Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
See, I disagree with you. I would contend that Radiohead is the biggest band in the world.
Bigger than U2? [/b]
Ummmmm . . . Fuck no.
Originally posted by callat703:
This goes back to the argument that Julian was having - sure, bands have done it before, but NEVER anybody with the reach, market power, or reputation that Radiohead has. If it isn't Radiohead, that story isn't on the front page of ANY of those news sites.
Before I proceed to berate you, I will state that I like Radiohead & when it's all said & done, they're a lock for a legendary band. Even in spite of the incorrigible bullshit they've released for the past 7 years. Now I will proceed to give you what you need . . .
You must be out of your fuckin' mind. The reason Smashing Pumpkins didn't get as much hype for releasing their online LP is two reasons & two only:
1) This was 7+ years ago, when file-sharing wasn't ANYwhere near as big as it is now & online sales & bootlegging were more or less nonexistent
AND
2) We did not live in the 24-hour information era that we live in now. That era really dawned upon us roughly 2-3 years ago with more homes having access to high-speed internet & the explosion of blogging.
I respect that you love your band, & Radiohead are true artists. But please get your head out of your ass.
Originally posted by callat703:
I think that's a pretty elementary connection . . .
I'm not saying its an article about what the music sounds like, but how they are going to distribute the music is pretty inextricably linked to the music itself. You can't write that story without talking about the album at length, as opposed to a story about Britney Spears where you can get through the entire story about her kids, life, party experiences, etc and there is a tag at the end about her new album.
How about you write that she has the #1 selling song on iTunes two weeks running prior to her even having a video out & following the most disastrous performance in MTV VMA history???
In no way am I articulating as to the artistic merit of Britney Spears, but
SOMEone's buying the bullshit she's shoveling.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I just find it ridiculous the levels some of you are taking some of this. Radiohead is not the biggest band in the world, nor does media coverage over a detail only tangentially related to their musical output constitute an affirmation that they're the modern day Beatles. If I ever said any of this nonsense, I'd get flamed so quickly your head would spin. [/QB]
Furthermore, for you to even claim that Radiohead is ANYwhere near the level of the Beatles is completely fuckin' asinine. And, for the record, I:
1) Think The Beatles are overrated
2) Listen to Radiohead more than The Beatles
With that being said, it may do Thom Yorke some good to take actual SONGwriting tutelage from Lennon & McCartney's back catalog because Thom will NEVER be as great a songwriter as either one of them. I'm not even a Beatles fan per se, but cot damn you're trying to compare Sprewell to Jordan. Please. Seriously.
Originally posted by le sonick:
do you think more aspiring musicians are trying to emulate Thom Yorke or Bono?
You don't read enough magazines/artist interviews. Bono. By far. The man had a fuckin' tribute to him by The Roots (If those aren't musicians, I don't know what is) at the fuckin' NAACP Awards, man. That's waaaaaaaay outside the rock dempgraphic, fam.
Furthermore, U2's DNA is so in Radiohead it's ridiculous. Hmmmmmm. Sweeping, atmospheric guitars over ambiguous lyrics questioning religion, the existence of man, & alienation. Does it sound a little fuckin' familiar??? Nah. Not at all. Never been done.
It's like pre-
OK Computer they were making versions of
Achtung Baby. Post-
OK Computer, they were trying to make hybrids of
Zooropa &
Pop. U2 did it once & moved on. Unfortunately, Radiohead didn't fuckin' stop.
Originally posted by callat703:
Actually, at this point? I think Radiohead could equal U2 in ticket sales.
What the fuck are you smoking??? U2's Vertigo Tour just broke the record for highest gross ever, only to be broken by The Stones
Bigger Bang Tour which just ended in August. This for 2 reasons:
1) The Stones had higher average ticket prices
2) U2 underplayed EVERY market they went to. WITHOUT a corporate sponsor, I mind you. They did 2 dates here in D.C., when they EASILY could have done 5. And I think 8 total dates @ MSG, when EASILY would sold out 15 on both North American legs, if not 20.
Furthermore, Radiohead has NEVER been a big-selling band. OK was their biggest seller (U.S.) which Soundscanned under 2 million. No album since that passed platinum. And it was Kid A by the way. Hardly, barn-burner numbers. Unfortantely, bands (I use that term loosely here) like Limp Bizkit & Poison have outsold Radiohead leaps & bounds. That's WITH UK numbers by the way. Now in NO way does that speak to Radiohead's unquestioned true artistry - but I reiterate. Get your head out your ass.
Originally posted by le sonick:
U2 aint playin Stadiums anymore either, though.
Wrong again. I was AT the closing Vertigo tour show in Honolulu. There's NO way Radiohead would sell that out. 50,000 people were there. Radiohead's not on that level anywhere outside the U.K. And it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Radiohead wouldn't sell out Wembley, O2, or any of those other stadiums around there unless it's part of a festival package.