The lyrics from 'Come Together' area easily some of the most obscure and obtuse of any ever written. Mojo Filter, anyone? Doesn't make it any less listenable, however.

Beatles- influential.
Radiohead- innovative.

quote:

Beatles- influential.
Radiohead- innovative.

I'm not so sure that I agree with that. I agree that The Beatles are much more influential than Radiohead, but I think they were also more innovative as well. I really wouldn't catagorize Radiohead as an innovative band. They're an extremely good one, but nothing they've done has been all that original.

quote:

Originally posted by less_success:
I really wouldn't catagorize Radiohead as an innovative band. They're an extremely good one, but nothing they've done has been all that original.

what do you call Kid A?!? o_O

quote:

what do you call Kid A?!? o_O

It's not like the things Radiohead did on Kid A had never been done before. IDM music like Aphex and Autechre were doing similiar glitch and electronic work in 90s. Yorke has indeed admitted to be being highly influenced by Aphex Twin. Krautrock bands like Kraftwerk were doing a lot of the same type of stuff back in 70s. Kid A is one of my favorite albums, but calling it "innovative" is a misnomer, I think. I'm not saying it's a rip-off by any means, but a lot of the stuff The Beatles were doing had never been done before, so I personally think that makes them more innovative then Radiohead.

Of course, it's difficult to compare innovation in the 60s to innovation now. So much music has already been explored that it's extraordinarily difficult to come up with something entirely new these days.

quote:

Originally posted by less_success:
Of course, it's difficult to compare innovation in the 60s to innovation now. So much music has already been explored that it's extraordinarily difficult to come up with something entirely new these days.

The initial question is who is the better band? It seems as though all emphasis has been placed on the innovation factor, in which case the Beatles win hands down for the reasons expressed above. But is their music better? I don't see how that can be such a no-brainer unless everyone here actually prefers listening to the Beatles over Radiohead. I know several here do, but I'm sure many don't. In my case, I've never really had much of a draw towards the Beatles' music. I like some of their songs, but others I could do without, and some even annoy me. Am I obligated to vote for them anyway simply because it's an understood "fact" that they are the best band ever? There's really no point to these polls if we're only here to express what we think other people think. If we're going by popularity, the Beatles win hands down. Their #1's compilation has 27 songs on it. Radiohead hasn't had a single #1 hit song in the U.S. ("Creep" reached #34). They've sold a heck of a lot more albums as well. But that's simply a reflection of the differences in their music. The Beatles were innovative and artful, but they didn't sacrifice pop accessibility. Radiohead makes art rock that is geared toward a more specified segment of the population. In that sense, Radiohead is more comparable to the Velvet Underground. The Beatles are more comparable to the Rolling Stones or U2.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Radiohead's music seems more complex and rewarding on repeated listening. The Beatles are more immediate. I'd also argue that the diversity and growth displayed from Pablo Honey to Kid A is equal to, if not greater, than that of anyone else in rock history.

"Who is the better band?" as a question, should defy the issue of time. If OK Computer came out in 1967 alongside Sgt. Pepper's, would we still take the Beatles? Should one band be preferred simply due to their time in history? Was Wilt Chamberlain better than Michael Jordan?

I may get stoned for rock 'n roll heresy, but I vote for Radiohead.

I don't want anyone to vote against their heart and soul. I wouldn't vote using the specified criteria either. Just vote based on who you think is better. I'm very surprised it's not closer. I DO think Radiohead's evolution is closer to the Beatles' than most any other band though, and I hold them in very hgh regard.

It's not a matter of influence or innovation. The Beatles' catalogue is significantly better than Radiohead's. I'd take any Beatles album starting with Rubber Soul, sans Yellow Submarine, over the entire Radiohead discography.
Don't get me wrong, after the Beatles and Pixies, Radiohead is on the top of my list, but there's just no contest. The Beatles are more talented and better at music than any other band by hundreds of kilometres.

I think a fairer argument would be whether you'd have the Beatles over every other pop/rock band in history. In other words, would you erase the entirety of rock history, leaving only the Beatles, or erase the Beatles?

That would be the only _____ vs the Beatles argument that I would even consider.

quote:

Originally posted by SDF:
But that's simply a reflection of the differences in their music. The Beatles were innovative and artful, but they didn't sacrifice pop accessibility. Radiohead makes art rock that is geared toward a more specified segment of the population. In that sense, Radiohead is more comparable to the Velvet Underground. The Beatles are more comparable to the Rolling Stones or U2.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Radiohead's music seems more complex and rewarding on repeated listening. The Beatles are more immediate. I'd also argue that the diversity and growth displayed from Pablo Honey to Kid A is equal to, if not greater, than that of anyone else in rock history.

The leap the Beatles made stylistically from Please Please Me to The White Album is insane, and they did it in just 5 years. Speaking of the White Album, you may want to check it out if you think the Beatles were afraid to sacrifice their pop sensibilities. "Revolution 9" and "Wild Honey Pie" is some genuinely weird shit, even by today's standards.

I've been listening to the Beatles since I was about 10 (I'm 31 now), and I constantly find new things to appreciate about them. The production and arragements are so dense, especially in their later albums. It's mind-blowing to me how good those albums sound, especially considering the limitations of 1960s recording equipment. It's crazy to think Abbey Road was recorded on an 8-track.

I can't wait for the remastering. THAT WILL be the second coming!!

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
The leap the Beatles made stylistically from Please Please Me to The White Album is insane, and they did it in just 5 years. Speaking of the White Album, you may want to check it out if you think the Beatles were afraid to sacrifice their pop sensibilities. "Revolution 9" and "Wild Honey Pie" is some genuinely weird shit, even by today's standards.

I've been listening to the Beatles since I was about 10 (I'm 31 now), and I constantly find new things to appreciate about them. The production and arragements are so dense, especially in their later albums. It's mind-blowing to me how good those albums sound, especially considering the limitations of 1960s recording equipment. It's crazy to think Abbey Road was recorded on an 8-track.

They certainly were highly innovative and deserving of legendary status. I agree that they are the most important and influential band ever. Really, it seems almost impossible that any band nowadays could have a greater impact, at least on rock and roll, than they had. Especially, with the vast number of genres that now exist. The fact that a band like Radiohead can come along 30 years later and have the level of influence they have had is also quite remarkable.

I certainly didn't mean to knock those genuine Beatles fans on this board (mark f, I'm looking in your direction ).

I voted for Radiohead just because I can't help being contrarian on polls - I think it's OCD.

Anyway, the Beatles are better, but the "innovative" question is challenging. Obviously, a lot has happened since The Beatles in terms of genres opening up. What if OK Computer was released in 1967? Radiohead might have been just as influential as The Beatles if that was the case, you never know. It is an unfair function of time.

Anyway, in my opinion The Beatles have released several perfect albums (I say this with the hope of avoiding the "can art be perfect" discussion)

1 Revolver - Greatest album ever
2 Sgt. Pepper
3 Abbey Road
4 Rubber Soul
5 The White Album

Radiohead has released
1 OK Computer
2 Kid A

One thing I dislike is when people claim that Kid A isn't original. What are they listening to, if that is the case? Autechre and Aphex Twin made music in the same genre, but that hardly disqualifies Kid A's originality. I realize the dissimilarities are harder to recognize for casual fans, but big avant-garde/electronic fans will tell you that the range is huge - if not as much as rock or pop. It's just that sometimes I hear: "this artist wasn't original, because X band made electronic music too..."

Anyway, I probably should have prefaced with this, but I think this thread is unfair. If you want to compare bands 30 years apart, you CAN NOT USE ORIGINALITY/INNOVATION as a point of comparison. I will use a gymnastics comparison since I am a gymnast: you can't compare the skills of a 1950s gymnast tumbling on a foam floor with those of a 1980s gymnast tumbling on a floor completely loaded with springs! The constant evolution of music makes it impossible (IMO) for ANY future band EVER to be as innovative as The Beatles.

Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, The Beatles, and Abbey Road are superior to OK Computer even after disregarding time, influence, originality, and innovation.

Even Magical Mystery Tour is better than Kid A.

If any those Beatles' albums were released today, they would still be considered a perfect masterpiece.

That string of album releases would still be world changing released in 2000~2010

There are no bands that can be put up against The Beatles, the only one I could think of is Pink Floyd.

quote:

Originally posted by Sebtron:
There are no bands that can be put up against The Beatles..

I'd say Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones are good contenders. Both have a strong arsenal of classics that easily matches the Beatles, and both left their own unique mark on rock n' roll. And even though they were contemporaries, the Beatles were also influenced by both artists.

quote:

Originally posted by hku:
I think a fairer argument would be whether you'd have the Beatles over every other pop/rock band in history. In other words, would you erase the entirety of rock history, leaving only the Beatles, or erase the Beatles?

That would be the only _____ vs the Beatles argument that I would even consider.

Dang!

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by Sebtron:
There are no bands that can be put up against The Beatles..

I'd say Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones are good contenders. Both have a strong arsenal of classics that easily matches the Beatles, and both left their own unique mark on rock n' roll. And even though they were contemporaries, the Beatles were also influenced by both artists.

I agree with everything in the aforementioned post. Succintly stated, couldn't have said it any better myself.

Pretty silly really comparing Radiohead and The Beatles. The Beatles pushed the musical envelope so many times it is really no contest. Plus they were a pop group mostly, not a rock group and reached a lot more people - imagine all those housewives doing the ironing to a song as bleak and brilliant as 'Eleanor Rigby'.
Radiohead are great but for different reasons. If this was the 1970s they would be a progressive rock band. That is not a criticism, it is more of an observation on how very different they are to The Beatles.

I agree with much of this post. BUT what rock bands do you believe were playing rock music from 1962-1964? Rock 'n' roll was a fact when the Beatles hit.

You're use of "Eleanor Rigby" is also interesting. Didn't that song almost invent prog rock?

Welcome and nice post.

I count myself among that group who feels that there is really no fair comparison between the two bands.

One point that may have been overlooked here to some extent is that the Beatles' music, having been played and replayed over the span of 40+ years, still resonates today. This is aside from all notions of originality and innovation (for which a fair argument may be made in the Beatles' favor as the masters of both categories). For those of us old enough to have been listening from around the time of their inception, what other band can you say has had as much airplay pressure that can still hold your interest (an unfair question perhaps; the Rolling Stones being maybe a distant second)? As at least one other poster has made mention, let's see how Radiohead ages over the next 20-30 years. Will "Kid A" still sound as innovative, and as listenable? Possibly; nonetheless that brings us back full circle whereby the comparison between the two bands is not really one of apples to apples: regardless of what Radiohead has done in the past and, I'd venture, what they may do in the future, they will never be as innovative or as impactful as the Beatles.

That being said, I should point out that these days I would most likely pull out a Radiohead CD before I'd play the Beatles. Nonetheless, there is hardly ever a time when I listen to a Beatles song or record where it does not feel absolutely "right": comforting, familiar and still pertinent after all these years. Will you still need Thom Yorke when you're 64?

Kid A is actually the best album ever made. It can't be talked about on the same plane of existence as the rest of music. Beatles have breadth covered and I adore them...but really, how did humans create Kid A? It feels more like a divine gift.