I'm an addict... of Radiohead.

[joyfulgirl]

 

[Zoomerang96]

this news would deserve it's own thread, basstrap.

doesn't really mention a lot of detail, but it's good to know they're at least working on new stuff.

 

[bollox]

sweet. hopefully it will be less crappy than httt.

 

[Zoomerang96]

i'm positive it was the production that hurt httt. i still like the album, but wow, nigel...what gives? totally sucked the life out of everything.

it's definitely time they moved on.

 

[-macphisto-]

So is there a set date for new radiohead album? I didnt see any date on the current news section???

 

[Basstrap]

I thought the production on HTTT was tops

I love that album

 

[Zoomerang96]

yeah, well you love your body.

 

[gareth brown]

Radiohead are better than U2.

 

[GibsonGirl]

Radiohead are better than U2.

And George Bush just said something intelligent!



Don't get me wrong, I adore Radiohead, but they'll never surpass U2 for me.

 

[lmjhitman]

Radiohead are better than U2.

at the risk of being stoned, beaten, tied up and thrown in the trunk......... i'm going to have to agree with this

don't get me wrong, i have very strong emotional ties to U2's music. but, at the moment, based on the music alone, i'm going with radiohead.

 

[elevation2u]

years back when i first got into radiohead i couldn't get enough of them , still can't...i have no clue what to expect next from them, but i am pretty sure i will be amazed once again by thom yorke and co.

 

[gareth brown]

And George Bush just said something intelligent!

One day people here will just accept opinions and stop replying with 'wit'...

 

[GibsonGirl]

One day people here will just accept opinions and stop replying with 'wit'...

That wasn't wit - that was sarcasm. There's a difference.

And I have no problem with your opinion. I was just expressing my opinion. Hence the "for me" at the end of my reply.

 

[Zoots]

Please! Could you stop the noise? I'm trying to get some rest...

 

[intedomine]

Start with Pablo Honey and go chronologically......

 

[bollox]

right now, radiohead is DEFINITELY better than u2, at least musically

as a live act, not so sure, would probably still side with u2

however, u2 had a 14 year period of sustained artistic brillaince (1983-1997) which i don't think even the mighty radiohead could match

 

[Yahweh]

Radiohead will implode on themselves relitively soon, because they are a band that has separate egos and big ones. They made two special albums OK Computer and The Bends, which makes me think that they are probably the best band to have came out of the 90s, but the 90s in general was filled with new bands that made terrible music. Would they be in my top 10 perhaps would they be up there with U2 certainly not.

 

[gareth brown]

right now, radiohead is DEFINITELY better than u2, at least musically

as a live act, not so sure, would probably still side with u2

however, u2 had a 14 year period of sustained artistic brillaince (1983-1997) which i don't think even the mighty radiohead could match

Musically, better.
Live, much better.
Plus they had FIVE years to make three albums that completely blasted U2's fourteen years out of the water.

 

[yimou]

Radiohead playing a little Sunday bloody Sunday
http://s51. .com/d.aspx?id=3V6X36K0AOG2V26TYNGWFWQAEY

 

[Zoomerang96]

Musically, better.
Live, much better.
Plus they had FIVE years to make three albums that completely blasted U2's fourteen years out of the water.

i'm not sure if i agree that they "blasted" u2 right out of the water, but yes, i do believe they've long surpassed what u2 was able to do.

at the moment, to even compare u2 and radiohead is silly. u2's time in the sun has come and gone, and while it certainly was amzing while it lasted, it's no longer with them anymore.

i'm hoping radiohead can release one more "great" album.

 

[gareth brown]

That wasn't wit - that was sarcasm. There's a difference.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. have you never heard that one?

 

[ponkine]

Musically, better.
Live, much better.
Plus they had FIVE years to make three albums that completely blasted U2's fourteen years out of the water.

IMO Radiohead 2000 blew away U2 2000, musically . The problem is that mainstream media don´t notice that because of marketing job, I mean, with every U2 release all mass media must be down on knees... because of the money, that´s the truth

but with Radiohead, given they´re completely anti-commercial since Kid A ( with small concerts and TV appareances, with just few singles, no Live DVD´s nor "Best of", with completely risky unheared avant garde music, art, etc, etc ) mass media don´t write about them A friend of mine said me once: "if Radiohead were U2, Ok Computer would have sold at least 20 million copies, and The Bends, Kid A, HTTT and Amnesiac would have sold 15 million copies each one, because of U2´s hype that surround every new release".

Well, that´s my opinion, Radiohead are more interesting, better musicians and songwriters than the overhyped U2 2000. I really love Radiohead

2+2= 5

 

[Zoots]

Yeah... how can you compare a band that started around 1978 with one that probably started like 1993? Although... I like the non-mainstream, non-hype, non-ad promotion direction in which Radiohead is heading. Just as long as they don't totally fade into obscurity, it's fine with me. There's gotta be a balance.

 

[Zoomerang96]

how would they fade into obscurity?

kid a went to NUMBER 1 in the states. they ARE mainstream, they ARE pop, and they ARE the best at what they do.

~ARELIN

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

U2 have never made an album as bad as Pablo Honey

 

[Zoomerang96]

i can name three.

 

[gareth brown]

"if Radiohead were U2, Ok Computer would have sold at least 20 million copies, and The Bends, Kid A, HTTT and Amnesiac would have sold 15 million copies each one, because of U2´s hype that surround every new release".

Exactly. It's how you market the music these days, unfortunately... Radiohead put out some amazing records yet none of it reaches as many people as it should simply because other bands overhype their material.

 

[lmjhitman]

Yeah... how can you compare a band that started around 1978 with one that probably started like 1993?

not sure what you're getting at with this. longevity doesn't equal quality by any means. aerosmith have been around for a long time too. how musically relevant are THEY?

yeah, that's what i thought.

radiohead, having been around for a shorter amount of time, have achieved a level of critical and commercial success to put them in the same league as U2. and while U2 did an about-face and went the radio-friendly route, radiohead, who could easily put out a Bends II, continue to put out uncompromising, challenging music.

 

[Zoots]

not sure what you're getting at with this. longevity doesn't equal quality by any means. aerosmith have been around for a long time too. how musically relevant are THEY?

You totally misunderstood me. I did not intend that U2 is better than Radiohead because they've been around longer. I only meant that it's hard to compare their work because they're not really contemporaries in the sense of the word. By the way, I'm glad they didn't put out a Bends II. Just like Pearl Jam didn't put out a Ten II. HTDAAB sounds in parts like a Joshua Tree/UFire II though.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

Radiohead playing a little Sunday bloody Sunday
http://s51. .com/d.aspx?id=3V6X36K0AOG2V26TYNGWFWQAEY

Actually, the link you posted is The Edge live in Sarajevo.