Muse vs Radiohead ...

[TrashFace]

the singing is alot alike ala jeff buckley.

other than that, they are different bands with different sounds.

diezel vs. ac30s or fender amps.

muse also has a classical music feel.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

To me it's nothing of the kind ... I would certainly not put Aerosmith above the Stones nor any of those other bands the way around you have put them so you can somehow illustrate your own point over my preference ... that's like saying if you don't like who I say you should like then you have {censored} taste across the board.

I could have said people who like Radiohead have {censored} taste but I didn't because it's a stupid thing to say - what you just said was as well.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Brian Marshall whether you liked them or not, they were the most significant band of the last 20 years, at least in the states. So your opinion of them is, in a way, irrelivant concerning their significance. Then again, we already went over this. Like i told ya before, i got in to nirvana a few short months before they started getting play on mainstream radio. When they started playing them on the top 40 station i was like what the F. Something to be said for right place, right time.

 

 

They were significant to a generation that had no real clue about what had come before. If you grew up with the REAL Bigbird from sesame st and then ten year later there's this joke of a Bigbird pretending to be the original you'd see it for what it was ... a joke right? Well then you get a whole new generation of kids who have no clue about the original Bigbird or that one even existed and next thing ya know they all hail BB2 as the most significant event in the last 20 years!

 

That's just cultural ignorance ... the cattle moo'd.

[endo23]

People!!!!

Delete your fricking multiple postssssssss!!! It's getting out of control on here.

It's not that hard. Just go to edit, check Delete, click the button. Thanks!

That is all-- Tiki, no hard feelings.

[Brian Marshall]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Like I said earlier - there are some Radiohead songs I love - the bulk being on OK Comp actually but that's where it ends for me. As to the Amzon reviewers comment, are you saying that Harmony Central reviewers represent the pinnacle of musical equipment reviews and are therefore better placed to judge bands than anybody else also? I'm amazed by that logic also - all you need to review something is an opinion anyway. Whether a reviewer is musically sophisticated or not is also a matter of subjectivity. I have no great love for either band - I keep repeating myself here but no-one listens. I'm only saying I prefer Muse if I had to choose all round.

 

 

i dont know man... i remember a friend in highschool who was a fairly casual music listener saying U2 and the Cure sounded the same. well, they both have guitar drums keys bass and singing. other than that i dont see the parallel.

 

i suppose if you walked arround the street and asked pedestrians what they think of McDonnalds hamburgers, you'd get some reltatively positive opinions, but then you could go to a bunch of first year cullinary students, and im sure they would be all negative...

 

i suppose im just a snob.

[endo23]

+1 for snobbery

I don't know what Tiki is implying about a generation of Nirvana fans-- I don't "know what came before"?

I consider myself pretty well-versed, music-wise. Pray tell, friend, what am i missing?

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by endo23 +1 for snobbery I don't know what Tiki is implying about a generation of Nirvana fans-- I don't "know what came before"? I consider myself pretty well-versed, music-wise. Pray tell, friend, what am i missing?

 

 

Oh you'd have to do a search on a discussion Brian and I had one night re Nirvana - it's too long to get into again. I grew up during the first wave gen of Punk in London during the 70's ... Nirvana were nothing new to me or anyone else from my generation and I saw them for what they were ... a covers band. They covered more songs than you'd care to think about - or just wore their influences on their sleeves too much - that was sad to me, real sad.

 

Fer instance ... go find 80's by Killing Joke and then play Come as you are side by side and tell me what you notice.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Brian Marshall i dont know man... i remember a friend in highschool who was a fairly casual music listener saying U2 and the Cure sounded

 

 

There was a time in the early days when U2 were trying to cop allot of bands like the Cure ... they were really trying to find their own sound. They never really sounded like them but you could hear them copping sounds and intentions from other bands ... then they got their act together and made their own sound. In a way I understand where your friend was coming from sure. I'm no casual listener and I totally hear both Bellamy and Yorke ripping off Buckley like you wouldn't believe! It was like during the 90's when all of a sudden the grunge singing style was like Eddie Vedder and everyone sang like they had a frickin budgie caught in the throat .... sheesh ...

 

 

i suppose im just a snob.

 

 

So am I ... I don't rate Radiohead.

[Tribute2Johnny]

Originally posted by sub rosa No. Radiohead are much better than Muse in my opinion but really they are different bands and I like them both. Nothing Muse has done compares to either The Bends or OK Computer. The biggest problem with Muse is their lyrics don't quite stand up to the music. Radiohead have always scored when it comes to lyrics, Thom Yorke is a genius.

 

 

+13324656757582349

[Brian Marshall]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER They were significant to a generation that had no real clue about what had come before. If you grew up with the REAL Bigbird from sesame st and then ten year later there's this joke of a Bigbird pretending to be the original you'd see it for what it was ... a joke right? Well then you get a whole new generation of kids who have no clue about the original Bigbird or that one even existed and next thing ya know they all hail BB2 as the most significant event in the last 20 years! That's just cultural ignorance ... the cattle moo'd.

 

 

Well you could say the same thing about the beatles, rollingstones or elvis. White people were mostly unaware of where that music came from.

 

Is it really even possible that bands can totally hide their influences. I suppose they could have broader ones.

 

Anyways, the reason that nirvana was so significant (and ive explained this before to you, and dont think you can fully appreciate it since you dont live in america) was because before nirvana, Radio and Labels were soooo sure they knew exactly what they were doing.

 

in the late 80's radio was becoming more and more focused on certain types of music. if you liked one kind of music and listened to one station you would probably never hear other types.

 

Then Nirvana came out of no where. Suddenly top 40 stations were playing teen pop, heavy metal, hip hop, and dare i say "alternative"

 

Although I personally dont have much use for a station like that, I wish radio was like that when i was between the ages of say 10 and 16... exposed to lots of different stuff. Anyways, out of this the generation here just slightly younger than me seems to have no problem crossing genres in the musical tastes.

 

Unfortunately it only lasted a few years. by 96 or so it seemed all over.

 

I dont think most people out side of the US can appreciate the significance of nirvana.

[Brian Marshall]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER It was like during the 90's when all of a sudden the grunge singing style was like Eddie Vedder and everyone sang like they had a frickin budgie caught in the throat .... sheesh ...

 

 

ummmm when did they stop.

 

so many generic american rock bands still pull that {censored}. AIC and pealjam... sure... hasnt been done in a while... go ahead... sounds fresh...

 

OH no... a stampeeeeeeedddddd a a aaaagrrrrgh

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER To me it's nothing of the kind ... I would certainly not put Aerosmith above the Stones nor any of those other bands the way around you have put them so you can somehow illustrate your own point over my preference ... that's like saying if you don't like who I say you should like then you have {censored} taste across the board. I could have said people who like Radiohead have {censored} taste but I didn't because it's a stupid thing to say - what you just said was as well. This is getting beyond pointless.

You missed my point entirely. This isn't some grunge vs hair metal thing. Muse are Radiohead imitators. Aerosmith are Stones imitators and Oasis are Beatles imitators. I prefer the real thing over an imitation, in most cases, and the Radiohead vs Muse argument is no different.

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER They were significant to a generation that had no real clue about what had come before. If you grew up with the REAL Bigbird from sesame st and then ten year later there's this joke of a Bigbird pretending to be the original you'd see it for what it was ... a joke right? Well then you get a whole new generation of kids who have no clue about the original Bigbird or that one even existed and next thing ya know they all hail BB2 as the most significant event in the last 20 years! That's just cultural ignorance ... the cattle moo'd.

 

 

Muse = fake big bird

 

Thanks for illustrating my point!

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Uma Floresta Muse = fake big bird Thanks for illustrating my point!

 

 

Both bands are fake big bird ... Buckley is the real Bigbird ... here's the thing, you failed to understand the point - forget illustrations.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Brian Marshall ummmm when did they stop. so many generic american rock bands still pull that {censored}. AIC and pealjam... sure... hasnt been done in a while... go ahead... sounds fresh... OH no... a stampeeeeeeedddddd a a aaaagrrrrgh

 

 

Brian .. whats your point here? Your trying to spin another discussion off from an example I have made in order to promulgate a non argument.

 

Ok, yes ... they never stopped - that's what I don't dig about Radiohead either - the aping of Buckley that's so obvious. If we are choosing between the lesser of two evils then Muse get my vote - I can bare them a little better - it's all whinge singing anyway!

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Both bands are fake big bird ... Buckley is the real Bigbird ... here's the thing, you failed to understand the point - forget illustrations.

Here's the thing, you've failed at dates. Radiohead's debut pre-dates Jeff Buckley's debut by two years, or one year if you count Live at Sin-e

pwn3d!

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Uma Floresta Here's the thing, you've failed at dates. Radiohead's debut pre-dates Jeff Buckley's debut by two years, or one year if you count Live at Sin-e pwn3d!

What I am saying is that Buckley is the genuine article that to me stands head and shoulders above the other whinge singers ... to me that's as simple as can be.

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Brian .. whats your point here? Your trying to spin another discussion off from an example I have made in order to promulgate a non argument. Ok, yes ... they never stopped - that's what I don't dig about Radiohead either - the aping of Buckley that's so obvious. If we are choosing between the lesser of two evils then Muse get my vote - I can bare them a little better - it's all whinge singing anyway!

 

 

Again, if anything, Buckley aped Radiohead, because Radiohead came first. In reality, I'm sure neither was influenced by the other. But your argument is moot, given the fact that Radiohead came first.

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER What I am saying is that Buckley is the genuine article that to me stands head and shoulders above the other whinge singers ... to me that's as simple as can be.

 

 

Oh, is that what you were saying?

 

 

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Ok, yes ... they never stopped - that's what I don't dig about Radiohead either - the aping of Buckley that's so obvious.

 

 

Sounds like what you were saying is that Radiohead were Buckley imitators. Don't change your story -- actually, do change your story, based on facts that you've just learned, but don't act like you weren't claiming that Radiohead are Buckley imitators.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Uma Floresta Again, if anything, Buckley aped Radiohead, because Radiohead came first. In reality, I'm sure neither was influenced by the other. But your argument is moot, given the fact that Radiohead came first.

 

 

To me all those bands sounded like they were drawing water vocally from the same well ... Buckley was great in my opinion and Radiohead were not - now if I am wrong about Yorke aping Buckley that;s fine but I am sure that Yorke heard Buckely and knew where it was at ... Muse certainly did and they all seemed happy to whinge sing and my point in over view is that these things become trendy and so people all of a sudden start springing up singing alike and sounding alike. Be they contemporary which RH and Buckley clearly were.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Uma Floresta Oh, is that what you were saying?

 

 

That's a fair assumption but not quite right ... yes I was saying that Yorke was aping Buckley but later in the piece ... perhaps Yorke sounded just the same from the start but the singing style was soooo similar that it seems to me there was some aping going on somewhere. I do prefer Buckley to either Muse or Radiohead both truth be told.

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER To me all those bands sounded like they were drawing water vocally from the same well ... Buckley was great in my opinion and Radiohead were not - now if I am wrong about Yorke aping Buckley that;s fine but I am sure that Yorke heard Buckely and knew where it was at ... Muse certainly did and they all seemed happy to whinge sing and my point in over view is that these things become trendy and so people all of a sudden start springing up singing alike and sounding alike. Be they contemporary which RH and Buckley clearly were.

 

 

I doubt that they would have bumped into each other -- being from different sides of the pond. Who knows how trends come about? I don't recall a lot of other groups with similar vocal styles in the early nineties, though.

[Uma Floresta]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER That's a fair assumption but not quite right ... yes I was saying that Yorke was aping Buckley but later in the piece ... perhaps Yorke sounded just the same from the start but the singing style was soooo similar that it seems to me there was some aping going on somewhere. I do prefer Buckley to either Muse or Radiohead both truth be told.

 

 

I'm not sure really where either of them were drawing inspiration from, initially. I recall reading about Yorke's love for bands like Sonic Youth and The Pixies early on, but obviously his vocals sound nothing like them.

 

I do like Jeff Buckley -- more so than Muse.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Uma Floresta I very much doubt that they would have bumped into each other -- being from different sides of the pond. Who knows how trends come about, though? I don't recall a lot of other groups with similar vocal styles in the early nineties, though.

 

 

They probably didn't bump into one another but it's possible they heard eachothers material ... speculation anyway so it's not worth pursuing. My only point is that the style and singing of RH, Muse and Buckley is similar and it's not my favourite anyway. I thought Buckley really had something that the others just never had ... a shame he died before we could see where he might have taken things.

[stereotypy]

it's tim buckley!! jeff buckleys dad. was a great guitar player/singer, too!!