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

[bsp77]

Seriously, where is Optimistic? That was the only song from Kid A that actually got real radio play.

Doesn't matter, I'm not buying it as I have all of the songs, and in the better context of the albums.

 

[Salome]

I don't get your analogies
not getting it at all
I think that is because you don't make a whole lot of sense though


when Radiohead was with EMI and OK Computer became as big as it did they knew that a best of would appear some time
unless they are/were completely out of touch with reality

from that moment on their option was to make sure they would or would not have something to say about this best of album

as Radiohead produced the music and the album is going to have Radiohead on it I would say they are involved in it yes


much like you would be involved in the American elections if you are one of the candidates
would be involved in rain if you are a raindrop
and I guess if you are Paul McGuinness you share as much blame as anyone who has input in the contracts that u2 sign

 

[Copy]

much like you would be involved in the American elections if you are one of the candidates
would be involved in rain if you are a raindrop
and I guess if you are Paul McGuinness you share as much blame as anyone who has input in the contracts that u2 sign

But in this case

Radiohead didn't want to be a candidate in the elections

Radiohead didn't want to be a raindrop

Radiohead certainly didn't want to be Paul McGuiness.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

that seems like a silly argument if you ask me...

so, because Radiohead had the nerve to make good music and sell a lot of albums for EMI and had the gall to leave EMI (which, by the sounds of it, seemed like an ugly break up) they are just as responsible for this Best Of?

 

[Zoots]

Anyway this Radiohead Best Of already sounds like it's a million times better than U2:18. Because (a.) There are no new songs "marketed" with the package and (b.) There is nothing additional to rope in the hardcore fans. So it's strictly a primer for people curious about the band. That's how it should be in my opinion.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

But in this case

Radiohead didn't want to be a candidate in the elections

Radiohead didn't want to be a raindrop

Radiohead certainly didn't want to be Paul McGuiness.

I'm so glad I started from page 1 and not here as I'd be utterly confused!

 

[Salome]

what do you mean with "responsible" then
if, in the end, Radiohead doesn't have any responsibility for a Radiohead Best of
then who does??

I'm not blaming Radiohead for this Best of
they only did what they are supposed to do
but I can hardly blame EMI either
because they are also just doing what they're supposed to do


I don't get the problem anyway
I'm not saying Radiohead is selling out because of a silly Best of being released
I'm just saying that given the circumstances the only real options they have is:
A- to not give a shit (which is probably what they are doing)
B- making sure they would be part in putting this Best of together
C- going Axl Rose on us and go on a sorry lament on how their former record company took advantage of the poor multi- millionaire artists

option C would be more for fans

 

[Salome]

Anyway this Radiohead Best Of already sounds like it's a million times better than U2:18. Because (a.) There are no new songs "marketed" with the package and (b.) There is nothing additional to rope in the hardcore fans. So it's strictly a primer for people curious about the band. That's how it should be in my opinion.

I always reckoned that the new songs serve as a "thank you" to the hardcore fans who would usually buy the album anyway - even without new songs - because they like their collection to be complete

usually these new songs are also being released on single so you can also just buy the single not the entire album

or you just download

 

[Copy]

Bottom line is that Radiohead signed a contract that allowed EMI to decide whether a Best of would be released or not. We know that if it was up to Radiohead, they would have chosen to not release a best of. This is certainly different from U2 who actively signed a contract that committed them to release Best ofs. So no, it's not comparable.

 

[Zoots]

I always reckoned that the new songs serve as a "thank you" to the hardcore fans who would usually buy the album anyway - even without new songs - because they like their collection to be complete

I guess. I'm certainly not one of those that would buy a pointless hits package just to be complete.

usually these new songs are also being released on single so you can also just buy the single not the entire album

or you just download

Yeah but were WITS and Saints both released as singles? I thought only WITS was. Maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, I think singles in general are too expensive. I have no intention in forking out 5 bucks or whatever for 1 song and 2 more that weren't good enough to even be included in the album.

 

[Salome]

Bottom line is that Radiohead signed a contract that allowed EMI to decide whether a Best of would be released or not. We know that if it was up to Radiohead, they would have chosen to not release a best of. This is certainly different from U2 who actively signed a contract that committed them to release Best ofs. So no, it's not comparable.

are you suggesting that Radiohead signed a contract that allowed EMI to release a Best of, but that they reckoned EMI might not do this?

interesting concept I guess

 

[Copy]

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]

i agree completely with Axver's post
except for the "you can't compare ..." bit

Radiohead and U2 both must have been aware that no matter what Best of albums would / will appear

U2 decided they wanted a say over this
Radiohead didn't do this

now, I have no idea why U2 did want to have a say on it and why Radiohead didn't
but to say these 2 cases can't be compared doesn't make sense to me

 

[bsp77]

but to say these 2 cases can't be compared doesn't make sense to me

It makes sense to everyone else

 

[Copy]

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.

 

[ponkine]

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.

I couldn't agree more. The U2 best ofs (1990-2000 and 18) has been totally crap, but everyone has praised to death here, including those atrocious "new mixes"

 

[mooncat]

It's all Jackie Wilson's fault.

If RH didn't want a "Best Of" released, they never should have signed their rights away.

 

[Popmartijn]

Yeah but were WITS and Saints both released as singles? I thought only WITS was. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yes. And yes you are.
I think that The Saints Are Coming was even a bigger hit than Window In The Skies.

 

[Popmartijn]

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.

While I think that the facts in this are correct, I don't agree with the interpretation. Radiohead's contract with EMI might've included only direct mentions of albums, but with EMI owning the rights, the provision was always there for them to release a Best Of CD. If Radiohead didn't want to have any Best Of released at all, they should've retained their rights to their music. By signing it away (and not getting it back) they implicitly made the choice to have a Best Of released.

Compare this to U2's case. Until 1998 or so, U2's contract probably also didn't include any mention of Best Of albums. Still, their record company could never release a Best Of as they didn't (and still don't) own the rights. They made the explicit choice to have a Best Of released.

Still, both bands allowed for a Best Of to be released.

 

[Popmartijn]

that seems like a silly argument if you ask me...

so, because Radiohead had the nerve to make good music and sell a lot of albums for EMI and had the gall to leave EMI (which, by the sounds of it, seemed like an ugly break up) they are just as responsible for this Best Of?

No, Radiohead is as responsible as they didn't care whether or not EMI would release a Best Of (or at least, didn't have a provision for it in their contract).

 

[Copy]

Radiohead left original record label EMI because the company would not pay agree to a deal worth £10 million.

According to The Times newspaper the band – who release all their previous albums through EMI imprint Parlophone – were offered £3m to resign with the label which they found unacceptable.

A spokesperson for the label told the paper “Radiohead were demanding an extraordinary amount of money and we did not believe that our other artists should have to subsidise their gains.”

However the band’s management have responded saying that the label did not take their negotiations seriously and it could loose other high profile artists in future.

As part of an agreement, Radiohead asked for the copyright back on part of their back catalogue, which the label would not consider. It is also claimed the group wanted a global marketing budget of £3m, although their management dispute this figure.

One of Radiohead’s managers, Bryce Edge, told the paper: “We couldn’t move ahead with EMI because (label boss) Guy Hands irrevocably refused to discuss the catalogue in any meaningful way. We sold 25 million records and we have the moral rights over those six albums. We wanted a say in how they are exploited in the future. We were not seeking a big advance payment, or a guaranteed marketing spend as discussions never got that far.”

When discussions between and the label and the band stalled, the group decided to release latest album ’In Rainbows’ themselves, initially allowing fans to name their own price for the record, before agreeing a CD release with XL which is due out on Monday (December 31).

Edge added that Radiohead might not be the only big name who will leaving the label, hinting that acts were upset that record companies still deduct “packaging costs” from royalty payments on digital downloads, which require no packaging.

Additionally, Radiohead's original EMI contract also had no facility for digital sales, with Edge explaining, “It’s no surprise that artists are throwing their arms up in the air.”

 

[U2girl]

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.

If Radiohead didn't bother getting the rights to their catalogue in the contract with EMI, oops. Just don't cry about the big bad label later on.

One band left a label, so the said label issued a Best of (happens a lot, especially with bands that change labels during their career). The other band did the same, and the band HAD to issue a Best of with the previous label (they intended to do a 2000-2010 Best of instead, as the 80's and 90's Best of suggest. And U2:18 - or the previous Best ofs - didn't have anything to do with the band's approval, it was them complying to the legalities of the contract) The fact is both bands got a premmature Best of and one decided to get involved with it.

But you know, apparently one of the two bands won't ever NEVER do a Best of. And that's what's funny.
(what "I told you so?" I don't remember posting "Yes, there will be a Radiohead Best of one day.")


As for additional songs. I think pretty much all bands add a new song (which were available as singles too) or two or maybe new remixes or, in the case of lesser CD sales - live DVDs on Best ofs, as something extra for the longtime fans. If the extras on the aren't worth it to you, that's your prerrogative.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

But you know, apparently one of the two bands won't ever NEVER do a Best of.

Doesn't that still hold true? It's EMI releasing it, not the band.

 

[intedomine]

Radiohead should've done a Noel Gallagher and intervened in the tracklisting of the Greatest Hits if they're so cut up about the fact that one is being released.

It was always gonna be released, whether they wanted one to or not, and the CD will sell pretty well.

That's what I love about Oasis (Noel Gallagher), they don't whinge and whine about stuff like Radiohead seem to be doing here. If you don't like something, actually take some action rather than having a cry about it. Be proactive.

Noel Gallagher didn't want Oasis' Greatest Hits to be released, but he knew it was gonna happen, and in an admirable act of damage limitation, he made sure that the compilation would consist of what HE wanted, and not the record company.

U2 lost it with that U218 compilation. A shocker of a release, but again, it had to be done. It would've been sweeter if it was a REST OF compilation, but alas no.

 

[indra]

I don't really see a big problem here. It's a nice album for casual Radiohead fans or someone new to their music who just wants to hear some of their songs to see if they like them enough to buy more. I've never considered "Best of's" to be aimed at or important to serious fans of any band.

And yes, if there is a buck to be made, record companies will do it, whether the artist approves or not .

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

radiohead: 18

 

[Zoots]

I don't really see a big problem here. It's a nice album for casual Radiohead fans or someone new to their music who just wants to hear some of their songs to see if they like them enough to buy more. I've never considered "Best of's" to be aimed at or important to serious fans of any band.

Exactly! Who cares! Let casual fans discover more Radiohead.

 

[Laura M]

I don't really see a big problem here. It's a nice album for casual Radiohead fans or someone new to their music who just wants to hear some of their songs to see if they like them enough to buy more. I've never considered "Best of's" to be aimed at or important to serious fans of any band.

And yes, if there is a buck to be made, record companies will do it, whether the artist approves or not .

 

[lazarus]

Exactly! Who cares! Let casual fans discover more Radiohead.

Let them eat cake!

 

[Dalton]

Let them fuck lance's mom.