Radiohead’s latest, In Rainbows, is certainly my favorite since Ok Computer. It’s got, you know, songs. Like with melodies, stuff like that, something which their last several albums have been, well, lacking. After three albums worth of electro-pop avante garde nonsense I’d rather given up on Yorke and Co. producing another record of music. But, lo and behold, they did. This record is chock full o’ music. And it’s pretty damn good.
Which leads me to my complaint, which is not so much with the music as it is with the criticism this record has received. Many critics (Josh Gibbs not least among them) have noted that this is Radiohead’s most ‘approachable’ album in a while. That the music will be ‘less demanding’ of the listener than some of their recent fare.
I respectfully disagree. This album has challenged me as a listener more than Kid A, Amnesiac, and Hail to the Thief all rolled into one. The reason for this is precisely because it’s full of songs. Those last three records seemed like Yorke and Co. saying something like:
“Screw you, you can’t understand what we’re trying to say. It’s so complicated we can’t even say it with traditional song structures. We’re so complicated and interesting it boggles the mind. Go ahead, write a ten page review of the record expounding all the themes you think you see, but you didn’t really understand that blip of noise at 2:52 and 20 seconds into National Anthem. Yeah, I know you think you got it, but you really didn’t.”
All in all, it felt like Piss Christ, it felt like that exhibit where they piled up a bunch of trash in the middle of an art gallery adn called it an exhibit. It felt like a joke being played on me by the music industry. And I’m not some scrub unused to complicated music. I’ve been through my share and found meaning in music that was quite obscure.
But I’m very pleased with In Rainbows. They’ve given me a bunch of music to listen to and analyze, which is very different for Radiohead these days. It’s a brave step for them to make songs again and I’m glad they took it. Someone, I think in Spin, said that they had to go through the experimental days of the last three records to get back to making music again. I hope that’s true, cause this is a really good record and I hope they’ve got more actual music in them.
I’m optimistic.
Homesick No More 
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 10, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Remy
Ack, ack, ack! Guido, how could you do this? We were getting along so well. Not only is “Hail to the Thief” the best Radiohead album, it is also greatest record of the new millenium and I only intend just a little bit of the overstatement. While I grant you that “Kid A” was a difficult album to enter it can in no way be written off as introcomplex experibabble. It is their tightest album as a concept. I personally think “Amnesiac” is on the same musical level as “OK Computer”, perhaps you could call it C prime in the chiasm of their catalogue. “Hail to the Thief” was the musical breakthrough that “The Bends” was, meaning that “Pablo Honey” their easy listening debut is complemented (glorified even) by “In Rainbows”.
In all seriousness however, the jab at Andre Serano’s “Piss Christ” misses the mark. It is not a pile of trash. I think it’s an interesting and beautiful piece of artwork. Most of what you read about the “Piss Christ” is really just politico-speak to lather up the religious vote.
December 10, 2007 at 11:00 pm
bennettcarnahan
matt,
though I agree with you re: radiohead, i have to second remy re: Piss Christ.
December 12, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Melton
Remy, my friend, I think you might be on crack. The reason I say that? Anyone who thinks that there is a Radiohead album better than OK Computer must be either a)insane, b)retarded, or c)on drugs. I’m sorry this comment is so late, but I wanted to listen to Hail to the Thief again before I commented. And yeah, you’re on crack.
There isn’t another Radiohead album that can match the sonic awesomeness of Paranoid Android, the beauty of No Surprises, the haunting Exit Music…I’ll stop there, but you get the drift. Then add in that the whole album is tied together with a concept that was ahead of it’s time, some songs that are extremely catch, and the skill obvious in every note, and you get a much superior album.
I”m not trying to convince you of OK’s merits – you’re well aware. But Hail to the Thief is downright BORING compared to OK Computer. It’s really not even a fair comparison, as OK is one of the greatest albums of all time, and Hail to the Thief is just, well, pretty good.
December 12, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Melton
Oh, that should be catchy – sorry. You see, I’m a fan of music that other people besides music snobs can appreciate.
December 13, 2007 at 4:48 am
Dave Hodges
“Then add in that the whole album is tied together with a concept that was ahead of it’s time”
To quote Jonny Greenwood, “A single track and an album title do not a concept album make.”
December 13, 2007 at 5:57 am
Melton
I didn’t call it a concept album. I said it had a concept – two mightily different things. I would say that every track was tied together with a common theme, both musically and lyrically, something that most bands don’t do. That is much different than what the Dream Theaters of the world do. Regardless, that is not OK’s only merit, by far. And just because you quote Greenwood doesn’t make his quote necessarily applicable to the argument at hand.
December 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Dave Hodges
True enough, Melton.
I think that OK Computer is a phenomenal album. I think that it was Radiohead’s work that defined them as a band. I do think that some of their subsequent albums surpass individual portions of OK Computer, but none of them match up to the album as a whole. Granted, I have not heard In Rainbows yet, but it would seem like a pretty difficult feat to do regardless.
Still, their originality really blossomed after OK Computer. They began experimenting with time signatures, more original chord structures, &c. On OK Computer, they were still ripping off Beatles riffs and stuff. And they were good ripoffs for sure, but they were still ripoffs.
December 13, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Melton
I think I would agree with most of what you said here Dave. That’s what Remy was arguing about, their albums as whole pieces. Sure, chunks of Kid A surpass Fitter, Happier (in my mind). But you hit the nail on the head when it comes to entire albums.
As far as originality – maybe. I’ve not put 2 and 2 together on the ripping off of Beatles riffs. But shoot, even if they did, it takes some skill to take a great riff and pass it off as your own, so that every music critic around the world proclaims your album as one of the greatest of all-time, ignoring their rip-offs. And as for that, I think Reservoir Dogs says it best, even though they were referencing movies, when they state that everybody kipes everybody else.
December 13, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Dave Hodges
“I’ve not put 2 and 2 together on the ripping off of Beatles riffs.”
Listen to “Sexy Sadie” off of The Beatles, Disc 2. I think it’s track 9. Then listen to “Karma Police”. It’s about as explicit a ripoff as you can get. But still, like you said, that doesn’t mean it’s bad. They did it well. But can anybody claim that “Pyramid Song” is a ripoff of anything in the world? It would be tough.
Also, the coda to “Paranoid Android” rings strongly similar to “Cirrus Minor” by Pink Floyd, who probably ripped off something else very similar from the Beatles.
December 13, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Melton
Dave, I believed you on the ripoff. I was merely saying that I haven’t heard it, probably because I haven’t listened to enough Beatles, aside from their bigger hits. But I would be willing to guarantee that if we dug hard enough we could find the inspiration for Pyramid Song, among the artists that Thom and boys love most. They didn’t just create it out of thin air, right? Now, perhaps it is not as explicit as the two examples you gave, but it’s still kiped. Just kiped from artists not as well-known as the biggest band in the history of mankind.
BTW – you really should download In Rainbows and listen to it. Good stuff.
December 13, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Melton
Dave, I believed you on the ripoff. I was merely saying that I haven’t heard it, probably because I haven’t listened to enough Beatles, aside from their bigger hits. But I would be willing to guarantee that if we dug hard enough we could find the inspiration for Pyramid Song, among the artists that Thom and the boys love most. They didn’t just create it out of thin air, right? Now, perhaps it is not as explicit as the two examples you gave, but it’s still kiped. Just kiped from artists not as well-known as the biggest band in the history of mankind.
BTW – you really should download In Rainbows and listen to it. Good stuff.
December 13, 2007 at 11:29 pm
mattyonke
Yeah, I’m really against that view of originality that claims that if a work of art is derivative at all it’s not “original”.
Derivation is 100% inevitable. There is nothing new under the sun. I think it was David Bowie who said that being a musician is largely the job of being a tasty thief. You’re going to rip someone off so you may as well do it well and pick good source material.
Doesn’t get much better than the Beatles which is why OK Computer is their best record by far.
In fact, it’s that struggle for “originality” that really gets under my skin about their stuff between “OK” and “Rainbows”. It’s that “I can make a weirder piece of art than you” mentality, striving for a complete lack of connection to history, that has never produced good art.
Oh, and for Remy and Ben, interesting insights on Piss Christ, still don’t like it, but I won’t compare it to the pile of garbage exhibit again.
Kisses,
Matt
December 14, 2007 at 4:08 am
Remy
The main thing to keep in mind here is that my argument has Chiasms. That means I’m right. To fully convince you that Hail to the Thief is the better album you would need to read the Gospel accounts, then listen to Hail to the Thief twice uninterrupted and then read the Gospels again. I posted something on it years ago, maybe I’ll do that again sometime.
I’ve not heard of this band the Beetles. Did they tour with Eminem? I might check them out sometime.
December 14, 2007 at 5:46 am
Melton
Wow, what a presupposition: Chiasm in album = better. How can you argue with something that is so obviously horsesh*t (Remy, you know I love you). Would you then agree that Pulp Fiction is the greatest movie of all time, since it is a Chiasm?
Seriously, I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic, or are still on crack.
December 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Dave Hodges
Melton, his consumption of crack cocaine would not necessarily render him incapable of being sarcastic at the same time…
December 15, 2007 at 5:09 am
Remy
Yes, I was joking about the chiasm thing. But even if I weren’t Pulp Fiction would be a convincing counter-argument.
December 15, 2007 at 11:48 am
respectmyauthorita
I think we should just call radiohead “no talent ass-clowns”. I almost fell asleep this evening listening to a few songs. I hadnt been much of a fan in the past, so i figured i’d give em another listen tonight. I wish i hadnt wasted the 15 mins on that crap. I would seriously rather listen to mandy moore for 15 mins. she is more original and vocally interesting than radioheads lead singer clay aiken. I swear they have a xylophone in every song. And i love the bowie, but his quote is as gay as him and jagger in a twin size bed. Nobody has to rip off anyone else. I have written stuff that i have been influenced by certain bands with, and if it sounds too much like their song, i will add more notes to give it a different feel, or change the rhythm so it moves in a different direction than the song in question. Its fine to be influenced, but if you sound just like another song you are influenced by, you should either change it or throw it out.
Yonke when you say there is nothing new under the sun, that may be true, but not about songs. There are new riffs written every day that are nothing like anything written before. It may take a little more creativity. You could limit a guy to 3 single notes on the guitar, and there are millions of ways to make just 3 notes sound different, you can change the rhythm of the first note, you can play the first note 3 times, 4 times, before the others, you can pinch harmonic one note, you can finger pick them, you can slap them, you can slide between them, you can play them in any random order. As a guitarist you should know, that there are plenty of new things under the sun. thats just 3 notes, and there are way more than that out there. Thousands of completely different songs, with diferent genres of vocal styles could be added to those 3 notes, that is how vast music is. so that comment and quote by bowie are full of sheeeot.
December 15, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Remy
Jason, amazingly, this quote really convicts me: “I would seriously rather listen to mandy moore for 15 mins. she is more original and vocally interesting than radioheads lead singer clay aiken. I swear they have a xylophone in every song.”
If we were in a tent and you made an altar call, I’d probably sway my way to the front and throw a pinecone in the fire and knowing you I’d be baptized in a moshpit thrashing to Metallica’s “Fuel”.
December 17, 2007 at 9:24 am
respectmyauthorita
truth