Radiohead - In Rainbows
0x00000194
Join Date: 2007-09-04 Member: 62167Members
Join Date: 2007-09-04 Member: 62167Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">How did no one post this yet?</div>So here's the deal.
Radiohead's last album, Hail To The Theif was 4 years ago now.
A few weeks ago, I realized something. Radiohead has a unique position. They're one of the very few, if not only, bands to have fulfilled their recording contract before they ran out of creative steam. They're still popular. I realized that put them in such a huge position to topple how people think about recording distribution. They could do it all their own, and pave the way for a new era in music.
And they did.
I'm surprised nobody has posted this yet, but in just a mere 7 days their new album, In Rainbows, will be release for download. I snatched up a pre-order spot a few hours after news hit the intertubes. I'm excited.
What does it cost? Whatever you want it to cost. Enter zero pounds if you want, and you'll still get a pre-order spot for their online download on the 10th.
I really missed out on the golden age of Radiohead. That era from The Bends to Kid A. It wasn't actually until 2004 that I actually bought their albums and gave them a listen, so this is actually their first release that i'm prepared and waiting for.
This is gonna rock.
Radiohead's last album, Hail To The Theif was 4 years ago now.
A few weeks ago, I realized something. Radiohead has a unique position. They're one of the very few, if not only, bands to have fulfilled their recording contract before they ran out of creative steam. They're still popular. I realized that put them in such a huge position to topple how people think about recording distribution. They could do it all their own, and pave the way for a new era in music.
And they did.
I'm surprised nobody has posted this yet, but in just a mere 7 days their new album, In Rainbows, will be release for download. I snatched up a pre-order spot a few hours after news hit the intertubes. I'm excited.
What does it cost? Whatever you want it to cost. Enter zero pounds if you want, and you'll still get a pre-order spot for their online download on the 10th.
I really missed out on the golden age of Radiohead. That era from The Bends to Kid A. It wasn't actually until 2004 that I actually bought their albums and gave them a listen, so this is actually their first release that i'm prepared and waiting for.
This is gonna rock.
Comments
Have fun 404.
[Can anyone tell I've been watching too much ZeroPunctuation?]
[Can anyone tell I've been watching too much ZeroPunctuation?]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That0s not necessarily true. IF they get enough revenues from this new approach to music distribution it could very well be a milestone in music history. Of course no big label will sell their big shots like this, but it could lead to some interesting new inputs into this whole mess they call music business.
similar to how I like NIN instrumentals but can't stand the angsty lyrics/vocals.
similar to how I like NIN instrumentals but can't stand the angsty lyrics/vocals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yeah there's this odd misconception (quite prevalant in the US because Kid A was a big hit over there or something) that Radiohead are an 'electronica' band. They did one album that's kinda electronica but totally different to most of their other stuff.
If you want to get into Radiohead 'The Bends' is their best album, imho. And not all of their songs are mournful and depressing with 'droning' lyrics (although their lyrics usually are), take 'Anyone Can Play Guitar', 'The Bends', 'Just', 'Bones', 'You' and 'Vegetable', for example.
<!--quoteo(post=1653977:date=Oct 4 2007, 01:30 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Oct 4 2007, 01:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653977"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Radiohead... sounds familiar somehow. Can you name some popular tracks? Might've heard of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wikipedia much? Bands usually have full discographies on there.
Some of their best known tracks include:
<b>- You</b>
- Lucky
<b>- The Bends</b>
- High and Dry
<b>- Just</b>
- Creep
- Karma Police
- Street Spirit (Fade Out)
- No Surprises
- Paranoid Android
(if you want a gentle upbeat introduction to Radiohead, listen to the tracks in bold)
lolfighter: It would have been much less effort to go to last.fm and listen to a few 30 second samples. Although I think Radiohead need a good listen to at first, you'd certainly get a much better impression of them by doing so than the worthless assumptions you have made here <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
edit: here's the link for you - <a href="http://www.last.fm/music/Radiohead" target="_blank">http://www.last.fm/music/Radiohead</a>
I did give a few of their tracks a listen. Not my taste at all. The singer sounds like he's about to start eviscerating his wrists at any moment.
I'm giving it a week before I go and pay what I feel.
It's hard to preface a Radiohead review, mostly because each previous album has been so groundbreaking. You can find similarities between them, but each has it's own distinct mood.
In Rainbows definaly continues the trend, which makes it hard to rate.
At first listen, I was thinking to myself "This doesn't sound like Radiohead." But after another listen, I realized that I've thought the same thing with each previous release.
So I kept listening. My next thought was "Where is the rest of the band?" This album is VERY Yorke driven. Few, if any, solos. No crazy instrumentals. Mostly sampled or simplistic guitar and piano.
But I like it. After a few more listens, I started to hear the rest of the band. The string compositions, the guitar riffs, they're there. They're just more subtle.
Which brings me to the mood of In Rainbows. It is very somber, very light. It's up-in-the-clouds, it really lends credence to it's title. I would put the low point of the album on Faust Arp, it's not as bad as Pulk/Pull, but it's not great, either.
Here are the bests:
15 Step, Bodysnatchers, Nude, Jigsaw Falling into Place
These are quite good:
Apreggi, House of Cards, Reckoner, All I Need.
These are alright...
Faust Arp, Videotape
Bottom Line: If you liked The Eraser, you'll like this album. The vocal work is very similar.
Not their greatest, but not their worst. Well worth the money. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<img src="http://www.kilrain.com/paintings/heads/head-radio.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
That being said, I also have to say that OK Computer blows the rest of their albums out of the water for many reasons, although all of them are amazing except a lot of Hail to the Thief. OK Computer was completely different than everything else in the 90's, in fact, it had never been done before to that caliber. I don't see how anyone could ever think Creep is better than Airbag, whenever all creep contains is the same vocal/drums/guitar/leadguitar/bass format that is the norm for every other band. OK Computer is just now in my opinion finally being realized as what it is musically to many musicians, and still people never come close to it's goodness. If you haven't heard the entire album I suggest you give it a good listen.
That being said I think the new album is everything I expected and more, I only wish I could see them live.
second, since when is it wrong to judge music based on the way it sounds? I didn't realize we were supposed to be basing our music appreciation on the meticulous complexity and the time signature. If I wanted that sort of appreciation I'd go read some advanced math proofs, but when it comes to music, I (personally) usually want something catchy but deep that I can listen to over and over again without being annoyed. Radiohead is obviously deep and occasionally catchy but it often annoys me =p I also like music that affects me emotionally, be it through sound or lyrics. I find Radiohead to be really sterile in that department. It's very intricate and finely crafted, as you said, and as such, it ends up being somewhat antiseptic and emotionless, like science rather than art... but that's just my opinion.
Anyway, about the album. As a whole, I really like it. It may have taken a few listen but so have anything starting from Kid A.
15 step is catchy as ######, possibly the first track you will really dig. (and not just because it's the first) I can't really stop humming the signature "du-du-du du du du du-du-du" they are sending in the left channel.
Jigsaw falling into place is also another favourite, especially the latter half.
All I need/Videotape are typical Radiohead ballads. All I need even reminds me of coldplay. Also extremely hard stuff (to quote a review from a hip-hop site I've seen)
Wow, I'm addicted, Oh Thom yorke, give me your sweet release!
You can be a musician without knowing anything about western music notation. It's a pretty baroque way of expressing concepts that can be intuitively sensed by most people. It's essential for communicating between musicians, but certainly not for appreciating a piece of music.
That said, I really like this album. Nothing really grabbed me the first time through, but I liked every song on it, and as I listen to it more they are all pulling me in.
Moving on to other's comments, I didn't say you can't appreciate it because you're not a musician, I said this because I don't believe you can appreciate this to its full value. It is a huge pet peeve of mine when people critique bands on their lyrics for magazines and give a 9.5 album a 4.5 because they have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not talking about entertainment factor, I'm talking about the quality of a work of art. Furthermore, using musical science in music in interesting and creative ways IS ART (ironically my band's name is actually Arts & Sciences, www.myspace.com/artsandsciencesmusic). I don't understand where you get that isn't. ANYONE can create something catchy (Nickelback anyone?) that people will like, but for it to be artistic I personally would like it to be in an interesting intelligent way never or seldom done.
I guess one place that is just a matter of opinion and person rather than objective truth is that I find most emotion in the music. Lyrics to me can help convey the meaning of the song, but are only a meager portion of what the song as a whole means to me.
As far as the meaning of the word musician, really it is what it means to you. The thought I'm expressing when I say musician is what I said earlier, and I believe in order to appreciate radiohead for what it is worth the more musical knowledge the better. An example of the staple person I'm talking about is my friend Ethan, who thinks that radiohead has and never will top Creep. He will never be able to appreciate radiohead as art, merely entertainment.
Sorry for this being all jumbled, it is really hard for me to express thoughts on the internet and not in person whenever it takes this long. Thanks for the differing opinions, and I'm glad someone else recognizes the hayao reference. Which is your favorite movie by him?
Most movie review sites, for instance, post the critical consensus as well as the site's users' consensus. I usually take both into consideration when I'm deciding whether to see a movie. The critics represent the higher bracket who have studied film in-depth and review movies for a living. I look to those reviews to figure out a movie's artistic merit and overall quality. The users represent the unwashed masses =p they generally like brainless movies with lots of explosions, predictable romance, and DEFINITELY a happy ending.
So... if the critics liked a movie and the users didn't, it's probably a quality flick on the artsy side that might force you to come to your own conclusions rather than spell everything out for you. If the users liked it but the critics didn't, it's probably the sort of movie you could have recited word for word without ever having seen it because it was so banal, but it's probably an entertaining movie if you're not looking to be intellectually challenged. Of course it's not that simple, and also, you might find yourself disagreeing with one crowd or the other...
anyway, just saying that everyone's opinion means something =p it's how you synthesize those opinions that matters...
I agree that anyone can say their opinion, and that eveyone's opinion has meaning. I also agree that anyone can decide how valid they think an opinion is, but I believe in art there is true objective validity. Also, an important question I have to ask is how do you know that the critics have studied a lot of films, or are in the know. I've seen plenty of reviews not appreciating the artistic side of a movie, and reviews that said the new Transformers moview was good. It was the most tasteless movie I've ever seen. I have actually met a lot and am friends with a few music review columnists, and all of my friends have hardly a clue what they are talking about, they just say a band is good because they have "soaring catching vocals and infectious riffs and melodies." These are just my encounters though, and others may have experienced things much differently.
Also, you didn't answer my question! I think that I like Castle in the Sky, Cat Returns, and Spirited away the most, but they are all soooo amazing!
It's true that you don't really know how 'educated' a critic is when you read a review, but then I believe 'education' is completely subjective, as well as art =p like, where do you draw the line on who's qualified to be a music or film critic? someone who has a Ph. D in film or music? someone who doesn't even have a high school diploma but watches a lot of movies and likes them and is capable of comparing them and drawing meaningful conclusions? And I think we'll get in trouble if we start the "what is art?" debate =p because once people get started on that, it's hard to stop. I personally think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and no two people will ever have the same exact beliefs about what is beautiful or what is art, and therefore it can't truly be objective. Art is a human concept and is created by humans and therefore must be defined by individual humans...
at any rate, I owe Radiohead's new album a listen - I haven't gotten around to downloading it yet =d I was probably a little hasty when I called the music sterile and emotionless - I think I just stubbornly have trouble getting past Thom Yorke's droning vocals even when the actual music is awesome <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I have to say I'm a huge Radiohead fan. I have all their albums, most of their EPs, and I just got OK Computer on vinyl in the mail today. I really like In Rainbows, it's not my favorite album of theirs, but that doesn't mean it isn't awesome- it is.
Having said that, I do still think that it's a bit more of a minimalist album. The instrmentation just doesn't seem as pronounced as their other work.
There are many ways to appreciate music, and musicians have more tools of appreciation than most. But a musician coming in here and expecting non musicians to fully appreciate the complexity of timing signatures and the nuances of syncopation is a bit like a graphics programmer claiming that a game is crap because they don't use complex graphics. E.g. take portal or TF2, neither of them have the most advanced graphics on display this year, but both of them are easily contenders for game of the year. It is similar with music, yes all aspects of it are important, but some more so than others depending on the perspective of the listener, and when you find yourself enjoying a piece of music then you have to go with that, and I believe that if you reject that enjoyment based on abstract theory then the tail is surely wagging the dog.
This is the old debate on objectivity vs subjectivity in art.
There are many ways to appreciate music, and musicians have more tools of appreciation than most. But a musician coming in here and expecting non musicians to fully appreciate the complexity of timing signatures and the nuances of syncopation is a bit like a graphics programmer claiming that a game is crap because they don't use complex graphics. E.g. take portal or TF2, neither of them have the most advanced graphics on display this year, but both of them are easily contenders for game of the year. It is similar with music, yes all aspects of it are important, but some more so than others depending on the perspective of the listener, and when you find yourself enjoying a piece of music then you have to go with that, and I believe that if you reject that enjoyment based on abstract theory then the tail is surely wagging the dog.
This is the old debate on objectivity vs subjectivity in art.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think they both have their regard. I can enjoy lots of wailing insane guitar solos because of my time in music, where others hate it. But simple rhythms with a good hook are good too.
My problem with In Rainbows is that the lack of polish isn't in the sound- its in the songs themselves. They feel half-done in that I feel things should be taken out, or put in, in so many different points. Furthermore, the singer's light voice delves into an annoying phase for many of the songs, as he lets himself wail. Its a good album, which I think I'll put $10 out on, but it is by no means even in my top...hell, 50.