Radiohead Accused Of Being Driven By Greed

Radiohead were shot down after speaking against capitalism when it was highlighted that they choose to make more money rather than sell more records.

logo
Ultimate Guitar
0

Radiohead were accused of being motivated by greed when they featured on the "Colbert Report" last night.

Colbert made the half-joke during a special episode featuring the band.

As you can see in the clip below, Colbert asks the band whether they made more money per record with a major record label rather than self-releasing their music as they do today.

Frontman Thom Yorke looked to his bandmates for an answer, asking "what's the official answer to this question?" with fellow guitarist Ed O'Brian adding: "We sell less records but make more money."

Colbert replied saying "So people are hearing that you're making more money. That means your motivated by greed and that I can respect."

His joke followed a discussion with the band over the fact that the episode was sponsored by Dr Pepper - something Yorke noted hadn't been discussed with them before taking part in the special episode.

"It tastes like that stuff you'd get at the dentist which you swill around in your mouth," said Thom. Their anti-capitalist stance came across as hypocritical after revealing their motivation to make more money rather than distribute their music to more people.

You can watch a clip of the capitalism clash below (via Gigwise).

173 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    Vypor
    Good job, taking something that was said on THE COLBERT REPORT seriously.
    everythingevil3
    way out of conxtext. Nowhere does it say they released it by themselves for more money, there's no way they could've known that it would have. The author doesn't seem like someone who watches the Colbert Report, or like someone who understands hypocrisy.
    airskank
    Colbert's (who is awesome!) entire goal is to talk his guests into contradicting statements. Radiohead clearly didn't care that the show was sponsored by Dr. Pepper. Thom was going along with the joke. As far as making more money, they also had a song on the Twilight soundtrack. They probably made more money from that one song being on that album then all the money they made from Amnesiac. Making money shouldn't be looked down upon.
    lVlaniac
    if you take whatever Colbert says on the show as serious news, then you might be alarmed. If you understand that Colbert is just trying to be funny, then you will understand what he really meant. People need to take their sticks out of their ass and enjoy the comedy for christ sake!
    risk182
    Well, it's not like they don't really deserve it. Look at their music, it's still awesome, and as long as the price of the albums is reasonable I don't give a shit how much they earn.
    pranavxmetal
    abey chutiyo thom kuch aur keh raha hai...un log ko koi phark nhi padta bhai kum ya jyaada paise se un log ke liye gaana banaana jaruri hai...aur apna alag se album isliye realease kiya ki kisi label ka koi jhanjhat na ho...aisa nhi ki unhe jyaada paisa banaana tha..chodu log..chodu matlab nikalte hai ...main to bhai fukat mein download kiya tha...bam bholey..
    Otnip
    Colbert is funny, but his type of humor is satirical, and their is always some amount of truth in satirical humor, or the joke itself would fall flat on his face. This does reveal something about Radiohead and the music industry itself
    Sammy2K7
    A band have in the past let you pay what you want for their music is greedy?
    panquelito
    Lets scratch beneath the surface people..... They sell less records because they don't have the massive advertising that record companies provide; they make more money because they do not have to pay record executives any salaries..... That does not mean that they made the change for greed. At the end of the day, they probably are making the same amount, since they are selling less units (i.e. earn $1 on ten oranges; or earn $2 on five = same results) Mr. Hardwood +1
    DickHardwood
    Sammy2K7 wrote: A band have in the past let you pay what you want for their music is greedy?
    Excellent point,sir.
    VLVTRVOLVR13
    I know I shouldn't complain about a lack of journalistic integrity on a music website, but really? The author selectively took phrases from the conversation, rearranged them and construed Radiohead and Colbert's words in such a way to write a provoking headline. Congrats.
    $DuffMan$
    Lol this is all out of context, the entire interview was pure satire i watched the entire thing it was hilarious. i cant believe UG made such a claim in the article title...what a joke
    jimmy-moto
    "Their anti-capitalist stance came across as hypocritical after revealing their motivation to make more money rather than distribute their music to more people." I can't tell if this is a serious article, or a troll... It's really hard to be that dumb. However, the people who write these news articles are extraordinarily gifted, so it is possible.
    rbramble18
    this is just colbert trying to be funny and pull something out of context....wow ultimate-guitar...this is quality news you got here
    howamidriving?
    finding a way around record labels =/= greed seriously this article is just trying to cause a shit storm also the reason thom asked "what's the offical answer to that question" is because theyve never released online sales figures for In Rainbows
    Dylan_Guitar93
    Just cause they directly answered Colbert's question does not particularly establish that they are greedy they're were just answering the mans question. And as said by on3andth3sam3 the idea that they wanted more control of their music is not always so largely a corporate move but also an artists process to being less dominated by the idea of a record label.
    lelandekstam
    The point of them leaving their old label was that they didn't have the freedom to make the kind of music they wanted. the fact that they make more money now that they're on their own has nothing to do with greed. ****ing stupid article. "Their anti-capitalist stance came across as hypocritical after revealing their motivation to make more money rather than distribute their music to more people." get on youtube and listen then. UG writers are ****ing horrific
    Eirien
    jimmy-moto wrote: "Their anti-capitalist stance came across as hypocritical after revealing their motivation to make more money rather than distribute their music to more people." I can't tell if this is a serious article, or a troll... It's really hard to be that dumb. However, the people who write these news articles are extraordinarily gifted, so it is possible.
    I think the politically correct word to use is "special".
    cryptic-writing
    I cant freaking read the article because the transformer ad covers up all the text and the button to close the ad is UNDERNEATH the video box so I can't even get to it.
    Geiger89
    Pagan_Poetry wrote: At least they deliver absolute quality.
    >>Radiohead >>Absolute quality >>Radiohead >>Absolute quality >>Radiohead >>Absolute quality ?????
    Bozjoarmstrong
    That is quite possibly the worst example of interviewing and the worst audience response I have ever seen. This article talks about Radiohead being hypocritical? Have a good long look at yourselves America, sweet Jesus Christ.
    Dankscarver
    I like how this article is written so seriously, and it features Steven Colbert. I just find that funny.
    Metal_Militia15
    LOL what a sensationalist article. Stephen Colbert is a comedian, it was all for fun. Since when did UG become a tabloid?
    bearsfan092
    I'll give Colbert a thumbs up for being humorous and UG a thumbs down for putting this as a story
    Dirk Gently
    Slow news day coupled with an intentionally sensationalistic headline? Magic 8 ball says "Abso****inglutely!"
    scimitar_255
    Wow way to take this out of context :/ This is hardly proof at all that they're motivated by greed... of course they make more money per album sold when they release independently... that's one of the biggest pros of releasing independently. It's still a huge risk, and they only pulled it off because they're Radiohead
    deafening
    bearsfan092 wrote: I'll give Colbert a thumbs up for being humorous and UG a thumbs down for putting this as a story
    i watched and it was clearly classic lighthearted stephen
    Battman1993
    Dear UG: If you EVER post another article as misleading as this one, I will IMMEDIATELY end my membership and go to Blabbermouth.net for all my future music news. I don't want to end our relationship this way, but your dumb-ass "journalism" has pushed me to the brink. Just try me and find out.
    staceyallan
    Forgive me for only reading the title and not watching the Colbert Report for the facts but whether you like Radiohead or not and I f@@king love them but I'm still boy biased. They are the least greediest band ever. In Rainbows ..... Free, if you wanted. They could of made a fortune for this. Personally there best album. There Prague show with actual audio. The list goes on. They are there for there fans and not many bands are these days. The Radiohead haters are just jealous of their success and the ones who say they are depressing obviously have only heard and use creep as their ammo
    kerokero
    Shit! Radiohead got put in their place. But I do agree...with the internet as it is, if you still decide to make physical copies of your music, self-release it to those nearest to you and make the immediate profit off that. Everywhere else in the world can settle for youtube/itunes/spotify/whatever form of streaming. A record label is nice and all to handle the hard work, but it's a lot nicer knowing that as a young band, you can profit and get ahead on your own. Such fiscal yet beneficial living is what attracts major labels to you.
    on3andth3sam3
    doing it to make more money wasn't their only motivation. creative control was also a huge factor, and that was just a side effect.
    DickHardwood
    They make more money because there is no percentage given to the record label,which is something most bands should do anyway,doesn't mean they're motivated by greed.If they were we'd have carbon copies of Ok Computer.
    Pagan_Poetry
    At least they deliver absolute quality. I dunno what to say though. I guess don't try to outsmart a professional smartass. But people must not forget that this is a band's job (especially since Radiohead don't work with other labels anymore). I think Radiohead's point is that they'd rather just release music they want whenever they want. But yeah, kerokero's right. They got put in their place.
    Sound_Garden_X
    I don't think Colbert is ever very serious on his show. I don't get this, yesterday it was Jon Stewart and Nirvana today it's Colbert and Radiohead. Isn't there anything actually interesting going on in the world of music?
    toyboxmonster
    fede01_8 wrote: everyone commenting is right and the article is wrong and stupid
    Now just post this on every UG article and we're set.
    LivinJoke84
    This article is complete and utter bullshit Again It is a poor state of affairs when the forums contain more sense than the articles
    PaisleyWilde
    I really don't get Radiohead. I've given them a dozen tries, listened to many of their full records the the whole way through and they've failed to hook me each time. It's a cryin' shame though, people that like them seem to really enjoy their music. I'm sad I'm missing out.
    Root Beer
    toyboxmonster wrote: fede01_8 wrote: everyone commenting is right and the article is wrong and stupid Now just post this on every UG article and we're set.
    lol +1 This article is especially bad though... anyone with half a brain knows that Radiohead are not money-grabbers.
    Root Beer
    Silversleep wrote: If this were any other band people would be jumping all over them were it not for the massive amount of Radiohead fanboys on this site. You can make good music and still be greedy, don't think for one second that their first motivation wasn't making more money per album sale and then getting "internet cred" for trying to look independent.
    Here's what your missing: They sold less records, but no less people heard their music; they just downloaded In Rainbows and King of Limbs rather than buy the record. They made more money presumably because they didn't have to pay a record company part of the share. The reason they left their label was so that they could do anything they wanted, not so they could make more money. Perhaps money was a factor, but who gives a shit? Thom himself has said "if you say you're not in it for the money, you're kidding yourself". Are we really gonna start comparing Radiohead to KISS?
    GREENWARRI0R
    This is the stupidest article I have ever read. Seriously. Why is this headlining? Better yet, why is this even on here?