Yeah, I think being unhappy is cool because, of course, I and anyone else who is a fan of this band- well, we all think the same, right? What a stupid statement, especially from someone I thought would know better than to stereotype. Really, get those lame arguments out of here- what a waste of time to try to prove something that is "unprovable" (personal taste in music) with points that don't have them. Boo hoo, Mick Jagger blew me off when I tried to get his autograph in a backstage meet-and-greet, boo hoo, Exile on Main Street must s**k then, waaahhh! Waaahhh, Thom Yorke, what a meany he is. He looked at me mean during the concert, so The Bends is a piece of garbage. Sniffle, sniffle. Radiohead plunges me into depression, sigh, sigh. Ridiculous.
Tinman sure loves the 1990's! That's when this debate was last relevant. Radiohead still makes records people care about. When is the last time you busted out "Heathen Chemistry?" Oasis are about as relevant as Vernon Maxwell. Wait...
Oasis just isn't big in America and radiohead does fairly well here. Popularity wise I think to this day oasis probably trumps radiohead just about everywhere else in the world including their own country. Not that popularity matters anyway but that seems to have been thrown in. Let's not pretend oasis vs radiohead is even remotely close to cheap trick vs led Zeppelin. Even when ok computer came out radiohead didnt sniff the oasis media frenzy. Oasis is busy selling out stadiums worldwide and someone is asking are they relevant? Maybe not here but America is hardly the be all end all.
can tinman start a poll for who is better...the monkees or the beatles? that john lennon was always a pretentious little wanker... anyone who votes for oasis is either out of touch or just self conscious...
Im busting out Dig out your soul (2008) <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/87IQhui_Yy8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/87IQhui_Yy8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Well, yes, they are popular worldwide. Then again, in the top 150 selling artists of all time worldwide: 78. Bay City Rollers ~75,000,000 UK 70s-00s Rock [48] 79. Van Halen ~70,000,000 US 70s-00s Hard Rock [49] Hmmm, Bay City Rollers vs. Van Halen. As much as I like S-A-TUR-DAY--NIGHT!, I think I'll go with Van Halen.
If Van Halen was like Radiohead, they wouldn't acknowledge their fans and wouldn't play Jump or encores. Their lead singer, David Lee Roth would close his eyes and shake his head like he's suffering from a seizure.
The most amusing thing about this thread is the persistent implication by tinman that the megalomaniacal Noel Gallagher is somehow a good guy. Noel Gallagher playing to the crowd's adulations is his own particular version of autoeroticism. He's doing it for the fans like you really fell deeply in love with the woman in the p*rn film.
OK, so David Lee Roth was drunk when I saw them and forgot the words to 2 songs. Does that mean Van Halen sucks? What about G&R? Do they suck because Axl Rose was a total a** in concert? Really, you're making a silly argument for calling someone's music crap just because they chose not to play a certain song or songs in concert. John Mellencamp doesn't like and won't play Hurts So Good anymore in concert- is he crap, too? I've been to over 200 concerts, from The Who in 1982 to ZZ Top last year, and there's been great shows, OK shows, and bad ones- and some of the lesser ones (Guns N Roses, The Cars, Kansas, The Replacements) were from bands who happened to be among my favorites. Do they suck? Heck no. They just had a bad night or screwed up. OK, done with this whole thing. Agree to disagree.
Having seen Radiohead in concert at least 10 times since the late 90's, you couldn't be further from the truth. Thom Yorke dances around like f**king idiot during most of their shows when he isn't playing the guitar or piano. I have seen Oasis twice, and Liam Gallagher stands with his two hands behind his back and sings the entire time. Sure he talks to the audience more than Thom, but who gives a crap? I'm there for the music, and Radiohead puts on one of the best visual and quality shows that I have ever seen. Their music isn't as "rock-n-roll"-ish as Oasis, hence a more excited crowd at an Oasis show Oh, and Radiohead plays TWO encores (5 songs total) on every show of every tour. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. And as far as caring about fans, they have a fan club that keeps all of the best seats for shows and sells them to fan club members at face value before the scalpers rape ticketmaster's sales. Music is totally subjective, like any other art, so one man's treasure is another man's trash, but Radiohead IMHO is a much better band than Oasis. plus, Oasis only has two amazing albums, and it's been 12 years since either of them. Radiohead still puts out great music...and has for the last 17 years. I won't argue as to who you "should" like more...obviously you chose Oasis, but your arguments are weak. Very weak...and not entirely accurate. You really do live in the 90's, don't you? I'm waiting on you to start a thread about what a great movie "Singles" is next Oh, and Radiohead still play Creep on tour...just not often...and that probably has to do with the fact that that song is one of their weakest in their catalogue. See, that's what happens when you continue to put out solid albums and don't live off the success of "Champagne Supernova" I will say that Noel and Liam are two of the best interviews of all time. If you ever get bored, google interviews with them over the years and prepare to laugh you asses off...they are hilarious guys
Oasis for sure... I can listen to any Oasis song anytime and anyplace.. Can't say the same for Radiohead.
I prefer Radiohead, but that's not to say I dont appreciate Oasis. With that said however, I would take Mogwai over both any day.
To echo on Blake's point. Radiohead did come out with In Rainbows on the net first and let the fans pay what they thought it was worth. Thats pretty cool IMO.
Time for me to post a random great Radiohead song <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fe6X9fLLp0Y&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fe6X9fLLp0Y&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> and yes I voted for them 'cause I've never listened to Oasis
Wow. looks like someone was spot on about radiohead fans. how on earth could you be out of touch by preferring oasis over radiohead? radiohead fans are so f#$king pretentious it's unbelievable. what's weak about liking oasis more? they write great rock n roll songs and have two handfulls of massive anthems. they continue to support a huge worldwide fanbase and put out a damn good album back in october. they're far from "living in the nineties" considering their run of sold out stadium shows. if you like radiohead more that's fantastic, but don't tell me liking oasis more is akin to picking the monkees over the beatles. that's r****ded and frankly ignorant.
I want Liam to punch Thom York one day. Manchester, are ya mad fer it? Radiohead can't do this for a crowd: <object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tNra957RtXo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tNra957RtXo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>
