you ever seen a ghost? Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 it seems like, for the people that don't like this album (or Radiohead), that it's a problem with the person themselves, rather than the band or the music. i refuse to see it any other way. -justin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 It's growing. There are now three songs I really like, and the rest I still enjoy, I just don't remember them. It's obviously not a one listen record, so all these instant write-offs make me roll my eyes a bit. This is definitely gonna be bottom three or four Radiohead for me, but I respect the hell out of what they did this time around. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I am liking it too, but I am a bit confused by the statements that it's a great dance record. Can people post videos of themselves dancing to it so I can see what they mean? The only dance I can think to do to this record is sort of an Ed Grimley number. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theashtraysays Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I am liking it too, but I am a bit confused by the statements that it's a great dance record. As if members of a Wilco message board would have a clue what a great dance record is. Can people post videos of themselves dancing to it so I can see what they mean?Careful what you wish for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I am liking it too, but I am a bit confused by the statements that it's a great dance record. Can people post videos of themselves dancing to it so I can see what they mean? http://www.youtube.c...h?v=P1YcGQYi_Lg there was an episode when Lurch needed to learn to dance - i could have posted a clip of him or Wednesday doing the watusi, but this one had a great song with it, so chose it instead. anyway, you get the point. you're right, by the way, it's not a great dance record for normal people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jc4prez Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I am liking it too, but I am a bit confused by the statements that it's a great dance record. Can people post videos of themselves dancing to it so I can see what they mean? The only dance I can think to do to this record is sort of an Ed Grimley number. turn the album on. stand in front of your stereo. listen to the drums and the bass. if you can not find a beat that provokes you to shake your hips that is your loss. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 turn the album on. stand in front of your stereo. listen to the drums and the bass. if you can not find a beat that provokes you to shake your hips that is your loss.Poor me! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 turn the album on. stand in front of your stereo. listen to the drums and the bass. if you can not find a beat that provokes you to shake your hips that is your loss.sorry, i'm with bjorn on this... def not all that "dance-y" of beats on here, not for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jakobnicholas Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Some reviews have used the word "claustrophobic". I kinda agree. To me, that's not a negative, but rather explains maybe how some feel listening to it. The first 5 songs surround you in repetitive beats and sounds and blips and claps and hums and other sounds. Thom's voice is the only sign of life, and even his voice has a foreign sound mostly. "Codex", with its keyboards, sounds refreshing...like giving you a breathe of air. Then "Give Up the Ghost" reverts back, before the closing "Separator" lets you ease out of the album with a very likeable song. I think artistically it's a very good record. Cannot make out hardly any lyrics, which kinda irritates me. The phrases I catch are pretty dark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jc4prez Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 sorry, i'm with bjorn on this... def not all that "dance-y" of beats on here, not for me. I mean obviously its not a clubbing record, my initial comment was that it is the most danceable thing they've released. Its a dark record, I can see why dancing isn't the first thing that comes to mind. I happen to think its got a heavy afrobeat influence in the rhythm section. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Orkie Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 it seems like, for the people that don't like this album (or Radiohead), that it's a problem with the person themselves, rather than the band or the music. i refuse to see it any other way. -justin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Pfork review is up a bit early... http://pitchfork.com/albums/reviews/15168-the-king-of-limbs/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Pfork review is up a bit early... http://pitchfork.com/albums/reviews/15168-the-king-of-limbs/ I don't see a review. Just a score of 7.1 and video of Thom doing a strange hippie dance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
welch79 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I don't see a review. Just a score of 7.1 and video of Thom doing a strange hippie dance.i think that IS the review...they did that for another album too: posted a vid of a chimp masturbating or something. anybody recall that review? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
virtualreason Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Pfork review is up a bit early... http://pitchfork.com/albums/reviews/15168-the-king-of-limbs/ I really see Pitchfork going the other way on this. Granted, that'll be around an 8.7, but that's saying something considering the lowest rating PF has given a Radiohead album is 9.0 (Amnesiac). So they'll imply it's their worst, save Pablo Honey, but it's still pretty damn good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 It's obviously not even gonna be a review. One need only refer to the masterpiece that is their review for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy to know that a new Radiohead album will not get a normal "talk about the music and why it's good and/or bad" review. I'm expecting big things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 actual Pfork review/score: 7.9 http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15149-the-king-of-limbs/ pretty fair review too Quote Link to post Share on other sites
augurus Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 actual Pfork review/score: 7.9 http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/15149-the-king-of-limbs/ pretty fair review tooYou know it'll just end up on their year end lists. Top 50. And they'll pretend they didn't rate it a 7.9, like Alligator or Songs For The Deaf. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
virtualreason Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Just wait until next year's Grammys and Neil Diamond saying "And the album of the year goes to...The King of Limbs". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
isadorah Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 it feels like half the album is missing. i thought the same thing when the download of In Rainbows came out and i didn't like In Rainbows until the hard copy arrived with the additional tracks. Although no word on the street that there are more tracks coming with this one. this album is way too short. albums should be at least 12 tracks long and should last through my commute from jersey to the bronx. i also thought the first half of the album reminded me of a late night techno club/the days of raves at Nation and foam parties. it definitely shifts half-way through and am fascinated with how the albums tracks/songs break to the next song. I am also glad i am not the only one that bitches about bad type. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
you ever seen a ghost? Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 you are aware that there are literally hundreds of "clues" and already a website dedicated to the theory that there is more music forthcoming, right? -justin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theashtraysays Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 you are aware that there are literally hundreds of "clues" and already a website dedicated to the theory that there is more music forthcoming, right?-justingreat. radiohead is the new "Lost". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
isadorah Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 you are aware that there are literally hundreds of "clues" and already a website dedicated to the theory that there is more music forthcoming, right? -justin ummm, no, not aware. i really just want my music to be released in its entirety when it is done instead of games and gimmicks and carrots to get you to buy the music. either you are going to buy the album or you are going to download it for free, gimmicks and carrots and teasers will not change that outcome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jc4prez Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 albums should be at least 12 tracks long and should last through my commute from jersey to the bronx. I'm sorry but this just seems like a silly argument. 1. 40 minutes for an album used to be pretty standard. Check this out: Rubber Soul = 35:50Revolver = 34:59Sgt. Peppers = 39:42Pet Sounds = 35:58Abbey Road is 47:23 2. 12 tracks? Some albums have two tracks, some even have one. They're still albums. Secondly, there have been tons of classics that were 8 track albums, for your consideration: Talking Heads - Remain In LightOn The Beach - Neil YoungTelevision - Marquee MoonPanda Bear - Person PitchJim O'Rourke - EurekaIggy and the Stooges - Raw PowerVelvet Underground - White Light White HeatJoanna Newsom - YsDavid Bowie - Station to Station Can - Ege BamyasiCan - Future DaysCan - Tago MagoKraftwerk - AutobahnSonic Youth - Murray StreetNick Drake - Pink MoonLeonard Cohen - Songs of Love and HateBruce Springsteen - Born to Run I guess these all were to short though, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 This length argument is ridiculous. It's not like Radiohead just dropped the first 37 minute album in music history. For me personally, an ideal album is 36-44 minutes. Number of tracks doesn't matter, but if it's in that range, the chances of me liking it are way higher. The most frustrating thing for me as a music fan is bands that feel they need to cram each album full of songs. So kudos to Radiohead for releasing only as much as they felt was worth releasing. 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.