Why did critics in the late 90s and early 2000s try to convince people that Radiohead were the new Beatles?

Why did critics in the late 90s and early 2000s try to convince people that Radiohead were the new Beatles? It seemed fake and forced as fuck. They were pretending that Radiohead were the most creative and experimental band ever and that every new alt rock band was copying Radiohead.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A bean lives in your head rent free

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Answer the question, homosexual.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          based not entertaining OPs low test vibes

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >low test
            cringe

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I would stop talking because you are Chinese
              you have no authority on what is and isn't cringe because you are Chinese

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                meds

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                be affable

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                cringe

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Chinese

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not sure I would even recognize a Radiohead song

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I've never even heard a full song outside Creep.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They didn't even have a fraction of the popularity a of the Beatles, neither were they as creative as the Beatles, yet critics wanted to hype this one-hit wonder band as the most influential band of the 90s after Nirvana was gone.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Beatles and Radiohead share more in common than you'd like to think.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Radiohead were a really good band, and they bridged the gap between being accessible, heady, and a little experimental. There are experimental electronic elements, they do take on some heady subjects like alienation, and they wrote good singles. Comparing them to the Beatles is silly, but I could maybe see a comparison to Yes or Pink Floyd - it was prog for the masses. Post-Rock bands of the time, like Mogwai and Slint, were a little too un-pop for most people, but it was more experimental than a lot of the major alternative bands of the time, like Oasis and Pearl Jam. I also like them for having some good, strong art pop influences, like Bowie. Pablo Honey is an interesting record because it literally sounds like Pixies-influence Britpop, which is unique.

    My major criticism might just be that they are probably more impressive as a rock band than an experimental one. I like all their albums up through Hail to the Thief, but after that they lose me, because their most experimental stuff doesn't really hold me over. I'd rather listen to Sigur Ros for that kind of thing.

    I like Suede and Pulp a lot, and I see Radiohead as having the same DNA as those bands, but being a lot more ethereal than them, which I can appreciate. They have some beautiful highs, and Thom Yorke is a great vocalist.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They are competent at writing strummy soft rock tunes like Fake Plastic Tress or Karma Police. They are not good at straight up rock, and definitely not good at experimental stuff. Even pop artists like Bjork were doing better experimental stuff than Radiohead years before them, while also being more catchy and accessible.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They have some beautiful highs, and Thom Yorke is a great vocalist.
      I think his voice is fine, but I the mostly stagnant vocal melodies is one of the most boring parts of Radiohead.
      I typically go through like 3 consecutive days every few years where I'll listen to tons of radiohead and wonder why I don't listen to them all the time. By the end of my binge I'm just bored.
       
      Thom Yorke's schtick is that he likes to find common tones between chords and he just holds those notes until he can't anymore and resolves by a semitone. This is aided by the fact that Johnny Greenwood seems to be fond of chromatically related harmonies, so the movement is a bit more interesting than the typical I-IV-V. That, the odd time signatures, interesting sound design...there's enough other musical stuff happening with the rest of the band that it can take awhile to notice, but after an entire album of:

      CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC - CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC - B
      CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC - CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC - Bb

      it gets tiresome. There are a few exceptions. One of the reasons I like "All I Need" is it's one of the few times he actually breaks the mold and arpeggiates the chords. It's simple, but it works and it gives the songs a bit more dramatic trajectory. Same with Creep and Karma Police (actual melody...not necessarily arpeggiating chords). In fact, it seems to be a trend with most of their radio hits.

      Radiohead is fine and I agree that they make art rock a bit more accessible, but I wish Thom Yorke would think more melodically more often so he didn't just lay on top of the instrumentals like a wet washcloth. At a certain point, the drones no longer feel elegantly understated and they just get annoying.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thom Yorke only knows how to write one song.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There was a long while where the Brits would introduce a new band as the "biggest most revolutionary British band since The Beatles" every few years and the music press and thus the music consuming public ate it up unquestionably. I still remember the article that rated Arctic Monkeys as one of the top 5 British bands of all time after they released their debut.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have no idea

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ?t=79

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Radiohead is pop music for people who think they're too clever for pop music. They're great music critic bait because they write mostly ballads or mid-tempo pop songs that are peppered with bleep-bloop electronic sounds or will have a section with an odd time signature, this makes their music just weird and strange enough to be considered "experimental" but not experimental that it becomes alienating to most people so they make your average pop music fan feel sophisticated when listening to it. I don't even hate Radiohead, in fact I think some of their albums are good, but they're definitely not the most groundbreaking, boundary-pushing band of that time let alone of all time.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Radiohead is pop music for people who think they're too clever for pop music.
      cleverness has nothing to do with the decision to not listen to certain music
      you don't smart/dumb your way into a piece of art connecting with you

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't disagree, I just believe this is how many Radiohead fans feel.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you should really check yourself before you wreck yourself anon
          we've gotten too comfortable thinking we can psycho analyze everybody on a hunch based on nothing
          stop being twitter

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My point is that there does exist groups of people who definitely think of themselves as being "too clever" for genre X, many critics who hold up Radiohead as "experimental" being one of them.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              your point sucks and is stupid and you aren't as smart as you think you are in fact you might be pretty fucking Forrest Gumpy if you ask me bro

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Radiohead sucks balls. You would have to be very ugly and antisocial to listen to their music.

Your email address will not be published.