^ Those are actually very good descriptions. Do they have any for OKC or Bends..?

I think In Rainbows is Radiohead's New Adventures in Hi-Fi.

After Automatic for the People, R.E.M. was at the top of the rock world. Everybody wondered how they would top their masterpiece. They went out and did something unexpected, recording the hard-driving Monster. Some felt it was the best thing R.E.M. ever did. Others longed for the IRS days.

Then, R.E.M. followed up Monster with New Adventures in Hi-Fi. The critics fawned over it, believing it to be the perfect happy medium between Automatic . . and Monster. Those who loved Monster thought it was a retreat. And, record sales significantly dropped compared to Automatic. . . and Monster.

I always felt that New Adventures . . . softened the excesses of Monster by combining it with the folk-oriented nature of Automatic . . .. It's still my favorite R.E.M. album.

I sense the same thing with In Rainbows. It does not cover any new ground, but I don't think it's a retreat from the experimental nature of Kid A and Amnesiac. It takes the electronic and experimental edges from those albums and combines it with the more traditional rock sounds of The Bends and OK Computer. To me, it makes their sound more complete.

In short, it's exactly where I wanted Radiohead to go with this album.

Best closing lyrics ever.

At the end of videotape:

"No matter what happens now
You shouldn't be afraid
Because I know today has been
The most perfect day I've ever seen."

quote:

Originally posted by The Fall of Troy:
I think In Rainbows is Radiohead's New Adventures in Hi-Fi.

After Automatic for the People, R.E.M. was at the top of the rock world. Everybody wondered how they would top their masterpiece. They went out and did something unexpected, recording the hard-driving Monster. Some felt it was the best thing R.E.M. ever did. Others longed for the IRS days.

Then, R.E.M. followed up Monster with New Adventures in Hi-Fi. The critics fawned over it, believing it to be the perfect happy medium between Automatic . . and Monster. Those who loved Monster thought it was a retreat. And, record sales significantly dropped compared to Automatic. . . and Monster.

I always felt that New Adventures . . . softened the excesses of Monster by combining it with the folk-oriented nature of Automatic . . .. It's still my favorite R.E.M. album.

I sense the same thing with In Rainbows. It does not cover any new ground, but I don't think it's a retreat from the experimental nature of Kid A and Amnesiac. It takes the electronic and experimental edges from those albums and combines it with the more traditional rock sounds of The Bends and OK Computer. To me, it makes their sound more complete.

In short, it's exactly where I wanted Radiohead to go with this album.

I'd love to agree, except Radiohead already consolidated their experimental edges with a more traditional rock format. It was called Hail To The Thief. This album is a further descent into formula and convention. Don't read that as too harsh a criticism: even Radiohead at their most conventional are more compelling than most of the other garbage. It's a solid album, no question, but it doesn't resemble any kind of musical growth.

quote:

Originally posted by CouldBAnyone:

quote:

Originally posted by The Fall of Troy:
I think In Rainbows is Radiohead's New Adventures in Hi-Fi.

After Automatic for the People, R.E.M. was at the top of the rock world. Everybody wondered how they would top their masterpiece. They went out and did something unexpected, recording the hard-driving Monster. Some felt it was the best thing R.E.M. ever did. Others longed for the IRS days.

Then, R.E.M. followed up Monster with New Adventures in Hi-Fi. The critics fawned over it, believing it to be the perfect happy medium between Automatic . . and Monster. Those who loved Monster thought it was a retreat. And, record sales significantly dropped compared to Automatic. . . and Monster.

I always felt that New Adventures . . . softened the excesses of Monster by combining it with the folk-oriented nature of Automatic . . .. It's still my favorite R.E.M. album.

I sense the same thing with In Rainbows. It does not cover any new ground, but I don't think it's a retreat from the experimental nature of Kid A and Amnesiac. It takes the electronic and experimental edges from those albums and combines it with the more traditional rock sounds of The Bends and OK Computer. To me, it makes their sound more complete.

In short, it's exactly where I wanted Radiohead to go with this album.

I'd love to agree, except Radiohead already consolidated their experimental edges with a more traditional rock format. It was called Hail To The Thief. This album is a further descent into formula and convention. Don't read that as too harsh a criticism: even Radiohead at their most conventional are more compelling than most of the other garbage. It's a solid album, no question, but it doesn't resemble any kind of musical growth.

Honestly, I think they've been treading water since Kid A. I don't mind, though. I like that water.

I'm happy a bunch of people here don't like it or think it's a half-ass record. But I'm happier that I'm not one of them. To me, it's a beautiful album.

I'll buy that, Chamberk. Seems like in their OK Computer/Kid A/Amnesiac era they were interested in pushing themselves forward. They even ended up pushing themselves into a few things that had never really been done before. Their last two records haven't seen that same growth. But again, that's not necessarily a bad thing. You don't have to reinvent yourself with every record for it to be good. When I put on Hail to the Thief or In Rainbows, enjoy listening to it. I like it. That's all that really counts in the end, right?

quote:

I'd love to agree, except Radiohead already consolidated their experimental edges with a more traditional rock format. It was called Hail To The Thief. This album is a further descent into formula and convention. Don't read that as too harsh a criticism: even Radiohead at their most conventional are more compelling than most

I think that there is growth here. The album is far more mature than anything they've ever done. It's restrained, and signifigantly more focused than the bloated, frustrating (but at times excellent), Hail to the Theif. There's no fat, it's been trimmed away. Makes for easy digestion.

I fall into the "I like it but it's not groundbreaking" camp, I think. Oddly enough, it makes me want to listen to Eraser. "15 Step" could be a song from that recording session and I rather like it.

Guys - I realise that I am not as musically astute as most of you seem to be but you need to take a step back and listen to yourselves.

It seems that some of you are disapointed at this albums accessabilty. I get fed up with all the talk about whether Radiohead have moved on, gone backwards, shrunk or grown.

Surely the only thing that is important is to listen to the album as a one off and decide for yourdsleves whether you hate it/love it or whether your feelings are somewhere in between.

Personally I am reserving judgement, as I have only listened to the album the once, but all I know is that I was smiling during that first listen.

Try to remember we all like what we like and no one has the right to tell us what we like is wrong, or that they are any cleverer because they happen to like something different.

If you are going to throw comparisons out there then I think it compares favourably to many of the records that have been released this year - but that is just one opinion in a sea of many currents.

(I know that sounded crap but I have bene to the pub at lunch time).

It's been said that the album is kind of R & B-ish, and I can see that too. Yorke is turning into a crooning, lovesick cyborg (half robot, half flesh).

quote:

Originally posted by Happytab:
all I know is that I was smiling during that first listen.

Are you sure that wasn't just the Percocet kicking in?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:

I think that there is growth here. The album is far more mature than anything they've ever done.

Oh shit! Radiohead has become "Dad Rock".

I'll go ahead and throw out my argument here:

OK Computer and Kid A were groundbreaking albums, the best of their respective decades for the most part really, and Radiohead has always been a band that pushes boundaries. But honestly, they can't always keep getting bigger and more ambitious with sonic landscapes, because, quite frankly, they've already gone to such immense limits, even the most innovative bands need to just step back and play some rock songs from time to time. That said, when they play rock songs, they still blow everyone else out of the water. In Rainbows will definitely be in my top 10, maybe not number one, but there have been a lot of good records this year, and this is definitely one of the best. So many great songs/moments, awesome stuff. If not everyone likes it, I'm not going to lose sleep.

Am I the only one that finds it hard to believe that Radiohead could have evolved EVEN FURTHER than "Thief" and "Eraser"? I mean, at this point they had no choice but to go backwards. Yet at the same time it doesn't sound like any of their past albums. Just stop overanalizing it.

After at least 6 listens all the way through, these are my initial impressions.

For those that said Thom sounds better than ever on this album, I couldn't disagree more. This is his worst album vocally. He sounds like he has nothing invested emotionally in this album. Kind of like he's just going through the motions. In fact, i'd rather say if I can put my finger on one factor that drags this album down the most, it's Thom's uninspired vocals.

Now for the track by track reviews.

1. Good opener, lively, fun
2. A good song, nothing more
3. Most enjoyable song on the album
4. (see #2)
5. This song never really comes to life
6. Blah
7. Good song, bogs down a little half way through
8. Flows really nicely, but unispiring, Thom's best track vocally
9. This track sounds like one that missed the cut for Amnesiac. Not great.
10. Great song. Even Thom's lackluster vocals can't drag this one down. The 3rd and final standout track of the album.

after listening to this around ten times over the past few days, i can definitely say i love it. it grows on me with each new listen, i don't think there's a weak song on the album.

another thing: what's with all the hating on "all i need"? might be my favorite song on the album, the conglomeration of sounds on it almost makes it boards of canada-ish, and that ending ascent to the stars is glorious!

i guess if people were looking for them to make another messed-up/experimental style album could be dismayed, but they're missing the point - the melodies are wonderful, the production is top notch...the whole album feels like a love letter, lyrically and sonically. definitely my favorite of the year so far.

quote:

For those that said Thom sounds better than ever on this album, I couldn't disagree more.

well i disagree with your disagreement, his voice sounds sexy like he's trying to woo a girl and get laid, something i don't think he's dine in awhile, if ever

I really like "All I Need" too, in limbo. That was one of the tracks that really jumped out at me on the first listen.

And add me to the list of people who thinks Yorke sounds good on this album. Although, I think a lot of it has to do with production. The last several albums really had his voice buried in effects and down in the mix. Here, it's crystal clear, as it should be, he's a great vocalist.

quote:

For those that said Thom sounds better than ever on this album, I couldn't disagree more. This is his worst album vocally. He sounds like he has nothing invested emotionally in this album. Kind of like he's just going through the motions. In fact, i'd rather say if I can put my finger on one factor that drags this album down the most, it's Thom's uninspired vocals.

I don't think you can get much more uninspired then his approach on Kid A and Amnesiac. Granted: that stoich, buried effect is what they were going for (and it works) but Thom isn't hardly singing on either of those albums. He hardly even sounds like he's trying on "How To Disappear Completely". Again, this is not necessarily a knock beause I love that song, but I'm not quite understanding where you're coming from hudson.