Jump to content

Radiohead - The King of Limbs


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :banana

 

Can people post videos of themselves dancing to it so I can see what they mean?

Careful what you wish for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!:ohwell

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 = 35:50

Revolver = 34:59

Sgt. Peppers = 39:42

Pet Sounds = 35:58

Abbey 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 Light

On The Beach - Neil Young

Television - Marquee Moon

Panda Bear - Person Pitch

Jim O'Rourke - Eureka

Iggy and the Stooges - Raw Power

Velvet Underground - White Light White Heat

Joanna Newsom - Ys

David Bowie - Station to Station

Can - Ege Bamyasi

Can - Future Days

Can - Tago Mago

Kraftwerk - Autobahn

Sonic Youth - Murray Street

Nick Drake - Pink Moon

Leonard Cohen - Songs of Love and Hate

Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run

 

I guess these all were to short though, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...