Any music fan with a shred of self-respect is going to have an opinion about what they consider to be required listening for their children. Pity that two of the biggest bands in modern rock history should probably be left out of the conversation.

As a whole, the modern rock landscape is actually very family-friendly. Regardless of the instrumentation, the genre has largely favored bands with strong pop sensibilities, and anyone with children knows that kids like to dance around the house, so if your song has a beat, odds are good that kids are going to like you. At the same time, there are certain bands that, for the sake of their emotional development, should be put on hold for a few years. Take the Smiths, for example. They wrote some very danceable, up-tempo songs, but the next time your kid sings “Sweetness, I was only joking when I said I’d like to smash every tooth in your head” at a sleepover, it will result in 100% fewer sleepover invitations, among other things.

Having said that, we would argue that there is another band, a newer and much ‘cooler’ band that is far more detrimental to your child’s emotional development, and that is Radiohead. Critical darlings though they may be, they are a temper tantrum in a jewel case, a meltdown on MP3. If you give a kid paper and crayons and ask them to draw while OK Computer is playing, you will get nothing but pictures of storm clouds and dead unicorns. Which band, then, is capable of inflicting the most emotional damage?

This is where you come in. Below we have made what we believe are persuasive arguments for and against each band in terms of the potential impact that prolonged exposure to their music will have on children. Please weigh each argument carefully, and vote for which band you think poses the bigger threat to a child’s well being.

The Smiths

Pros: The perfect marriage of ‘indie’ and ‘pop.’ Uncanny sense of rhythm and melody. Penned some of the wittiest lyrics in rock history. Loved the juxtaposition of the ridiculous (“I booked myself in at the Y… W.C.A.”) with the sublime (big choruses, unforgettable guitar riffs).
Cons: Lyrical content often wildly inappropriate (drinking, masochism, death), talk of liquid gender roles might confuse children. Lead singer Morrissey often bordered on self-parody. Fans of their music often suffer from low self-esteem, and are subject to wild mood swings.

Radiohead

Pros: Often imitated but never duplicated, there isn’t another band on the planet quite like them. Fearless, innovative and fiercely independent, they have little regard for their commercial prospects, and as a result they have shattered virtually all conventional notions of success.
Cons: Obtuse. Increasingly allergic to melody and major chords. Lyrical content an enigma to everyone but singer Thom Yorke. Even their biggest hits are emotional mine fields. Fans of their music are largely intolerant of so-called lesser acts, and have absolutely no sense of humor about the band’s shortcomings.

The prosecution and defense rest, your honor. The rest is up to you.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Note: Popdose loves both Radiohead and the Smiths, and this piece was written purely in good fun. If you are offended by it in any way, you are clearly a Radiohead fan.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, Dude, I thought you were a bro. Your heinous actions are a no-no to the Bro Code. You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: Madonna, plaintiff  vs. Lady Gaga, defendant.

Madonna – “Express Yourself” from Like A Prayer (1989): Gaga, you copied me!

Lady Gaga – “Born This Way” from Born This Way (2011): Madonna, I copied you!

Legal interpretation: While it is plainly apparent that Lady Gaga has modeled her career largely after Madonna’s, and the similarities between “Express Yourself” and “Born This Way” seem far too close for comfort, the question is whether this was intentional hero-copying or an unintentional action verging on the borderline blatant duplication of the original song.

In this, Gaga might be so overly familiar with the song “Express Yourself” that she, herself, did not realize she was copying it.

The question before the jury: Accidental or intentional? Please examine the evidence…

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, Oooooh! You cheated! Oooohhh, I’m gonna tell the teacher on you!! You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: The Alan Parsons Project, plaintiffs vs. Lady Antebellum, defendants.

The Alan Parsons Project – “Eye In The Sky” from Eye In The Sky (1982): “Don’t bore us; get to the chorus… The one you ripped off from us!”

Lady Antebellum – “Need You Now” from Need You Now (2010): As represented by King Of The Hill‘s Boomhower…

“C’monThereAin’tNoDangOl’WayThatSongDoneSoundNuthin’LikeTheOtherSongWithThe “Lookin’AtChoo” InTheDangOl’ChorusDoneNoRippin’NobodyOff, Dagnabbit.”

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, whaddya take us for? Maroons?! You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: Stiff Little Fingers, plaintiffs vs. U2, defendants in a Belfast versus Dublin showdown!

Stiff Little Fingers – “Johnny Was” from Inflammable Material (1979)

Those stinky repeat offenders cribbed our groove! U2? What, is that a declaration of who’ll they’ll rip off next? BEGORRAH!!

U2 – “Seconds” from War (1983)

Your honor, this is harassment! We have a military rhythm and a riff. They have a military rhythm and a riff. Apart from that, it’s all blarney. BLARNEY!!

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, ha-ha, busted! You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: The Hollies, plaintiffs vs. The Posies, defendants

The Hollies, “Jennifer Eccles” (single, 1968)

You stole our chorus! You stole it and everybody knows it!

The Posies, “Golden Blunders” from Dear 23 (1990)

Oh, you have got to be kidding. Is there a slight similarity? Maybe. But at least we’re more clever than those lame “la-la-la’s” of yours.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, like, oh wow, bro. Not cool! You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: Fleetwood Mac, plaintiff vs. The Grateful Dead, defendant

Fleetwood Mac – “Station Man” from Kiln House (1970)

Come on, man. Same groove. Just because you pulled from the Kirwan era of the band, you think you’ll get away with it?

The Grateful Dead – “Passenger” from Terrapin Station (1977)

Come on, man. You can’t copyright a groove. Plus, we’re a jam band. We improv, we rearrange, we jam! We’re just doing our thing!

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, no! No! Oh, hell no, man! Hell no! No way!! You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: a-ha, plaintiffs vs. U2, defendants

a-ha – “The Sun Always Shines on TV,” from Hunting High and Low (1985)

We ask that you not listen to the whole, but specific parts of our song in contrast to the defendants, judging our chorus against their bridge. We feel you will hear many similarities; similarities we can only determine being intentional.

U2 – “Beautiful Day,” from All That You Can’t Leave Behind (2000)

Jealousy, that’s all this is. Petty jealousy. They had their video with the cartoon people in the maze. We had a record-breaking career that hasn’t yet begun to slow down! If there is a similarity, it is brief and thoroughly unintentional. Thank you, Rock Court, and g’nite!!

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, gosh darn it, I think they stole that feller’s tune rat’chere! You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: Tommy Tutone, plaintiff vs. Bruce Springsteen, defendant

Tommy Tutone – 867-5309/Jenny from Tommy Tutone 2 (1982)

You know, I have only one song anyone really gives a crap about and it’s kept me in good stead for a while. Springsteen has how many tunes under his belt, yet he has to pilfer mine? Strike a blow to The Boss for the little guy!

Bruce Springsteen – Radio Nowhere from Magic (2008)

It’s not that similar, you drama queen.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, how… could… you?! You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: Blues Traveler, plaintiffs vs. Sister Hazel, defendants

Blues Traveler – “Runaround,” from Four (1994)

We recorded three albums that got us nothing but stoner groupies. Finally, we get a hit song and hot stoner groupies! Then these jerks come along, rip off our melody and our hot stoner groupies! What’s this crap?

Sister Hazel – “All For You,” from …Somewhere More Familiar (1997)

It’s so unfair. We never, ever ripped off Blues Traveler. We had no intention of ripping off Blues Traveler. Hootie, maybe!

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF

All rise.

The rules of this courtroom are simple. You will be presented with two songs, one by the plaintiff and one by the defendant. It is your task to decide if the defendant’s track is only coincidentally similar to the plaintiffs or, as members of the Bar Association put it, something is rotten in Denmark! You have been duly instructed.

Today’s docket: Nik Kershaw, plaintiff vs. The Nestles Chocolate Corporation, defendant

Nik Kershaw – Roses from The Riddle (1984)

Listen to the first verses of my song, “Roses” and then watch this commercial for Nestles white chocolate bar. My song is about the dangerous effects of corporate influence on the environment and the deceived public understanding. Then they turn around and make a candy bar commercial with the melody! Insult to injury!

Nestles White Chocolate Commericial circa 1985

Oh God, it’s true! It’s all true! We do strip out 100% of the cocoa solids and replace it with raccoon fat laced with vanilla flavoring! (Uh, what? What did you say?)

No, we can assure you we never heard Mr. Kershaw’s song before we contracted the ad agency to make the commercial. Not at all. It’s slanderous. (Please forget what we said about the raccoon fat.)

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.

Print PDF