Salome said:
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 said:
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 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 completeZootlesque said: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.
Salome said: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
Salome said: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
Salome said:
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?Copy said: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.
Axver said:
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 said:
but to say these 2 cases can't be compared doesn't make sense to me
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.
DaveC said: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.
Zootlesque said:Yeah but were WITS and Saints both released as singles? I thought only WITS was. Maybe I'm wrong.
Axver said: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.
elevated_u2_fan said: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?
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.”
Axver said:
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.
U2girl said:
But you know, apparently one of the two bands won't ever NEVER do a Best of.
indra said: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.
indra said: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 .
Zootlesque said:
Exactly! Who cares! Let casual fans discover more Radiohead.