Radiohead snubs Miley Cyrus, Miley Cyrus vows to destroy them!

[Archbio]

Actually, I don't even own any Beatles records. Good band, and still easily the most influential group of the 20th century (and what we've had of the 21st so far). A certain amount of respect is due to them, and Radiohead is far from deserving the same.

That's why I didn't say that it was Beatle-enthusiasm, but rather Beatle-worship. That really does nothing to dispel the vibe. Pete Best, after all, had little to do with how influential the Beatles have been on music. I'm sure he's a great performer and a great chap, but mere association with the name Beatles doesn't make him a great influence on the last century's music, some icon in a Pantheon next to the mere, mundane mortals that are Radiohead. On the other hand the basic principle of saying that the Beatles demand respect is a little vexing I have to say, but regardless...

[POS Industries]

Oh, the Pete Best thing? Yeah, dramatic exaggeration for the purpose of comedy. I felt it necessary to offset Funka's little Yorkegasm. I would imagine that, if anything, my statements actually did fall under the the category of "Beatle-enthusiasm" because who worships a band whose records they've never actually bothered to own?

On the other hand the basic principle of saying that the Beatles demand respect is a little vexing I have to say, but regardless...

Well, I fail to see how they don't.

[Archbio]

I would imagine that, if anything, my statements actually did fall under the the category of "Beatle-enthusiasm" because who worships a band whose records they've never actually bothered to own?

A "Beatle-enthusiast" enjoys their music. A "Beatle-worshipper" wouldn't be limited by such rational concerns. I guess the distinction between someone like that and someone who has critical appreciation for the Beatles, but doesn't enjoy them personally, would be a question of tone. Please note here that I never called anyone a "Beatle-worshipper", but instead that I got a "Beatle-worship" vibe from comments. I stand by that.

Well, I fail to see how they don't.

That much is obvious. Nirvana has to be recognized as being very influential, but I don't have to pretend I don't think their music was mostly shit.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Please note here that I never called anyone a "Beatle-worshipper", but instead that I got a "Beatle-worship" vibe from comments. I stand by that.

I fail to see the distinction. If I told someone that I get a "this guy fucks pigs" vibe from him, I wouldn't say that's any different than calling him a pig-fucker outright.

Originally Posted by Archbio

That much is obvious. Nirvana has to be recognized as being very influential, but I don't have to pretend I don't think their music was mostly shit.

I don't even know how to react to this because the Beatles were totally awesome.

[Archbio]

I fail to see the distinction. If I told someone that I get a "this guy fucks pigs" vibe from him, I wouldn't say that's any different than calling him a pig-fucker outright.

I'm really disappointed by the rate of self-admitted failure I'm seeing here. Your colorful analogy is broken. I was actually very clear on this in my clarification: the vibe is not from the poster but from the post, a distinction which might not even be applicable to a pig-fucking situation.

I don't even know how to react to this because the Beatles were totally awesome.

Good thing I used Nirvana as an example.

[POS Industries]

Well, I never said that necessarily had to enjoy either band to recognize the obvious influence that either band (or Elvis Presley, Hendrix, The Doors, The New York Dolls, Queen, or even Devo for that matter) has had on modern music. Conversely, I do honestly enjoy Radiohead but I'd hardly credit them as a major influence on the level of the bigger deals to come before them.

At most, I would say they're on the level of Nine Inch Nails or Tool on that front, which is still pretty great. But having a couple minor hits in the '90s does not a legend make.

[Archbio]

Well, I never said that necessarily had to enjoy either band to recognize the obvious influence that either band (or Elvis Presley, Hendrix, The Doors, The New York Dolls, Queen, or even Devo for that matter) has had on modern music.

Influence and quality are two different things, yes, that was mostly my point.

I could think Radiohead is the best band of all times while agreeing that they've been no more influential than you say. Neither of these hypotheticals reflect my actual opinion of the thing, but it's an example.

My mistake was not paying enough attention to the thread before posting.

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Actually, I don't even own any Beatles records. Good band, and still easily the most influential group of the 20th century (and what we've had of the 21st so far). A certain amount of respect is due to them, and Radiohead is far from deserving the same. As Unprodigy noted, Nirvana had way more to do with the movement that Radiohead was a part of, and even they were mostly just a revival of the punk movement from a decade before.

Also, I do feel it's worth noting that I've enjoyed the covers of "Creep" by Korn, Moby, and Richard Cheese more than Radiohead's original, though the latter really shouldn't count because his covers of everything are always better.

To be fair, Radiohead isn't that fond of Creep either.

[POS Industries]

Eh, it was a better song than "The National Anthem," at least.

[Mirai Gen]

Yeah but that's mostly because they hate one-hit wonders, down to the point of refusing to play Creep at their concerts just cause they hate them so badly.

In short, they used to like it before it got all popular.