Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
good old bob
Bitched when Kid A won the alternative grammy over Bloodflowers too.
In my head at least, I always felt that he disliked them because Radiohead were in their ascendency when the Cure were on the skids.
If you listen to Wild Mood Swings, then listen to OK Computer (which was recorded shortly afterwards in the same place, if memory serves) it does sort of put a full stop on when the critical adulation for The Cure finally ended.
I was a big fan of the cure for years and years but.... they haven't released anything REALLY good since Wish and that was a good few years ago now.
I don't care at all about Radiohead's pricing, about their politics, about whether they are middle class (I mean so what? So am I!) or whatever. They write very very good albums and the The Cure don't (anymore).
that's not as funny as you clearly think it is. Or at all.
Trust Pitchfork to take Radiohead's side over The Cure....even though Radiohead's ticket prices suggest they're more calculated mercenaries than many other artists of a similar stature.
"the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan" !
Seller chose a price, consumer agree or not on the price...
As demand increases prices decrease and visca-versa
that, as a previous poster said, he hates all bands that became massive as The Cure were on the skids.
In 1997, he talked about how they did a US festival where Radiohead, Blur and Oasis had been beneath them on the bill. It's because of all that hoo-haa that he's only just started to do more in the UK.
Storm in a teacup, although he does have a point - sort of. Let's face it, it's not as if Radiohead OR The Cure would miss revenue generated from album sales at the stages they're at.
He's disagreeing with what they did. And he's right. It was just a publicity stunt anyway. It would be different if they hadn't just gone back to the old way of selling records straight afterwards.
disagreeing, slagging off, what's the difference?
...made about the 'In Rainbows Experiment' and not a general criticism of Radiohead; their music, politics, personality or anything. It's an interesting point but I don't think he understands and appreciates quite what Thom and the boys were trying to get people to think about when they gave away their album for tuppence. Radiohead wanted to get (some peope at least) to think about how much value music has for them; to get people to stop and think, "what should I pay for this album - is it worth 40 pence or should I pay more?" I believe the experiment revealed that for the most part, people are willing to pay naff all for music and hence probably don't place that much of a monetary value on it when given the chance. The vast body of evidence found in illegal downloading is enough to convince one of that interpretation. But just because people are not concerned about paying for their music doesn't necessarily mean they don't value it it - some things have a value far beyond the price tag. That's fine because it was an experiment anyway, not an ideological statement about who should set the value for music. The consumer does set the price by the way, not you Bobby - that's called free market economics...
Still, Radiohead and The Cure are two rare bands to which I would actually describe myself as a fan. In Rainbows is exceptional and 4:13 Dream; a return to form, in my opinion. I do not wish to see one artist I admire slagging off another I admire. Maybe that would be like watching your parents go through a divorce (or then again, maybe not).
Radiohead basically wanted a controlled leak for their album. They were mightily pissed off when un-mastered versions of Hail To The Thief came out last time. I feel this is more likely a case of they knew that the album would get out and it was beyond their control, so they may as well:
a) have a version out there that is at least the version that they WANT people to hear
and b) thought 'why not see if we can make some money from it'. All this 'value of music' bollocks to me just sounds like an interesting afterthought.
My two pence.
at the Cure site. Cut and pasted for the lazy, below. He's sounding particularly cynical and embittered by the end.
IT SEEMS A FEW PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS (YOU HAVE TO LOVE THEM!) OUT THERE DISAGREE WITH MY "EVERY ARTIST SHOULD VALUE THEIR ART" MUSING
AND THINK ITS OK FOR ART - MUSIC IN PARTICULAR - TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FREE FOR ALL...
NO I AM NOT CONFUSING 'ARTISTIC VALUE' WITH 'COMMERCIAL VALUE'
MERELY QUESTIONING THE DUMB ACCEPTANCE OF THE 'FREE ART IS THE 'NEW' PARADIGM - THATS JUST THE WAY IT IS' MANTRA
IN THE WAY OF OUR BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD
THESE IDIOT CRITICS HAVE TRIED VERY HARD TO TURN MY GENERAL POINT - A POINT I MADE USING RADIOHEAD'S 'IN RAINBOWS: PAY WHAT YOU WANT' MARKETING RUSE AS IT IS THE MOST WIDELY KNOWN EXAMPLE - INTO A MOCK SHOCK HORROR "HOW DARE ANYONE QUESTION THE FAMOUSLY INDEPENDENT AND ANTI-CAPITALIST RADIOHEAD, THEY SELL MORE 'PRODUCT' THAN THE CURE SO THEIR STRATEGY OBVIOUSLY 'WORKED' (HUH?!!)... AND ANYWAY, ROBERT SMITH IS WAY TOO OLD TO COMMENT ON CONTEMPORARY CULTURE" MOMENT...
MY POINT IS NEITHER PARTICULARLY NEW NOR ORIGINAL
NOR EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT RADIOHEADS 'IN RAINBOWS'
BUT IT IS I FEEL STILL COMPELLING
ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE (OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' OR TWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS...
INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSS LEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'
ALL WELL AND GOOD (WELL... NOT REALLY! 'LOSS LEADER'? 'BUILD THE BRAND'? AAGH! BUT THIS IS THE LINGUA FRANCA... )
IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM
THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON'
LIKE... A BIG RECORD LABEL?
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SIGN UP AND AGREE TO ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AND IT WILL MARKET YOU DECISIVELY
AND IF YOU PLAY IT RIGHT ITS EVEN WEALTHIER AND MORE POWERFUL PARENT COMPANY WILL AIR YOUR WORDS AND PICTURES AND VIDEOS AND MUSIC AND ADS ON ITS MANY AND VARIOUS WEB/TV/RADIO CHANNELS
AND CHARGE ADVERTISERS HUGE AMOUNTS TO ADVERTISE TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CONSUMING ALL YOUR FREE ART...
AND YOU THE ARTIST WILL OF COURSE GET A 'FAIR' REWARD FOR YOUR EFFORTS... ?
SOME 'NEW' PARADIGM!
I STAND BY MY POINT:
AN ARTIST HAS TO VALUE THE ART THEY CREATE
OTHERWISE I DONT BELIEVE THEY CAN BELIEVE IT TO BE ART
I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY AN ARTIST FOR HIS OR HER OR ITS ART
AS IT OBVIOUSLY HELPS ENABLE THAT ARTIST TO KEEP CREATING
AND QUITE HONESTLY
AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT
IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST
I DONT REALLY CARE TOO MUCH WHAT THEY THINK... !!!
I JUST WROTE ALL THIS BECAUSE I GOT PARTICULARLY FED UP TONIGHT WITH THE SQUEALING HIGH DRAMA OF THE 101 STORIES A DAY AND NONE OF THEM PARTICULARLY TRUE BRIGHT AND BRAVE NEW WIRED WORLD MEDIA THAT WHINES ON AND ON WITHOUT RESPITE OR REFUTATION…
OR MAYBE ITS JUST MY POST BIG GIG HANGOVER TALKING?!!
I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUT THERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?
More like angry of seeing something which is a valid point being mocked...
Shush, Bob, shush....