Metacritic.com
Film Video/DVD Music Games Books TV
Metacritic    Metacritic Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Music  Hop To Forums  General Music Discussion    The Beatles vs. Radiohead
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
-star Rating Rate It!  Login/Join 
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted
So per Bestaste's idea and assumption that if Radiohead went up against the best band of all time—let alone the most influential—that they would still win, here is the poll: Radiohead vs. The Beatles. By the way, I absolutely adore Radiohead and all of their music, but I would be lying to myself if I put them ahead of The Beatles—it’s no contest.

Question:
Which is the better band? Using innovation, significance, musicianship, importance, catalog diversity, songwriting, sheer talent and skill as your criteria.

Choices:
The Beatles
Radiohead

 


-----
If you don't love me, I'm sorry.
 
Location: TexasReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jedi
Posted Hide Post
Using the criteria above there is basically no contest who the winner is. The Beatles are going to win this poll hands down. I'd be surprised to see anyone vote for Radiohead using this criteria, and if they did, they'd be kidding themselves.

- Innovation: Beatles by a mile
- Significance/Importance: Beatles by a mile
- Musicianship/Skill: Neither band is masterful at their instruments, but Radiohead may actually have a slight upper hand here.
- Catalog Diversity: Hard to say here. I'm tempted to say Radiohead, but it's basically a tie.
- Songwriting: The Lenon/McCartney combo really can't be voted against here.
- Sheer Talent: Kind of hard to gauge. What exactly do you mean by this?

What might be a more interesting questing is which band do the members of Metacritic like more, in the simple of terms of personal favorites. Just as simple as which band do you enjoy listening to more. For me, the answer to that is Radiohead, and not The Beatles.
 
Location: Valparaiso, INReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by less_success:
- Sheer Talent: Kind of hard to gauge. What exactly do you mean by this?

What might be a more interesting questing is which band do the members of Metacritic like more, in the simple of terms of personal favorites. Just as simple as which band do you enjoy listening to more. For me, the answer to that is Radiohead, and not The Beatles.
You are right that it is hard to gauge but you can tell when some people are just born with the talent. Like if God just sprinkled extra glitter on them or something. Sounds to me like both were just born with it but with the knack for melody, songwriting and even harmony The Beatles had I would say they had more of the sheer talent--it was just there.

As for your question on who do people simply like more, sure Radiohead is more recent and whatnot and they might be more enjoyable sometimes, but it is still no contest, the vote for that one for me would have to go to The Beatles. Hopefully this restores some of Besttaste's lost hope in that not all metacritic users are fanatics that put Radiohead above anything and everything else--or at least I hope they don't.


-----
If you don't love me, I'm sorry.
 
Location: TexasReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Guru
Posted Hide Post
as much as i thought the Radiohead vs. Pink Floyd thread was super interesting and merited the debate, i'm not sure that Beatles vs. Radiohead is as interesting just because, in my opinion, they're not in the exact same genre. The Beatles were much more pop oriented than R'head.

And as much as i like R'head, objectively, there's no denying that the Beatles have to win this battle. Although i'm curious to see how R'head holds up in 30 years from now.

And if i'd have to choose between one or the other, i'm sorry to say that i'd pick Thom Yorke over John & Paul just because i love his voice so much and i feel like he is better at making feelings come through his singing.

then again, i don't know the Beatles' catalogue as well as R'head

lastly, just the fact that we're debating R'head's stature with some of the greatest is enough proof of how talented and influential they've been these last 10+ years and hopefully will continue to be


Mix a little folly with your plans: It is sweet to be silly at the right moment.
 
Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Guru
Posted Hide Post
Thanks Fragile Kid.

Boy was I wrong. It's already 12-0 Beatles. It does surprise me, however, that Radiohead easily beats Pink Floyd but gets shut out by the Beatles. My favorite two bands ever are Pink Floyd and the Beatles, but obviously the Beatles are much, much, more highly regarded here.

Finally, what happened to all those people who said Radiohead was their favorite band. They haven't even gotten ONE vote yet.
 
Location: santa barbaraReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Guru
Posted Hide Post
I believe there are two distinctive arguments here: best band ever and most influential band ever. And yes, I see a difference. I feel that Radiohead is the greatest band ever, but the Beatles are the most influential. The Beatles clearly are more influential (and will continue to have a stronger influence) than Radiohead, but I just feel that Radiohead are better at mixing the concepts Art and Rock.

Influence is defined as “the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways” (Merriam-Webster). And here’s where the Beatles dominate; but how could they not, given the fact that they created pop hits (albeit brilliant pop hits) that to this day are played on many radio stations throughout the world? Radiohead can’t be even close in matching the Beatles radio airplay. To influence is to be able to expose your art using the most influential form of communication, in this case radio, to a mass public, not to mention to be at the right place at the right time (I would argue that George Martin had as much influence on the “Beatles sound” as the Beatles themselves).

And the Beatles have the early advantage of leaving an impression on the first wave of rock critics giving them an advantage over Radiohead. Mere mention of the Beatles causes religious fervor among the first wave of rock critics. Whereas Radiohead, being a mid-90’s sensation, will have a long way to go before those critics retire, and the critics of our generation have their say.

Either way, it all comes down to semantics, as both are brilliant bands who deserve all the love they get. I just feel Radiohead haven’t got their just due yet. But it will come. To use the parlance of our times… uh, man… new shit will come to light (Big Lebowski, 1998)
 
Location: Tampa, FLReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Know-It-All
Posted Hide Post
Haha, I am so glad you combined Radiohead and The Big Lebowski. Best post ever.

I love both Radiohead and The Beatles. Radiohead is my all-time favorite band, but there is no Radiohead without The Beatles influence, obviously.


Not all those who wander are lost.
 
Location: Portland, ORReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jedi
Posted Hide Post
13-0 Beatles, since the last 2 posts pussied out. Smiler
Radiohead are just Talking head wanna-bes...I mean that singer can't even spell his name right... Wink


'for my purpose holds to sail beyond the sunset, and the baths of all the western stars, until I die.'
 
Location: The ever silent spaces of the EastReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Know-It-All
Posted Hide Post
That's like saying the Beatles were Elvis wannabes :-)


Not all those who wander are lost.
 
Location: Portland, ORReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Guru
Posted Hide Post
Thank god, Metacritic forum members have a little bit of sense. I love Radiohead as much as the next guy, but without The Beatles, there would be no Radiohead. I have a feeling any member of Radiohead would say as much.


**********************
Metal-Archives POTD
quote:
im looking for pretty much the most uninspired/unoriginal brutal and/or slam death. with little or no variation in vocals. stuff like disgorge(us) and condemned.
 
Location: Ain'T it stiLl obvious?Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
MXH
Slacker First Class
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by less_success:
- Songwriting: The Lenon/McCartney combo really can't be voted against here.


Unless one took the lyrics into account. Which I will, because some of the Beatles' lyrics are so bad I have trouble listening to them.
 
Location: IndianaReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted Hide Post
Mad Eeker


"Naked Woman, Naked Man
Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
 
Location: Behind the Orange CurtainReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jedi
Posted Hide Post
I've learned that if you criticize the Beatles on these boards, your post will immediately get replied to with the dreaded Eeker
 
Location: Atlanta, GAReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted Hide Post
That's because any criticism on The Beatles is just, well, pretty absurd. But then, to say that their lyrics are "so bad?" Then what would your amazing ears find as "good lyrics?" Simply startling... But that you "have trouble listening to some of their lyrics?" Eeker


-----
If you don't love me, I'm sorry.
 
Location: TexasReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted Hide Post
I realize people complain about the "nonsense" songs and the "kiddie" songs, but I'm pretty amazed that some believe the lyrics are somehow weak.

P.S. I'm not sure I've ever used the incredulous thingy before, but hey, if the face fits...


"Naked Woman, Naked Man
Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
 
Location: Behind the Orange CurtainReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jedi
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by FragileKidA:
That's because any criticism on The Beatles is just, well, pretty absurd.


I disagree. Their place is rock & roll history is second to none, but they weren't perfect. They had a few duds and some of their songs are stupid. Its like a great movie director such as Coppola, Speilberg, Scorsese, or Kubrick. Every minute of each of their films isn't perfect. Everyone's open to criticism. I'm not defending the original poster that he had trouble listening to some of their lyrics. He deserved the Eeker. I find nothing in their catalog that remotely falls into this category. I'm just saying there's nothing absurd about saying "I don't like such and such" song", or whatever. Whenever I have, I immediately get the Eeker

Smiler
 
Location: Atlanta, GAReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted Hide Post
Oh now I see, so you are feeling ostracized because you have made negative comments about The Beatles and have felt the backlash. I see, it all makes sense. When will you learn? Roll Eyes

Ah, I'm just playing with you. I see your point though, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Beatles are number one in my book. A close number one though. Would I get furious if someone said that Pet Sounds is the best album of all time, as opposed to Sgt. Peppers...? Nah, I love the former just as much as the latter and vice versa. Would I get upset if someone said that The Rolling Stones are the best band of all time? No way, I also love them. So anyways, I see your point and you are more than entitled to not like one of their songs or a bunch of them if you please. I take back my comment on saying anything negative about them is absurd.

Heck, I wouldn't mind if someone said that Miles Davis had a greater number of classic albums than The Beatles—which he probably did, somewhere around 18ish to 10ish?


-----
If you don't love me, I'm sorry.
 
Location: TexasReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MXH:
quote:
Originally posted by less_success:
- Songwriting: The Lenon/McCartney combo really can't be voted against here.


Unless one took the lyrics into account. Which I will, because some of the Beatles' lyrics are so bad I have trouble listening to them.


You may want to sit down and read a Radiohead lyric sheet before making that comment. I like Radiohead as well as the Beatles, but Yorke will never be remembered as a great lyricist. Most of his lyrics are pretty much nonsense.


-----
Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.

 
Location: MichiganReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jedi
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ericg75:
quote:
Originally posted by MXH:
quote:
Originally posted by less_success:
- Songwriting: The Lenon/McCartney combo really can't be voted against here.


Unless one took the lyrics into account. Which I will, because some of the Beatles' lyrics are so bad I have trouble listening to them.


You may want to sit down and read a Radiohead lyric sheet before making that comment. I like Radiohead as well as the Beatles, but Yorke will never be remembered as a great lyricist. Most of his lyrics are pretty much nonsense.


The lyrics to "Sail to the Moon" are embarassing.
 
Location: Atlanta, GAReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Guru
Posted Hide Post
I'd rather listen to Radiohead, but I haven't voted. I don't know what people see in this comparison.
 
Location: Adelaide, South AustraliaReply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2 3 4 5 6  
 

Metacritic    Metacritic Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Music  Hop To Forums  General Music Discussion    The Beatles vs. Radiohead

©2006 CNET Networks Inc. All rights reserved.
 
Home | FILM | DVD/VIDEO | MUSIC | GAMES | BOOKS | TV | About Metacritic metacritic.com