yeah w/e radiohead you said you didn't want your music on itunes either but look at it now (in rainbows included)

^And what exactly does that have to do with anything?This Message Edited On 05.13.08

They're not sincere

in regard to the itunes decision, yes and no. it doesn't discredit their opinions on business choices by their label... if you chose not to think that they're being honest then its all you but this seems sincere imo

This just seems pretentious to me and not sincere. My basis behind this is his quote, "We haven't really had any hits." It seems that he is just blatantly humble even though it is clear that they had at least some hits.

Also being in the music industry you know that hit albums come out even if a band hasn't had any real hits. Look at Rush, they have hits album but they didn't have any number 1's or anything so I don't know, it just seems pretentious.

Who needs a Radiohead greatest hits, anyways? You pretty much cant go wrong with picking any album (except Pablo Honey, of course.)

Who needs a Radiohead greatest hits, anyways? You pretty much cant go wrong with picking any album (except Pablo Honey, of course.)

However, EMI is gonna release all of their videos on a Radiohead:Best Of DVD as well. Thats a +1. I wouldn't mind owning this.

^Ghearufu
But should that be a mark against radiohead for really being honest to the letter of the word "hits" or rush for wanting that hits album despite their lack thereof

What a dumb thing for them to say.

Not that dumb. Maybe they just don't want a label making money off their name.

^ lol. Is there any other kind of Record Label? In that case, gimme their address so I can send them a Demo.

I agree with them though, the idea of a greatest hits is dumb since their songs are far better in the context of their albums than as singles.

This was "news" about a month and a half ago...

I probably won't buy the package unless I hear the songs are remastered somehow...even though they probably don't need to be...the asinine sequencing ruins it for me, too.

The video thing is the only plus.

image, image, image

Radiohead puts this statement out so they can keep their indie cred; but I'm sure they'll be smiling as those royalty checks keep rolling in the next 30 years.

i don't see why it matters one way or another. if this was an article talking about how radiohead supported a hits album people would be bashing them for being sellouts or questioning the sincerity of in rainbows.
i mean personally i don't think its cool that an artist has to do more than disagree to having their own music used in any way, but whatever.

Ah...I really like it when people don't check up on things and then call Radiohead pretentious and what not.

Let me present to you, the biggest band in the world to never have had any #1 hits: Radiohead.

Yes, it is true. A individual Radiohead track has never in the history of the band made it to #1 on any official, physical chart. And when you come from Oasis-land, "hits" mean something completely different. So yes, Radiohead hasn't ever had any hits.

Radiohead are a brilliant band and all, and 'OK Computer' is a classic, but I can't help but get this feeling that Radiohead needs a tin of Harden-the Fvck-up and being told to get on with it. Honestly, they act like little b!tchs, need to have a fvckin' go and get cheery for once in their lives...Labels do this to other bands all the time but no-one makes a fuss about that, but when it's Radiohead, it's outrage.

The comments on the NME site of the article are hilarious imo.

Should be called "Radiohead: The hit and several other pleasant songs"

Agreed with Chickenfish 100%

I respect Radiohead for speaking out against such a sell-outishy thing. Only The Beatles or Led Zeppelin or other classic rock bands, after three or four decades of songs should release a greatest hits, Radiohead started their career in 1992, if not sooner. Therefore they have no business having a greatest hits and Radiohead should be angry over a decision concerning their music that they didn't even make.