scott Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 But it's not that massive In Rainbows is certified gold, which includes an estimation on downloads. Meaning 500,000 copies Radiohead is not that big, any sort of illusion you're picking up, is because you're on a college campus, and teh internets are geared, and places like Last.FM are largely inhabited by a tech-savvy 'elitist' crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 And Radiohead only has 100,000 listeners on LastFM 100,000 is not a lot of people Yes, it's a lot of people if you put them in one room, but not in the grand scheme of things. The radiohead fanbase is indy large, but still within the limits of indy, even if one was to count the OK Computer sales, the number can get bumped to 2.5 million which is nothing when you compare it to say, Nickelback who's 05 album has sold 8MILLION! copies in just two years 8MILLION! I'll say that again 8MILLION! GAK! Now, that's large Let's take a look at radiohead's numbers, I think the easiest way to establish the number of 'psuedo' fans is to subtract the amount of people who bought The Bends, from the number who bought Pablo Honey and Kid A as PH and Kid A are the albums that received sales spikes from OK Computer 1Mil-500,000= 500,000 so, there are about 500,000 real fans. I would consider anyone who bought multiple radiohead albums because they liked OK Computer, but nothing else 'Psuedo Fans' but all those people who liked OK Computer, but didn't purchase anything else are simply 'OK Computer fans' why are they? because OK Computer is/was excellent So, let's subtract real fans and 'psuedo' fans from the OK Computer total The most recent numbers I've found have it at 2MIL so, we'll subtract 500,000 real fans, and 500,000 psuedo fans and we get 1MIL OK Computer fans. So, maybe you can call OK Computer overrated by your standards of non-musical musical critique. But, everything else has listening base of 500,000 enough to make a small dent in the industry, enough to shoot to number one for a week but 500,000 is not many people so radiohead has 1/16 the fanbase of nickelback meaning that they are about...6.2% as big Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) response to ^^ that post. Yes, that's true. But... in relative terms... Radiohead is way bigger than its fellow elite-bands. Eg. RHCP is #5 on last.fm and Radiohead is #2 (currently overtaken by more overrated Coldplay). And RHCP has half a million plays and Radiohead has a million. Not to say RHCP is awesomer and should be higher or anything, just the gap shouldn't be so much. Also, I wouldn't really consider either RHCP or Coldplay to be particularly 'elite' the way I consider Radiohead. Edited October 23, 2008 by Guest I clarif-eye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 But LastFM doesn't mean anything. I mean, to look at the RHCP Radiohead comparison Radiohead has 500,000 more plays but only 30,000 more listeners which just means that people who like Radiohead like Radiohead more than people who like RHCP like RHCP On LastFM but only on lastFM In real life, Californication was certified 5X platinum within a couple years It's just that Radiohead listeners are more likely to be users of LastFM, being that Radiohead fans are generally tech-heads. In real life, Radiohead is not that enormous they just have a loyal internet/college following the fact that you inhabit both of those demographics means that you have a lot of exposure to it, but Radiohead means pretty much nothing outside of campus/internet life. You're just standing too close to the portrait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 But what really matters is that Radiohead makes good music great music which just means that there is a fair amount of people out there who enjoy good music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Eh... they're ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 And Radiohead only has 100,000 listeners on LastFM 100,000 is not a lot of people where did you get that number? Radiohead on last.fm 127,776,398 plays (1,632,088 listeners) But it's not that massive In Rainbows is certified gold, which includes an estimation on downloads. Meaning 500,000 copies where did you get THAT number? see here "Radiohead have sold 3m copies of In Rainbows, according to Warner Chappell. This number comprises physical CDs, box sets, and every download (even £0.01 ones). 100,000 of the purchases were fancy £40 "disc boxes", which alone makes for a handsome profit." ^as I understand it, not including the downloads for free despite the numerical inaccuracies, the above discussion was/is fun to read though... carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Dood! overrated!!! by my non-musical standards! (actually, even by my musical standards because I'd like them SO much more if they got rid of Thom Yorke, but I think I'm the only one annoyed by the whininess of his voice (and lyrics), so I'll let that go) Also yeah... it's one of the most fun discussions I've had! More tea, Scott? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Oh, I'm sorry, LastFM either glitched or I saw the number wrong. The only thing I could find on In Rainbows was that it went gold, but, I'll trust you. That just makes Radiohead more badass, because their decision to release an album for FREE! worked I mean, what's more independent than shoving threemillion records down the record industries throat? Anyways I'm still going to stick to the idea that a musical artist should only be considered 'overrated' or not based on musical ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 What is shoegaze? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 not a very well-known or appreciated genre on it's own, but the few shoegaze bands to achieve success have had a pretty big effect on alternative rock for the past decade or two. My Bloody Valentine is really the only famous shoegaze band (2nd most is probably Slowdive). Shoegaze is known for its dreamy atmosphere "wall of sound" quality. Here are a few videos of MBV and if you like them I'd reccomend buying the CD or record or whatever, since sound quality is really important with this band. On youtube a lot of their stuff tends to sound like a big unorganized mess of noise, but when it's clearer you can hear the melody. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGVXkudBI90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Radiohead is accurately rated imo. They are thought of by many critics to be one of the best bands in the world right, and indeed they are! So kudos to you, critics. I think a lot of people (not speaking to you here Levis) especially in the UK think negatively of Radiohead because they remember the 90's when they were just really big brit-pop band, and got confused when Kid A came out and they got all experimental. That probably also explains why In Rainbows did so well, since that album harkened back to their early sound. So yeah, I would find it kind of odd if a big fan of Pablo Honey also turned out to be a big fan of Kid A. By the way, would anyone mind explaining what makes Nickleback overrated? As far as people I've met, opinions on Nickleback seem to range from "barely tolerable" to "god-awful." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 I watched the My Bloody Valentine vid, and kept an open mind, and I really tried to get into it, but found it lacked that certain something, that.... spice or uniqueness that separates a band from all the others. I found a list of a bunch of other shoegazer bands and I'll peruse those, but MBV didn't do it for me. Unexciting.... Just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindCrime Posted October 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 By the way, would anyone mind explaining what makes Nickleback overrated? Maybe the fact that the radio stations play them constantly and seem to think they are a "Buzz-worthy" artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 I don't think I've heard a Nickleback song on the radio since the beginning of this decade, but maybe I listen to the wrong stations (or right stations, haha) I watched the My Bloody Valentine vid, and kept an open mind, and I really tried to get into it, but found it lacked that certain something, that.... spice or uniqueness that separates a band from all the others. I found a list of a bunch of other shoegazer bands and I'll peruse those, but MBV didn't do it for me. Unexciting.... Just my .02 Different strokes for different folks I suppose, but I find those bands with the "spice and uniqueness" to be some of the blandest music around. I don't listen to MBV for the excitement, I listen because they make beautiful music. I'd go into a rant about KISS and AC/DC but I think my opinions on those bands are a bit too well-known on the site. To summarize, I think they exemplify almost everything I don't like about music. and if you didn't like My Bloody Valentine I would stay away from the rest of the shoegaze genre, as MBV are (rightfully) thought of as the best the genre has to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 That just makes Radiohead more badass, because their decision to release an album for FREE! worked I mean, what's more independent than shoving threemillion records down the record industries throat? waitwaitwait... 3 million shoved? Nono... 3 million were sold for moneys. They're not counting the free downloads (because they weren't free as such, you could just choose your price). see: "And we're not counting free or cheap downloads as equal to a full-value CD purchase. No, even after In Rainbows was sitting on hard drives and iPods across the land, it still sold more CD copies than their previous two recent releases." Also (as quoted above): "Radiohead have sold 3m copies of In Rainbows, according to Warner Chappell. This number comprises physical CDs, box sets, and every download (even £0.01 ones). 100,000 of the purchases were fancy £40 "disc boxes", which alone makes for a handsome profit." They just weren't making enough money from the free downloads. So they put out an outrageously expensive box set... I don't know about the overratedness, but nooooo that is not indie nononono! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 They don't have a record label so they are indie. Before In Rainbows they were on a major record label so they were not indie. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Oh yeah... I remember making that argument a while ago. Indie = no major record label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindCrime Posted October 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 I don't think I've heard a Nickleback song on the radio since the beginning of this decade, but maybe I listen to the wrong stations (or right stations, haha) Where I live, the local rock stations used to play "Rockstar" no less than twice every 3 hours when it was first released and on the charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heard It On The XM Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 I checked every band except Aerosmith and AC/DC, and even those two I left unchecked on the basis of their "classic" material. If the question only related to their music of the last 10-15 years, I would have checked them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_s_1987 Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 < 1972 posts - Octupus, Thick As A Brick, Birds Of Fire, Foxtrot, Focus III, Moving Waves - a great year for very underrated progressive bands. Nickelback are very popular here, so I had to check them. They were the only band I checked, but I was very tempted to check AC/DC. I just dislike them more with every listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foolonthehill Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 1972 is my favourite year for music. You forgot Close To The Edge. And I think Meddle was that year too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 I rather like Nickelback. But then I've never been lauded for my musical taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 I rather like Nickelback. But then I've never been lauded for my musical taste. objectively you could still be a fan of a band that you yourself think of as 'overrated' but in reality I often see (not saying anything about anybody here) that 'overrated' is merely meant to mean 'I hate that band, but many people like them... and I hate them for it too' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karma Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 I think the term "overrated" depends on who you are. My generation probably thinks all of it is overrated, if they even bother to listen to it. Personally, I listen to everything, a lot I like and a lot I don't. I checked 2 of the bands, neither of which I can stand at all and switch them off when they come on. The rest are OK depending on what song. As for Nickleback, Batman, I would like to introduce myself so you will know someone who likes them. Hi, I'm Karma. (Putting hand out to shake). Teasing of course, but I do like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now