quote:

Originally posted by thetreesgetwheeledaway:
They're both good albums but the difference is that Sufjan won't be remembered as revolutionary and Radiohead will.

What is revolutionary about Radiohead? They make good music but they didn't change anything. They brought a style to more of the mainstream.. they're like Nirvana except won't attain that brand of popularity until Yorke drowns himself in Tofu leaving a suicide note that mentions pollution, Bush, and Bono stealing his thunder.

Anyways, I have no clue how these two are related.. and why these two albums rather than previous? Who came up with this question? Oh.. hudson...

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
Give me a break man, it was just a joke—geez.

Well, if the tables were turned, I doubt the mods would appreciate me altering their threads for my own amusement. But whatever, you're cool by me Fka.

quote:

Originally posted by Jglass:
Who came up with this question? Oh.. hudson...

Lol. Come on, just tell us which album you think is better(and why).

Everyone already knows my opinion of In Rainbows, so it is obviously Illinoise (which is how I first saw the album rerferred to.. In Rolling Stone!).

This was one of the first "indie" albums I enjoyed (along with YHF by Wilco, Funeral by Arcade Fire, and random Pixies stuff). I still pull it out occasionally. I still think it's a refreshing listen and "John Wayne Gacy, Jr." still blows me away.

quote:

Originally posted by hudson:

So, yeah, I just read that allmusic article and all I can do is laugh at how blatanly jealous the writer is of Sufjan. He's trying with all his might to avoid giving Sufjan props for being the musical genius that he is.

The writer even went so far as to critisize Sufjan for not uniting the Indie genre instead of going off on his own and "creating his own precious, little world". Yeah, it's a real shame when an artist branches out on their own to find their own niche. Give me a break.

This article is a joke. It's nothing but a sad, loser writer that's pissed off that some kid half his age is producing works of art that put to shame anything he could ever dream of doing.

yeah, i don't think the bit about niche genre is a very good point, but i think you're overreacting. your post is a bit hypocritical. you're reacting the same way to the article as you claim the article is reacting to Sufjan.

quote:

Originally posted by Shadrach is a bag of Marshmallows:

I respect your opinion, but for the record: Radiohead is WAY more "ambitious" than Sufjan is. Sufjan is trying to push himself to deeper levels of creative expression. Radiohead wants to change the world.

being ambitious isn't a bad thing. i just think Sufjan's ambitions are misguided.

quote:

Originally posted by Jglass:
What is revolutionary about Radiohead? They make good music but they didn't change anything. They brought a style to more of the mainstream.. they're like Nirvana except won't attain that brand of popularity until Yorke drowns himself in Tofu leaving a suicide note that mentions pollution, Bush, and Bono stealing his thunder.

isn't that revolutionary in itself? be careful not to confuse revolution with innovation. also, think of how many similar bands (good and band) that rode Nirvana's wave of success. now think of all the groups similar to Radiohead. i can't think of one.

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:
yeah, i don't think the bit about niche genre is a very good point, but i think you're overreacting. your post is a bit hypocritical. you're reacting the same way to the article as you claim the article is reacting to Sufjan.

Well, I'm just a dude on a forum, he's a profesional music critic, so he should do a better job of providing an unbiased, un-jaded opinion rather than his barrage of un-substantiated insults.

quote:

Originally posted by hudson:

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:
yeah, i don't think the bit about niche genre is a very good point, but i think you're overreacting. your post is a bit hypocritical. you're reacting the same way to the article as you claim the article is reacting to Sufjan.

Well, I'm just a dude on a forum, he's a profesional music critic, so he should do a better job of providing an unbiased, un-jaded opinion rather than his barrage of un-substantiated insults.

well i think his opinion is substantiated, other than the niche-genre bit. your post, however, was not.

quote:

Originally posted by Jglass:
"John Wayne Gacy, Jr." still blows me away.

gah! this is probably my least favourite song on the album.

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:
well i think his opinion is substantiated, other than the niche-genre bit. your post, however, was not.

Well his niche comments pretty much disqualify the rest of his opinion because it all ties in together. But we'll just agree to disagree.

I did completely agree with his comments on Brighteyes, whom I can't stand.

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:

quote:

Originally posted by Jglass:
"John Wayne Gacy, Jr." still blows me away.

gah! this is probably my least favourite song on the album.

Good Point...

Oh wait. Why is it your least favorite? Is it the lyrics, the tempo and mood, the melody, the meaning of the song? And out of curiousity what is your second to least favorite song?


P.S. I will point out with slight sarcasm that both albums are obviously phenominal because two years/two week after their release people still think they are masterpieces.

quote:

Posted by Jglass:

"John Wayne Gacy, Jr." still blows me away.

Posted by Fitz:

gah! this is probably my least favourite song on the album.

I think it's my least favorite song too. Not the Suf is very good at subtlety, but that song is just way to explicit. I'm reminded of the Ben Folds song "Late" about Elliott Smith.

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:
isn't that revolutionary in itself? be careful not to confuse revolution with innovation. also, think of how many similar bands (good and band) that rode Nirvana's wave of success. now think of all the groups similar to Radiohead. i can't think of one.

Then wouldn't sufjan be revolutionary?

And I still don't comprehend how people can say Radiohead's sound is unique.. that's like saying Liars are unique. I love Liars but many bands before them did what they did (the band that comes to mind for me re: Radiohead is The Normal with "Warm Leatherette"). I don't see how electronics backing half-talking is unique..

I think a better question would've been something like...Broken Social Scene - You Forgot it in People vs Sufjan Stevens - Illinois. Or maybe Wolf Parade - Apologies to the Queen Mary vs Sufjan Stevens - Illinois. I think Radiohead's album was good, but it wasn't a masterpiece. None of the songs really stuck to my bones. When I first heard Sufjan's album, I didn't stop listening to it for about a month or two, and even now I find myself listening to it at least once or twice a month.

Well Illinois does more to set itself apart and all, something which makes it a good candidate for the "album of the year" title. In Rainbows is more great music from a great band, so it sort of stands out less in a way - except the way it was released, which was revolutionary.

I don't know which was better, I wouldn't do without either. And its not a choice I will have to make in real life; any time I feel like listening to "In Rainbows", "Illinois" isn't going to change my mind - and vice versa. A more realistic decision for me would be deciding to listen to "Hail to the Thief" or "In Rainbows".

I like give those ridiculously specific ratings to albums that P4K and Cokemachineglow do. To emphasize my indecision, I gave "Illionis" a 9.4 back in 05 and "In Rainbows" a 9.3 (before p4k's review came out, mind you!!)....

And after all that, I voted for "illinois" in this thread, because Sufjan needs more defending than Radiohead on this forum.

It shouldn't be a surprise that Sufjan is ahead. While some people think he's gimmicky, the kid has shown that he has genuine talent with "Illinois." (Check the side of the jewel case. It says "Illinois." )

However, if the poll were "Radiohead vs. Sufjan Stevens" rather than "Illinois vs. In Rainbows" I'm pretty sure Radiohead would be winning pretty handily. Kid A is the favorite among a LOT of people on this board, and it's hard to deny OK Computer or The Bends - Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief are solid albums as well. Time will be the test on In Rainbows, but I think it's a keeper, too. Sufjan only has one great, ambitious album, and two pretty good albums to back that up.

quote:

Originally posted by The Texas Chamberk Massacre:
It shouldn't be a surprise that Sufjan is ahead. While some people think he's gimmicky, the kid has shown that he has genuine talent with "Illinois." (Check the side of the jewel case. It says "Illinois." )

However, if the poll were "Radiohead vs. Sufjan Stevens" rather than "Illinois vs. In Rainbows" I'm pretty sure Radiohead would be winning pretty handily. Kid A is the favorite among a LOT of people on this board, and it's hard to deny OK Computer or The Bends - Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief are solid albums as well. Time will be the test on In Rainbows, but I think it's a keeper, too. Sufjan only has one great, ambitious album, and two pretty good albums to back that up.

True, but consider in 87 years when Sufjan is pushing 115 and releases "Get Luau Loony For HAWAII." You think Kid A is gonna hold a candle to that?

Big fat OT alert! Proceed with caution...

Speaking of Pumpkin Kings, I highly recommend seeing The Nightmare Before Christmas 3-D. We saw it last weekend, and it brought back such fond memories of the early nineties, when a) not everything was cgi yet and b) I was a music reviewer for my college paper. I actually got to review the Nightmare soundtrack. And...I recall loving it.

Back to your regularly scheduled...

Nightmare before Christmas, and its soundtrack, are both absolute classics in my mind. Utterly original, gorgeous, and amazing. Shame it had to be sullied by a generation of Hot Topickers who wanted "that skeleton guy" on their hoodies and purses.

Off Topic:

Why are there always around 100 non-registered people floating around in these forums? I mean always. Is it people who came to m/c forums to check it out and promptly died in front of their computer screens, never to be found? It just seems a little too consistent to be traffic.

quote:

Is it people who came to m/c forums to check it out and promptly died in front of their computer screens, never to be found?

I have noticed that the guest to member ratio seems pretty high. Maybe the people running the site just add 100 to the guest number to make the members feel like lots of people are actually reading. Sort of validates this frivilous thing we do, I guess.