Radiohead VS Damon

Michael Jackson. He's a real freak.

i'd go for radiohead just due to putting out shit and having fans that believe their amazing and groundbreaking.

Isn't amazing relative? Radiohead will always be amazing for me. They just write the music I want to hear. Dark, melodic, fractured, eclectic, and emotive... How are they fooling me into thinking that? As for groundbreaking, isn't that somewhat relative as well? It all depends on your knowledge. No, they aren't particularly "innovative" in the truest sense of the word, but they are combining different genres in (what I perceive to be) a brilliant (if not entirely groundbreaking) fashion. To someone else without a lot of background, maybe a Britpop weaned Radiohead fan, Radiohead are groundbreaking. Because it's not within their realm of experience, and it opens up new doors for them. And who is groundbreaking? What is your definition of groundbreaking? Is it a prerequisite to liking music that it must be groundbreaking? You like, what, 5 bands then? I just see this as a rather ridiculous criticism of music. The brand of criticism in which one says, "Well, the fans and critics think band X is the most brilliant band ever, but I don't think it's true! Therefore, I don't like this band!" It's fine not to like a band, of course, but why don't you judge a band based on the music, and not on the fan perception of it? A fan's perception is usually far loftier than reality with any band. Of course, you still may not like the band, and that's fine. But at least it's based on your disinterest in the actual music, and not on distaste for the "false advertising" that the fans or critics were spreading. Anyway, I'm rambling. And that was an unprovoked outburst of shameless fandom, probably. I just hate this whole idea that there's this smoke and mirrors involved in which a band can somehow falsely convince me that I like their music.

As for Damon, he always reminded me of what would happen if Tim Roth had to front a pop band. He just seems so bitter and absolutely disgusted by fronting Blur. A few good songs per album, though.


P.S. Can you tell I'm really tired? I'm probably going to read this tomorrow and not be able to make any sense of it. Forgive me for incoherence/irrationality/inability to answer a simple question without ranting/lost trains of thought/failure to illustrate points.

"incoherence/irrationality/inability to answer a simple question without ranting/lost trains of thought/failure to illustrate points": these are essential qualifications for contribution...

Blur are easily the better artists because they have a higher percentage of good songs, plus hello they're all much better looking, even Master Evil.

Radiohead is way better I think. Although Kid A was a bit odd but still I was happy that they took such a risk comin goff the success fo fOK computer. BLur makes some good tunes, but mostly dull pastiche Morrissey-like yawn music. Blur seem like pricks to me. WHen I saw them, the audience moshed the whole tiem. WHat the?

easy........

radiohead is the sound of the flu. i heard the whole radiohead album a couple of months of ago and it sounds like talking heads/beatmasters/throwing up in a sink in luxemborg.

it's terrible.

"There seems to be a common belief that guys are automatically more knowledgable about things like music, while girls are in it because musicians are hot. It's been an accusation levelled at me more times than I can count..."

--Ally, the other day

"Blur are easily the better artists because they have a higher percentage of good songs, plus hello they're all much better looking, even Master Evil."

--Ally, a matter of hours ago

Huh?!

What, she can't be funny too?

blurillaz.

Clarke, your attempt at gender politics is uninteresting to say the least. If you had anything worthwhile to say on the subject you would have said it already.

*rolls eyes*

*yawns*

*twirls hair*

Like, Radiohead are sooooo ugly, it's the only reason I don't like their music, otherwise I'd really totally love Thom Yorke's dreadful death cat whinging. If Thom Yorke was, like, Brad Pitt, I'd be so there.

*yawns again*

it's not that i hate radiohead for not being groundbreaking or anything. i like to get responces from fans and that comment tried to get fans pissed off. which it did..i cant stand his voice or how they alternate between playing good rock and crap electronica (which isnt really music in the first place).

i cant stand his voice or how they alternate between playing good rock and crap electronica (which isnt really music in the first place).

That's right! Only Hanson and Lloyd Cole qualify as real music, because they write their own songs. Obviously.

lloyd cole's don't get weird on me babe is a classic and yes, when, radio head though they were a rephlex band then they started to really suck. it takes years to make boards of canada sounds.

it's just retarded.

Proton: Don't interpret pointing out a blatant contradiction as an "attempt at gender politics."

Ally: You do realize it's a blatant contradiction, I'm sure. I just didn't realize that maybe you were joking in the Radiohead/Blur post-- after all, where was the requisite winking emoticon at the end of the sentence?

By the way, in a fight between Radiohead and Blur, Damon would draw a Thom cartoon character and use it as a voodoo doll, and Johnny Greenwood would be busy trying to attach wires to Damon so he could twiddle knobs and pretend to know what he was doing... ;-) (note emoticon)

Seriously, though, what's with the notion that electronica isn't "real" music, or that a sampler/synthesizer/turntable/computer isn't a "real" instrument? It's too much to go into here, but that notion is so antiquated, not to mention completely bogus.

It's not a "blatant contradiction", it's a joke - how could you reply to this question seriously? I mean, granted, a few people went and did it but I didn't read their replies before I replied anyhow.

Smileys are the evil what brought the death of wit on the internet, not that there ever was any. Avoid them at all costs, even if it means misinterpretation. The most annoying thing I ever saw in my life was on this mailing list I'm on last night, someone who reads this very forum replied to a girl's post about how Ludacris sucks and Bob the Builder is ace by putting a ";)" after every single bloody sentence. It's like, alright, enough already, you look like a dickwad or a lecher or someone with pink eye. STOP WINKING.

Although let's be serious for a second because here's a question: say I'm not joking. How exactly does that contradict what I said, considering that my first point of business was that I thought Blur had a higher quantity of quality tunes than Radiohead? Are we saying that if you DO fancy the person in the band it automatically cancels out the idea that you also like their music? Why? Can you not appreciate both at times without being labelled an idiot or someone who is unknowledgable about music? If the post was about Britney versus Christina and I was a bloke and said, "Britney's tunes are way better, and hello she's way hotter than that mousehead Christina", would this even be an issue getting presented?

Discuss amongst yourselves, I'm too busy playing with my cute little Ritz Carlton mug. ";)"

I feel like what stuck out in your post was the part about Blur being cuter, not your first statement that "Blur are easily the better artists because they have a higher percentage of good songs." Granted, you did mention it first, but how can I take it but so seriously? Let me first say that it's not just you who makes statements like this--I read (and hear) them quite a bit, and I know I say 'em myself. Still, you didn't back your assertion up with anything more. You didn't discuss why you feel Blur's songs are better, or why Radiohead's songs are not as good. Am I supposed to think you actually submitted Blur and Radiohead's catalogues to some sort of Percentage of Good Songs test? If you had talked about that stuff in at least a little detail, the last bit about Blur being "way better looking" would have seemed like a witty aside, an end- joke of sorts. But it was half of your brief post, and I feel that it stood out more than you might have intended it to.

And I think that's called "grasping for straws", honestly, but we'll agree to disagree.

If this was a serious minded question and I had said that, I'd somewhat see your point, yes. On the other hand, and it might be wrong of me to think this because it is expecting people to read far more of this board than it's worth (I don't even read anything but the annoying threads anymore), I kinda feel like I've talked Radiohead and Blur into the ground and anything I said about them now besides one liners would be completely beating a dead horse.

However, in the interest of a serious thread: I have totally submitted Radiohead and Blur into a test of who is the more annoying band and I completely came up Radiohead. They don't even have enough material for me to enjoy a Radiohead best of, but Blur's best of rocks. That's my litmus test, really.

First of all, I must complement (Clarke?) for the lineJohnny Greenwood would be busy trying to attach wires to Damon so he could twiddle knobs, because it seriously made me guffaw. Yes, guffaw. I rarely "LOL :)"

I seem to be the only poster so far who simultaneously loves Blur and Radiohead. However, I'd have to say Blur are greater by far. Both released debut albums widely lauded as "crap" (but good if you actually listen to them as a seperate band, and not as a Blur or Radiohead album) but their second, third, and forth were excellent. I won't comment on Amnesiac or 13, because I don't particularily like either.

I know the *entire* catalogue of Blur, thanks to the box set, Napster, and trading with people with insane Japanese Import 7" Vinyl fetishes, and almost all of Radiohead's, thanks to having so many eat- sleep-breath Radiohead fans as friends. I think Blur are better because to me, their songs are more wide-ranging than Radiohead's 'melancholic drone' that seems to characterize their songs. I think Thom Yorke gets in the way of the songwriting--his lyrics, although very beautiful sometimes, are very often just attacks on things he doesnt like (Paranoid Android, Fake Plastic Trees.)

As musicians, both Damon and Thom come across as pricks in the media, mostly because the things they do (Thom's activism, Damon's embracing of music different from what he's popular for) but I think as frontmen it makes them better--would you rather have someone who doesn't give a shit about the state of affairs in our world, or someone who only listens to "white rock/pop" write a song, or someone who wants to become more than the sum of his parts? God that sounds preachy.

I really, really wholeheartedly believe that the reason Damon and Thom come across as twits in the media has little to do with activism or non-rock music, actually. It's more that they say inane things like "I can't tell you what I want to, because the government would come after me" or go on and on about how smart they are without actually having anything to say besides "Well, I once banged Justine from Elastica". They're just by and large annoying characters. Which is nice, really, because if pop stars weren't annoying they'd be boring.

BLURILLAZ.

You already said that.

I seem to be the only poster so far who simultaneously loves Blur and Radiohead.

Nope, I confess: I like 'em both. A lot. As the question stands I'd take Radiohead. I do find Damon awfully self-satisfied, I'd hate him if I didn't already love him, you know? But I'd already made up my mind about the music years ago and can manage to ignore the brow-furrowing crap that he says in the press. Were it Coxon vs. Radiohead, I'd take the boy Coxon.

Nah, Jonny Greenwood vs. Graham Coxon and Jonny would win every time. Jonny could hit Graham over the head with one of his homemade drum machines then choke him to death with the ribbon from his Ondes- Martenot...errr...

<>

And the award for the most retarded observation of the new millenium goes to....

<>

We have a winner! It takes a lot of gall for someone who writes drivel like this to complain about, well, anyone being annoying, or a twit. Sure, everyone interview Damon ever has features an "I banged Janine" section..please. I implore you to ask permission from your parents/counselor/probation officer before posting again.

― Vlad the Impaler, Friday, 24 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

once someone told: " a musician is someone between goa and mortals"

Goa? Don't bring Richey Manic into the argument, it only complicates matters.

Definately BLUR. not as difficult as oasis vs blur. Blur has more good songs than radiohead even though radiohead has "High n' Dry", "Just", and "No surprises". Thus blur is less monothematic. Kid A and Amnesiac had some good songs but others are pure crap like "pull/pulk revolving doors". Both Thom Yorke and Damon Albarn are great composers. Listen to "This is a Low" and "Fake Plastic trees". In albums Blur's better with "the great escape" and "blur" that are very complete. Even blur involves the electronica in a better way than radiohead. C'mon! Radiohead was better when "the bends". Less pretencious. In respect to Johnny vs Graham Mr. Greenwood is the winner (Graham is also great just here the "on your own" delayed guitar). But Johnny is the madman in guitars like the solo in "paranoid android" or the guitar in "My iron lung".....very creative. Sorry I'm a Radiohead fan too but Blur is better.

Isn't it a bit like carlisle v torquay tho?

radiohead vs damon. It just sounds horrible. they're both very respectable and unmissable. I like radiohead for what they do and I like Damon for what he does. am i the only one?. and as for the 'who is cuter' part: I think thom and damon are both beautiful in their own way. but graham is the prettiest human being i've ever heard.

xx

Ok ok ok,

I think we're all going off on tangents here, so, that sanity be kept, I will answer the question simply and truthfully.

Radiohead are better than Blur.

Phew! I can go to bed now.

radiohead is definately the greater band and by far, at that. the guys in radiohead are far more interesting and talented than the cretins in blur. damon albarn is a jerkoff, quite smarmy and rude. recently at a virgin megastore appearance, he walked around smoking inside the store as if he had that privelage as a rock star. he's also sort of a fruitcake but as to the question, radiohead make far better music. there's blur and then there's a long list and then there's radiohead on top on the throne pooping on all these sucky bands.

Id definatly have to say RADIOHEAD. I think they are genius. It annoys my when people say they are just a bunch of "try hard manic depresives" because they just want to express how they feel. if they feel depressed thats not their fault cos you cant control your feelings and maybe they are not depressed they just think it sounds good cos i sure do. I also read a post on another site.

quote... "another thing that shits me is the smug kids who think they are intellectually superior, or "deeper" then their peers because they "get" kid a." also... "btw, i really like kid a. just not ppl who will insist that i don't fully "get it"."

kids dont think like that. they probably have a good knowlage of music and just see the tallented musical side of it. they dont mean to sound smug or any thing. If they do they are probably just trying to impress some one.

RADIOHEAD are with out a doubt a great band and are very experimental. ive heard people say whats the point. well the point is they are making a new trend, they arnt really copying any one although they have their inspiration and they sound individual but also sound great. they are not trying to be individual they just like what the do.

I hate it when people say "why are you trying to be alternative" thats a load of crap. I just wear wot i like listen to what i like and do what i like. i dont try to be different. people that take the mick of people that are different are sad and people that do that and force them selves to like and wear alternative things are equally sad.

please comment on any thing or email me if u totally dont agree with any thing i just said and you have a good argument to back up your oppinions.

you tell 'em Matt!

Blurrilaz??

In my eyes there is no contest, I'm with Radiohead all the way. Even the simplest song (take "Thinking about you" for example) and the man can still make my heart bleed..... It's sad that image is such an important issue now, I mean, I know it plays a part, but surly the MUSIC is the most important aspect when judging a band. I get tired of the "I couldn't give a fuck" attitude that these "hard" Britpop bands/artists love to portray, you know, if you don't care why bother? I do however like a lot of Blurs songs, I think Damon is a talented artist: he just pisses me off. I don't agree with the: "another thing that shits me is the smug kids who think they are intellectually superior, or "deeper" then their peers because they "get" kid a." If anyone were to take that know it all attitude with any band it would be the wrong thing to do.

And as for who is better looking, well that’s neither here nor there really is it?!

Each to their own eh?

I don't see how that's neither here nor there.

Music is all opinion rather than fact really, so the aregument can never have a clear answer. As much as I love Blur, I love Radiohead more, there is just something about their music. Sorry I am proabably not putting any valuable input into the main discussion, but I noticed somebody earlier said something like 'I listened to the whole album blah blah' and basically ended up saying how they didn't like it, but with albums like Kid A you have to be patient. Listen to it more than once, then you begin to get it and eventually like it (at least that is what happened to me, and a few others I have spoken to and such). But yeah... as for the whole saying how one person is more of a prat than the other so they must be a better band thing, I think it's BS, it is about the music not how they act away from the recording studio.