Now, are they better than the Beatles? I feel the premise of the question is misguided. As has been said above, *so* much about the music industry has changed since then. A godfatherly (guardian after parents’ death, not “what have I done to deserve this”) figure in my life, who was alive during Beatlemania and may have actually seen them in the Cavern, explained to me that a very significant part of what enabled the Beatles to cast such a massive shadow over all popular music henceforth was that they were The First. Granted, their music was consistently excellent, and they were consistently loved by pretty much everyone with ears. But everyone before them, even figures as large as Elvis, got on a boat and crossed the ocean. They got in a rocket and went to the moon.

Has Radiohead also gone to the moon? Almost certainly. Again, the level at which they have achieved quality, longevity, and popular success with their music is matched by an incredibly select group of musicians, dating back through the 20th century. But I personally feel that they can never be “better” simply because it’s the Beatles’ flag sticking out of the rock, planted in 1964, with the words “I Want To Hold Your Hand.” Given all that, though, like Tim also said above, “the fact of making the comparison no longer seems inherently ridiculous.”

Interested to see where Radiohead goes when they hit 50 like U2. Am I lucky that my 2 favorite bands have incredibly longevity or are they my favorite bands because of said longevity?

Radiohead emerged at a time when I was primed to be a fan of their brand of alternative, cerebral pop. I bought OK Computer right before I went to college. Was there a better/more stereotypical album to buy?

Let’s reverse the frame. I’m a pretty big Sonic Youth fan, but I didn’t mention them immediately in the thread. Is it possible for me to think of Sonic Youth the same way when their best, most defining work — I’ll say EVOL, Sister, and the incomparable Daydream Nation — came out when I was in grade school with no indie rock cred at all?* Did I mention REM and U2 because I actually did hear them on the radio then? Do I unconsciously think of Springsteen as a little washed-up because when I was getting serious about music in the early 90s, it seemed like he was?

* I should say that in the late 80s, while I had no indie cred, I had an absurd amount of hip-hop cred, going nuts over RUN-DMC, Public Enemy, The Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, N.W.A., LL Cool J, and (yes) a lot of pop/R&B stuff like Bobby Brown, Bell Biv Devoe, and Janet Jackson.

Also (this is kind of funny), I signed up for the Columbia Tape & Record Club, which was this very popular swindle where you got a bunch of cassettes cheap and then you had to buy a bunch more, and if you didn’t mail a letter back, they just sent tapes you didn’t want to your house and bill you for them. Anyways, they didn’t have a rap/hip-hop category, it was all lumped into R&B, so I wound up with a ridiculous amount of mature soul music for people in their 40s: Anita Baker, Freddie Jackson, the Levert family’s various post-O’Jays projects, Al B. Sure. Sometimes I still find myself singing those songs, just out of nowhere.

That said, I don’t think it’s subjective to say that bands like Dave Matthews, Green Day, or Ben Folds belong in the same discussion. I know dozens of people who have revered Radiohead for nearly 2 decades, and I don’t know ANYONE who feels that those bands have kept up to snuff over that time. They still record, and still may sell out some shows, but no one thinks they’re pushing music.

I can’t comment much on Sonic Youth. I haven’t given them a fair shot because I saw them perform an absolutely awful set at Lolapalooza in the mid 90s and have had a bad taste in my mouth since then. One thing is for sure: no one has asked me in at least 6–8 years “have you heard the new Sonic Youth?”

On the other hand, I will say that I’d bet that most people writing on this board are between 25 and 35 years of age, and I think that’s important. If you loved music and were 20 or 25 in the time of the Beatles, chances are you’ll never believe that anyone is as good. Also, when we were in our formative years, say 1995-2005ish, the American economy was pretty cushy (brief blip of suck if you were in tech in 2001ish), and I think that’s likely part of it too. Music is about experience, and if you were having the experiences that shaped you as a person to a soundtrack of Radiohead, you’re probably a fan. Same could be said for a lot of bands cross the chasm from good to great.

The truth is that The Beatles are put on a fairly lofty pedestal that no modern group can hope to live up to simply due to how much the music culture has changed (as someone else mentioned above). But it also makes music discussion less interesting, because the shadow of The Beatles is always hanging around. No one will ever be as popular/influential/etc. as they were and that’s just a fact of life, but that shouldn’t stop us from taking seriously (i.e., without being utterly scandalized) the opinion that some bands are better. There are a hell of a lot of great bands out there, and no reason to let one that hasn’t been around for 40 years cloud every discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHfLpwVBjIc

Here’s how I was thinking about this: I get a bit irrationally irked when people say the reason Shakespeare has remained so relevant is because of the inherent genius in his work. Part of the reason for the veneration of Shakespeare is because the value system within which Shakespeare ‘is a genius’ gets reproduced generation after generation. That’s not the only reason he’s revered, of course; but it’s an aspect that gets overlooked.

So what if we looked at this the other way round? What set of values find their clearest expression in Radiohead, such that they have remained relevant and contemporary and ‘good’ for so long?

Is it their intellectualism? Or that their smarts are just nebulous enough not to be pinned down to a particular political ideology? Or is it aesthetic: that their forays into electronica have remained ‘grounded’ by a guitar, bass and drums? Or? I don’t really have any clear theories here.

Last point: I got into Radiohead late because I was too into grunge as a teen, but I feel like I’m alone in thinking that In Rainbows is their best. Anyone else?

* Super-Electric (the band’s second EP) was released in 1990 (21 years ago by my count), and if you’ve ever been to a Stereolab show, you know that old-timers like me still shout out requests for the titular track of that particular production.

* In that 21 years, Stereolab has released 10 studio albums and 7 compilations of their countless singles and b-sides and crazy colored vinyl 7-inches commemorating certain tours, etc.

* I once paid $2 to see Stereolab at Loeb Student Center at NYU (in the mid-90s, before it was replaced with some sort of Mr.-Burns-blocks-out-the-sun structure). This was an amazing $2.

* I have worn the crap out of every Stereolab t-shirt I ever bought, except for the ones that were WAY too small (stupid pre-hipster sizing in late 1990s NYC). That orange one from the Emperor Tomato Ketchup tour? I wore it until the armpits and collar were both totally ripped open.

* The day Radiohead’s Kid A came out, I was sitting at the counter at my favorite vegan restaurant in New York when the indie-pre-hipster dude serving me my unturkey club sandwich put it on. After the first 15 seconds played, I asked him, incredulously, if it was a new Stereolab record.