Radiohead Speak Out Against 'Greatest Hits' Album

Radiohead have attacked the release of their own 'Greatest Hits' album, which is being put out against their wishes by former label EMI.

The band's contract with the label ended last year, and they decided to offer their current album 'In Rainbows' as a free download before releasing it with XL, the label who had also put out Thom Yorke's 2006 solo album 'The Eraser'.

Speaking to The Word about the new collection's release, Yorke said: "We haven't really had any hits so what exactly is the purpose?"

He added: "There's nothing we can do about it. The work is really public property now anyway, in my head at least. It's a wasted opportunity in that if we'd been behind it, and we wanted to do it, then it might have been good."

Speaking about moving away from EMI he said: "Personally I just wanted to forget about it. It didn't feel right. And now it's like when you move house: you don't want to peer through the window and see what they've done with the wallpaper because it will only upset you."

Yorke also blasted claims they had asked for "£10 million" to re-sign with the label, a quote which came from Guy Hands, the label's boss.

"The idea what we were after so much money as to stretching the truth to breaking point," he declared. "That was his PR company briefing against us..I was so angry...it was a clear indication that the relationship was over."

Credits for the info to NME.com.

Comments

[Obie]

thats messed up. certain parts of the music industry need to not be about money.

[Moozze]

Yeah, music is supposed to be art, not something to abuse for money.

[Comeback Kiddd]

RUFF!

[twiggy94]

I hate faux-humility...what does he mean, "We haven't really had any hits?"

[brooklynsoulja1]

a greatest hits album for radiohead=goldenness

[Radiorush]

well I think what he means by no hits is no real huge singles.. ok there are a few.. but radiohead are a real album band..where each individual album is one piece, to take songs from different albums and put them together takes away the effect of the song when played with the other songs on their respective albums.

Eg, with OK.. imagine just karma police after creep, followed by 2+2=5, it just wouldn't flow and wouldn't be the way they wanted it to sound.

Unlike with Springsteen..where you can take songs from anywhere.. throw them together and it'll sound good/// just the style of the bands

[RosT3n]

the reason a greatest hits album is a really bad idea is that radioheads albums is meant to be listen as one big "song" one connected piece, not they ar theme-albums just that every song is so perfectly placed and matches each other so perfectly.. so with a gretest hits album its like taking like 10 mnutes out froma different movies and putting them together... shame on EMI! this is jsut wrong, radiohead has even said they don't want an greatest hits album, respect that, after all there the best thing that has ever happened to music IMO.

[rich420]

Moozze wrote:

Yeah, music is supposed to be art, not something to abuse for money.

Sorry mate but that's not what it's about anymore, if it ever was, it's called the Music BUSINESS for a reason, as much as we hate it to be that way, the people in charge are only in it for the money.

[arcticradiohead]

meh. i've never really liked greatest hit albums much anyways.

[HeyStoopid]

rich420 wrote:

Moozze wrote:

Yeah, music is supposed to be art, not something to abuse for money.

Sorry mate but that's not what it's about anymore, if it ever was, it's called the Music BUSINESS for a reason, as much as we hate it to be that way, the people in charge are only in it for the money.

but with "in rainbows" and what nin is doing right now, it looks like things are moving away from all that business crap and back to the music

[arcticradiohead]

HeyStoopid wrote:

rich420 wrote:

Moozze wrote:

Yeah, music is supposed to be art, not something to abuse for money.

Sorry mate but that's not what it's about anymore, if it ever was, it's called the Music BUSINESS for a reason, as much as we hate it to be that way, the people in charge are only in it for the money.


but with "in rainbows" and what nin is doing right now, it looks like things are moving away from all that business crap and back to the music

the business part of its still gonna be there for a while, and im pretty sure yorke said they weren't gonna do what they did with in rainbows again. it is finally starting to pull away from the record companies, but they're not going away without taking as much money and time they can get.

[WhiteKnightXC]

Sorry man, but all these free album promotions, and all these speeches against the industry, is a bunch of horse crap. I mean, they say it's not about the money, but they know that this will incite the dedicated fans to spend tons on their album with the name your own price for Radiohead. And as for NIN, sure, he released a free album, but he's also making a killing from DVD box set sales. They're just playing the game in a different way. They need to stop speaking out against the industry, because it all boils down to money anyway. They just want bigger cuts, and they're using sensationalism as a way to get it.

[arcticradiohead]

WhiteKnightXC wrote:

Sorry man, but all these free album promotions, and all these speeches against the industry, is a bunch of horse crap. I mean, they say it's not about the money, but they know that this will incite the dedicated fans to spend tons on their album with the name your own price for Radiohead. And as for NIN, sure, he released a free album, but he's also making a killing from DVD box set sales. They're just playing the game in a different way. They need to stop speaking out against the industry, because it all boils down to money anyway. They just want bigger cuts, and they're using sensationalism as a way to get it.

i dont think anyone would pay much more than they would for a normal cd with that name your price deal. you can like somebody's music but i dont think anyones gonna fork over extra money when they could buy the cd for $15.

checked.

[rhoads4ever]

WhiteKnightXC wrote:

Sorry man, but all these free album promotions, and all these speeches against the industry, is a bunch of horse crap. I mean, they say it's not about the money, but they know that this will incite the dedicated fans to spend tons on their album with the name your own price for Radiohead. And as for NIN, sure, he released a free album, but he's also making a killing from DVD box set sales. They're just playing the game in a different way. They need to stop speaking out against the industry, because it all boils down to money anyway. They just want bigger cuts, and they're using sensationalism as a way to get it.

I agree a lot with you. I find it hard to listen to people say "music should be free" "it should be for the music" etc. It's a business for a reason, and people do it full time for a hobby. I don't see any people saying "Doctors should work for free" etc. It doesn't seem fair to me that my favorite artist, should starve...

[Morning Star]

No one is saying they should starve - everyone has a right to earn a living and if you have the talent then music is just one of millions of ways to do that.

It's more about betraying yourself or others in an attempt to get more money. Money should not come first. Ideally every musician and industry exec would be in it for the love of music, and not some desire for wealth and a big house/plastic wife/environment destroying sports car or whatever your vices are. If the music belongs to anyone it is the creators (in this case Radiohead) and money should not be a reason to ignore their wishes and release an album of their music for the companies gain.

[stueey]

rhoads4ever wrote:

WhiteKnightXC wrote:

Sorry man, but all these free album promotions, and all these speeches against the industry, is a bunch of horse crap. I mean, they say it's not about the money, but they know that this will incite the dedicated fans to spend tons on their album with the name your own price for Radiohead. And as for NIN, sure, he released a free album, but he's also making a killing from DVD box set sales. They're just playing the game in a different way. They need to stop speaking out against the industry, because it all boils down to money anyway. They just want bigger cuts, and they're using sensationalism as a way to get it.

I agree a lot with you. I find it hard to listen to people say "music should be free" "it should be for the music" etc. It's a business for a reason, and people do it full time for a hobby. I don't see any people saying "Doctors should work for free" etc. It doesn't seem fair to me that my favorite artist, should starve...

I understand what you are saying. But I bet you would rather get something for free than pay for it? I dont disagree with you though. I just dont pay for music as often as i should, because i wouldnt be able to buy their t-shirt or buy tickets to their gigs, Or buy food or anything else for me! lol. Its kind of like sayin you cant listen to music if u are poor. i kind of molded 2 points into 1. lol :P

[atc228]

i say we all go download the greatest hits when it comes out and not pay a cent for it just in spite of EMI haha

-just a joke-

[Lonestarv1]

ok that does suck...but radiohead greatest hits....save money put out just creep 13 times b/c thats the only decent song

[broken fusion!]

rhoads4ever wrote:

WhiteKnightXC wrote:

Sorry man, but all these free album promotions, and all these speeches against the industry, is a bunch of horse crap. I mean, they say it's not about the money, but they know that this will incite the dedicated fans to spend tons on their album with the name your own price for Radiohead. And as for NIN, sure, he released a free album, but he's also making a killing from DVD box set sales. They're just playing the game in a different way. They need to stop speaking out against the industry, because it all boils down to money anyway. They just want bigger cuts, and they're using sensationalism as a way to get it.

I agree a lot with you. I find it hard to listen to people say "music should be free" "it should be for the music" etc. It's a business for a reason, and people do it full time for a hobby. I don't see any people saying "Doctors should work for free" etc. It doesn't seem fair to me that my favorite artist, should starve...

uhh, i'm pretty sure that DOCTORS AND TEACHERS should be making way more than musicians. Music should be able to earn you a living, not millions and millions

[arcticradiohead]

stueey wrote:

rhoads4ever wrote:

WhiteKnightXC wrote:

Sorry man, but all these free album promotions, and all these speeches against the industry, is a bunch of horse crap. I mean, they say it's not about the money, but they know that this will incite the dedicated fans to spend tons on their album with the name your own price for Radiohead. And as for NIN, sure, he released a free album, but he's also making a killing from DVD box set sales. They're just playing the game in a different way. They need to stop speaking out against the industry, because it all boils down to money anyway. They just want bigger cuts, and they're using sensationalism as a way to get it.

I agree a lot with you. I find it hard to listen to people say "music should be free" "it should be for the music" etc. It's a business for a reason, and people do it full time for a hobby. I don't see any people saying "Doctors should work for free" etc. It doesn't seem fair to me that my favorite artist, should starve...


I understand what you are saying. But I bet you would rather get something for free than pay for it? I dont disagree with you though. I just dont pay for music as often as i should, because i wouldnt be able to buy their t-shirt or buy tickets to their gigs, Or buy food or anything else for me! lol. Its kind of like sayin you cant listen to music if u are poor. i kind of molded 2 points into 1. lol :P

i agree with you man. and ya im a lot more willing to pay for music when its going to the band. i know the record companies need money to put out an album, but look at it this way. all they are is an outlet for the artist, they need people writing music just to be able to make money, so shouldn't the labels get less than the band? this isn't radiohead sensationalizing this is the label going over the line and this is pa

[arcticradiohead]

damn it cut me off...

i was sayin this is part of the reason why people download for free

[sneaky11]

why would they make a greatest hits album for a band that is so terrible? no one will buy this garbage

[whitestrat279]

This si what victory records does too. Its sad and bad for music.

[gallagher2006]

I wish they would chill out and just go with the flow for this.

Thom Yorke bitches about EVERYTHING.

It's not like it's getting put out without them getting any money. They'll become even richer with the royalties they recieve from it.

Do grow up Thommy boy.

[VertigoViking]

where each individual album is one piece, to take songs from different albums and put them together takes away the effect of the song when played with the other songs on their respective albums.

what do they play in concerts? the whole new album, if you can't listen to the songs in random order...

[sowhat360]

VertigoViking wrote:

where each individual album is one piece, to take songs from different albums and put them together takes away the effect of the song when played with the other songs on their respective albums.

what do they play in concerts? the whole new album, if you can't listen to the songs in random order...

excellent point

[Stampede]

sneaky11 wrote:

why would they make a greatest hits album for a band that is so terrible? no one will buy this garbage

haha. idiot.

[Moozze]

arcticradiohead wrote:

HeyStoopid wrote:

rich420 wrote:

Moozze wrote:

Yeah, music is supposed to be art, not something to abuse for money.

Sorry mate but that's not what it's about anymore, if it ever was, it's called the Music BUSINESS for a reason, as much as we hate it to be that way, the people in charge are only in it for the money.


but with "in rainbows" and what nin is doing right now, it looks like things are moving away from all that business crap and back to the music


the business part of its still gonna be there for a while, and im pretty sure yorke said they weren't gonna do what they did with in rainbows again. it is finally starting to pull away from the record companies, but they're not going away without taking as much money and time they can get.

Yeah, only big bands can do the 'download our album for free' trick. Young bands will still try to get signed by a (big) label for a while.

[Nightwatchman10]

i wont be buying it and theyre my favourite band

[keithmoon15]

i take radioheads side on this but that album would be sweet nonetheless

[CFHguitar]

its just funny that there is an ad on the side of this article for radiohead tickets.
WHO CARES THOM YORKE?!? WHO CARES MUSIC INDUSTRY?!? DO WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT!!! WERE ALL SCREWED IN THE ASS ANYWAY, RIGHT?!?

[Hazen Zero]

sneaky11 wrote:

why would they make a greatest hits album for a band that is so terrible? no one will buy this garbage

[Hazen Zero]

sneaky11 wrote:

why would they make a greatest hits album for a band that is so terrible? no one will buy this garbage

You really don't have any clue what you're talking about, do you?

[Notoriousdoc]

"Don't judge a book just by the cover
Unless you cover just another
And blind acceptance is a sign
Of stupid fools who stand in line
Like

E.M.I E.M.I E.M.I"

[pcell619]

Moozze wrote:

Yeah, music is supposed to be art, not something to abuse for money.

isn't that why kurt supposedly committed suicide

[therescue06]

not buying

i forgot who posted it but i agree that you cant have 2+2=5 followed by creep.

[shallowbay29006]

radiohead ****in sucks. i hate them. i think its purdy funny that they aren't being babied anymore. its good they get into sumthin like this.

[Soul-Monger]

shallowbay29006 wrote:

radiohead ****in sucks. i hate them. i think its purdy funny that they aren't being babied anymore. its good they get into sumthin like this.

Don't be such a troll, or crawl back under your bridge, you prick.

Honestly, I agree with those who said it wouldn't make sense. Every album flows well within itself, but taking tracks from each individual album and putting them together would be rubbish.

[wanderinghippie]

Yeah....its a shame when Artists have no control over the release and presentation of their own art.

Greatest hits albums are usually really bad...but when the Artist is involved..like Neil Young Decade or Pink Floyd ECHOS the results are quite nice.

Let this be a message to future and upcoming artists...be responsible for your own exposure. The internet is the way....follow Radiohead's lead...realese your own albums!

[Feel bad inc.]

I really think that if radiohead didnt want the album released, they should of at least had some control to stop it.

[Dallinisrad]

Lonestarv1 wrote:

ok that does suck...but radiohead greatest hits....save money put out just creep 13 times b/c thats the only decent song

you honestly dont know radiohead. i bet ur just one of those guys who just listens to the crap they feed you on the radio, arent you?

[Dallinisrad]

shallowbay29006 wrote:

radiohead ****in sucks. i hate them. i think its purdy funny that they aren't being babied anymore. its good they get into sumthin like this.

just because they are amazingly talented and genius and they can play and write just about anuthing out there doesnt mean they suck...

[jahyarain]

"It's a business for a reason, and people do it full time for a hobby."

esp most of the people who posted here. this keyboard knows more about music than u simpletons.

[tbarrettl]

brooklynsoulja1 wrote:

a greatest hits album for radiohead=goldenness

No, unless it would be a full discography data cd, Radiohead has albums not singles even though some earlier album cuts were chart toppers My Iron Lung and so forth are better full.

[reesy]

These free album deals only ever work with the established artists with loyal fanbases. I could release an album for free 2moro and nobody would give a sh!t.

The idea of a greatest hits album would appeal to me, members of a new generation of fans looking to taste radiohead without having to purchase all the albums. Thats what this guy seems really pissed about that he wont receive royalties from previous album sales as people will just buy the greatest hits!

[ozzy102691]

brooklynsoulja1 wrote:

a greatest hits album for radiohead=goldenness

wow i think you missed that whole point of the article...

[MTVget0FFtheAIR]

meh, it's a business first and foremost (sadly).

[boxcarblink94]

i love thom. so humble.

[j-e-f-f-e-r-s]

reesy wrote:

These free album deals only ever work with the established artists with loyal fanbases. I could release an album for free 2moro and nobody would give a sh!t.

That's why you then have to go out on the road and, y'know, play some gigs. If your music is any good, word will spread.

[scarfacesuit]

twiggy94 wrote:

I hate faux-humility...what does he mean, "We haven't really had any hits?"

Radiohead has only really had 1 or 2 hits in mainstream music... That's probably what he's referring to.

[xorax]

greatest hits albums are for housewives and little girls!

[GoWithTheFlow]

Radiorush wrote:

well I think what he means by no hits is no real huge singles.. ok there are a few.. but radiohead are a real album band..where each individual album is one piece, to take songs from different albums and put them together takes away the effect of the song when played with the other songs on their respective albums.

Eg, with OK.. imagine just karma police after creep, followed by 2+2=5, it just wouldn't flow and wouldn't be the way they wanted it to sound.

Unlike with Springsteen..where you can take songs from anywhere.. throw them together and it'll sound good/// just the style of the bands

+ everything i own

[original_idiot]

Radiohead should wait for the release of the greatest hits album, then offer the same songs online for free. EMI would be angry.

[bush_slayer_07]

Lonestarv1 wrote:

ok that does suck...but radiohead greatest hits....save money put out just creep 13 times b/c thats the only decent song

*sigh* why do people talk when they know nothing?

[LiVexXxhIgh]

Fucking record labels

[StratDune]

original_idiot wrote:

Radiohead should wait for the release of the greatest hits album, then offer the same songs online for free. EMI would be angry.

ooh but they cannot do that. those songs are EMI property. they themselves cannot offer them free. you write a song and its not yours anymore.

[ragnarqk]

It sucks they're not behind the release of their greatist hits CD.

But it doesn't matter to me. What I do is make my own greatist hits CDs of bands I like, a collection of my favorite songs.

[Trynstopme]

bush_slayer_07 wrote:

Lonestarv1 wrote:

ok that does suck...but radiohead greatest hits....save money put out just creep 13 times b/c thats the only decent song

*sigh* why do people talk when they know nothing?

+1

[benjidude945]

of course you can tell this collection wasn't put together by radiohead
they'd rather smother their own children then recognize creep as one of their "greatest hits" or songs