After watching Radiohead on "The Colbert Report" I'm rather puzzled why some critics claimed Muse was a Radiohead copycat/wannabe...
I'm a regular watcher of Comedy Central's late-night fake news shows, "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report". Last night, "The Colbert Report" aired a one-hour special that was filled by Radiohead for most of its duration, where the band played several songs, mainly from their latest album, "The King of Limbs".
I've enjoyed some of Radiohead's songs, but have never felt the need nor desire to run out and buy their albums. I find them to be unique, influential and I have the utmost respect for what they've brought to the world of music. I am big into Muse and while I'll be the first to admit that Radiohead was one of many influences on the band, I'm hard-pressed to understand how some can lay claim that they are copycats of the Thom Yorke-lead band. Some like to claim that due to their great ranges, Muse lead singer Matt Bellamy has been attempting to mimic Yorke's. After listening to the songs last night, while I agree both have great vocal ranges, besides that, I don't hear much similarity at all. Bellamy's voice sounds like a hybrid of an angsty Bono and an opera singer, whereas Yorke sounds more like a whiny Bono without the opera-singer bit. I'm not saying "whiny" is a bad thing. I personally like Yorke's voice, as I find it unique and like with Bellamy, I appreciate that vocal range he possesses. But, again, I don't hear much similarity. As far as the overall sound goes, I hear slight similarities in certain songs, but those similarities are few and far between. Radiohead seems to be all about experimentation and moving as far away from the mainstream as is humanly possible. Again, I respect that. I think it's great for a band to continually experiment and try to grow and for a band to be as successful as Radiohead has been without the mainstream being of much aid, if any. Muse, on the other hand, sounds to me like a hybrid of a band willing to experiment, yet unafraid of being mainstream. Songs on their most recent album, "The Resistance," are perfect examples. You won't hear many contemporary "mainstream" bands (if any) including a three-part symphony with an opera sound to it on a full-length album like Muse did with "Exogenesis". At the same time, "Uprising" became one of the biggest radio hits of 2009. Finally, in terms of message, the two bands again appear to be different. Radiohead isn't afraid of trying to make a difference with political messages and anti-corporation banter, whereas Muse tends to be fascinated with conspiracy theories.
There are slight similarities between the bands' sounds, the singers' voices, the bands' philosophies and the messages of the songs, but from what I've heard, these similarities are few and far between and I haven't the slightest idea how in the world some critics lambasted Muse for ripping off Radiohead. Radiohead definitely influenced Muse, but to claim the latter is a copycat of the former is preposterous.
I've enjoyed some of Radiohead's songs, but have never felt the need nor desire to run out and buy their albums. I find them to be unique, influential and I have the utmost respect for what they've brought to the world of music. I am big into Muse and while I'll be the first to admit that Radiohead was one of many influences on the band, I'm hard-pressed to understand how some can lay claim that they are copycats of the Thom Yorke-lead band. Some like to claim that due to their great ranges, Muse lead singer Matt Bellamy has been attempting to mimic Yorke's. After listening to the songs last night, while I agree both have great vocal ranges, besides that, I don't hear much similarity at all. Bellamy's voice sounds like a hybrid of an angsty Bono and an opera singer, whereas Yorke sounds more like a whiny Bono without the opera-singer bit. I'm not saying "whiny" is a bad thing. I personally like Yorke's voice, as I find it unique and like with Bellamy, I appreciate that vocal range he possesses. But, again, I don't hear much similarity. As far as the overall sound goes, I hear slight similarities in certain songs, but those similarities are few and far between. Radiohead seems to be all about experimentation and moving as far away from the mainstream as is humanly possible. Again, I respect that. I think it's great for a band to continually experiment and try to grow and for a band to be as successful as Radiohead has been without the mainstream being of much aid, if any. Muse, on the other hand, sounds to me like a hybrid of a band willing to experiment, yet unafraid of being mainstream. Songs on their most recent album, "The Resistance," are perfect examples. You won't hear many contemporary "mainstream" bands (if any) including a three-part symphony with an opera sound to it on a full-length album like Muse did with "Exogenesis". At the same time, "Uprising" became one of the biggest radio hits of 2009. Finally, in terms of message, the two bands again appear to be different. Radiohead isn't afraid of trying to make a difference with political messages and anti-corporation banter, whereas Muse tends to be fascinated with conspiracy theories.
There are slight similarities between the bands' sounds, the singers' voices, the bands' philosophies and the messages of the songs, but from what I've heard, these similarities are few and far between and I haven't the slightest idea how in the world some critics lambasted Muse for ripping off Radiohead. Radiohead definitely influenced Muse, but to claim the latter is a copycat of the former is preposterous.
I'm pretty sure that Muse may have been inspired by Radiohead
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's true, but there's a big difference between saying a band is influenced by another (everyone is) and that they are rip-offs of that artist. The Rolling Stones were inspired by: Elmore James, Charlie 'Bird' Parker, Jimmy Reed, Chuck Berry, Bill Wyman and a host of others, yet I'd laugh if someone told me the Stones were rip-offs of Chuck Berry or any other artist whom may have inspired them in some manner.
ReplyDelete