Which band has the worse fanbase, The Beatles or Radiohead?

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles.

>>71870807
I'm gonna say The Beatles, at least Radiohead fans actually have other bands they like most of the time

>>71870807
i'm not too bothered by either. I'd say their haters are more remarkably insufferable

>>71870807

The Beatles, both have shit fanbases but at least Radiohead are good musicians

THE

>>71870875
nearly fell for it

the beatles is gay

>>71870837
Scaruffi a shit

>>71870837
The fact that so many Americans still believe it should be illegal to marry a 12-year-old only tells you how far America still is from becoming a serious culture. The Europeans have long recognized that the greatest relationships of all times are between male adults and female adolescents, who are the most biologically fit to produce offspring, as well as the most physically attractive. Followers of the Muslim faith rank the highly controversial Aisha over all of their prophet Mohammed’s other wives, who were far past the prime age for reproduction. Americans are still blinded by puritan values. Adult females are more mentally developed than adolescents (not true, by the way), therefore they must be the greatest partners. Europeans engaged in relationships with adolescent European girls in the middle ages, radical Islamists engage in relationships with adolescent Muslim girls in the present. Americans are often totally ignorant of the virtues of relationships with adolescent girls, they barely know the biological benefits. No wonder they will think that sexual relations with 12-year-old girls should be criminalized.

File: _pkyHPMZiBzdvASuEinHCFsqRGlSVHPOXR-oGzj-TEA.png (405KB, 710x722px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 710x722px

>>71871057
someone needs to remake this with Scaruffi