TS: Radiohead vs. Smashing Pumpkins

Ned to thread.

Vice versa, you mean.

Talk Talk's music never veered into the unlistenable, though (unless you count Mark Hollis' solo album).

The Bends takes round two (basically because they improved so much beyond Pablo.

--I haven't heard the rest.

haven't heard gish.
siamese dream is quite good. "today" in particular brings back fond memories.
mellon collie is waaaay too long. so much tosh on there, but some moments of power and beauty.
adore is my fave of theirs. mostly it's gorgeous, but again, a little editing would be welcome.
only heard a few songs off machina, but it seems pretty forgettable.

now radiohead...

pablohoney is tosh, but with 3 redeeming features (Anyone can play guitar, creep, thinkin about you).
the bends has a few boring moments, but it's largely full of epic, moving songs. it beats siamese dream.
ok computer. what can i say? it's worthy of the fuss. miles ahead of mellon collie. miles ahead of most albums, too.
kid a remains my favourite, though. i like the way it's icy cold, yet soft. better than adore.
amnesiac is superb too, but slightly more thrown-together than kid a.

radiohead win hands down, but that's not to say the smashing pumpkins are without merit. there's a similar pattern to the two bands' (perceived) career trajectories.

ok debut - big improvement on second, big sales - their masterpieces delivered third time out, massively ambitious, big-sellers - follows masterpiece with curve-ball album that isn't what most fans expect from band, but considerted rather excellent by many.

however, i don't think mellon collie lives up to its rep. it doesn't sound like billy corgan had so many great songs that he HAD to release a double. it sounds like he intended to release a double, and threw everything he'd written onto it.

melissa and ned may make valuable contributions to this thread...

Radiohead- Can't stand them. Often an inexplicable glitch in the collections of people whose taste usually impresses and astounds me. What is the reason for this?

Smashing Pumpkins gives me an idea what the Ronnettes would have sounded like if Phil Spector sang lead.

Listen to Siamese Dream to find out why ;)

Why did I know. Can I just say they're both utterly wonderful for the moment and come back later? Thanks, drive through. Of course, both better than Limp Bizkit. *hides from Anthony's starfish*

List of people who refuse to do anything but note the guy has a whiny voice:
The rest of the goddamn world

As far as I'm concerned these are fellow defendants of Durst in the days of the musical Nuremburg trial I'll hold one day.

I'll spare you all the Radiohead hagiography.

And he looks FAAAAAAAAABULOUS!

1995 and after - Radiohead, obviously. The Smashing Pumpkins from about 1996 onwards = the worst band in the entire world, with the worst image in the entire world.

If you were an actual Townie from Oxford, you'd loathe Radiohead too.

What does this mean in connection with the Smashing Pumpkins? It's just when I read it I instantly thought of the girl killed at their concert here a few years ago and er.....I presume this isn't what you're talking about.

Nah, that's crap. Young Mr Corgan doesn't tend to go in for those kind of obvious metal band lyrics, he's far too pretentious.

I like the Pumpkins but got fairly bored of Melon Colly due to overplaying it in my teens. Was horribly disappointed by MACHINA, which to me seems like a unsuccessful attempt to return to their pre-Adore goth-grunge(Gronge?) style. Actually, I think Adore is prob'ly my favourite of their albums, cos I like the quiet songs best.

As for Radiohead, they're many things but not unlistenable. (although I do know one fan who returned Amnesia to the shop because "It's just a load of noises.") Give them their dues, they usually remember to put the tunes in when they're playing around with ondes martinots and things(Treefingers and Revolving Doors are the only songs I can think of that don't have an obvious melody). Thom needs to put more effort into his vocals, though, like he used to. His singing sounds a bit half-arsed these days.

So, which is best? Errr...I'll go with the 'head for the sake of loyalty cos I've been listening to them since Creep. Hopeless fanboy, me.

The Greatest Hits thing really should have had their Batman & Robin song, which was much more dramatic than the actual movie (but really no contest).

You have to ignore some atrocious lyrics and gluttonous performances to find what makes the Smashkins memorable (Shouldn't be hard for any MBV fan). I'll stand by the singles off "Melon Collie" thru "The Everlasting Gaze" (I once was gonna start a band called the Everlasting Gays or the Oppositional Gays, depending on whether we wanted to go bell hooks or Billy C), but the earlier stuff is way too, I dunno, gauzy for my tastes. Save "Cherub Rock" and maybe "Today."

His best vocal performance may have been in New Order's "Turn My Way."

Like most shoegazin' and dreamyfuzzblazin' (you know, Ned music) I like them when I squint my eyes and ears, but when I open 'em wide they seem rather meatless (at least for this rap-rockin' punk-schlockin' American). I think Liz Fraser should get to do her "oopie oopie ooo" shit on Billy's tracks. Or D'arcy!

Oh yeah, not to mention the weighty, mysterious beauty of tracks like "Obscured" and "Starla" -- you are all crazy, seriously!

My vote goes for the Pumpkins. As much merit as Radiohead does have and deserve, they will always seem to me to be MORE attitude than music I can relate to. Plus, it's hard to fight the great bald one's tsunamic songwriting capacity. I heard he already has at least 150 songs for Zwan. Undoubtedly, some of his songs are gonna fall on their face by comparison. But I just love the vastness both of the catalog and the songs. I don't find either in Radiohead.

OK Computer is the "instant classic" (always distrust this label), but I don't think it'll last; as electronica continues to get it's due, I think this will be borne out. As for the Pumpkins, the secret always has been that the album they really will be remembered for is Adore. Just wait.

Most of my problem with that album, and most everything Corgan has done since then is his voice. It changed significantly around 1995 and I can't stand it any more.

Upon release of Adore, MTV played a pumpkins gig that included Simon Lebon doing vocals on s song called 'Night Boat' and it was fucking brilliant. The whole band sounded 10x better with a decent singer on board.

*sigh* so I love corgans songwriting much of the time, he has had some brilliant moments. (for some reason i particularly adore methusela) ... but overall i think they would be much better treated by another singer! except in some cases such as real love mentioned above.

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that weighs that album down... Plus, if they hadn't recorded so damn much, they would have had more time to work out the kinks, which would improve the quality of the album IMMENSELY.

Actually, it's pretty hard to compare Friends and Enemies w/pre-Mellon Collie stuff, as every aspect of the music is different--the lyrics, the structure of the music, Billy's vocal style, etc.

!! How the hell did I not hear of this. I must track this down. I now understand Kate's annoyance with the Pumpkins all the more clearly (full name of the song is "Waiting for the Night Boat," on the first self-titled Duran album).

*weeps* Oh well, someone has it digitized somewhere -- I hope!

Spencer's comments are all quite good.

Y'all tripping.

I think SPs win easily on a sound level - instruments, voices, production (the greatest future nightmare on any Radiohead album is Nigel Godrich's airlock style). I like Billy Corgan's tough vulnerability and the band's big hooks, but yes, bombast is a problem. When they address it, as in 1979, I lurv them. And I can't deny Today either, probably because it has the simplicity known to good "pop" and unknown to Radiohead (well, ok, Creep maybe).

But, even though I love Corgan's way with a melody, Radiohead maybe wins on a writing level, both in terms of structures (which occasionally sway the rock 'n roller/hiphopper in me, though they're usually less successful) and willingness to experiment with soundscaping, which, for guys who like guitars, I would think takes some ego-suppression, which is saying a lot for them. Their Achilles heel is significance, of course, and minimizing lyrics on Kid A addressed that (sayeth Christgau).

While I "like" SPs more, if my incompletely-informed impressions are otm, Radiohead are the more useful band - a good album beats a few great songs on different, ok albums. But maybe the Pumpkins greatest hits does the trick?

And LOVING it!

Radiohead...
Whiny junkie-looking sleepfarmer making prog-drone; imagines he's a cross between Robert Smith and...apparently, David Byrne, turns out he's a cross between Michael Gira and a wrung-out dishrag. Made one "thinking mans' Stone Temple Pilots" single with whingey vocals and 5 records of mismatched excercises in tedium with whingey vocals.

I loved Gish but never saw the point of Pablo Honey, so for me, Smashing Pumpkins "wins"

Radiohead only misstep is their debut; the other band(s) can’t say that. It’s so trendy to knock Radiohead these days but if you even remotely listen to what they have done, you can’t really argue their brilliance. You might not like it but…

well, i'm convinced

No, their two most serious missteps were "Kid A" and "Amnesiac". Their debut did at least contain a great single in "Creep"

So Radiohead, i guess

check yo'self fool!

I once heard Billy on MTV saying he heard "bands like Radiohead" and felt like he hadn't been given due credit for paving the way for them to be successful. This was around 1995 so I assume he is talking about either Teh Bends or Cr33p.

Like, from far away?