October 12, 2007
Austinist Album Review: Radiohead In Rainbows
First things first: we must differentiate between the chutzpah of a band at Radiohead's level of critical distinction and popularity initially releasing their album for donation and making the most revolutionary music industry statement since the dawn of the Internet Age...
(big breath)
...and the chutzpah it takes to make truly ground-breaking musical statements.
In Rainbows does not employ the latter. Still, one leaves with the impression that the boys from Oxford are convinced that, once again, they're setting the benchmark as they did with OK Computer and Kid A. Notwithstanding a handful of transcendent moments wherein the album almost achieves escape velocity to catapult itself out from the immense gravity of Radiohead's legacy, it's a mediocre, lazily conceived, and underwhelmingly produced project. Where it aspires to be organic or minimal it comes off as haphazard. Where it strains at creating catharsis, it merely herniates a "diskbox". I mean, Jesus, we all want Jonny, Thom, and the other three to stay best friends and make music forever and ever, but are we really going to convince ourselves that the lion's share of this record isn't jarringly derivative?
"15 Step" can't quite seem to smash the champagne bottle on the bow this tugboat. Its Aphex Twin drum sequences battle with Thom's tuneless vocal hook, before, inexplicably, we hear samples of children cheering. We sincerely hope that in the forthcoming liner notes they credit the Boards of Canada record they lifted these off of. "Nude" is an enjoyable listen, although it sets an annoying orchestral precedent for the all the tunes after it with overwrought strings. There are inarguable highlights such as "All I Need", which - weak lyrics aside - contains the album's defining moment: an ivory-shattering piano freak out complimented by glockenspiels and synthesized nibbles succeeds in a satisfying climax.
Then there are songs like "Faust Arp" which sounds like a Doves B-side. "Reckoner" is promising but ultimately purposeless, with Jonny phoning in one of his post OKC mid-range minimalist guitar riffs that doesn't stand a chance of anchoring the song, much less our attention. Throw in some strings and moan-y Thom finale and you know the rest. Apathetic minimalism aside, nothing prepared us for Thom singing I don't want to be your friend/I just wanna be your lover at the beginning of "House of Cards". Creepy. Especially so in the cruise ship context of the loping chord progression and whimsical background accents. All the songs suffer from being released as 160kbps audio files. Perhaps this will ensure more fan investment in the forthcoming tangible versions of the album, but it degrades the listen noticeably.
Overall, this set brings to bear a fundamental problem: they're cannibalizing song elements and sequence dynamics from their previous albums. This disc ends with the desperately glib "Videotape" a la "Motion Picture Soundtrack"'s unsettling denouement on Kid A. Listen closely to "Bodysnatchers" - one of the strongest songs on the album - and you'll hear Hail To The Thief's "Myxomatosis" complete with the sine wave drones and fuzzy bassline. The acerbic guitar breakdown in "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" is wonderful, although much of the song sounds like "Go To Sleep" from HTTT. Overuse of string sections, Thom's less desirable freeform vocal melodies, a crippling lack of attention to instrumental distinction, and a general tunelessness, however, set this offering apart from the rest of their catalog.
When the final track wheezes to a halt, there is nothing on this record that other bands haven't done or are currently doing in a much more compelling manner. While the world pats them on the back for their strategic master stroke, we can't help but wonder how much more enduring and powerful their kiss off to the music industry could have been if they channeled some of that verve and foresight into the album itself. Lord knows we're die-hard Radiohead fans, but that doesn't translate to "apologists".
|
I couldn't agree less.
After the monumental sonic failure of Hail to the Thief, this was wonderful.
"Jarringly derivative"? Really? I don't buy it. At all. No other band sounds like Radiohead, right now.
Kid A/Ok Computer are fantastic albums, but did you really want them to remake it? The band is growing, and evolving, as they should. The softer, R&B influenced sound on this album takes a bit of warming up to if, like you, you were expecting old school radiohead. Personally, I find the Prince-like falsetto and sexy vocals on "house of cards" a GREAT turn for the band.
I was near tears with frustration after Hail to the Thief was released, it was so dull and uh, derivative. In Rainbows is the album I was hoping for.
The redundancies and cannibalism of elements and sequencing dynamics are the traits that make this sound a Radiohead album. Although they have a more diverse palette to work from than most, Radiohead still has defining characteristics. To knock this album for being derivative is expecting a band to release a seventh album that sounds nothing like their previous 6.
And to say "there is nothing on this record that other bands haven't done or are currently doing in a much more compelling manner" is simply comment bait. It worked. Boards of Canada? Aphex Twin? Doves? Please...
I completely disagree as well. The vocal work alone is densely layered, well wrought and makes the album worthy of multiple listens.
I feel kind of dirty that I responded to an article that was clearly written to elicit divergent comments from readers.
i completely disagree with this review. i'd write more, but the previous two comments say it all.
and OBVIOUSLY i don't want to be derivative.
Finally, someone with some sense and working ears.
nhennies, like you've been on a better record. please...
Hey now. I like the new album but everyone's entitled to their opinion and liking something has nothing to do with talent.
you're reviewing a 160 kbps mp3? hope you don't expect to be taken seriously.
People keep on referring to this as such a major "kiss off to the music industry." I see it as just as much if not more of a kiss off to music consumers who listen to shite-quality files and pretend like they can actually appreciate the artist's work. (no matter how well they think their ears work) You may as well be taking in a painting from 100 feet away.
I saw their statement as this:
"You can either pay a reasonable price for a proper-quality version of our art, or you can pay whatever you want for a shit version. Tell us which you prefer."
The album could be genius or junk - I probably won't know until December if I even pick it up then. This review is certainly junk.
still waiting to read a legit negative review of this album. this one does a really poor job of upholding the claims it makes at the beginning. c'mon man, that's just lazy.
"15 Step" sounds like Soil and Pimp Session's "Waltz For Goddess" listen to it, and take back your pedestrian Aphex Twin, BoC (read: lazy) comparisson. Clearly, someone (joshua) is reaching.
Faust Arp sounds like BDB doing an Elliot Smith song and House of Cards is one of the least memorable songs, but radiohead owns every single one of the major bands out.
Yes, other bands are more experimental, yes other bands are breaking new ground, yes those bands will never ever have the impact and leave the cultural legacy that rh has.
this is the 7th album, and they are still making music that is relevant to their fan base. It's hoping HTTT was going to be. Radiohead fans rejoice (sissssyyyy).
I think an Elliott Smith reference is pedestrian. Especially when you misspell his first name, and the word "comparison".
also: 15 step DOES sound like BoC and AT, why does he have to be obscure if it's accurate?
Sorry, but the previous commenter looks like an unintelligent snob.
You know, I don't really get this 160 kbps mp3 comment [8]. I know for audiophiles out there, vinyl is where it's at. But the rest of us lay people have been hearing music in some sort of compressed form, on 1/8 inch tape, or through some crappy boom box or car stereo since we started listening to music.
I did this test the other day with one of my CDs. I ripped it to my computer at 192 kbs and tried to hear the difference on my home stereo between it and the CD. I really couldn't tell. So maybe that makes me a philistine but I believe one CAN review a record via MP3.
Genius or Junk? It's ridiculous that you don't think a proper judgement can be made until you hear something on CD. Actually, we should probably all book some studio time and check out the Master before making any decisions regarding an album's merit.
Jros, you are absolutely right. 99% of the population or more cannot tell a difference between a GOOD quality mp3 and a CD. Just like few people can tell the difference between vinyl and a cd.
Here's a news flash. Every publication in the world that chooses to review Radiohead's album will be reviewing it by listening to a 160 kbps mp3. I guess there aren't any publications worldwide that can be taken seriously. I look forward to reading Guest #8's solitary "real" review in December.
In fact, here's a good link if you've ever wondered how music critics may prepare for reviews and how little time they spend actually listening to the albums before they write a review. The Onion A.V. Club may not be respected by Guest #8, but we all know how much that means.
http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/ask_the_a_v_club_july_26_2007
Look at all the publications that can't be taken seriously! Also, Austinist seems pretty off the mark in comparison.
http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/radiohead/inrainbows
I sincerely appreciate everyone that's chimed in on this review, whatever your take is. As always, simply taking the time to read and scribble down your e-pinion makes our day.
I would, however, like to reiterate that I am a Radiohead junky of the highest order just like most of you appear to be. We all have our stories of addiction... I burned through three copies of OKC and two copies of The Bends before the digital revolution. Peed my pants when I won tickets - on the radio, no less (!)- to see them at Fair Park Music Hall in Dallas with Spiritualized on the OKC tour in '98, in tears like a hormonal cheerleader at the climax of "Let Down" (best. show. ever.) I incessantly pored over Napster - then other file-sharing programs - in the early 2000s to find live recordings of possible new songs ("Lift"!!!), b-sides, anything RH. As a musician in high school, I saved up and bought a Fender Rhodes and a Korg Prophecy just like Jonny. Didn't know what to make of HTTT, but warmed up to it. I even ruined my chances of walking through the pearly gates by playing a shitty cover of "Fake Plastic Trees" for an ex-girlfriend. As Jonti, from Sigur Ros, said in an interview regarding RH, "They could fart in a bag and I'd buy it". I adore, and continue to adore their artistry.
Hence, the depth of my disappointment in this album after waiting four years for new tunes, and what seems to me to be knee-jerk defensiveness this time around about expressing honest-to-god dissatisfaction in our most sacred cow's latest moo.
Having said all that, writing this post was very difficult. It's not going to get me a Pulitzer, but it's straight from the bellyfire ignited when I heard that Marshall Shredmaster pedal crunch down on the chorus of "Creep", live, on some silly MTV beach house special back in '93. I can't wait to hear the next songs from this album and all their albums to come. I just want them to smack me in the face like a lead marshmallow and to be in love again like everyone else.
Commenter 14, the purpose of criticism isn't consensus.
In this case, at least, it's catharsis.
joshua seriously... never write about music again. that nick hennies is the only one here championing your musical analysis should be reason enough i think to never hold another opinion again about anything.
long live huck. he picks up a laptop everyday and opens his kimono, letting folks know what he thinks. he does this knowing that jaded and bitter northloop hipster douchebags have only one skill: the be sulky and contrary, without ever producing an original thought on their own. he does this knowing that they will all chime in and disagree, because agreement is well, boring.
i agree with joshs opinion about 50% of the time. I support his journalistic balls 100% of the time.
how bout them organic fair trade gluten free apples?
Oh boy, I've got a fan!
not only is there a huge diffrence between a 192 kbps mp3 and an actual cd, there is a very noticeable difference between 192 and 160. 192 is very crappy, but just barely listenable. If you listen to anything less, you're a chump. 160 kbps should not be considered a GOOD quality mp3 by anyone's standards.
I was listening to solely cassette tapes long after most people of my generation. Still do occasionally. If you can't tell the difference, your hearing is shit or you are a lazy listener.
Why should I respect the Onion AV club? Or any other music critic. Do you really think the job is one that deserves respect? Especially if they spend "little time" listening to the CD. What's the point?
I also completely disagree.
There's a great deal of subtlety with this record. This album is worth many listens no matter what you think of this band or what we're expecting them to do. We should all check back in 3 months and see if our opinions have changed.
nobody's a chump. a lot of the quality of the mp3s has to do with HOW they were encoded, not just mere numbers. these mp3s do sound very good, in my humble audio engineering opinion. call me crazy.
Guests 8 & 19 are right. It's not that mp3 is necessarily a bad thing, but a 160kbps is really substandard. I'd really like to know why Radiohead made the decision to go with 160 vs. 192. The cynic in me thinks they're going to sell the album twice to a lot of people - once with the sub-par download, and once with the "upgrade" to CD.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that this review is a horrible one as it is a misguided one. My reason for thinking this is that I believe the writer is basing his/her review on previous records and or expectations. As we all know, Thom & Co. are not ones to deliver what's expected of them. I think this time 'round Radiohead have made an album that was meant to not be analyzed so much. No political statements. No paranoia. They don't want to be heard, just listened to.
Speaking of treatment of Radiohead as sacred cow, how ridiculous that, after making a life out of being extremely critical of bands and albums, Radiohead apologists and genuflecters Pitchfork don't give it a rating, instead allowing for readers to rate it. Puhleez.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/46356-in-rainbows
I think that it is a beautiful piece of work from a band that has spent a lot of its time creating new landscapes for modern rock. Just because they aren't pushing the limits of the imagination on this current achievement, doesn't mean that the end result is no less admirable. This is the best of Radiohead from the last 4 releases in their combined strength and should be recognized as so. A band making a good solid rock record these days should be heralded. You're not too cool for a good rock record anymore are you?? Sit back, listen, and enjoy.