After so many masterpieces, what does Sup Forums think it would be Radiohead´s place in music history?

After so many masterpieces, what does Sup Forums think it would be Radiohead´s place in music history?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie_discography
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohead_discography
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

One of the top 10 bands of at least 1960-2020, possibly longer. But the Scaruffis of the future will definitely say that the fact that so many books still name Radiohead as "one the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock bands ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art.

This.
Fuck Scaruff, he thinks Kid A and Pablo Honey are on the same level. Completely invalidated his taste imo.

OKC and Kid A will be remembered as important. Other than that they didn't have an important enough impact on music in general and probably won't be remembered as being nearly as important or revolutionary as Radiohead fans think they are.

I'm a huge Radiohead fan, here, just being objective. Looking back, the huge shift they made from OKC to Kid A was the last big and impressive change they made so they won't be remembered as genre-leaping like Bowie, and the changes they've made have little impact outside of the band itself so they won't be remembered as a modern day Beatles. They're just a band. A great band, a band that'll probably get new listeners for decades after they stop making music, but just a band.

Thank you. I've had a rough week and I needed a laugh.

Kid A was a fucking sea change in bands changing direction, bruh. It was huge. It hit number 1 on the US charts and sold millions of copies.

I USED TO RUUUULE THE WOOOORLD

Yeah, I agree, that's what I said. OKC and Kid A will both be remembered as important. They're important albums. Outside of that what sort of impact have they had? The band itself isn't as important as that event in terms of music in general.

IT'S A BITTERSWEET SYMPHONYYY

I think that's user's point. Kid A was huge, sure, and OK Computer was pretty big. But the bands remembered as the most historically significant had that kind of impact multiple times.

I would imagine on the same level as Pink Floyd.

A band's impact is defined by the impact their music has had. Why the fuck are you creating a distinction between two influential albums and an influential band?

>The band itself isn't as important as that event in terms of music in general.
>The band isn't important but their records are
This isn't a case like MBV or Slint where they made one masterpiece and nothing after that.

this

In Rainbows and now AMSP are critical masterpieces

...actually, 'multiple times' might be too high a bar to set. But at least with multiple items- eg Dylan going electric was three huge albums, not just one.

Let's try and guess which bands from nowadays will be remembered as the best in, like, fifty years.

Arcade Fire could get there depending on what they do following Reflektor. The small size of their output could either help them or hurt them.
Spoon might be remembered fondly.
I think mostly it'll be radio friendly alt rock Sup Forumstants don't even bother listening to. I'll be furious if fifty years from now people refer to Mumford & Sons as one of the greatest bands of the '00s/'10s

you know, impact isn't really everything to be remembered, what's the "impact" of post Dark Side of The Moon Pink Floyd? We still remember and enjoy Animals and WYWH because they were good albums

They'll be looked back at as the Pink Floyd of their era.

>But the bands remembered as the most historically significant had that kind of impact multiple times.
No they haven't. A can't think of a single band that put out a big hit single, then a classic album that sounds nothing like that single, then two more classic albums that sound nothing like that previous classic album, and all while remaining intensely popular. Maybe Bowie and his constant change in style? But even Low felt more like a trend-chaser than trend-setter.

Mumford & Sons is literally ear cancer come on user

Umm, Funeral will definetly be remembered, it is the album that essentially created a whole genre of music, and single handely guided the direction of popular "indie" music

What genre of music? Baroque rock predates that album

Radiohead is the best band of the 00-10's and they'll be remembered for EXACTLY being that

Prove me wrong

Some psychotic user will make Chvrches go to history by killing Lauren.

>Spoon

I wish. They had a great run from Girls Can Tell to Gimme Fiction. There's good stuff before and after but those three were nearly flawless. I'm thinking Big Star status maybe.

Yeah, plus that impact was important in the mainstream.
The issue with Radiohead's place in future music history is that rock music in general isn't the biggest thing.
Like here, Pink Floyd wouldn't be remembered if they were making this sort of shit today. It was about time and place.

The sad thing is I think future audiences will care more about Coldplay than Radiohead because they were more consistently popular with mainstream audiences. Beyonce and Foo Fighters have a better shot at future recognition. Radiohead may be relegated to Television level, in that serious critics will tout them as the best but your average person will think the "classics" are Coldplay and Mumford & Sons.

Again, I'm a huge Radiohead fan, I'm not criticizing the band I'm just saying I feel like they're not going to get treated fairly by time.

I think Vampire Weekend might. I'm not a huge fan but I can see that.

>The issue with Radiohead's place in future music history is that rock music in general isn't the biggest thing.
Exactly. It's like jazz, there might be important albums for fans of the genre in the future, but it won't be important for music at large.

This is so hilariously wrong. Coldplay won't be remembered more fondly than Radiohead; just compare current perception of their early work. We're nearly 20 years off OK Computer, which is enough distance to judge impact, and it's generally considered to be one of the all-time great rock albums, with every high school kid first getting into music listening to it.

I personally like Transference best but wouldn't try and defend that opinion objectively.
They had a lot of radio hits on Ga^5 and are still getting favorable reviews and some airplay with They Want My Soul. I think they've got a serious shot.

This is pretty much the case with everything though.

No, the super hyper emotional, tension-release indie/alternative music that spawned in their wake, the general sounds existed before them, but Arcade Fire was like a typhoon, the whole music landscape changed at the time of Funeral's release

I'm not that guy, but of the people I know from my job and from school, nearly everyone likes Coldplay to some extent and I've met like three people that like Radiohead.

Radiohead's not gonna get asked to perform at a superbowl.
You're assuming music history's going to get written by guys like us who really care about music. Popularity's a big, big part of it.

>the super hyper emotional, tension-release indie/alternative music
Neutral Milk Hotel and a bunch of other acts did that before them. Arcade Fire's importance is really overstated.

OK Computer was bigger than Kid A dude at least in terms of impact when each album was first released. OK Computer made them pretty much the biggest alt-rock band in the world at the time.

After that, Kid A was a real WTF moment when it was released. It was critically lauded but a pretty confusing release for even the most die-hard Radiohead fans. Still, it was accessible enough and given enough time it became obvious that it would become their masterpiece. It just wasn't the instant smash that OK Computer was.

I have the feeling that A Moon Shaped Pool will be thought of in a similar way long-term. Although it seems to have received unanimous acclaim, the album is too muted and not immediate enough to have that impact required to be an instant classic. Given time though it will find itself in the upper echelons of their canon.

>The sad thing is I think future audiences will care more about Coldplay than Radiohead because they were more consistently popular with mainstream audiences. Beyonce and Foo Fighters have a better shot at future recognition. Radiohead may be relegated to Television level, in that serious critics will tout them as the best but your average person will think the "classics" are Coldplay and Mumford & Sons.

who do you think rememberes music? you know what sold better than Dark Side of the Moon in 1973? Carly Simon, do you even know who that is, because I gaurantee you most people don't. Popularity doesn't determine who gets remembered since only music fans bother to remember or listen to old shit anyways.

pffft and radiohead's isnt?

That's way too pessimistic. Over time critical consensus becomes more important- people forget the best-sellers unless they're also critically acclaimed. And Radiohead have already been critically canonised in 'best of the decade' lists.

They will definitely be remembered as the greatest rock band of the 00's

Yah, and Neutral Milk sold literally no albums, it underperformed their even shitty expectations for it's sales. Funeral tooks sounds that had been bubbling before them and turned them into a popular scene

You're acting like fucking Pink Floyd deserves to be remembered

>le contrarian face

>You're assuming music history's going to get written by guys like us who really care about music.
Who else is going to do it? People don't write about things they don't care about.

Why don't you ignore your opinion on the album for a seconds and appreciate the point for a second, all Im saying is an album that was less popular was remembered long past its more popular contemporaries

Yeah and twelve years on NMH is far more likely to be remembered as "the best" than Arcade Fire

I think Arcade Fire's transformation as of yet is what they should be remembered for. Reflektor sounds like a totally different band in many ways and in my opinion is their absolute best by miles. I hope they continue to explore new sounds, even if it's only slightly (I'm not pretending Reflektor was groundbreaking).

>pffft and radiohead's isnt?
I think RH is a good example of successful experimentation and risk taking.

They could've easily stuck with their pseudo-punk sound in The Bends, they could've easily done a rehash of OKC after its critical success.

You know who else performed a Superbowl? New Kids on the Block, I don't think New Kids on the Block even remeber New Kids on the Block

What masterpieces are you talking about?

Ok, except we also remember Influential albums, Aphex Twin wasn't the first to do what he did, but we remember him because he managed to create entire scenes, and bring the sound to a popular audience

Creep and Yellow

I guffawed out loud

The Drill EP

Bob Dylan albums rarely went more than gold in the US, and that was in an era where people actually bought albums. Same with David Bowie. A, your anecdotal evidence isn't the end-all-be-all when it comes to a band's popularity (the newest Radiohead album debuted at number 1), and B, people rarely listen to the most popular acts of any given era years down the road. You probably aren't aware of the plethora of horrible 60s pop.

Anyone else thing m b v was as good as Loveless?
I hated it when it came out and I've finally gone back over the last few months and relistened and I really think it's on par. Maybe better.
Just while we're on the topic of retrospect.

Pop Is Dead

>You probably aren't aware of the plethora of horrible 60s pop.
You mean the Beatles?

>experimentation
>risk taking
this must be bait

Itch EP

m b v is one of the worst albums ive ever listened to.

loveless is in my top 5

go to bed Scaruffi

I think the most likely thing is that forty years from now everyone will remember Radiohead as being the Beatles of their time in that "wrong generation" idiots will think they were amazing and they'll be terribly, terribly wrong.

sounds like you can't appreciate good things user, maybe the cynacism of Sup Forums has seeped into your heart

Scaruffi I said go to bed.

The Beatles are pretty good.

m b v is definitely at least as good as one would expect a follow up to Loveless to be. If it came out at the time, I think Loveless might have lost its mystique because of the whole legacy of its aftermath, but both albums would be remembered fondly.
Isn't Anything is a fine album but not as good as either of those.

If Radiohead are so "amazing" then why hasn't Scaruffi rated any of their records anything above a 7/10?

Get fucked Radiocucks.

finally someone who will listen to reason

It is the year 2371
Human life is scarce

From the soil of a scorched earth, a Pablo Honey CD is discovered

>sounds like you can't appreciate good things user, maybe the cynacism of Sup Forums has seeped into your heart
why do you say that? have you enjoyed literally every single album which has been acclaimed?


actually accurate joke

Blur/Gorillaz/Damon Albarn in general will probably have a pretty lasting impact. Blur mostly, I'm guessing.

kekd

When was the last time Scaruffi has given out more than an 8?

This is correct. Bowie wasn't even a household name until Let's Dance. Well known and respected by fans and critics sure, but not a super famous pop star until the 1980's.

yes, since the beginning of time

the most recent ones i remember are Monae and Newsom

>wasn't even a household name until Let's Dance

Whoa now, pal, MAAAAYBE stateside you're right, though Young Americans did help him out.
Just because he wasn't topping the charts doesn't mean he wasn't extremely well known.
As for England, you're a goddamn fool if you think this statement is accurate.

>blur
nah too derivative

nigga....

Personal opinions aside. I'm not a huge Albarn fan, but the consistent popularity and critical acclaim makes it likely they'll be well remembered.

I'm from England, I don't know if America's about to be talking about Blur in the 2030s

Yes, and not a lot of people know nowadays that the Beatles pretty much only had a cult following until a '90s revival brought them into the mainstream. Even then, they weren't big in America until a few years back when Apple finally agreed to let them put up their music.

>well remembered
Oh sure. I was thinking more of in terms of influencing future bands.

>they weren't big in America until a few years back when Apple finally agreed to let them put up their music
kek'd

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie_discography

Look at the sales up to Let's Dance. That's on par if not lower than Radiohead, and back before music pirating destroyed album sales.

wut

Sorry forgot I was on Brit time, as evidenced by
But yeah, in the States it was like that. He was known but he was considered an art rock weirdo like Lou Reed or somebody. Bowie wasn't mainstream until the aforementioned album. History is weird that way. America is weird that way.

I'm just taking the piss, m8. That said, I'm English, and just look at how he sold here.

>and just look at how he sold here.
And look how much higher Radiohead sold, while facing far more piracy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohead_discography

This. Influential in terms of concept and production, and in Radiohead's case, electronic music.

I can't speak from personal experience, but I'm an American, as is my father, and I like talking to him about musicians from his teenage years/twenties, and from what he's described Bowie was far more than an art rock weirdo when he toured the US for Diamond Dogs. You might be right saying he wasn't a household name, but just look at his North American tours pre-Let's Dance. They weren't exactly short trips at small venues.

>Radiohead is the most overrated band of the 00-10's and they'll be remembered for EXACTLY being that

Prove me wrong

I'm not making a point about that, I'm just saying he absolutely was a household name.

Radiohead will be remembered for The Bends - OK Computer - Kid A as they are right now. Post-2000 Radiohead is superfluous and if Radiohead were not already famous, none of these albums would even receive much attention.

The original point was that Radiohead doesn't need to be the most popular band in the world to leave a lasting impact.

How can they be overrated when they're good compared to most bands from their era?

I had never even seen a shooting star before. 25 years of rotations, passes through comets' paths, and travel, and to my memory I had never witnessed burning debris scratch across the night sky. Radiohead were hunched over their instruments. Thom Yorke slowly beat on a grand piano, singing, eyes closed, into his microphone like he was trying to kiss around a big nose. Colin Greenwood tapped patiently on a double bass, waiting for his cue. White pearls of arena light swam over their faces. A lazy disco light spilled artificial constellations inside the aluminum cove of the makeshift stage. The metal skeleton of the stage ate one end of Florence's Piazza Santa Croce, on the steps of the Santa Croce Cathedral. Michelangelo's bones and cobblestone laid beneath. I stared entranced, soaking in Radiohead's new material, chiseling each sound into the best functioning parts of my brain which would be the only sound system for the material for months

The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax. It's an album of sparking paradox. It's cacophonous yet tranquil, experimental yet familiar, foreign yet womb-like, spacious yet visceral, textured yet vaporous, awakening yet dreamlike, infinite yet 48 minutes. It will cleanse your brain of those little crustaceans of worries and inferior albums clinging inside the fold of your gray matter. The harrowing sounds hit from unseen angles and emanate with inhuman genesis. When the headphones peel off, and it occurs that six men (Nigel Godrich included) created this, it's clear that Radiohead must be the greatest band alive, if not the best since you know who. Breathing people made this record! And you can't wait to dive back in and try to prove that wrong over and over.

I'm saying he was a rock star but I'm saying that world was much smaller and less mainstream then. The world of rock music was much more counterculture and set apart from popular entertainment than it is now. Bowie was part of that world, but he was not yet a pop star. In the States, that is. The movie Almost Famous does a good job of showing this. The cool kids loved Bowie but the whole nation wasn't cool kids. Still isn't. There's plenty of people in the States who don't even know who Radiohead is, just to use this thread's example and they've been one of the biggest bands on the planet for a long time now. Fame is relative to audience.

They had an immediate impact on music with OK Computer and then Kid A, but I think in the long run we'll see the influence of their other albums coming through a lot more. We won't know their place in music until 15 years time or so.

>immediate
Worth noting that they were a band for over a decade before Kid A

Bowie put out a critically acclaimed (even if sometimes only in hindsight) album nearly every year for a decade before becoming a worldwide superstar. He played with multiple genres and absolutely defined at least one. He remained active and occasionally relevant in five decades. He worked very hard to cement his name and image into pop culture.
Radiohead hasn't done something as massive as Bowie yet aside from being very popular and they're pretty clearly in the decline era of their career. The biggest thing that can be said for them is the whole Kid A shift and the massive popularity of OK Computer, but they haven't become pop culture icons. Show the average person a picture of the band and they won't know them. I think they'll probably be well remembered by critics for the foreseeable future but you're stretching if you're going to use Bowie as an example for them.

Pink Floyd comparisons were made earlier, that makes a hell of a lot more sense. They'll have a niche audience for ages.