Drowned in Sound

Search



The sole 2 reasons why Radiohead will never be the perfect band:

25 votes
?
by wrightylew

1) They look crap, and have always done

2) Isn't their debut album grunge or something?

wrightylew | 10 May '08, 18:08 | Send note | Report this | Reply

:D


Ha!

You can;t really have 2 sole reasons. Can you?

I'd add in that they are not The Beatles.


:)


BEATLE BORGS!

i agree. i concur. you cant beat the beatles.


What's controversial about

saying the only thing holding Radiohead back from being up there with the best of the best is their image and their early shitness?

I'm pretty sure I just absolutely complimented one of the most-loved DiS bands ever.


That's how I view your comments

Is the fun watching others respond? :o)


No way, they look cool.

I'm not a fan of Pablo Honey though.


They have a baldy

and they generally look really shit. :(


Colin wore a No Age shirt at the free gig

just to prove he's down with the kids?


What sort of music are the kids making these days?

I'll stick with Radiohead for the time being.

Mind you, The Metros are pretty :D


heh

I LOLLED


fucking legend

“Haah, ‘Nice.’ What a damning word in the wrong hands, though — like a girl’s hands, you know — the moment a she says a guy’s nice, you know you’re fucked — you’re not fucked. Anyway, sorry.”


Get out.

:)


^ This.


I was recently told that Amnesiac was

"fucking shite".


Amnesiac is my favourite album

Have you even listened to Life in A Glass House?!?!


<3


mer.

1) Because they're not The National.
2) Because they're not The National.


Never heard.

But my musically informed contemporaries saw them play in Manchester and said they were appalling.


the National are one of the most perfect bands ever

and have put on the most perfect shows I've ever seen


I like The National too,

but come on, let's be serious for a minute.

Then again, it's anyone's prerogative if they want to be deliberately contrary, controversial or incorrect!


Come off it.

I like Radiohead but i'm not convinced that any of their records stand up to either Boxer or Alligator. At a push i'd say that In Rainbows might, which is by FAR their strongest LP, imo. For me Pablo Honey and even Kid A are quite throwaway, even OK Computer and The Bends, whilst both being reasonably good, both contain three or four weak tracks, and no-one could say the same about either of the last two National LP's.


every band has looked crap at some point

and who cares, ever heard of music? you dont need to look like Brad Pitt to make it, and usually if you do its shit anyway (see Enrique Inglasiwtf, Peter Andre etc.)

And yeah, Pablo Honey sucked but fucking hell if you've released the best 6 album run in history since the Beatles i'd let you off.


oh and

radiohead looked pretty fly on the cover of OMM a while back, minus Phil 'OMFG how can you look THAT much like a fucking egg' Selway.


my reason:

they're a bit boring quite a lot of the time.


look, rather

I hate being unable to edit my post.


The sole 2 reasons

genius

and fortunatly they are both ludicrous