Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Robert's Radiohead comments

Pollstar, Stereogum, Pitchfork, and National Post have picked up on Robert's recent comments about Radiohead.
(Thanks Kate and Sofia)


  1. I have seen quite a few pieces covering this, but they all seem to say the same thing.


  2. Snarky indeed but the comments are a little bit funny!!!

  3. Yay for Robert's ability to generate drama, lol!

  4. Again, Pitchfork's Ryan Drombal is a fucking dick. Robert never slagged Radiohead the way Oasis does. He just said he disagreed with the principle on which Radiohead said it was letting people choose the price. Fuck that asshole Drombal!

  5. heres where i regain my pariah status :x

    seems to me robert's comments are a bit sour grapes-y.

    still that's zero reason for anyone to insult the way he looks etc. i was hoping it would spark some reasonable debate about the worth of art, but i suppose this is what you'll get from the teeming fool masses.

  6. OMG... Robert, stop. Please stop or at least pick a better example.

    Radiohead had huge success with the pay as you will concept. For the digital download I paid 6.00 for the album. When the CD dropped I paid record store price... I think it was 11.99.

  7. Whatever. Radiohead had the last laugh on their fans. Anyone who paid money for the 2 weeks of Jam Sessions that they called In Rainbows got whatever they paid for.

    However, it's evident that The Cure spend a lot more time and thought behind their music. (As opposed to throwing manic rants over cut and pasted jam sessions.)

    You get what you pay for. There's no reason that Bob shouldn't feel like he has a right to charge more.

    Simple as.

  8. as i said in the other thread:

    it's easy to say 'pay what you feel' when you make a million a show

    a boring nobcheese 'experiment' by a bunch of toffs

  9. I think the general consensus in the music industry was that Radiohead's pay what you like was a bad idea. I don't think Robert was expressing a radical idea. He might have chosen his words a bit more carefully, but i suppose at this stage in his career he could give a F less what ANYONE thinks.

  10. Muldfeld: Excellent comment on the Pitchfork article!

  11. Oops, I meant Stereogum article.

  12. Bad choice of words by Robert. In Rainbows was a huge hit and shook the music industry to the core and unleashed a media frenzy of publicity. (And I don't like Radiohead)
    Claiming "it can't work" when it clearly did is just silly IMO. It makes matters worse when 4:13 sold like crap (despite it being AWESOME) and all the hoo-haa that went with that album. I mean here Robert is talking up how much the artist is worth yet can't convince Universal to release his planned double album because of money issues.

  13. haha, wow. Just read that Pitchfork article. Robert was RIGHFULLY up in arms because the fucking COMPANY was overcharging, how is that even remotely comparable to what Radiohead did? I fail to see anything that Robert said as a jab taken at Radiohead. Clearly Mr. Dombal wants to imagine "bitterness" and "jealously" where none exist.

    And hey, newsflash: album sales are rarely if ever commensurate with the actual quality of the music. That fact is plainly evident when we look at most of what's dominating the mainstream these days. Much of what's "popular" at any given time is due to advertising done by the labels/corporations; they manipulate the masses into "demanding" one thing or another. More importantly, The Cure have established a vast legacy that will not soon be forgotten. Shit, here I am talking like that when they're STILL HERE! Living Legends. The truth is, while 4:13 as a whole is not unsurpassed genius by Cure standards, it's *still* a damn good record. And, as other posters have mentioned here, the promotional work done for this record was pretty bizarre/backwards.

    Coachella 2004- "many stayed...but many took the chance to leave early, too"

    Um, nice observation? What does that even mean?? "Many stayed, but many also left during The Cure!" Uh-huh, okay? Everyone and their mother knows that The Cure draw huge crowds to their live shows. They either sell out the venue, or come very close to that. Sure, some people don't like their new stuff, but everyone has different tastes, that's all. Apparently, *a lot* of people still really enjoy their music. Geeze, I don't know what's the matter with some people being so needlessly negative... if anyone's bitter, it's him. *shakes head* X-D !!

  14. People forget that to have the CD2 of "In Rainbows" you had to purchase the whole Boxset thing for 8O Euros !! which really is a lot !!

    (Physical copies did have a price too.)

    I wouldn't deny the pitch fork article completely.

    Radiohead and U2 both made really good songs and I never really got why Robert criticise them that much. RainBows was really good and the best thing I bought in a while.

    But it is actually about the same ideas Robert discussed with David Bowie. Bowie too thought Art is given value by the people and that if people enjoy the art it's good.

    Though, it take's time to know if you like something.

    Maybe, when we say that something is good when it passes the test of time,
    isn't that somehow the same idea ??

    Anyway, the plan worked for Radiohead, but it wouldn't work for any band or album.
    It's just that they know that people will download it anyway (but is that a reason to encourage it??)

    I agree with Robert on the fact that the real thieves are the internet providers.

  15. Not the first time Robert says something about Radiohead ;) ;)


  16. Pitchfork's Drombal is one short-sighted fucknut if he's comparing Radiohead and The Cure's popularity in the current context and Bob would understand that as well. Ok, I guess I don't know Drombal's age but from I can gather from this article he was born after 1995. I didn't pick up on a hint of jealousy when I first read those comments. I felt Robert was just being honest about his views on the business. Some people don't know how to handle honesty.

  17. Radiohead are the current darlings of the music industry. When someone says something remotely negative about them their legions of loveing press pals leap to their defence.

    On the flip side of that The Cure are critized in almost every article written about them because they are "goth, gloomy, old" etc. Radiohead can do no wrong...

  18. I happen to love both bands (The Cure more than Radiohead). I think they each have a point, but more than that, I feel they should just stick to what each feels and not worry about what anyone else does. I fail to see how what Radiohead did in any way affects Robert and The Cure, and it's curious to me that Robert would even care.

    Shouldn't the creater of any art be able to do anything he/she wants with it? There shouldn't be any assumed rules or boundries to follow. If you create it, you do what you will with it. To expect anyone else to follow with your belief system about art is really pretty presumptuous if you ask me. I mean, Thom could come right back and slam Robert with the same exact point, only the opposite view. Neither would be right or wrong.

    And let's not overreact here. The P-fork article does basically say that Robert has a valid point.

  19. And it has to be a little embarassing for Robert to say "it can't work" when it clearly did for Radiohead. He really should've just kept his mouth shut on that one.

  20. One more note...the "pay what you want" was only for a crappy mp3 version of the album (what was the bit rate? I know it wasn't cd quality). Radiohead ended up selling the album for full price later on, complete with packaging, liner notes, etc. So really, they still ended up putting a price to their own art.

  21. Fuck rude...what has that writer done to gain the right to say such nasty, sophmoric things? A few lame reviews...talking about music he is too talentless to make. yep...

  22. I quite agree with Todd on that

    "Shouldn't the creater of any art be able to do anything he/she wants with it? There shouldn't be any assumed rules or boundries to follow. If you create it, you do what you will with it. To expect anyone else to follow with your belief system about art is really pretty presumptuous if you ask me."

    Though, I think, what Robert meant is that, "that plan" could not work in a generalised way.
    That it wouldn't work if the whole music industry started to distribute all the music at "whatever-you-want" price. I'm not sure too that the bands would survive better. I don't know.

    Anyway, when I really like it, I always buy the physical full quality CD (which will always have a minimum cost) (but with growing hard disks, it's just a matter of time before virtual media surpasses the physicla media I guess).

    But maybe the question is : "Should the 'value' be considered being objective or subjective?"
    because everybody will give a different value to a work of art.

    It will always be subjective, but who's opinion matter's more. Eventually, even the creator is a spectator to his own art. Even for him it's difficult to 'rate' his art on a scale, and put a price.

    And some albums are better than others, but they generally are all sold at the same price (regardless to it's 'quality')
    (as opposed to paintings, and again, the highest prices are not fixed by the painters themselves)

    Does it still make any sense ?? :)