Two of the most innovative bands ever
But who's the best!
But who's the best!
The Beatles Vs. Radiohead
- Thread starter I Like Pencils
- Start date
Just a couple of light years ahead, but Radiohead can still catch up!
Wrong Robot
Registered Senior Member
Meh, I think they are both great bands.
the beatles has a legacy, and the real test is time, Will radiohead go down in history as the beatles have?
the beatles has a legacy, and the real test is time, Will radiohead go down in history as the beatles have?
No, because Thom Yorke isn’t handsome enough!
FireMinstrel
Registered Member
That's like having a poll saying "Pink Lemonade vs. Martians". Two completely different things altogether.
Not really,
He's talking about their greatness in terms of innovation. Both bands are innovated, but how you can even compare radiohead to the beatles on those terms, is.. beyond me.
The Beatles were innovative as hell. Listen to high quality Oasis cover of 'I am a walrus'. I can't describe it in words. It's beautiful. Oasis is one of the few bands that could do them justice.
He's talking about their greatness in terms of innovation. Both bands are innovated, but how you can even compare radiohead to the beatles on those terms, is.. beyond me.
The Beatles were innovative as hell. Listen to high quality Oasis cover of 'I am a walrus'. I can't describe it in words. It's beautiful. Oasis is one of the few bands that could do them justice.
man, with all due respect, fuck the beatles. they were good for their time, but they were an innovative boy band most of the time. look at all this stupid trendy nsync shit they've started. radiohead is better because while both bands are innovative in their respective time periods, radiohead is simply inimitable, uncopyable, they stand alone. anyone can play the type of music the beatles play. radiohead is radiohead alone. the best bands in the world stand alone, and always will. radiohead is untouchable.
damn it, i wish i could vote twice or more in this poll. radiohead should be winning 6-0 if you peoples know anything. haha. 
No, they were also some of the greatest musicians of all time. Paul McCartney is regarded as one of the most influential bass players in modern history. He doesn’t get enough credit for his musicianship because his song writing overshadows it. His bass riffs are some of the most copied in history. George Harrison in his heyday could run circles around Jonny Greenwood. Lennon is as good, but in actuality BETTER than Thom Yorke ever has been at the guitar.
What type of music’s that then? Country and western? Blues? Psychedelic? Rock? Heavy Metal? Folk? Dance? rock 'n' roll? Ballads? Jazz? 40s Folk? Lullaby? You can’t imitate a band like The Beatles if you can’t pigeon hole their music into any one category, now can you?
Impact on soceity does not count as sole indicator, because Britney Spears has had more fucking impact on soceity than Radiohead, but that doesn't mean she is better, because soceity tends to be stupid....
I would say Roni Size is pretty innovative...
If you think that Size matters, go check this out to find more stuff you probably like:
http://de.gnod.net/music/related/Roni+Size.asp
I would say Roni Size is pretty innovative...
If you think that Size matters, go check this out to find more stuff you probably like:
http://de.gnod.net/music/related/Roni+Size.asp
The Beatles weren't that innovative. Listen to them.... their guitaring wasn't all that great. Their music on the whole was very good but they weren't as innovative as some other bands. I mean I love the beatles, but my most innovative band is Pink Floyd.
Hahaha!
Look at all of the technology Radiohead has to work with! A wasted monkey could easily write some of it!
Then look at the Beatles...They did most of there work on the 4-track.
When 'It's getting better,' was written they tapped the piano keys directly(as in the underworkings) to get a purer sound. Not only that, they pretty much invented how lyrics were printed on the records..
They did absolutely insane things with their instruments in a number of songs. Almost everybody looked to them for answers and innovation. ANd I could guarantee you that if their music was recorded under todays circumstances, with evolved technology, new theory and all else -- it would blow Radiohead smack out of the water.
Look at all of the technology Radiohead has to work with! A wasted monkey could easily write some of it!
Then look at the Beatles...They did most of there work on the 4-track.
When 'It's getting better,' was written they tapped the piano keys directly(as in the underworkings) to get a purer sound. Not only that, they pretty much invented how lyrics were printed on the records..
They did absolutely insane things with their instruments in a number of songs. Almost everybody looked to them for answers and innovation. ANd I could guarantee you that if their music was recorded under todays circumstances, with evolved technology, new theory and all else -- it would blow Radiohead smack out of the water.
Yeah that's tricky!! I used to like the Beatles, but I really don't anymore (and I can't stand Paul McCartney)!! In terms of innovation I couldn't really say; I haven't listened to enough of Radiohead's stuff to say, but I am aware that the Beatles (in terms of innovation) can be highly regarded! Sorry, but I'd have to go for the Beatles here. Even though I don't like them, I have listened to them more than I have listened to radiohead, so it is The Beatles by default really. Sorry guys!
P.S. Could anyone recommend a radiohead album that it quite upbeat (like The Bends, I consider that quite upbeat), and not so' down'? Thanks
P.S. Could anyone recommend a radiohead album that it quite upbeat (like The Bends, I consider that quite upbeat), and not so' down'? Thanks
What's this got to do with it?? I don't think it will make any difference at all, given that music is about the medium of sound anyway. How can it even have an influence? Anyone of any credibility in music will understand this.
Ok Computer is an excellent, excellent album. Probably one of the best of the last 20 years, if you ask me.
As for which group is more innovative, there really is no competition. Radiohead continuosly explore new methods and technologies of music. They do everything but make up instruments, and I believe I've even heard of them doing that.
Still....Radiohead never really re-defined any type of music. Even Amnesiac and Hail to the Theif are filled with songs with very much a natural progression from rock and roll/techno/psychadelia.
The amazing thing about The Beatles, is how much they just plain invented. Consider that their influences were Elvis, Chuck Berry and Little Richard, and then try and figure out how they got to releasing Sgt. Pepper. One producer The Beatles tried to sell themselves on immediatly before they hit it big told them "guitar bands are heading out". The Beatles took a dormant monster, released it, and then gave it superpowers.
Like someone said earlier, The Beatles worked with 4 tracks most of the time, as opposed to the endless number Radiohead and every band today work with - as an example, my band when we were looking into recording were looking at having 32 tracks to play around with. The Beatles invented artificial double tracking. They were the first band to use reverse tapes on loop with gorward tapes. They were the first rock band to bring in a sitar, a mellotron or a synthesizer for that matter. Before The Beatles (and in their early days) - nearly EVERY song in rock had to be about 3 minutes. They, obviously, squished this where it pleased them to. They were the first band to play a modern outdoor-stadium concert.
The Beatles were also possibly the most productive band in history. Where a group like Radiohead has released roughly 6 albums in the last 11 years (about an average rate for bands these days), The Beatles released 13 or so (15 if you count White Album as two and combine the Yellow Submarine album and Meet The Beatles) in less than 8 years as a band. They wrote 213 songs in that time, an average of about 26 songs a year. We're lucky nowadays if a band puts 15 songs on an album, and more than one album every two years! If there is one thing I have to pick out that makes me respect The Beatles more than anyone else - it's that they quite touring. Around Rubber Soul (their 6th album), the fab four decided they could produce better music if they didn't go around on tours. Why do I respect this? For one, they're the single only major act I can think of that decided to do that for the entirety of their remaining careers. No other band has ever decided that they'll just focus on music. Touring, while I'm sure quite fun, takes away from time to write, record and produce music. I'm not sure I can think of another band that's been willing to give up that much money.
Anyway, I must go. The debate goes on.
As for which group is more innovative, there really is no competition. Radiohead continuosly explore new methods and technologies of music. They do everything but make up instruments, and I believe I've even heard of them doing that.
Still....Radiohead never really re-defined any type of music. Even Amnesiac and Hail to the Theif are filled with songs with very much a natural progression from rock and roll/techno/psychadelia.
The amazing thing about The Beatles, is how much they just plain invented. Consider that their influences were Elvis, Chuck Berry and Little Richard, and then try and figure out how they got to releasing Sgt. Pepper. One producer The Beatles tried to sell themselves on immediatly before they hit it big told them "guitar bands are heading out". The Beatles took a dormant monster, released it, and then gave it superpowers.
Like someone said earlier, The Beatles worked with 4 tracks most of the time, as opposed to the endless number Radiohead and every band today work with - as an example, my band when we were looking into recording were looking at having 32 tracks to play around with. The Beatles invented artificial double tracking. They were the first band to use reverse tapes on loop with gorward tapes. They were the first rock band to bring in a sitar, a mellotron or a synthesizer for that matter. Before The Beatles (and in their early days) - nearly EVERY song in rock had to be about 3 minutes. They, obviously, squished this where it pleased them to. They were the first band to play a modern outdoor-stadium concert.
The Beatles were also possibly the most productive band in history. Where a group like Radiohead has released roughly 6 albums in the last 11 years (about an average rate for bands these days), The Beatles released 13 or so (15 if you count White Album as two and combine the Yellow Submarine album and Meet The Beatles) in less than 8 years as a band. They wrote 213 songs in that time, an average of about 26 songs a year. We're lucky nowadays if a band puts 15 songs on an album, and more than one album every two years! If there is one thing I have to pick out that makes me respect The Beatles more than anyone else - it's that they quite touring. Around Rubber Soul (their 6th album), the fab four decided they could produce better music if they didn't go around on tours. Why do I respect this? For one, they're the single only major act I can think of that decided to do that for the entirety of their remaining careers. No other band has ever decided that they'll just focus on music. Touring, while I'm sure quite fun, takes away from time to write, record and produce music. I'm not sure I can think of another band that's been willing to give up that much money.
Anyway, I must go. The debate goes on.
Of course they are.
Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band had about 250 "Firsts" on it alone. How's that not innovative?
NeoBeetnik38
Registered Senior Member
Each band were the gods of there own time. Can we all agree on that?