Risquit on 10/10/2007 at 23:22
I love it. Listened to it 2 1/2 times already today. Paid 6 pounds for it, and will probably end up getting the discbox too. Has anybody heard any of it on the radio yet?
Jackablade on 11/10/2007 at 02:12
I've changed my mind. In Rainbows reminds me the most of Amnesiac even though I've only heard Amnesiac once.
Aja on 11/10/2007 at 02:15
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
polytourist97 on 11/10/2007 at 06:56
Wtf? Their best album ever after ONE listen? Only listened to Amnesiac once and people think this sounds similar?
I think Fingernail is absolutely right that there is a difference in the way the new songs are. The new songs do just sound like forcing music to fit the words, or forcing words to fit a groove, rather than being cohesive. I noticed that a few times on HTTT, and it's apparent on In Rainbows as well. Nude (a really old song) is far and away the best song melody-wise, and in my opinion the only song that comes close is Reckoner, which also happens to be one of their "older" ones (first showing up around the Amnesiac stage). It's like the rest of the songs are collections of good things, thrown together and played very well, but they just don't have that "complete" feel that their older stuff has in my opinion. There's rarely any moments like in "No Surprises" during the last chorus where everything just fits together so well and every part serves to make the song better, rather than just being a cool part.
I mean how much better would the end of Nude have been if it went a little easier on the Thom "oooh ooooh oooh"s? I pretty much thought the song was perfect, and then all the oohs came in, and while sounding nice, and sung beautifully, they just weren't necessary (at least not in that amount).
Of course I still like the album and have kept listening to it, I liked HTTT and kept listening to it, even though it was my least favorite... but all these people jumping up and saying "BEST EVER!!" and it's been out for a day? Come on.
Abysmal on 11/10/2007 at 07:02
"Grower" is mentioned a lot but in my experience it's been the opposite. The lush & gorgeous arrangements hit me the whole way through at first, but on repeats I'm either nodding off or reaching for something else. Maybe it'll come back around as I'm usually a fan of minimalist work.
pakmannen on 11/10/2007 at 09:22
Only listened once so far (so this is very preliminary) but it reminded me a lot about HTTT, an album I didn't like. I don't know what it is exactly, be it the chord progressions or the vocals or what, but they sound similar to me. There are fewer songs though, which can only be a good thing, HTTT never felt like an "album" to me, which was one of the strengths of their previous ones.
Actually, I don't think there's a single song on HTTT that stands out as being one of their best. Melody-wise, most of Bends/OKC beats it hands down (Karma Police, No surprises versus what, Go to sleep and Sail to the moon?) and experimental-wise, Kid A/Amnesiac are equally far ahead (The gloaming and Myxomatosis are just weird, and not in a good way)
(I do like some of the songs though, There there has an awsome guitar and 2+2=5 is a good opener)
Anyway, I read this about the bitrates over at rollingstone.com:
Quote:
How would you respond to complaints about the sound quality — that 160 isn't a high enough bitrate?I don't know, we talked about it and we just wanted to make it a bit better than iTunes, which it is, so that's kind of good enough, really. It's never going to be CD quality, because that's what CD does.
Jackablade on 11/10/2007 at 15:59
Quote Posted by pakmannen
Actually, I don't think there's a single song on HTTT that stands out as being one of their best.
I think of 2+2=5 as being possibly their best song of all.
Fingernail on 11/10/2007 at 17:11
Quote Posted by polytourist97
I think Fingernail is absolutely right that there is a difference in the way the new songs are. The new songs do just sound like forcing music to fit the words, or forcing words to fit a groove, rather than being cohesive. I noticed that a few times on HTTT, and it's apparent on In Rainbows as well. Nude (a really old song) is far and away the best song melody-wise, and in my opinion the only song that comes close is Reckoner, which also happens to be one of their "older" ones (first showing up around the Amnesiac stage). It's like the rest of the songs are collections of good things, thrown together and played very well, but they just don't have that "complete" feel that their older stuff has in my opinion. There's rarely any moments like in "No Surprises" during the last chorus where everything just fits together so well and every part serves to make the song better, rather than just being a cool part.
Having said all that stuff of course, we mustn't forget that they have kind of "done" big melodies and hooks and anthemic chorus lines in some respect - I don't think we can expect them to continue to churn out OK Computer sequels forever.
But it does seem they have been more generally static over the past 3 records than they were between Pablo Honey, The Bends, OK Computer and Kid A - think of the sheer magnitude of evolution between each of those, and in quite a short period of time.
Kid A -> In Rainbows feels like they're going nowhere quite as fast.
Aja on 11/10/2007 at 22:36
It's impossible to expect Radiohead to reinvent the wheel every album. Most bands never do it in their lifetime, and Radiohead has already done it twice.
It is reasonable, however, to expect good records, and Radiohead have put out great records consistently since OK Computer (or possibly before, I haven't heard the early stuff).
D'Juhn Keep on 11/10/2007 at 22:52
The Bends is better than Kid A.
