Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"Take Five" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. It made the pop charts in 1959.

Take Five isn't a dance song (as much as I do think it's fantastic, and is one of the first things I learnt on piano).

I don't know anything in 5/4 which is remotely danceable other than 15 Step.
Not to bear in mind the strange choice of 3 and 5-bar phrases without any cadences throughout.
Whether or not they did it intentionally I don't know. It all sounds pretty meticulous to my ears...
 
You sound like an authority - can you please elaborate?

How is what Radiohead does musically not innovative? While you may not like most of their music, and admittedly there are some songs I don't like, I think Radiohead is a band that consistently innovates and is very original.

I agree. While I don't like much of what they did starting with Kid A, I would still say it's innovative and original.
 
I think arguments can be made for artists big and small, and there's so many choices that it would be silly to try and make a poll, but let me get the ball rolling by nominating U2.

And I thought Mac users were supposed to be of higher intelligence levels. I guess not...
 


Aphex Twin or Squarepusher?


As for the 'Creep' argument I think it comes down to age - sorry Bartleby ;) - where for some of us of a, ahem, 'certain age' Creep (and Pablo Honey) were our introduction to Radiohead and therefore we have certain memories associated to it. Whereas for younger people it's probably OK Computer or Kid A.

(My opinion: it took Radiohead 12 years to write a decent follow up The Bends.)
 
The Killers, Muse, Coldplay, Travis, and all post-Blur indie bands (includes Oasis).
 
As for the 'Creep' argument I think it comes down to age - sorry Bartleby ;) - where for some of us of a, ahem, 'certain age' Creep (and Pablo Honey) were our introduction to Radiohead and therefore we have certain memories associated to it. Whereas for younger people it's probably OK Computer or Kid A.

No need to apologise. I can't help being older and wiser. :D
 
The fact that he died did seem to boost the band's (and his) popularity at the time. Actually, I remember getting sick of seeing Kurt Cobain t-shirts in the mid-90s. I think it definitely helped to secure the band's place in history. If he hadn't died, they probably would have come out with another album that wouldn't have sold as well as Nevermind or In Utero, and they would have faded into obscurity.

I have to disagree with you.

Nirvana was both incredibly popular and incredibly well respected at the time of Kurt's death. This wasn't a case of the celebrity death creating the hype - the hype was already there.

At that point, they'd had five good years of music making behind them, two of which were as well-liked indie band and three of which were as biggest-band-in-the-world, but all of the albums they recorded in this time period were at least above average and at most excellent.

In fact, the last major project they released while Kurt was alive - the Unplugged in New York set - was one of their best albums (my personal favorite).

Yes, it's really hard to think what might have happened if more albums were released - but I think the foundation was there for a very promising legacy.


There goes Unspeaked starting trouble again. Anyone who even thinks U2 is "over-rated" is completely nuts.

Gosh, you act like I only started the thread so I could bad-mouth U2! :rolleyes:
 
The Killers' first album was good. I thought Sam's Town was sub-par.

I've only heard a couple of tracks, but mainly I think they're overrated because people don't stop going on about them. In such a situation I leave it about a decade and then I go and listen to the album.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.