tongue-tied Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 When has Radiohead been all about rock and roll? Thats like saying Wilco isn't enough of an alt-country band. All of it rocks; none of it sounds like any other band on earth; it delivers an emotional punch that proves all other rock stars owe us an apology - Rolling Stone Radiohead seems to be a rock band with roots in 90's alternative rock. And some people, like the folks at Rolling Stone, think that they are the best thing rock has to offer. Other people think they hardly rock at all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mastershake Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 how are there so many reviews for in rainbows already? how can anyone have a lasting opinion on a record they've only had in their possession for 3 days? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GtrPlyr Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 how are there so many reviews for in rainbows already? how can anyone have a lasting opinion on a record they've only had in their possession for 3 days?That's why most reviews aren't worth the paper they're written on. So many times I've had the impression that the reviewer only listened once to a record before writing their review. I know they have deadlines and may be rushed, but this of course doesn't lend itself to a proper review. You really need to listen to a record many times over the course of a week to have a somewhat informed opinion for a review. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Groo Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 I'm glad somebody likes it. I guess I am always glued to Clouds Taste Metallic and Soft Bulletin. Yoshimi seemed fun but gets old quick and Mystics seemed like they were at the end of their rope. Honestly you're the first person I've encountered who enjoyed it........at least someone does. I liked Mystics a lot, so I guess that's two. Honestly, though, if you don't like it don't listen to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mgsooner Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 how are there so many reviews for in rainbows already? how can anyone have a lasting opinion on a record they've only had in their possession for 3 days? Bingo. I thought Ok Computer was way overhyped until I listened to it dozens of times. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigideas Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 the beginning synths and beat to "All I Need" is totally Moby. from the first time i heard the live bootleg to even now i can't help but think of this song. i wonder if it subliminally was an influence arrangement wise. of course the melody is nothing alike, but the beat and piano line are somewhat similiar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Outs...oney_in_My_Hand the youtube video link is at the bottom to quoteth Thom Yorke for all stuck in the 70's"it is the 21st century..........it is the 21st century" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigWheeledWagon Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 That's why most reviews aren't worth the paper they're written on. So many times I've had the impression that the reviewer only listened once to a record before writing their review. I know they have deadlines and may be rushed, but this of course doesn't lend itself to a proper review. You really need to listen to a record many times over the course of a week to have a somewhat informed opinion for a review. Say what you will about Pitchfork, but I really appreciate that they have decided to hold out on offering a review until next week when they've had time to live with the album a bit. The out-of-the-blue surprise release has really thrown off most reviewers who are used to receiving advance copies months before the official release date, yet they feel obliged to have a review out at the same time as the album. I'm still getting a feel for the new album, but I have found myself listening to it a lot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted October 13, 2007 Author Share Posted October 13, 2007 I already wrote my review of the album. I am an asshole. So the other day I did something crazy. I went online, downloaded a CD, and didn’t pay for it. Strangely, I didn’t feel the tiny pangs of guilt generally associated with downloading music for free. I had no fears that a team of armed men would storm my dorm and find me hiding in my closet, a burned Memorex CD clutched in my arms. Nor did I have the image of the distraught record company CEO, wringing his hands over declining sales and trading in the keys to his Maserati and trading down to a Mercedes. Clearly this was not your every day album release. In fact, this release, In Rainbows, Radiohead’s 7th studio album, was released in anything but a conventional way. Following the completion of their 6 record deal with Capitol, the band was in the rare position of being at the height of their commercial and creative powers and free from the constraints of the modern record game. Taking advantage of this rare opportunity to control not only the distribution of the record, but by denying reviewers advance copies, the public’s perception of the record, Radiohead decided to set up a website where their fans could literally pay whatever they wanted for the new record. Over a million fans responded in the first two days of release, with many paying nothing for the album, but with many others essentially donating whatever they felt was a fair price for the record. And this is where the core of the success of this business model will come from. Does the quality of the album match up to what fans feel they should be paying for it? Beginning with “15 Step”, a schizophrenic semi-dance track featuring a trip-hop beat, and on down to “Videotape”, the album‘s plaintive closer, In Rainbows is well worth whatever price you spend on it.. Prior to it’s release of the album, the band said that the album was, at various times, the most “lush”, “sparse”, and “creepy” thing they had done, and while those descriptions may seem almost contradictory, they find a way to make them fit on almost every track. Take “Nude”, the album’s third track, for instance. The slow waltz-like pacing of the song allows room for the song to meander from a soft, methodical arpeggioed guitar intro that eventually gives way to ominous synthesized strings that bring to mind “Exit Music For A Film” from their 1997 release Ok Computer before fading out as silently as it began. In fact, all over the album, there seem to be references to their earlier work, without looking behind them, with the outcome being something like one part great leap forward, one part greatest hits package. “Bodysnatchers” features arguably the best riff Radiohead has written since The Bends, their last “conventional rock” album. So while it rocks in a very conventional sense, it also harkens back to “The National Anthem” off of Kid A, especially around the 1:10 mark, where the simulated sound of a spaceship landing sounds lifted straight off of that track, not to mention the frenzied Yorke vocal that matches the intensity of the last few minutes of “The National Anthem”. And speaking of Yorke’s vocals, he has never sounded as good as he does on this album. From the way he rides the beat on “15 Step” with his signature falsetto, to the intensity of the vocals on the aforementioned “Bodysnatchers” and “Jigsaw Falling Into Place”, to the echo drenched “House Of Cards”, with his pained plea “I don‘t want to your friend, I just want to be your lover” , he dominates this album after consciously pushing himself into the mix to feature as just another instrument on recent releases. Overall, In Rainbows is another strong addition to the impressive Radiohead catalog, proudly standing beside classics as Kid A and Ok Computer and giving further credence to their status as the most important band in rock and roll. I did listen to it about a dozen times before reviewing it, including 2 times aloud with my roommate who doesn't like Radiohead. I think that helped me form an opinion more than the 10 or so times prior to that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
benjamin Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 I'm going to go ahead and open the flood gates.... I've been a massive RH fan since The Bends.... In Rainbows might be my fave album of theirs... It's so damn good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azzurri Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I'm going to go ahead and open the flood gates.... I've been a massive RH fan since The Bends.... In Rainbows might be my fave album of theirs... It's so damn good. i am starting to feel that way too... it's exceeded my expectations...it's a masterful album Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DAngerer09 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 it's exceeded my expectations...it's a masterful album I feel the same way. I wasn't expecting that much because I'm not a huge Radiohead fan and didn't like Hail to the Thief at all and only really liked OK Computer and The Bends. I really have never liked Yorke's voice either. But, this album is terrific. Far exceeded my expectations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Radiohead seems to be a rock band with roots in 90's alternative rock. And some people, like the folks at Rolling Stone, think that they are the best thing rock has to offer. Other people think they hardly rock at all. Why does something have to "Rock" to be great rock music? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DAngerer09 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Why does something have to "Rock" to be great rock music? exactly. there is so much great music out there that doesn't ROCK. Andrew Bird, Sufjan Stevens, Iron and Wine, Radiohead, Sigur Ros. I'm more interested in well crafted songs and new ideas than just a band sitting around and rocking out to chords I've heard a thousand times. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jospe Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Why does something have to "Rock" to be great rock music?Because you are supposed to be a rock band. This sounds like Moby.exactly. there is so much great music out there that doesn't ROCK. Andrew Bird, Sufjan Stevens, Iron and Wine, Radiohead, Sigur Ros. I'm more interested in well crafted songs and new ideas than just a band sitting around and rocking out to chords I've heard a thousand times.Those are commonly known as "indie whiners", not rock. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DAngerer09 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Without the roots of rock n roll back in the 50s and 60s, you would have no bands like the ones you like, and guys like ABird, Sufjan, Iron and Wine, etc would not be the same. Sam Beam cites his biggest musical influence as The Beatles. "Rock" is such a broad term and it is a constantly evolving genre with many many many faces to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
benjamin Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 "Rock" is such a broad term and it is a constantly evolving genre with many many many faces to it. If such a genre exists today and I hate to label greatness like Radiohead or Wilco.... but for the new Radiohead all that comes to mind is a modern prog-rock Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Why does something have to "Rock" to be great rock music? does music have to swing to be Jazz? i could say you answered your own question, but i see where you're heading. Radiohead could do whatever they liked and it could be great music, period, without fulfilling anyone's idea of genre. but i don't think anyone's problem here is that the songs on In Rainbows don't resemble rock'n'roll enough. it's that the album is underwhelming. to the ears of some, it lacks energy and excitement. and when some herald Radiohead as the greatest rock band of the day, those who find other rock bands much more exciting are left aghast. i've been listening to In Rainbows consistently this week, i don't think its a bad album. solid 'B' by my standards. half the time i don't like their sound, and i almost fell asleep listening to 'Videotape' in my car. i think 'Nude' is a keeper though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jesusetc84 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 does music have to swing to be Jazz? i could say you answered your own question, but i see where you're heading. Radiohead could do whatever they liked and it could be great music, period, without fulfilling anyone's idea of genre. but i don't think anyone's problem here is that the songs on In Rainbows don't resemble rock'n'roll enough. it's that the album is underwhelming. to the ears of some, it lacks energy and excitement. and when some herald Radiohead as the greatest rock band of the day, those who find other rock bands much more exciting are left aghast. i've been listening to In Rainbows consistently this week, i don't think its a bad album. solid 'B' by my standards. half the time i don't like their sound, and i almost fell asleep listening to 'Videotape' in my car. i think 'Nude' is a keeper though. Your definition of rock is very narrow and limited. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
oatmealblizzard Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 My 2 cents: I am liking this album a lot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Because you are supposed to be a rock band.I like it when rock bands don't bother with what other people think they are "supposed" to do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Elixir Sue Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I like it when rock bands don't bother with what other people think they are "supposed" to do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chendizzle Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I like In Rainbows a lot. VCers don't seem to like Kid A that much. It will always be my favorite, def a 10/10 album. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
benjamin Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 VCers don't seem to like Kid A that much. It will always be my favorite, def a 10/10 album. Treefingers and KidA are the only reasons that album isn't perfect to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jhh4321 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Treefingers and KidA are the only reasons that album isn't perfect to me. I think Treefingers is one the most necessary and perfectly placed tracks ive ever heard on an album. After the first four tracks you need a second to catch your breath and thats what Treefingers is and then you kick right into Optimisitc...its pretty perfect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Is there artwork for this yet? I have artwork for all my other albums and if I look at the iPod screen the information looks veryyyy lonely without artwork. edit: doesn't seem to be any, so i thought this was fitting: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.