Do you think Radiohead go far enough in their political activism?

This is meant as a rhetorical question, not as criticism. What else do you think they should address, if anything?

Yeesh, there's a big question. Initial response - probably yes because Thom's not built for it. He's said himself that he can't mingle with politicians and he can't even write unambiguous political lyrics so it's far better to do play to his strengths the way he has so far - making ethical business decisions, plugging writers and causes, etc.

The intolerance for celebrity political activism is so great these days that i wouldn't wish it on anyone who doesn't have a thick skin, the gift of the gab and a hell of a lot of patience.

"making ethical business decisions"

Sometimes more confused than ethical.
There was an unforgettable moment when on their site you could download the music for free but had to pay for mugs and t-shirts.

Sorry, I don't understand the contradiction. Should it all be free? Or are mugs bad? By ethical I mean decisions re: branding or carbon footprints - those, I agree, can be confused or incomplete but there's ethical thinking going on.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39156

There was an unforgettable moment when on their site you could download the music for free but had to pay for mugs and t-shirts.

I know I'll never forget where I was when I first heard about this perfectly reasonable marketing strategy

xposts While I'm normally quite vocal about bands and music making bolder political statements, I think Lynskey's right on this one. Radiohead are one of the few outwardly active rock bands in Britain today and their messages thrive on ambiguity. Anything more would make Thom a Bono or Geldof, which I'm sure he'd rather avoid. What Radiohead should be doing is encouraging the music scene to become more politically active rather than using their own music as a soapbox.

I agree - I love what they do and how they go about doing it (Thom turning down a meeting with Tony Blair for example). It seems to come from a very good, honest place for them

i have no idea what radiohead's politics are tbh

so they obvi aren't going that far

get the impression that just maybe they're a little uncomfortable with the modern world

I demand my free mug download, you fucking indie hypocrites.

I don't think being aggressively political suits them. They're knob twitterers, for better or worse. I think whatever they represent is enough of a statement.

many many xp
I just found curious the fact that a band was giving away for free their intellectual work while selling merchandise. A somehow telling inversion.

On the other hand, I think they are decidedly okay with the (post) modern world.

AFA political activism in pop culture goes, there's definitely been a backlash against the preachiness of the '80s and '90s where rock stars and comedians tell you how to vote, or which causes to throw your money at etc... Radiohead remain a buoyant acception to the rule that music and politics don't mix any more because they're less about "give us yer fookin money" and more "just give things a think and see how you can make changes to your every-day proceedings". They lead by example but never tell others what to do, so they get a green card for this, even from Radiohead-detractors.

Marco, this "telling inversion" is the way the whole record industry is going - songs as loss-leaders, with the cash coming from live shows, licensing and merchandise. It's got nothing to do with politics.

xp Do you really have no idea about Radiohead's politics, history? They were loudly plugging Chomsky around OK Computer and Naomi Klein around Kid A, they've been very vocal about Iraq and You and Whose Army was a widely discussed anti-Blair song. (Well, I say widely discussed - obviously not around every dinner table in the land)

Anyway, this is why I don't want Thom to speak out more than he does. Circa Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief he started to sound like Bobby Gillespie.

“I know some stuff about MI5 that would shit your brain. But I can’t tell you, ‘cos they’ll do it to me, too. Seriously. And I’m not winding you up, either.”

Marco - bands don't sell merchandise for any other reason than to keep them in drumkits and guitar picks - it's kind of essential that a touring band sells mugs and t-shirts no matter where they come on the musical or political spectrum. However, there is a sentiment among many bands and musicians that as they are creating something they love in their work, that it should be done for love, not money. So I guess that's partly the reasoning behind what you're talking about.

Do you really have no idea about Radiohead's politics, history? They were loudly plugging Chomsky around OK Computer and Naomi Klein around Kid A, they've been very vocal about Iraq and You and Whose Army was a widely discussed anti-Blair song. (Well, I say widely discussed - obviously not around every dinner table in the land)

yeah i sort of remember the no logo/kid a synergy

and i know the song, but couldn't say what their beef with blair was

viz iraq, kind of feel like they're probably lib dems, that 'no surprises' is meant unironically

just want to be left alone

xpost how is it an 'inversion'? do most bands give away mugs for free?

Come on, Come on
You think you drive me crazy, well

Come on, Come on
You and whose army
You and your cronies

Come on, Come on
Holy Roman empire

Come on if you think
Come on if you think
You can take us all
You can take us all

You and whose army
You and your cronies

You forget so easy
We ride tonight
We ride tonight
Ghost horses
Ghost horses

We ride tonight
We ride tonight
Ghost horses
Ghost horses
Ghost horses

am i right?

"this "telling inversion" is the way the whole record industry is going - songs as loss-leaders, with the cash coming from live shows, licensing and merchandise. It's got nothing to do with politics"

I understand this is the reason, but I also think that this is a weird way to believe in your music and surely it is a way to play following certain economic rules that I do not find very ethical.

Probably it's me, and not Radiohead, who is uncomfortable with the modern world. :)

With the expansion of the internet into every crack in the earth, the politics change. What is understood clearly in the US and UK might not be somewhere else. People who aren't sensitive to this seem kind of old to me. I guess Radiohead can get away with whatever statements or affiliations they do make because they aren't anti-technology.

think they're 'profoundly ambivalent' about technology

obvi they've been more 'active on the web' than most bands

but while their music isn't backwards looking like the smiths, it sounds like a protest anyway

"Marco - bands don't sell merchandise for any other reason than to keep them in drumkits and guitar picks - it's kind of essential that a touring band sells mugs and t-shirts no matter where they come on the musical or political spectrum".

Just to be clear - I have nothing against selling merchandise.
Probably I have something against the paradox of musicians giving away their music for free while selling mugs. That said, I think Radiohead are completely honest in what they're doing, they're probably just a bit naive.

I got the feeling around 2003ish that some of the members of Radiohead were clearly uncomfortable with Thom's political side, which isn't very coherent or consistent and ranges from 'reasonable' to 'batshit conspiracy theory'.

'No Surprises' is not meant unironically.

It's pretty crazy to me that they had the lyric, "The head of state has called for me by name/but I don't have time for him," and then years later the Prime Minister invites him to discuss a global warming initiative (if I remember correctly) and he turned him down...

You need to know the story behind You and Whose Army - it came out of a summit Thom attended with Bono for Jubilee 2000 where he concluded Blair was a sham. The only clue in the lyrics is "cronies", I guess, because "Tony's cronies" was a buzzphrase during his first term.

I think the key to Radiohead's quasi-protest songs is the sense of impotence and defeat (starting with No Surprises). As Thom said to The Wire around Amnesiac: "the feeling of being a spectator and not being able to take part”. In that sense I think he is the political songwriter his era demands - generally pissed off and alienated but incapable of making a stand - aware but paralysed by that awareness.

I read that the Lucky lyric jeevves quotes is the only remaining line from the original lyric, which Thom junked because it was too crassly political. That tells you a lot.

I Will is my favourite political Radiohead song. I remember seeing Radiohead in 2003 or 04, the week Bush was visiting London, and Thom came on stage and performed that song on his own and it was total shiver-down-spine stuff.

Just to be clear - I have nothing against selling merchandise.
Probably I have something against the paradox of musicians giving away their music for free while selling mugs. That said, I think Radiohead are completely honest in what they're doing, they're probably just a bit naive.

None of this makes any sense. Is your opinion that it should either all be for cost or it should all be free?

I mean you're pitching this as a smoking gun when it's a common industry practice. CDs make very little money for the band, but a lot for the label. So bands that are between licensing deals can use things like 'free' or 'pay what you wish' cds to keep their fanbase interested, and use their merchandise to subsidize their ability to keep recording.

You'd probably see a lot less of this in the pre-Napster days, but I think most artists on a major label will tell you they don't mind screwing the record labels.

It's not an 'inversion', it's not 'unethical', it isn't even 'naive' -- it was smart, and business savvy.

By your logic, a "not for profit" organization like a Science Center is guilty of poor ethics if it allows you to enter their facility for free or to choose their own price, but then subsequently charge you for Science Center t-shirts that they use to KEEP THEIR DOORS OPEN.

"it's not an 'inversion', it's not 'unethical', it isn't even 'naive' -- it was smart, and business savvy"

To put it simply, I think it is savvy only if a musician thinks his songs have less (commercial) value than a mug. I can agree this is now the normally accepted industry practice but this doesn't make it less curious.

By the way, I don't really get your example: Radiohead obviously are not a "no-profit" organization, they are making music (also) to make a living and pay their entourage - and there is nothing bad about it. Still I would prefer to see them selling music AND mugs, rather than only mugs. :)

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/detour/post1-l.jpg

Yea they're not a non-profit organization, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that bands have historically made little money off of their cd sales. The digital age plus the increased average cd price over a ten year span meant that bands had to adapt. The smart ones did, the stupid ones played the game the old fashioned way.

Considering that it could be a slippery slope to the end of the 'evil record industry' as we know it in like 20-30 years, I'll happily support it. would love a world where major labels aren't interfering with creative vision (note: I realize indie labels can do this too!)

well, I can only talk from my admittedly narrow perspective: I'm managing some artists, a couple of them are sort of "big" in indie rock Italian terms, and I had my share of shocking contacts with labels etc. And despite everything, I am very attached at this (very pre Napster days indeed) idea that musicians should be primarly paid for their music.

I seem to recall them selling music, as well (or did I imagine the £40 I spent on the "discbox"?). x-post

but its generally accepted that they did "get paid" more than they would have under EMI for their last album. the perception that it was given away seems something that was more hyped up by the media. essentially it was them asking for a donation towards a leak for 2 months, while at the same time that they were proceeding with a very standard physical release, priced in the same way that their mugs were.

One thing you're missing is that buying a Radiohead mug empowers me to make my own hot drinks. It's about self-reliance - I'm literally one teaspoon away from breaking the chains that bind me to Starbucks.

Wait, do they do kettles as well?

but its generally accepted that they did "get paid" more than they would have under EMI for their last album. the perception that it was given away seems something that was more hyped up by the media. essentially it was them asking for a donation towards a leak for 2 months, while at the same time that they were proceeding with a very standard physical release, priced in the same way that their mugs were.

― matt h, Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:57 PM (50 minutes ago) Bookmark

think they made insane bank from the deluxe editions [via their fanbase being loaded]

Like I said before, if PDocherty had dome the same thing, he'd have barely made enough for a rollup.