I don't know what PitchforkMedia is (but I'm sure that name-drop must have sounded really hip and savvy to anyone who did!), and Marquis, the fact that your version of the criticism somehow implies that the "real" cool is determined by what music you do listen to is funny and a little sad.
My point had nothing to do with what was "cool," (loser was probably a bad word choice in that respect, but I forgot that people cared so much one way or the other) is that Radiohead, like U2, is a bucket of hype, except that their target is less mainstream. It's all marketing. They just keep attaching their names to current trends (U2: global activism, ipods; Radiohead: electronic music, internet distribution) in order to get mentioned in news stories. Musically, I consider Radiohead to be eminently Okay (and I haven't heard enough U2 to judge one way or the other), but I'm so fucking sick of people analyzing the "impact" of every cheap publicity gimmick they stage. Whether you buy it directly from them or through a retail, you're still going to give sixty or so minutes of Thom Yorke moaning while his band play around with whatever electronic toy they heard Richard D. James was using ten years ago. I do more important things in the bathroom on a regular basis.
TW's Top Fag!