
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: bethere on December 06, 2012, 05:14:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I also couldn't agree more.  U2 have never pretended to be anything than who they are.  In fact Bono once said in an interview,  U2 are a big band that make big music for big places.  That's just what we do.  With this in mind, I think they have over the course of their 32 year career have done an excellent job at balancing trying to maintain artistic credibility and critical acclaim and at the same time being a big band in the mainstream. In fact that's what attracted me to U2 in the first place.  The determination to be a big band.  I remember watching an interview with Bono and Adam around 1980/81. They were being interviewed at a downtown coffee shop by city tv in Toronto I think.  I remember Bono sipping his coffee and then saying, I think U2 are destined to be the biggest band in the world, up there with the stones and the who, and if you haven't heard of us yet, I gaurantee you will.  From that point I was hooked.

Radiohead never made any pretenses or declarations of ambitions to be the "best band in the world."

Surely they know with their limited skill set that they don't have it in them to aim that high.  I will give them credit for that.

Which begs the question: why does this thread even exist?

Cheers,

J


As musicians Jick, Radiohead are infinitely better than U2. U2 will even tell you that. I have actually had a conversation with Bono and The Edge about Jonny Greenwood and Thom Yorke and they had nothing but admiration for them. Its a different type of music, they want different things and go about it in totally different ways. You may hate Radiohead, but you can not say they are not good musicians.

They are a lot more humble. They do not need all the admiration and world popularity that Bono wants. They are a like 5 Larry Mullens actually.
AS MUSICIANS RADIOHEAD ARE INFINITELY BETTER THAN U2!!!!!!! EVEN U2 WILL TELL YOU THAT ROFL..... you better go on youtube and see what bono says about the edge guitar playing.. think the interview is called OFF THE RECORD.. i think you will find that nevermind j greenwood bono likes to compare edge with j hendrix lol.. i love radiohead!! to me they have different styles its like one person like oranges someone else prefers apples if i had a choice who i wanted to listen to then it would be edges guitar that does not make my opinion any better or worse and does not mean greenwood is any less of a guitar player just different . so i agree with most of what you said apart from the first part

          Radiohead is not infinitely better than anyone.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: satellitedog01 on December 07, 2012, 07:21:53 AM
Yeah, they are only finitely better than most modern bands.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on December 07, 2012, 07:31:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, they are only finitely better than most modern bands.

truth. even though i'm not a fan of the most recent 2 Rh albums im still more excited for their releases than any other bands releases.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: lg_nacion on October 26, 2014, 05:36:17 PM
IMO they've made three great albums:
The Bends, OK Computer and In Rainbows.

I don't really like it when they do those
computer effects and that bleepity bloop
B.S. (like the last album and Thom's
new solo one)

For some reason I still like The National
 Anthem and Idioteque, though.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: rcamu2 on October 26, 2014, 05:45:13 PM
1. U2
2. Red hot needles in my ear drums.
3. Leeches
4. Radiohead.

Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: lg_nacion on October 26, 2014, 06:02:09 PM
Hey c'mon, they HAVE to be better than leeches hahaha  ;D
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: _acrobat on October 26, 2014, 06:11:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
1. U2
2. Red hot needles in my ear drums.
3. Leeches
4. Radiohead.

Oh come on, Radiohead aren't even that experimental or abrasive or challenging.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: satellitedog on October 26, 2014, 06:16:01 PM
The other two are actual bands, both quite experimental, sonically  halfway between a cheesegrater on a ventillator rotor licking your eyelids, and an 18 wheeler speeding over shipping containers with 20 000 wineglasses for cargo...
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: RathfarnhamU2Fan on October 26, 2014, 07:11:51 PM
Radiohead are joyless muck.
Their singer is a miserable dwarf with absolutely nothing to say.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: iced on October 26, 2014, 07:36:02 PM
I used to like Radiohead then every song started to sound the same after Kid A. Then all their albums just started to blend in one after the other.

They got boring.
Title: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: Bonoman77 on October 26, 2014, 09:03:44 PM
radiohead or coldplay have never ,ever reached the heights of u2 and never will. Enough said.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: _acrobat on October 26, 2014, 09:12:29 PM
Comparing U2 and Radiohead is like comparing apples to oranges. They may have had a somewhat similar sound at one point or similar sonic origins but the ambition and sound of both bands are very different now.

Coldplay, well I guess I agree with that.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: meximofo on October 26, 2014, 09:13:05 PM
I am also a huge fan of Radiohead and I know that they are great live, but they still haven't got close to what U2 did with Streets in JT Croke Park or Elevation Slane.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: _acrobat on October 26, 2014, 09:15:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am also a huge fan of Radiohead and I know that they are great live, but they still haven't got close to what U2 did with Streets in JT Croke Park or Elevation Slane.

Oh there is no doubt that I prefer U2 to Radiohead.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: mdmomof7 on October 26, 2014, 09:56:20 PM
Don't care about Radiohead. Very much like Coldplay, but neither are in the same league as U2 for me nor IMNHHO should they be for others who look at the body of work of each of them.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: THRILLHO on October 26, 2014, 10:00:53 PM
ill never understand the Coldplay is ripping off Radiohead! arguments. The u2 rip off thing, maybe, with VLV only, but Rh? They both play the piano on some songs. End of comparisons.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: codeguy on October 26, 2014, 11:41:57 PM
All influence is ripoff. Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief.

Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: fardreamer on October 26, 2014, 11:54:47 PM
I love Coldplay, but they are sometimes guilty of being the most awesome U2 tribute band.

Radioed made a good record in 1997 (OK Computer). But I'm not a big fan. There's far too much buzzing and screeching and not enough actual music. And Yorke can't sing.

Neither are in the same universe as U2.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Albono on October 27, 2014, 12:12:48 AM
i like Radiohead, but lately i just can't bear to listen to Thom Yorke.
he produces the same sound, over and over!

i very much prefer Philip Selway's solo albums.
that drummer guy is versatile!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xwxDra-xyg&spfreload=10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMxXmW1pqeU
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: lg_nacion on October 27, 2014, 12:23:08 AM
Yeah, Phil Selway's Weatherhouse is excellent!
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: Miami66 on October 27, 2014, 07:36:42 AM
Plus Radiohead and Coldplay are boring bands.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: _acrobat on October 27, 2014, 07:42:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Plus Radiohead and Coldplay are boring bands.

I understand music is subjective, but boring? I find most of Radiohead's output much more engrossing than, say, ATYCLB or HTDAAB.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: Doc_Holiday on October 27, 2014, 07:56:11 AM
I don't care for Coldplay, but Radiohead I used to like a lot, nowadays only like them a bit. Never liked them as much as U2, of course.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: hrsan on October 27, 2014, 07:58:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
radiohead or coldplay have never ,ever reached the heights of u2 and never will. Enough said.


Never liked Radiohead, I just can't get past Yorke's vocals.  I never understood the U2 comparisons from Coldplay either. 
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: New Zooland on October 27, 2014, 07:59:04 AM
Personally I find Kid a and In Rainbows far more interesting than anything U2 or Coldplay have done in the past 15 years.

And Yorke can't sing? Really? Bono has praised Yorke's singing voice.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: smee on October 27, 2014, 08:04:32 AM
I love Radiohead, cant go Coldplay, apart from first 3 albums
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: jick on October 27, 2014, 08:55:38 AM
Radiohead is from the generation of one-hit "alternative rock" wonders of the 1990s. Soul Asylum, Runaway Train; Candlebox, Far Behind; Toad The Wet Sprocket, All I Want; Mr.Big, To Be With You; Deep Blue Something, Breakfast At Tiffany's; Stone Temple Pilots, Plush; Crash Test Dummies, Mmmm mmm mm. Those were great ear candy back in the day.

Radiohead has Creep. Great ear candy in retro playlists. But comparing them to U2? Seriously?

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: imaginary friend on October 27, 2014, 08:58:04 AM
Dude, if you really think Stone Temple Pilots were a "one-hit wonder" band...hahaha, just wow.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: Miami66 on October 27, 2014, 09:14:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Plus Radiohead and Coldplay are boring bands.

I understand music is subjective, but boring? I find most of Radiohead's output much more engrossing than, say, ATYCLB or HTDAAB.


LMAO!!! HTDAAB is my favorite album and ATYCLB is not boring by any means. It's so uplifting.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: The Exile on October 27, 2014, 09:24:03 AM
Regarding Radiohead, it's not an apples-to apples comparison since they never pined after fame the way U2 has done (or made music that deliberately appealed to people, at least not in a while). Coldplay on the other hand....

I love Radiohead, but for completely different reasons than why I love U2.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: An Cat Dubh on October 27, 2014, 10:08:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Regarding Radiohead, it's not an apples-to apples comparison since they never pined after fame the way U2 has done (or made music that deliberately appealed to people, at least not in a while). Coldplay on the other hand....

I love Radiohead, but for completely different reasons than why I love U2.

This.

Its totally ok to love both bands you know. To all those Radiohead haters, get a grip when saying they are **** just because you don't happen to like their music.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Johnny Feathers on October 27, 2014, 10:33:25 AM
How is this being dragged up now?

At any rate, I always felt that Radiohead sort of picked up where U2 left off in the mid/late-90's.  Zooropa and Passengers sort of led into OK Computer and Kid A.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: satellitedog on October 27, 2014, 10:43:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Radiohead are joyless muck.
Their singer is a miserable dwarf with absolutely nothing to say.

Unlike you, as it turns out.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: keirdubois on October 27, 2014, 11:15:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ill never understand the Coldplay is ripping off Radiohead! arguments. The u2 rip off thing, maybe, with VLV only, but Rh? They both play the piano on some songs. End of comparisons.

Coldplay wouldn't exist without "High and Dry."
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: guitarmart on October 27, 2014, 12:07:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    Amen
Personally I find Kid a and In Rainbows far more interesting than anything U2 or Coldplay have done in the past 15 years.

And Yorke can't sing? Really? Bono has praised Yorke's singing voice.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: BalconyTV on October 27, 2014, 12:09:33 PM
Battle of the band arguments are so ridiculous.

But for the sake of debate...

Radiohead are much more authentic musicians than U2 right now (whether you like them or not) as they spend most of their time making music. They do it for themselves, and don't try cater to audience. Because they have done it so much, they have experimented a lot.

Coldplay are a rock solid band, but suffer from a degree of the blandness that U2 have suffered with over the years and even now.

In saying that I prefer U2 over both of them, because U2 just speak to me more.

So I guess I'm saying, I wish U2 were as dedicated as Radiohead are.

But totally get why someone would prefer Radiohead over U2.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on October 27, 2014, 12:24:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Radiohead are joyless muck.
Their singer is a miserable dwarf with absolutely nothing to say.

Unlike you, as it turns out.

lol

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dude, if you really think Stone Temple Pilots were a "one-hit wonder" band...hahaha, just wow.

well i mean...Creep, Plush, Big Empty, Vasoline, Interstate Love Song, Lady Picture Show, Big Bang Baby, Trippin On A Hole..., Down.  Those are all 1 song right?

nah. you're right. dozens of hits. i love STP.

I get not LOVING the last 2 <or 3 i guess> Radioheads, but...Bends , OKC, Kid A...i mean...he's got something to say in those. His solo albums yea not alot to say, or maybe i just can't understand his mummbling non-chorus-having songs.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: THRILLHO on October 27, 2014, 12:25:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ill never understand the Coldplay is ripping off Radiohead! arguments. The u2 rip off thing, maybe, with VLV only, but Rh? They both play the piano on some songs. End of comparisons.

Coldplay wouldn't exist without "High and Dry."

care to elaborate? you're saying Yellow was a rip off of H&D?
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: THRILLHO on October 27, 2014, 12:26:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Regarding Radiohead, it's not an apples-to apples comparison since they never pined after fame the way U2 has done (or made music that deliberately appealed to people, at least not in a while). Coldplay on the other hand....

I love Radiohead, but for completely different reasons than why I love U2.

This.

Its totally ok to love both bands you know. To all those Radiohead haters, get a grip when saying they are **** just because you don't happen to like their music.

Yea...or only heard "Creep" and are now an expert on Radiohead...
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: RathfarnhamU2Fan on October 27, 2014, 12:33:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Radiohead are joyless muck.
Their singer is a miserable dwarf with absolutely nothing to say.

Unlike you, as it turns out.

No need to be a t**t.Cheers!
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: Edgedisciple on October 27, 2014, 12:46:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ill never understand the Coldplay is ripping off Radiohead! arguments. The u2 rip off thing, maybe, with VLV only, but Rh? They both play the piano on some songs. End of comparisons.
Rip-off is a strong word, I would say heavy influence. You can hear a heavy U2 influence guitar-wise on every Coldplay album. Chris Martin channels Bono very often with his melodies. It gets on my nerves that Coldplay have gazillions of fans and more than half of them don't bother to go to listen to their main influence or don't even know that without U2 there wouldn't be Coldplay, but oh well... U2's influence on Radiohead is much more subtle, but there is. Everyone of them is a fan.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Flying_Leg_Kick on October 27, 2014, 01:11:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At any rate, I always felt that Radiohead sort of picked up where U2 left off in the mid/late-90's.  Zooropa and Passengers sort of led into OK Computer and Kid A.

If there was such a hand-off, I think it's OS1 to The Bends, even though OS1 happened after Bends.  They both sound dated in places.  U2 reeled itself in after that, though Pop is by no means safe, while Radiohead let themselves go.

I find myself respecting Radiohead more than U2 these days because of how they chose to "take a journey" with their music.  I really wish U2 weren't so afraid of failure to take the kind of risks Radiohead didn't seem to mind making and taking over and over again.  Radiohead, from The Bends onward...it seems like a logical, honest progression.  U2, really, could have been on their own way after Zooropa and into OS1, but the labels put that to a halt.  And, sadly, now the band looks back on the 90's with a lot of "self indulgent" peppered into their memories.  Guys...there was nothing wrong with it.

1995...probably the gateway year between what used to be and what was to come.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Edgedisciple on October 27, 2014, 01:28:21 PM
I've always felt that Radiohead went too far after Kid A and Amnesiac, becoming self-indulgent and experimental just for the sake of it. Thom Yorke is carrying on the tradition from what I've heard. I'm a fan of their records till Amnesiac. The rest is not for me.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: ian ryan on October 27, 2014, 01:53:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
radiohead or coldplay have never ,ever reached the heights of u2 and never will. Enough said.


Never liked Radiohead, I just can't get past Yorke's vocals.  I never understood the U2 comparisons from Coldplay either. 

This is my problem too. Yorke's vocals are so thin and tinny, especially when he gets up high, and there is rarely any weight behind his studio work. I have to turn it off. However, I will say that Myxomatosis is an absolutely brilliant song.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: ian ryan on October 27, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ill never understand the Coldplay is ripping off Radiohead! arguments. The u2 rip off thing, maybe, with VLV only, but Rh? They both play the piano on some songs. End of comparisons.

Coldplay wouldn't exist without "High and Dry."

I always was amazed they didn't get more crap for ripping off Jeff Buckley, especially on their first two albums.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: ian ryan on October 27, 2014, 01:58:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Battle of the band arguments are so ridiculous.

But for the sake of debate...

Radiohead are much more authentic musicians than U2 right now (whether you like them or not) as they spend most of their timing making music. They do it for themselves, and don't try cater to audience. Because they have done it so much, they have experimented a lot.

Coldplay are a rock solid band, but suffer from a degree of the blandness that U2 have suffered with over the years and even now.

In saying that I prefer U2 over both of them, because U2 just speak to me more.

So I guess I'm saying, I wish U2 were as dedicated as Radiohead are.

But totally get why someone would prefer Radiohead over U2.

I think U2 are probably more dedicated than Radiohead will end up being. Do you really see them being together when they approaching 60 and have been playing together for four decades? People give U2 crap for not being as dedicated or prolific as they used to be, but realistically there's only so many times you can go to a well before it goes dry. U2 are ridiculously fortunate that they've been able to find a few wells in their years together, which is more than can be said for almost any other artist out there. It still probably gets harder to get water from it though.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Johnny Feathers on October 27, 2014, 02:06:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At any rate, I always felt that Radiohead sort of picked up where U2 left off in the mid/late-90's.  Zooropa and Passengers sort of led into OK Computer and Kid A.

If there was such a hand-off, I think it's OS1 to The Bends, even though OS1 happened after Bends.  They both sound dated in places.  U2 reeled itself in after that, though Pop is by no means safe, while Radiohead let themselves go.

I find myself respecting Radiohead more than U2 these days because of how they chose to "take a journey" with their music.  I really wish U2 weren't so afraid of failure to take the kind of risks Radiohead didn't seem to mind making and taking over and over again.  Radiohead, from The Bends onward...it seems like a logical, honest progression.  U2, really, could have been on their own way after Zooropa and into OS1, but the labels put that to a halt.  And, sadly, now the band looks back on the 90's with a lot of "self indulgent" peppered into their memories.  Guys...there was nothing wrong with it.

1995...probably the gateway year between what used to be and what was to come.

The last time I really felt any connection between the two bands was honestly in 2000, when U2 released ATYCLB and Radiohead released Kid A, I think within just a couple of months (or less) of each other.  At the time, I felt U2 went too safe, and Radiohead went too weird.  In hindsight, though, I think Kid A was a daring move, that doesn't always invite an easy listen, but stands as a more artistic achievement.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: macfoley on October 27, 2014, 02:21:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Regarding Radiohead, it's not an apples-to apples comparison since they never pined after fame the way U2 has done (or made music that deliberately appealed to people, at least not in a while). Coldplay on the other hand....

I love Radiohead, but for completely different reasons than why I love U2.

This.

Its totally ok to love both bands you know. To all those Radiohead haters, get a grip when saying they are **** just because you don't happen to like their music.

Yep, same here. Massive Radiohead fan here. Seen them live 3 times, Glastonbury 97 being the magical one. Don't get the point of this thread, when there is another one about U2 vs Radiohead, but hey, I am going to step in here.

To say Thom Yorke can't sing is a complete joke. He is one of the best singers I have heard and stands up well today, not losing much quality by looking after his voice and can still nail the high notes very well.

As for Radiohead, I can understand why people "went off" them after Kid A or even Ok Computer, but their albums after are still as challenging and well crafted pieces of music, which are very well respected. It may not be everyones cup of tea, but I admire the way they avoided being put into a box, never went for the biggest band in the world job, and turned the tables with the more electronic work.

Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: fardreamer on October 27, 2014, 03:34:11 PM
I'd rather listen to Bono sing badly than to Yorke's best. To me, his voice is a grating as fingernails on a chalkboard.

And musically, too much buzzing and screeching.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: keirdubois on October 27, 2014, 03:34:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ill never understand the Coldplay is ripping off Radiohead! arguments. The u2 rip off thing, maybe, with VLV only, but Rh? They both play the piano on some songs. End of comparisons.

Coldplay wouldn't exist without "High and Dry."

care to elaborate? you're saying Yellow was a rip off of H&D?

I’m saying that bands like Coldplay and Travis adapted (some would say successfully) one particular aspect of Radiohead’s sound, i.e. the softer-rock + high voice/“sensitive” side. Meanwhile Yorke has readily admitted he was inspired to do that by a Jeff Buckley show.

“Ripoff” is a poor word to use, which was why I didn’t use it. It would be like saying “U2 ripped off Joy Division or Siouxie Sioux” when they didn’t, really—they just liked what they heard and felt inspired. Which, I assume, is what Martin & Co. did too.

That’s my charitable take on it, because I really dislike Coldplay’s music.
Title: Re: Please with the u2 vs radiohead vs coldplay
Post by: keirdubois on October 27, 2014, 03:35:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Regarding Radiohead, it's not an apples-to apples comparison since they never pined after fame the way U2 has done (or made music that deliberately appealed to people, at least not in a while). Coldplay on the other hand....

I love Radiohead, but for completely different reasons than why I love U2.

+1
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: lg_nacion on October 27, 2014, 04:00:31 PM
Radiohead is a one-hit wonder? Even I know the riff from Street Spirit, and I was a kid back then.....
Still.....I guess I DID research all their hits,not recognized them immmediately.....

Anyway I felt they got a good compromise between weird and listenable with In Rainbows. Then they got even MORE insane with The King of Limbs.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: briscoetheque on October 27, 2014, 04:03:59 PM
Nice day for fishing jick. :-)
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: satellitedog on October 27, 2014, 04:54:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Radiohead are joyless muck.
Their singer is a miserable dwarf with absolutely nothing to say.

Unlike you, as it turns out.

No need to be a t**t.Cheers!

You took the words right out of my keyboard! Hola :-)

(for the record, I don't intend to pick on you, this just had to be)
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Parsons on October 27, 2014, 05:12:27 PM
Radio  who ?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Midnight is Where the Day Begins on October 27, 2014, 05:46:40 PM
I don't care for most of Radiohead's music, but I'll be damned to say they aren't talented. I give them a ton of respect for all the music they've made.

Although for some reason, I absolutely adored Lotus Flower. Might have been one of my favorite songs of 2011.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: macfoley on October 28, 2014, 04:14:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Radiohead are joyless muck.
Their singer is a miserable dwarf with absolutely nothing to say.

Unlike you, as it turns out.

:D
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: macfoley on October 28, 2014, 04:15:50 AM
Massive Radiohead fan here. Seen them live 3 times, Glastonbury 97 being the magical one.

To say Thom Yorke can't sing is a complete joke. He is one of the best singers I have heard and stands up well today, not losing much quality by looking after his voice and can still nail the high notes very well.

As for Radiohead, I can understand why people "went off" them after Kid A or even Ok Computer, but their albums after are still as challenging and well crafted pieces of music, which are very well respected. It may not be everyones cup of tea, but I admire the way they avoided being put into a box, never went for the biggest band in the world job, and turned the tables with the more electronic work.

And I don't get this they went "weird" or "electronic" or whatever when out of their albums, only two, Amnesiac and King of Limbs are they real true electronic albums. After Kid A, onto Hail to the thief and In Rainbows is a more balanced mixed of them. I wonder how many people who have slated Radiohead in here have actually listened to those albums and sound just like the people who gave U2 sh** for Songs of Innocence for not listening to it?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: lazyboy on October 28, 2014, 04:26:06 AM
Hail to The Thief and In Rainbows are great. Radiohead are 1 of the few bands I really want to see live that I haven't yet seen. King of Limbs was a bit of a flop though was it not? None of it really gathered my attention, and anything I read on forums about it was lukewarm.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: macfoley on October 28, 2014, 04:28:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hail to The Thief and In Rainbows are great. Radiohead are 1 of the few bands I really want to see live that I haven't yet seen. King of Limbs was a bit of a flop though was it not? None of it really gathered my attention, and anything I read on forums about it was lukewarm.

King of Limbs is my least favorite album, too much like Amnesiac for me. After In Rainbows which I feel is very much in the vein of Ok Computer, there are some songs on that album from the Computer sessions too, I was hoping for a more "traditional" album from them.

Still got good reviews though over here in the UK did the Kings album though.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on October 28, 2014, 11:59:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hail to The Thief and In Rainbows are great. Radiohead are 1 of the few bands I really want to see live that I haven't yet seen. King of Limbs was a bit of a flop though was it not? None of it really gathered my attention, and anything I read on forums about it was lukewarm.

funny story, i'd never seen them live and didn't even really try to, until KOL came out. It was a GREAT concert and the songs were better live than on album. But yes, KOL is the worst by a mile imo.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Johnny Feathers on October 28, 2014, 12:13:05 PM
I've seen them four times.  The performance I saw after Kid A/Amnesiac is one of the best concerts I've attended, period.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on October 28, 2014, 12:19:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hail to The Thief and In Rainbows are great. Radiohead are 1 of the few bands I really want to see live that I haven't yet seen. King of Limbs was a bit of a flop though was it not? None of it really gathered my attention, and anything I read on forums about it was lukewarm.

King of Limbs is my least favorite album, too much like Amnesiac for me. After In Rainbows which I feel is very much in the vein of Ok Computer, there are some songs on that album from the Computer sessions too, I was hoping for a more "traditional" album from them.

Still got good reviews though over here in the UK did the Kings album though.

i wish it was like Amnesiac. Amn. has an AMAZING first half but not much happening on the back side.

What songs besides The Reckoner were from the OKC sessions?
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: briscoetheque on October 28, 2014, 04:40:15 PM
As soon as you accept that radiohead don't write 'songs' anymore, it's easier to appreciate their work. Or not.

But the most predictable thing ever is the music press reviewing radiohead. 5 stars. Every time. No one wants to be 'that reviewer' who didn't 'get' the genius.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Doc_Holiday on October 28, 2014, 05:11:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But the most predictable thing ever is the music press reviewing radiohead. 5 stars. Every time. No one wants to be 'that reviewer' who didn't 'get' the genius.
Very true... It's gotten boring already
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on October 28, 2014, 05:25:35 PM
It only got boring with KOL. IR wasn't thrilling but it wasn't unlistenable or forgettable like KOL is.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: briscoetheque on October 28, 2014, 05:47:09 PM
I much prefer KOL...
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: Johnny Feathers on October 28, 2014, 08:04:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But the most predictable thing ever is the music press reviewing radiohead. 5 stars. Every time. No one wants to be 'that reviewer' who didn't 'get' the genius.
Very true... It's gotten boring already

Well, ok, but being a U2 fan, it's not really any different than the expected 5 star reviews from Rolling Stone...
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: briscoetheque on October 28, 2014, 08:08:31 PM
Indeed, nor the guaranteed bad reviews from every other piece of non-Q press.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: DK46 on October 28, 2014, 10:32:45 PM
Not to be a nag, but these threads are sort of pointless, I mean, can't you just enjoy both bands?  I am a huge fan of both, albeit, I do find Radiohead to be the more interesting of the two (at least in the last 15 years).  While U2 were adventurous in the 90s (and I love that era), they then reeled it in because Pop wasn't received the way they wanted it be (at least in my eyes).  However, OK Computer was a critically acclaimed success for Radiohead and they still chose to reinvent themselves with Kid A as opposed to resting on their laurels and milking the guitar rock of their 90s records and all their records sound different I might add.

Also, I just really admire and relate to Yorke as an artist/person and love hearing his opinions on things.  I know that Radiohead (atleast Thom, Jonny & Ed) all respect U2 and have complimented them in the past and U2 has reciprocated the love.  All that said, both of these bands are incredible live (especially Radiohead) and they are both responsible for having some of my favorite albums and songs ever. 
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: THRILLHO on October 28, 2014, 11:06:14 PM
Thom said of his friendship with Bono "i'm the one at the piano in the corner of the room playing for anyone who will listen...Bono is on stage demanding your attention" paraphrased but that was the jist of it.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: DEX on October 28, 2014, 11:38:34 PM
Radiohead - probably just makes my top 500 bands of all time.
Title: Re: U2 vs Radiohead
Post by: scrittoresabino on October 28, 2014, 11:41:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's a fair assessment, sorry for misinterpreting. Of course they would love to, but there's no doubt that it's art before commerce as far as Radiohead are concerned (and that's no reason for them or their fans to look down their noses at anyone; Twilight soundtrack anyone?) they would love U2 figures but without compromise. If Kid A had sold 25 million then I'm sure they'd be delighted, but it wasn't a record designed to do that, it was first and foremost a record they wanted to make based on what they were inspired by and listening to at that time, I say kudos for that because their stock was sky high at the tail-end of the 90's and they easily could of put out another guitar based record out that may very well of put them in the big leagues. 
 
Being successful in the mainstream isn't proof of anything other than you were in the right place at the right time.

that last sentence.  I am not certain if I interpreted it correctly, so feel free to correct me if Im wrong or if you care.  It appears you mean to say, that this is not worth much at all, to reduce its worth.  Yet what you described is in many ways the epiphany of connection and the root of the goal of art.  Art is a form of communication and connection.  It is meant to capture something and connect to an audience.  That sentence is in fact a simple version of:

zeitgeist
n.
1848, from German Zeitgeist, literally "spirit of the age," from Zeit "time" (see tide ) + Geist "spirit" (see ghost ).

Just as zeitgeist is not the only measure of worth, potency, relevance or esteem, neither should it be belittled or shirked. 

And by the way, being highly successful in the mainstream does show more, it shows that your work is able to connect with a diverse cross-section of people, cultures, groups, ages etc., and not just a niche group or subsection of the same likeminded people.

Disclaimer: This is coming from someone who has often disliked what is popular (not due to it's popularity, just due to preference of sound) and who primarily listens to indie, modern rock. alternative, classic rock, and some electronic and hip hop... yet my favorite band by far has continually been one of the most popular and biggest bands in the world, and I agrees that that most of the indie scene is filled with the idiotic ultra fascist and conformist mentality  left over from punk scene roots, that you must dress a certain way (they all look a like and wear the same uniform), love the same music and bands, and dislike and ridicule a prescribed list of bands. This same group also unanimously prescribe to the notion (often with huge hypocrisy) that subtlety is automatically superior, as a fact (not a preference, as noted in their reasoning as to why one band is better than the another).  The same goes for "darkness".  They largely unaware of this idiot notion and they they are descbiing a mood as superior, not preference.  Yet bring up Iggy Pop or Ramones to them, and suddenly they are stumped, often back tracking to say..."well they are the exception"... An open honest untainted and unpretentious ear never needed that exception. 

...more on the actual topic later.