The Best Of Radiohead to be released on 2 June !!!

[djerdap]

The difference between Radiohead and U2 on this matter is that the band already publicly admitted (through Ed O'Brien) that they are annoyed with this Best Of. U2 didn't say shit. They just collected the money.

 

[Salome]

I'm laughing because life is funny

I don't think many band's are that keen on compilation albums
it's just about always the record company

so your choices are to get involved and try to sort of salvage it (whether you succeed is a different question)
or not get involved and just have to bare whatever compilation is being released

either way it's bollocks
and that makes me laugh

 

[Zoots]

zootlesque, i find trying to make sense of things usually doesn't work or count for much anyway.

that's why i almost always immediately resort to name-calling and profanity.

Blunt but honest!

 

[Salome]

I favour blunt honesty myself
but I don't think you people would get it

 

[Zoomerang96]

The difference between Radiohead and U2 on this matter is that the band already publicly admitted (through Ed O'Brien) that they are annoyed with this Best Of. U2 didn't say shit. They just collected the money.

well, not quite. radiohead quite literally have no say in this matter, as they're no longer contracted with emi. their first albums belong to emi, and that company can do anything they want with them.

u2 signed a contract that among other things, such as releasing albums of original material, also explicitly mention greatest hits/best of packages.

to be completely honest, i thought and still think there was nothing wrong with the best of 80's and 90's. smart idea, really at least when it comes to these sort of things.

the u218 thing on the other hand, was comical at best.

 

[Zoots]

to be completely honest, i thought and still think there was nothing wrong with the best of 80's and 90's. smart idea, really at least when it comes to these sort of things.

the u218 thing on the other hand, was comical at best.

Yup, agreed! I don't have a problem with the 90s Best Of but they could've compiled it better though and given a little more fucking respect to Pop instead of butchering it's songs with those inaudible remixes.

 

[Zoomerang96]

I favour blunt honesty myself
but I don't think you people would get it

you're right. us people are a bit daft, aren't we... i've figured as much for sometime now.

 

[Salome]

nah, not daft
you just don't get it

 

[Zoomerang96]

nah, not daft
you just don't get it

and you're ugly.

-----
zootlesque, perhaps now's a good time to see what i meant a little earlier. irrational, petty, and unsubstantiated insults are all that's needed to deal with people like this. don't waste too much time actually processing their self-described genius - for even if they are half as brilliant as they make themselves out to be, some of us will just never "get it".

a shame i'll never taste the spirit of enlightenment...

 

[Saracene]

It's a shame when things like this happen against the band's wishes.

From a music buyer's point of view though, I think that Greatest Hits or Best Ofs are fantastic for people with only a casual interest in the band/artist who don't want to get albums.

 

[intedomine]

I love Greatest Hits/Best Ofs for the debate they can create amongst exiting fans and the way they can attract new fans (My U2 fandom is based on the 80/90 Best Of compilations, and I also discovered Smiths through such compilations too.

What R-Hed should've done, if they had any brains and genuninely cared about the content of the BEST OF, is what Noel did with Oasis' GH package, which Oasis were similarly forced to release due to change of record label. Noel has stated, wither the record company would select the songs, or the band (him) could select the songs. He'd much rather him choose the tracklisting than a bunch of fat business people who know fuck all about the band. Greenwood and Co should've done similar.

That Oasis GH was bollocks anyway. What was Noel thinking!

And this R-Hed GH looks immensely average as well.....too much stuff from Bends.

 

[Zoots]

And this R-Hed GH looks immensely average as well.....too much stuff from Bends.

Do you realize that you are one of the few abnormal people (maybe even the only one) in the world with this opinion???

 

[phanan]

Do you realize that you are one of the few abnormal people (maybe even the only one) in the world with this opinion???

What's even worse is that he says it over and over...

 

[angelordevil]

It's a shame when things like this happen against the band's wishes.

From a music buyer's point of view though, I think that Greatest Hits or Best Ofs are fantastic for people with only a casual interest in the band/artist who don't want to get albums.

I concur with both points.

It's an official slap in the face from EMI to not respect Radiohead's wishes, but these kinds of collections really do spark an interest in further catalogue exploration. That said, I really hate the well-worn terms "Best Of" and "Greatest Hits," considering how the "rest of" a band's work might be just as interesting or moving. Cliched terms for band like Radiohead just seem so wrong. It should have been called "A Blip in Time" or something.

I'm also secretly smiling over the fact that Optimistic is not there...one of my favourites. It's so fun to be a snob when these things are released.

 

[Zoots]

Optimistic/In Limbo totally deserves to be there!!! I think it's in my top 5.

 

[U2girl]

If you substituted "Radiohead" for "U2" and put this thread in EYKIW, the reaction would be exactly the opposite.

Only difference is that this is EMI's release and not Radiohead's, whereas U2 are such cash whores at this point that I imagine we'll have 4 more "Best Ofs" by the end of the decade.

Right...just like the last two Best of's were well accepted by U2 fans.

I was laughing because I can still remember lots of posts saying "ha ha U2! Radiohead will NEVER do a Best of, and you have 3 of those already".
Both U2:18 and this Best of happened because the bands left their label.

 

[djerdap]

Right...just like the last two Best of's were well accepted by U2 fans.

I was laughing because I can still remember lots of posts saying "ha ha U2! Radiohead will NEVER do a Best of, and you have 3 of those already".
Both U2:18 and this Best of happened because the bands left their label.

Yeah, well, technically... Radiohead themselves didn't do a Best Of, while U2 signed a contract for two of them. I've never heard from a single member of U2 any complaint about the U2:18 compilation.

 

[U2girl]

Semantics. Bottom line is label Best of-ed both bands, contract or not.

How exactly do you complain about a contractual obligation ? Song collection fan opinion aside, what is the issue of any artist compiling their Best of ? I hope most bands can do that.

 

[xaviMF22]

radiohead had nothing to do with this


EMI

 

[intedomine]

Do you realize that you are one of the few abnormal people (maybe even the only one) in the world with this opinion???

Yeah, it baffles me too. How an album of such downright average-ness could be held in such high esteem .

In all fairness though (trying to put my bias aside), and I'm talking about the best of proper (single cd), it has to be said that it probably weighs too heavily to The Bends and leaves out a few too many crackers from other albums.

This is, if I was an EMI rep who wanted to encapsulate the band's career, what I'd include on the Best Of (not a tracklisting):

Creep

Fake Plastic Trees
High & Dry
Just

Talk Show Host

Paranoid Android
No Surprises
Karma Police
Lucky

Idioteque
How To Disappear Completely
Everything In It's Right Place

Pyramid Song

2+2=5
There There
Go To Sleep

Cutooth
Fog

I dunno what My Iron Lung's doing on the real best of?!

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

radiohead had nothing to do with this


EMI

You said it...

You know, I don't even have a problem with the Best Ofs 1980 - 2000 or whatever. U2 had reached a point in their career where they had a substantial back catalogue of singles and could do this. I don't agree with U2:18 though, that was too much (yes, I bought it )

When it comes to RH, they have been in the business long enough that a Best Of is not a problem imo, what I don't like in this case is:

a. this is an obvious money grab by EMI with no input from the band and it shows...

b. there is no added value for most standard RH fans to purchase this. U2 at least released b-sides along with the Best-Ofs that some of us didn't have already. Hell, even the special edition of U2:18 came with a live DVD. What do you get with these?

Cutooth
Fog

I agree with Fog although I would use the original version and not the piano version (Reminds me of christmas music for some reason)...

But Cutooth? Really? Not only are these two tracks off the same single there are other stronger "B-Sides" out there imo like the already included True Love Waits or Gagging Order...

 

[Axver]

Semantics. Bottom line is label Best of-ed both bands, contract or not.

How exactly do you complain about a contractual obligation ? Song collection fan opinion aside, what is the issue of any artist compiling their Best of ? I hope most bands can do that.

Why am I getting involved here? It's no secret I don't like Radiohead and think the only songs they've ever recorded that are worth the time of day are Idioteque and Electioneering. But your post is just ridiculous and reeks of a "ha ha I told you so" attitude that is misrepresenting the facts.

Let's outline this as clearly as possible. Hopefully what I recall from what I've read about Radiohead's situation is accurate - I'm sure someone can correct me if I've made an error.

U2: Personally authorised three Best Ofs. Signed a contract to release them; a contract unrelated to their album contracts. As they own the rights to all their music, a Best Of cannot be released without their express approval.

Radiohead: Did NOT authorise this Best Of. Their contracts were for albums, and to speak of contractual obligations to release a Best Of is misleading. EMI, however, owns the rights to the music on said albums and thus can do whatever they like with it - including, as in this case, a Best Of. The band's opinion is irrelevant; if they don't support it (as posters on this thread have indicated), then that's really just too bad.

You can't compare the situations.

 

[Salome]

radiohead had nothing to do with this

see, now this is the funny thing

of course Radiohead did have to do with it

as they always knew this was going to happen
the decision is to be involved or not to be involved
having nothing to do with it is not an option

the artist's options are to stay clear of it because you can't be bothered, you don't give a shite or you're ok with whatever the record company is gonna release
or you try to get involved and then at least you're partly to blame for yet another best of album


as this makes perfect sense I'll guess that everyone agrees with me
even though people are ugly and generally just don't get it

 

[Zoots]

I don't agree with U2:18 though, that was too much (yes, I bought it )

You don't agree with U2:18 and yet you bought it??? x infinity

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

You don't agree with U2:18 and yet you bought it??? x infinity

oh please! like you don't have two copies at home!

ETA: my point was that there was some added value at least with U2:18, I bought the Special Edition with the Milan DVD...

As a fan, if you give me something extra that I wouldn't necessarily be able to get myself I will be more likely to buy it and I think that would go for most of us, or am I alone on this?

 

[Zoots]

oh please! like you don't have two copies at home!

No I don't.

U2 basically threw in a couple of mediocre new songs and a half assed dvd from the recent tour to get all the hardcore fans to buy it. If they had any consideration for the hardcore fans' hard earned money, they would have released the Milan dvd in it's entirety seperately.

New songs do not belong in Greatest Hits or Best Of compilations! GH or Best Ofs should be strictly used to get new people interested in the music, that's it! Don't try to get even more money from people who have always fucking bought your stuff anyway!

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

No I don't.

U2 basically threw in a couple of mediocre new songs and a half assed dvd from the recent tour to get all the hardcore fans to buy it. If they had any consideration for the hardcore fans' hard earned money, they would have released the Milan dvd in it's entirety seperately.

New songs do not belong in Greatest Hits or Best Of compilations! GH or Best Ofs should be strictly used to get new people interested in the music, that's it! Don't try to get even more money from people who have always fucking bought your stuff anyway!

fair enough but if you were given the choice of purchasing the current Radiohead Best Of or a version which included B-Sides or (god forbid) a live DVD, which one would you go for?

 

[Zoots]

fair enough but if you were given the choice of purchasing the current Radiohead Best Of or a version which included B-Sides or (god forbid) a live DVD, which one would you go for?

I won't even bother with it! But the deluxe version would be tempting I agree. This is how they get us!

 

[Copy]

see, now this is the funny thing

of course Radiohead did have to do with it

as they always knew this was going to happen

So if I know that the United States of America is going to elect or re-elect their president in 2012, I have something to do with it?

If I know that it's likely going to rain tomorrow, I have something to do with it?

If I know that U2 hasn't released their last best-of album yet, I am to blame?


No, you're right. I don't get it. I am not ugly, though.

 

[BVS]

I love when people get bent out of shape over 'best of's, it cracks me up...