Winner: Nevermind

Excellent points, all, (but nothing, NOTHING could ever beat "Paranoid Android") and I even agree with your ultimate verdict, while acknowledging that it is a very tough choice. I didn't have to agonize quite as much as you, because for me it came down to the fact that a great record has to end perfectly, and "Something in the Way" beats "The Tourist" for me, and by a wide margin. It is elegaic in a personal way, not abstract, so it resonates more as an ender. Beyond that, it may be sacrelige to say, but the way OK Computer kind of implodes through its second half has never fully worked for me. If the record had somehow been as irresistible after "Karma Police" as it was leading up to it, it would be the greatest rock album of any decade (OK, maybe not the '60s)...but I just am not lifted to the same heights on some of those slow ones toward the end, as haunting as they are. Oh, and I think I would also have to go with Nirvana in the Best Cover Art competition, too. Well, whatever: NEVERMIND

Skysby, you just stole my thunder with the note about last songs. I have been listening to both albums for about a week now and went through a similar analysis with the closing songs. My ultimate conclusion is still pending however.

Imagine being taken hostage by some Al Qaeda Musical Militants, and they put a hood over your head and shackle your arms and legs, and start playing Nevermind and OK Computer on a shitty stereo, and bark at you in a foreign tongue something which you understand to mean "Which one is better??"

If you answer incorrectly, the video of your beheading will be all over the Interweb.

That is how this head-to-head contest makes me feel. Damn you, Merry Swankster.

Having said that, Kid A is, to me, the most consistently enjoyable Radiohead record anyway.

And Nevermind excited me on a cellular level, like nothing else ever did....

So...to quote Frank Abagnale, "I concur". Now, can you release me to the Red Cross, please?

You sure seemed like you loved Paranoid Android when we teamed up for the most self indulgent, room clearing karaoke duet ever...

Sorry, me again, but quick point. Nevermind actually opened the floodgates for all sorts of weird artists like Beck and Bjork (and Radiohead) to get mainstream attention, where OK Computer lead alot of mealy mouthed wimps (cough, Chris Martin) to co opt Thom's singing style, and cut out all of that nutty experimentation for the masses.

And the P-fork'ers are right that nobody even tried to build on Kid A until Silent Shout, but that's a discussion for another time...

I do love me some Paranoid Android, but it's no Lounge Act. I don't subscribe to any punk-aesthetic dogma (no song over 3 mins, etc.), but there's not a well-known song out there that so encapsulates such emotional range in such a short time.

Sure some pretty sad bands have made it big by copping Radiohead, but it seems like every year a million new artists try to be the next Nirvana. Even Jordan Catalano managed to carve out a second career by ripping-off Kurt Cobain.

I think the oft turned to criticism of Band A sucks cause they spawned Band C,D,E,F, and G which all sucked really bad is missing the point entirely. While nobody is saying that Band A sucks, just the mere mention of this logic taints the waters, so to speak. It doesn't directly criticize Band A, but then it totally does through a side door sucker punch.

I'm aware that this became a side point in the comments, but its completely irrelevant to the discussion of Nevermind vs. Ok Computer. If we want to blame shitty guitar bands on the originators, then Led Zeppelin deserves some serious smacking around.

Yeah, and then we'd have to smack around Muddy Waters. And he dead.

If you can't criticize a band for the crap it spawned, can you really compliment a band for the quality music it (may or may not) have influenced? You gotta take the good with the bad, all things considered, holistic scoring, etc.

Randy - Half full - half empty. Can you compliment a band for the quality music it may have influenced? You can do whatever you want, but I don't think you can compliment them for individual spawns. Painting with broad strokes is what I prefer.

Topical reference - Brian Wilson is the standard torch bearer needed for a Panda Bear or Besnard Lakes mention. Can he *really* be complimented for those two bands' works? He can't. Ultimately everyone is responsible for their own shit.

Both finalists of Album insanity are influential...hugely so. I'd venture to guess an equal number of good and crap bands were created due to them existing, out of those a few really great, and a few really awful. Too nebulous to add value on who was more influential when trying to determine which work is better. That would be expanding the arc.. Plus haven't we already talked about not-at-all solid correlation between good/bad influential bands and their good/bad spawns?

Sorry but as great as Nevermind is there is simply no comparison to OK Computer. If you really wish to see which is the better album eat a couple grams of mushrooms and listen to both albums. You'll find that Radiohead excels on levels that Nevermind can't even fathom

On mushrooms I find many things excel on levels that Nevermind can't even fathom...allegedly.

The standard "but on mushrooms..." , while useful in a discussion of lo-fi Moby Grape bootlegs, doesn't strike me as the appropriate litmus test here (although it does make for an interesting prism through which to view all earthly phenomenon.) But I'm really writing to weigh in on whether bands should be held accountable for both good and bad followers. After turning this over in my mind for awhile, I have concluded that it does not make sense. Should Picasso be held accountable for the legions of no-talents he inspired to put brush to canvas? Of course not; he never showed the world what it meant to paint badly or imitatively; that was out of his hands. What he did do was show the world a new way of painting and seeing, and if others got it, great. Similarly, Nirvana and Radiohead made records that amounted to a new way of seeing, or sounding, at any rate. And what bands like Travis and Coldplay "got" from listening to Radiohead was their own take on it. Ditto Seven Mary Three and Collective Soul vis a vis Nirvana. If they had been better imitators, they would not have selected only the choicest, most commercial nutmeats off the tree and left the nettlesome bark-like difficulty untouched. So I say to you in dead earnest; a great band can indeed take credit for inspiring the good bands that followed it, and wash its hands of the bad. The good ones would not exist without the first band; and the bad ones lacked the talent, inspiration, or imagination--or were too blinded by greed, drugs or megalomania--to make music that matched the original, if only in spirit.

skysby: Do you work for the RNC or something?

Ok, I'll bite--why would you say that?

Perhaps because of my political leanings, (or careenings, as the case often is), I tend to think that those on the right tend to excel at playing up the positive effects of the things they believe while downplaying the negative effects of those beliefs. (And they're pretty good at doing the opposite when it comes to claims from the left.)

Are you really saying that my contention that Nirvana should not be held accountable for Candlebox is analagous to the way republicans twist the truth? All apologies, Randall, but I think you're being quite a paranoid android.

I'm just saying you have to consider all things, not just the favorable ones.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)