Oasis’s first two albums were great, then they went to shit. One of the worst concert performances I have ever seen was Oasis performing at a festival in Budapest. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a band with as much disdain for its audience. Well, at least Liam Gallagher. He stood there like a statue and managed to suck ever last bit of soul out of his own music. No heart or passion or energy in his performance at all. Just a sneer on his face and go-through-the-motions vocals.
That said, I love those first two records.
Now, Radiohead started with an okay album but unexceptional album (Pablo Honey) then an almost-perfect Brit-pop record (The Bends) and, in my opinion, peaked at OK Computer (though many others will point to Kid A or perhaps another later album). I think Radiohead’s music is much more interesting, and they really broke some ground with OK Computer, which is among my favorite albums of the 90s. To me, as much as the Oasis opus rocked, it was mostly a 90s-retread of late 60s Brit guitar pop. I never really saw much progression in their sound, whereas Radiohead morphed (in a good way) quite a bit through each of their albums.
So, I would have to give the edge to Radiohead, given there’s more stylistic variety to choose from. If I want Brit-poppy stuff, I could pick up the first two albums. More ambitious, modern, guitar rock with some progressive/art rock overtones, I could go for OK Computer. More icy, cool, mellow and electronic-influenced work? Kid A and Amnesiac.
Oasis doesn’t rock, at least nothing I’ve heard from them. Radiohead is better although I’m not into everything they do. They should try harder (in other words, I like to ROCK.)
Dude - to limit myself to two: **Rock n’ Roll Star **off **Definitely Maybe **and **What’s the Story Morning Glory **off the CD fo the same name TOTALLY rock…you may not like them, but that’s a YMMV thing…
Um, where to start? Appetite for Destruction, Walk Among Us, The Black Album, Master of Puppets, Back in Black, Dirt, In Utereo, Nevermind, The White Stripes, Godsmack, Sex, Love and Rock N Roll, etc…
I don’t meant to insult Oasis fans because I know they’re a good band, but all I hear when I listen to them is a bunch of noise with whiny vocals. Maybe it’s the fact that the brothers are douchebags. Just my opinion.
:rolleyes: Oh, please. You’re honestly claiming that the more radio-friendly, chart-topping, head-bopping band is the less fashionable one to like?
And cite please on the “Critics agree” part. A quick glance at Metacritic shows that three of Radiohead’s last four albums fall within their category of “universal acclaim.”
Edited to add: As someone who came of age in the late 90s, I’m pretty much the target audience of both bands, and my gut feeling has always been that Oasis is a good, but not terribly memorable band whose singles will be played for another ten years or so. Radiohead, on the other hand, are the closest thing my generation will have to the Beatles: capable of creating fantastic pop melodies, but also constantly striving to exceed their previous reach - and unlike most of their contemporaries, consistently succeeding. Like the Fab Four, what makes Radiohead great is that their high ambitions are actually matched by their talent.
I tend to think people who like Radiohead are like the people who like Dave Matthews. They’re so caught up with “their” music that they shun everything else like its leprosy.
No, it’s not fashionable to like Coldplay on the Straight Dope Message Board. Wander outside for a bit and I think you’ll find that they’re quite popular. That’s why they keep topping charts.
That site suggests that “OK Computer” “ranks” above Radiohead’s other albums based on critics’ top lists over the course of the past 10+ years. But such lists are all about legacy, not about critical reception at the time - critics are choosing the “best album of the decade,” or “best rock album of all time.” Of course an older album by a highly influential band will score higher than their newer albums based on such a metric - their newer albums haven’t had as much time to generate influence!
Better to compare the reviews (or rank, if you prefer) that a given album received the year of its release, and if you do that, both “Kid A” and “In Rainbows” match “OK Computer” in rank: all three are number 1 on acclaimedmusic.net for their respective years.
It’s clear that you just don’t like the direction Radiohead took after “OK Computer.” And that’s fine - lots of people feel the same way. But lots of people also liked their electronic music, and to make the claim that such folks only claim to feel this way in order to be fashionable is incredibly presumptuous on your part… not to mention flat-out wrong.
This, too, is flat-out wrong. Speaking anecdotally - the amount of music I enjoy expanded exponentially after I got into Radiohead - their post-OKC noodling introduced me to an entire new sonic palette that included not just electronica, but prog rock, indie rock, and hip hop as well.
I don’t get why it is so fashionable to tell people they only like what they like because of fashion, rather than taste. And yes, I think it’s mostly fashion, not an actual understanding of why people like what they like.
I do go outside the door of my house sometimes, thank you.
I’m not sure if we have a misunderstanding about semantics, or a disagreement about the general view of Coldplay. For instance, Britney spears and Creed also keep topping charts. But we can agree that it is not fashionable to like them, nevertheless, or?
I’m not saying the list is perfect. But the guy who made it is well versed in statistics, and he did consider this objection. You can read the Q&A.
If my statement could be read like this, I withdraw it. What I mean is that it is overall more fashionable to like Radiohead than to like Oasis, for whatever reason. I don’t mean that all people who vastly prefer Radiohead are doing it because of fashion, neither all people who vastly prefer the electronica, and certainly not all people who just also liked the electronica.
So I’ve seen Radiohead twice: in '95, opening for R.E.M., and in '97 supporting OK Computer. I saw Oasis at the Liberty Lunch (or was it La Zona Rosa) here in Austin in '94, with an audience of approximately 75 or so.
I adore Radiohead’s The Bends and OK Computer. Heck, Thom Yorke lived in the same village as me, Standlake, Oxon, during the 80s. I didn’t know him but we lived there at the same time. Maybe I ran into him at the sweet shop? The Bends is one of my all-time favorite albums, without question. OK Computer is a little quirkier but I still like it a lot. Radiohead pretty much lost me after that, although they occasionally put out the odd single I like (“There There,” “Myxomatosis”).
Oasis… love Definitely Maybe, Morning Glory is pretty great, and I even like a lot of Be Here Now. I’ve pretty much dutifully picked up their subsequent releases - Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, Heathen Chemistry, Don’t Believe the Truth - but they’re not cohesively great albums. Oasis know how to put a killer riff and Liam’s voice together to create some cracking songs still, though.
I would easily check out an Oasis concert if they came to Austin. Radiohead… maybe not, because I don’t particularly want to hear much stuff from the Kid A - Amnesiac period. I think Jonny Greenwood is probably worth the price of admission, though. But I do think infinitii has it sussed out:
BLUR!
So happy they’re back together. I saw the original lineup in '98 in Boston at the Orpheum, and the Coxon-less version supporting Think Tank in Boston in '01. I hear they’re coming to America; I’ll be sure to catch them again!
