Radiohead is the most overrated "band" of all time.

He's right actually. Check this out:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/29/radiohead-corporate-structure-firms

>>73723970
>“Does it remove the romance from their music?” he asks. “Of course not. I don’t think financial structures come into any musician’s head when they sit down at a piano, let’s put it that way. They can split the business side from the creative side. But this is the music business and that second word is important.”

radiohead are the only thing redeeming factor of a dying if not already dead genre of music. thats being generous if you still attribute radiohead with rock

>>73723970
>good business sense in an industry notorious for screwing over artists
jeez, what a crime.
their firms are even using tongue-in-cheek names like Random Rubbish, LLLP LLP and Unreliable LTD? only more evidence they're soulless corporate fiends...

>>73723550
>LISTEN, this shit is not NOT art.
Why not?

>>73724070
>>73724228
>s-s-s-see they're only SLIGHT millionaires
>they still like me r-r-r-right?
>it's still not corporate bourgeois trash r-r-r-right?
Radiohead is a pop band first, an "experimental" (if you can call them that) group second.

>this fucking thread again
Is this going to become the new "You have ten seconds to name a rock band" or "does /mu/ like death metal"?

I bet it was you who made this one too >>73723123

>>73724291
Give me a single instance where they've claimed their music is art. Their music is pop music, Thom's lyrics have no meaning and they've never claimed otherwise.
This and similar faux avantgarde claims have no credibility.

>>73724387
I know this.
Problem is that /mu/tants like the ones groveling in this thread don't realize that and still try to defend Radiohead as "artful."

Yeah they are not "art" but name 3 better rock/pop bands with better songs, I would gladly listen to them.

>>73724458
what, ANY fucking rock band? are you serious that's pathetically easy

>>73724494
Then name them if it's that easy

>>73724566
Can
The Velvet Underground
The Beach Boys
The Beatles
Stereolab
My Bloody Valentine
The Fiery Furnaces

off the top of my head, limiting myself to rock bands

>>73724589
How are they better?

"my taste is better than yours" - the thread

>>73724616
If you honestly haven't heard any of those artists you need to lurk moar you fucking newfag

>>73724641
>If you honestly haven't heard any of those
No I love most of those artists you just listed.

Now answer my question.

>>73724664
Can was more creatively formally, rhythmically, sonically

TVU was incredibly innovative largely thanks to John Cale, who is a much more provocative musician than anything by Greenwood

Beach Boys (Brian) wrote much more harmonically advanced music than anything by Radiohead

etc.

>>73724693
>Can was more creatively formally, rhythmically, sonically
But their songs were not as well composed
>TVU was incredibly innovative largely thanks to John Cale, who is a much more provocative musician than anything by Greenwood
See above
>Beach Boys (Brian) wrote much more harmonically advanced music than anything by Radiohead
I agree to that but I could point you to the MIU Album, which is absolute garbage, and there's lots of more garbage Beach Boys songs and albums

>>73724746
>But their songs were not as well composed
I disagree, I think Moonshake is better than anything in Radiohead's discography for instance.
>See above
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU4G_8VYlOQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53F5nY68cBM
>and there's lots of more garbage Beach Boys songs and albums
who gives a fuck, Radiohead sucks other than Kid A and TKOL really

>>73724693
Good list but some bands being as good or making a notable achievement in their material doesn't really invalidate the consistency of Radiohead output.

>name 3 better rock bands
>does so
>u-u-u-uh SO WHAT THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT

fucking radiohead fans

>>73724838
I was actually agreeing with you in there being better bands, but just because some really talented artist are on another level doesn't mean that Radiohead music isn't good as OP was implying.

>>73724791
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU4G_8VYlOQ [Embed]
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53F5nY68cBM [Embed]
Again, there are very advanced in dissonance, but harmonically not very well-composed
>who gives a fuck
Not an argument.

>>73724838
>come up with valid counter argument
>w-who gives a fuck, Radiohead j-just sucks, rite guys?

Full on damage control

>>73724900
>Again, there are very advanced in dissonance, but harmonically not very well-composed
How?
And by contrast how is Radiohead's work harmonically sophisticated?

>>73725005
Oh I see you don't know music theory.

>>73725043
I know more than you, and can say most of Radiohead's work rests on either a single chord, or only a neighboring chord. Very basic.

>>73725054
>I know more than you,
Then chart out Paranoid Android and Sister ray and show us which is more sophisticate din voice leading and harmonic content

>>73725096
lol Sister Ray has plenty of variations with cluster chords, blatant tritone dissonance, and of course much more noisiness.
obviously the base progression at the beginning is simple, that's the point of theme and variation you knob

Paranoid Android isn't that complex either. Most of it is tonic-dominant

>>73725139
Ooops I didn't see you chart it out.

Try again

>>73725151
Have you done this already?

>>73725188
Yep.

But the burden of proof is on you since the initial claim is on your side of the argument.

I'm waiting.

>>73725316
>But the burden of proof is on you since the initial claim is on your side of the argument.
Actually no, the initial post was this: >>73724458

File: R-8745-1418849870-1450.jpeg.jpg (105KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 600x600px

i give him credit for this:


Tom: "It’s not reported...

Thom: "No. Not really. I mean, go on the net, it’s everywhere! Um, but, but... anyway, it’s a strange atmosphere but actually one of... there’s quite a lot of hope out there, I think. It’s not as it seems from over here because people are so angry... the most angry they’ve ever been... in the U.S.

Tom: "Now, talking of angry that ties very neatly onto next track.

Thom: "(unintelligible)

Tom: "Mr. Angry himself, Mark E. Smith.

Thom: "Yeah.

Tom: "I understand he’s just recently fired the umpteenth line-up of The Fall.

Thom: "I think... Made the best records for ten years and then fired everybody... well done! Ah... that’s the way to do it. Um... but actually this is from... that is a sterling record, but this is like, my favourite one of recent years, and this is “Shake-Off”; it’s from The Marshall Suite. It’s just... you know... It should have been played everywhere all the time. This is like... this is The Fall doing disco, as far as I’m concerned.

Part 2:

Tom: "From the 1969 album Contact that’s Silver Apples with “Ruby”. And before that, you heard The Fall, from The Marshall Suite--1999 thereabouts--“Shake-Off”, both chosen by Thom Yorke...


from: http://citizeninsane.eu/media/uk/bbc/06/i01a_2003-12-24_bbcrad6.htm

>>73725356
That's not an argument
This was: >>73724589
>Bands with better songs than Radiohead

Keep trying to avoid the fact you don't know what you are talking about

>>73725423
You posted
>name 3 bands with better music
I posted them
you THEN say "no, they aren't as complex"
the onus is on you to disprove my counterpoint

in any case why the fuck am I going to perform a harmonic analysis of two rock songs for some shitposter on /mu/

I can post history papers I've written if that will work for you, but I'm not writing original content purely for some teenager

lmao this post wilin out ctfu u boolin

>>73723550
Recommend me truly good music then.

File: b11ff57b6a3816f034ea96fe56670493.jpg (2MB, 1485x1455px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1485x1455px

>>73725488

File: Screenshot 2017-07-03 15.37.45.png (23KB, 559x350px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 559x350px

>>73725463
>You posted
I didn't.
>you THEN say "no, they aren't as complex"
Where did I say that?

Still waiting for that chart. Will it come?

>>73725537
>Where did I say that?
>>73724746

>>73725810
Except it was in response to >>73724693 and >>73724589, the original claim

Post the charts or shut the fuck up

>>73725869
Read >>73725463 again

>>73725879
Not the initial claim.

It was here >>73724589

>>73725918
Read it again.
I'm not doing an analysis for a shitposter on /mu/.

>>73725964
I guess you are admitting you are wrong.

Too bad.

>>73725979
I guess you're a teenager.

>>73726018
Nice damage control

Thank you for this incredible thread op, are you going to post it tomorrow too?