Quote:
Originally Posted by Comus
Nirvana never really tried to make their music accessible to large audiences.
|
As opposed to Radiohead and their famous bubblegum pop album Kid A.
Quote:
|
Everything they did was on a whim. Cobain wanted to do a pop song, they did a pop song, Cobain wanted to do something loud and obnoxious, they did something loud and obnoxious. Nirvana will always have Endless, Nameless and that gallons one. What Nirvana did was make honest music, which at the time pushed the envelope straight out of the 80's. The era known for the manufactured sound. The era where "metal" bands had to include a ballad to sell records.
|
So Radiohead is just pop and Endless, Nameless is innovative art. I gotcha.
Quote:
|
Radiohead however have just continued making the same boring crap over and over.
|
Yeah all their albums sound exactly the same.
Quote:
|
Sure they've changed in parts, don't say I haven't endured their rubbish. But challenging? Yeah maybe for someone who has listened to nothing but Britney Spears. Radiohead are good at what they're good at. Of course they are, or they wouldn't have so many fans. But what they're good at is making shitty pop music that pretends to not be shitty pop music. They're this generation's Beatles. They're what you listen to if you want to be different, but don't have the patience to enjoy proper music. Or the band that you can feel safe in listening to without ruining your reputation.
|
This is about the most ignorant thing I've ever read.
Quote:
|
Next time anyone calls radiohead experimental or pushing the boundaries. Listen to them again. Don't do anything, go into an empty room, and listen to them, and then try to pinpoint what's so expe... oh, you fell asleep.
|
I want a laugh, tell me why this band is so damn unoriginal. What band was already doing what they did?