|
 |
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Guru |
I think that there's just that many lurkers. I used to lurk around here for a bit before I joined. I think more people are interested in just reading about recommendations than actually coming on here to post. Those people have no reason to register.
Also, there are a fair amount of Australians around here. That would pretty much cover our sleeping hours. |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
OK, this is tricky because Radiohead are unique and then again they’re not. They have been able to take a lot of their influences—R.E.M., U2, Pixies, The Smiths, Talking Heads, Pink Floyd—and turn them into a sound that is all their own. There is no one else that sounds like Radiohead, right now. This doesn’t mean that just because they are better than about 95% of the people currently making music that that makes them more innovative/unique/or whatever but they are unparalleled. When you really sit down and think about it, you wouldn’t be able to find a band that right now, sounds like Radiohead. Sure, when they did The Bends you could hear a lot of R.E.M. and U2 and maybe Kid A was a lot of Aphex Twin and others but it’s still a “Radiohead sound.” I don’t know, maybe I am crazy but that’s what I think. ----- If you don't love me, I'm sorry. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
as far as "Illinois" vs. "In Rainbows" thats easy
"in Rainbows" is a tighter album maybe one throwaway track (depending on your rh tastes) "Illinois" is excessive, and i think Sufjan is a puss. now onto the Radiohead revolutionary debate: radiohead could have sold out numerous times and have not (yet!). they have intentionally tried to keep from having hit-singles since creep and some of the bends singles. their music has obvious influences, yet remains their own. not everything they make is a masterpiece, but the key is their new music is always compared to their past masterpieces and usually holds up well. on the other side of that radiohead could now release an album of recorded farts over a drum machine and people would love it and defend their genius (including me) revolutionary? kind of. not like the beatles are considered (fairly?) revolutionary. time will tell |
|||
|
|
Jedi |
They could call it Radiohead Even Farts In Rainbows. I know I'd buy it for free though. I think Radiohead is trying really really hard to be revolutionary. and maybe that is why people like them so much. People are bored with the same thing coming out of the music machine over and over and over. However, I really think Radiohead might be losing their edge. In Rainbows isn't musically revolutionary, so I think they are trying to still be revolutionary by using an unorthodox release method. And so far it's working, people are ignoring the fact that the music is nothing new (which is fine, they are Radiohead), and still rating the album as one of the best in the past ten years, as if they are doing something completely amazing. Sufjan on the other hand is just a cool guy that makes music. A lone man with an artistic mind and the ability to make music that people think is interesting. He didn't set out to change the world of music. He is constantly content to play second fiddle in all of his friend's bands, not because he doesn't have the talent to make music himself, but because it means more to him to be true to himself and support his friends. Despite anything anyone might say on the contrary, the man is humble. Just watch the documentary about The Danielson Famile. He goes uncredited on tour with a little known band as a stand in for someone that couldn't make it, just to support his friend. He knows he can make ten times better music than Daniel Smith, but he stands in the shadows behind him and plays the cow bell so his friend can accomplish something in life. |
|||
|
|
Jedi |
More Cowbell!!! |
|||
|
|
Jedi |
|
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
Well if Daniel has a fever and the only prescription is “more cowbell,” then I guess Sufjan doesn’t really have a choice. ----- If you don't love me, I'm sorry. |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
I will never understand the appeal of Sufjan Stevens. I've given Illinois a chance but it just comes off as overly precious and contrived to me.
|
|||
|
|
Jedi |
Sufjan and Sufjan's music is the only thing in the musical world that I have ever heard described as "precious". And I hear it all the time in reference to Sufjan.
I'm not exactly sure what it means, and why it's an negative adjective. |
|||
|
|
Jedi |
And I guess, Thom Yorke is Bobby Fuckin' Deniro? _____________________________ Weep to Water the Trees. "This is my main concern with Obama; what if he has been groomed since childhood to blend in with the zionists and infidels? What if he has been led along by a radical islamic terrorist organization and positioned to become an influential politician? What if Obama gets into White House and turns out to be some crazy muslim terrorist? What do we do then? We'll be pretty screwed. It could happen." -- by some fucking nutjob |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
I'm not really sure who would win in a fight. I might put my money on Yorke, just because he seems like he may have actually been in a fight before. ----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Awesome post dude. |
|||
|
|
Know-It-All |
Sufjan is "precious" because he sings breathily and deals with some pretty sophomoric themes. Just try listening to "Pittsfield" without feeling effeminate.
|
|||
|
|
Guru |
Uh, the Stones sang about "sophmoric" themes too, does that make them subpar? And if Yorke's constant falsetto isn't effeminate, I don't know what is. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
now don't bring the stones into this argument
jagger is more effeminate than either since, uh.. you know Bowie and stuff anyway I just think that Sufjan, while being a great guy i guess, sings like a pussy, like emo-folk or something. Thom's voice is kind of a weird pre-pubescent choir boy pitch to it, not manly but not effeminate, at least not most of the time. |
|||
|
|
Jedi |
|
|||
|
|
Guru |
As much as I love Sufjan, I suppose I agree with you. It would be nice if he belted out a few of his songs. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
no voice annoys me worse than billy corgan's or axl rose's ...its a close call. Yorke's voice can be annoying sometimes but i think it helps that its used as an instrument and i cant tell what the hell he's saying
|
|||
|
|
Apprentice Guru |
I think Sufjan's voice is more...haunting and beautiful than girly.
Market fresh Stand by me Where will it ever land? |
|||
|
|
Participant |
That sentence is silly.
|
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Metacritic Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve2da022 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Metacritic NEW DESIGN" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
©2006 CNET Networks Inc. All rights reserved.
 |
 |
 |
Home | FILM | DVD/VIDEO | MUSIC | GAMES | BOOKS | TV | About Metacritic |  |