Convince me this isn't the greatest body of music ever created

Convince me this isn't the greatest body of music ever created

Attached: fa1b76460de7be466a7ae6b8b7b212b1.1000x1000x1-1494372361-640x640.jpg (640x640, 113K)

Listen to the next album

i don't need to because it is perfect, just like you :3
*kiss*

Lucky...good?
The Tourist why?

It took a lot of ideas from other albums before it, wasn't that innovative or groundbreaking.

>The song structures and theatricality of prog (no "Dancing with the Moonlit Knight," no "Paranoid Android"); the lush but sinister arrangements of Bjork (no "Isobel," no "Climbing up the Walls"); the dense sounds of Bitches Brew-era Miles (no "Pharaoh's Dance," no "Exit Music (for a Film)"); the shimmering guitars of R.E.M. and the Smiths (no "Radio Free Europe" or "Bigmouth Strikes Again," no "Let Down"); the moodiness Aphex Twin (no "We Are the Music Makers," no "Subterranean Homesick Alien"), more from Brian Eno and the Beatles' playbooks than I could mention in this review, but suffice it to say this album wouldn't have happened without the precedent of Another Green World. Hell, that's just what jumped out at me while I was listening to this album today. You could probably argue in favor of throwing Remain in Light or Hounds of Love or Kraftwerk or Penderecki or even (like it or not) mid-'80s U2 on this pile

Are you implying that something would need to be innovative/groundbreaking in order to be called the best piece of music? I don't think that's true, as long as its cohesive and well-performed. I don't think the album is perfect either though, The Tourist is lame.

Bach

LOL WHY WOULD ANYONE BOTHER NIGGER
WERE PERFECTLY CONTENT TO LET STAGNANT LITTLE CRINKLEBUTTS LIKE YOU THINK THAT RADIOHEAD ARE ACTUAL ARTISTS
KEEP ON SUCKING NUMBNUTS

Fucking idiot. I don't even care about Radiohead, but imagine thinking a piece of music exists that doesn't draw upon numerous influences. This is just a list of comparisons, and has shit to do with whether it is groundbreaking or innovative

What makes them not "actual artists"? And who do you think is an actual artist then?

They didn't start recording in the 60's and they have more than three listeners

Ah, sorry i didnt realize i was speaking to a genius.

Carry on.

FIRST QUESTION: BECAUSE THEYRE A FUCKING TEENYBOPPER EMO POP BAND AND THOMAS YORK HAS SHIT TASTE IN MUSIC
SECOND QUESTION:

Did I say 60's? I was a bit off. Apparently artists were only born before the 1700's. Guess we're just born in the wrong generation.

Pop music isn't an art, it's entertainment.

You're mom is entertainment

blithering retard

Art and entertainment are mutually exclusive? Interesting take. What do you make of museums/galleries?

Are there any "actual artists" alive today?

You're not allowed to be influenced by anything. That makes your art ingenuine and fake.

They aren't necessarily, art can be turned into entertainment, but not vice versa

PROBABLY NIGGER LOL

How can entertainment not turn into art?

what?

Why can Bach decide to create art, but Yorke and the boys can't? What makes art if not the intent. Maybe you just don't understand their kind of art. Shit, if Bach had the technology, I bet his works would have been full of bass drops.

THERE PROBABLY ARE NIGGER
BUT FUCK IF YOU OR I KNOW WHO THEY ARE
SCOTT DIED A FEW MONTHS AGO DINGDONG

Easy

Attached: 220px-Queens_of_the_Stone_Age_-_Songs_for_the_Deaf.png (220x220, 21K)

More like Based Chapo-poster

Too loud.