Aja on 12/10/2007 at 04:25
Quote Posted by Fingernail
There also used to be more general harmonic structure - the songs would move from key to key in many cases (as many songs do - to give a chorus emphasis or what have you), now it tends to be more static.
This is actually what attracted me the most to In Rainbows. Radiohead has never been a band that relies on boring verse-chorus-verse structure, and I see In Rainbows as proof that they don't need it at all. Some of these songs are five minutes and yet they feel like two.
Also, finally a Radiohead album without super-compressed drums... or maybe it's just a new kit. In any case, you can actually hear the dynamics for once.
trevor the sheep on 12/10/2007 at 09:02
All i need is all i need. that bassline is straight-up boards of canada copying though.
this album is smashing.
trevor the sheep on 13/10/2007 at 13:10
correction, this album is fucking brilliant. videotape, reckoner, arpeggi, what the bends is in teenage angst, this is in bergman-esque existential longing
D'Juhn Keep on 13/10/2007 at 13:37
It's not really all that good, is it. It has some nice tracks but nothing great, like Amnesiac without Pyramid Song and Knives Out.
Jackablade on 13/10/2007 at 14:16
Now that I've given In Rainbows a few proper listens I can say that it is Radiohead's most beautiful and genuinely happy album. Thom sounds like he actually enjoys singing. He has more confidence, clarity, and ambition in his voice. The drums sound like an instrument now, the guitars are soothing, the melodies are interesting, but stunningly beautiful. It sounds like Radiohead just loved making this album, and it makes me happy when I listen to it.
I'm not prepared to say that In Rainbows is any better than their other stuff because I adore the previous three albums but it is at least up to par.
Stitch on 13/10/2007 at 16:41
I don't really get the Amnesiac comparisons. Amnesiac had melodies and songwriting.
Aja on 13/10/2007 at 17:58
Dynamically, Amnesiac is more constant than Kid A or Hail to the Thief. Its songs are definitely 'song-like' compared to In Rainbows', but they both share a tendency to focus on a specific tone and sustain it, rather than explore a full dynamic range, as in '2+2=5' or 'National Anthem'.
I admit I was hasty in proclaiming In Rainbows best-eva after one listen, but I've heard it start-to-finish several times since, and I'm starting to think I wasn't so far off after all. Apart from a few moving songs like 'No Surprises', my appreciation of Radiohead has largely been from a musical, but not emotional standpoint. In Rainbows resonates with me in a way that their older albums just don't.
Abysmal on 13/10/2007 at 21:07
Reckoner is fucking sharp, I'll give it that
Aerothorn on 13/10/2007 at 21:18
I've never heard anything by Radiohead and no nothing about them. Maybe I should look into them at some point.
trevor the sheep on 13/10/2007 at 23:17
HOUSE OF CARDS
