eggman said:
Yup. But not better than something which is meaningless,which Radiohead's song seems to me.Abstract lyrics.Being different(Which Radiohead is) doesn't mean its better.I can't stand Kid A (Except for Idioteque) and Amnesic.
No offense, but even KT Tunstall has more appealing lyrics in her songs than Thom does.I can't suck lemon anymore.In Rainbows, however is better than(musically,not lyrically) last 3 albums.
hahahaaa... dude... kt tunstall??
wow... thats a first...
dude... get your genres right...
radiohead = rock
sandi thom = rock
kt tunstall (hahaa) = pop
pop music = popular music... and well, whats popular has to have common appeal...
like wow... you cant possibly compare pop to rock, bro...
i mean pop music is good too and enjoyable, but well, rock, is on a totally different level...
hahahhaaa... and well, lyrically, i now understand your inclinatination towards understanding lyrics of the songs you listen to... you're a pop fan tryin to accustom yourself with legendary rock bands...
again, get your genres right.... geez... kt tunstall....
If it wasn't Radiohead(and of course the cool-hip-wanna-be-Bandwagon-jumper fans) , it would've been forgotten as a joke.
sure dude... radiohead would've been forgotten... just like floyd... trust me... this is the stuff your kids are gonna talk of as classic rock... just like we talk of zep and floyd....
and trust me... the so called cool-hip-wanna-be-bandwagon-jumper fans (reaaally dunno what you mean by that long inexplicable rant), yeah so whatever you mean, if radiohead made music for the hip and wannabes, their success would be ten fold today, they wouldnt have brought out a pay-if-you-please album, and they'd be playin cheesy riff laden songs that would've reminded you of their other 30-40 commercial albums, with the same darn sound.... i guess you'd rather go with that... sigh... what a conformist... you should keep on with your tunstall, after all, her lyrics have meaning like a-b-c... hahahhaaaaa