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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
13-0 Beatles, since the last 2 posts pussied out. Radiohead are just Talking head wanna-bes...I mean that singer can't even spell his name right...
Oh, could I feel as I have felt, or be what I have been, Or weep as I could once have wept, o'er many a vanished scene; As springs in deserts found seem sweet, all brackish though they be, So, midst the withered waste of life, those tears would flow to me.
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.
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?"
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 . 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
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?
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?
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.
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.