Radiohead - In Rainbows

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

New album, out in 10 days. http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/index.html

www.radiohead.com/deadairspace

!!!

Melissa W, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

HOLYSHIT

W4LTER, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

40 pounds :/

W4LTER, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

i knew they would pull a stunt like this, they were too quiet for too long, and it's precisely the sort of thing they'd do to regain some freshness. not for them the interminable anticipation, the scraps thrown to the hounds.

hopefully their work with mark 'spike' stent (he who produced mansun's 'six') will have brooked some major reward. LONGER SONG LENGTHS PLZ.

Just got offed, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

wau

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

is this nothng to do with the hoax then? was that just a coincidence?

pisces, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

It did get the internets chattering about them for a couple days.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

So 80 fucking dollars for us in the States? Gee thanks, Radiohead. Fuck you.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

The download price is "up to you", though. Srsly. Pay 50 cents if you want.

Melissa W, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also keep in mind that the $80 is getting you a deluxe edition double vinyl, a CD, and various extras.

I'm sure "regular" vinyls and CD editions are in the wings.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

holy moly

stephen, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, but god forbid that as a longtime Radiohead fan I'd want to buy the physical version.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Stanley Donwood, Dr. Tchock, Phil Allsopp, Max Kolumbus, Karolina Wihed

zappi, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

no other internet site IN THE WORLD seems to be talking about this.

pisces, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is the best thing ever.

Atease thread: http://www.ateaseweb.com/mb/index.php?showtopic=235019104

three handclaps, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

It was just announced like hrs ago dude plus it is Sunday. xpost

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

15 STEP
BODYSNATCHERS
NUDE
WEIRD FISHES/ARPEGGI
ALL I NEED
FAUST ARP
RECKONER
HOUSE OF CARDS
JIGSAW FALLING INTO PLACE
VIDEOTAPE

ciderpress, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's entirely possible to pay nothing for the download, which helps offset the costs of boxset/vinyl/cd versions that one may purchase in the future (plus it gets you on the mailing list)

stephen, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

no BANGERS AND MASH?

pisces, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

dont forget CD2

MK 1
DOWN IS THE NEW UP
GO SLOWLY
MK 2
LAST FLOWERS
UP ON THE LADDER
BANGERS AND MASH
4 MINUTE WARNING

matt h, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

ah.

pisces, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is a really stupid idea.

The Brainwasher, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm going to tape it off the radio

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is a really great idea.

-- The Brainwasher, Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:55 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

three handclaps, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is a great idea. I wouldn't buy a Radiohead CD these days, but I'll throw in a couple of bucks for a download just to see what it's about.

milo z, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://radiohead.com/deadairspace/

I like that they're having a good laugh in the picture...

van smack, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Gah I cant afford £40 for this and i dont just want mp3s.

Herman G. Neuname, Sunday, 30 September 2007 23:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

atease doesn't really seem to be responding for me atm, what are those dudes saying? Do they have linxxx or anyfing??

W4LTER, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

Guys, the phys stuff doesn't begin shipping until December, by which point I'm sure they will have announced plans for alternative phys purchasing options.

Also, for us US-types, it's important to note that the $80 is also covering international shipping.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think the Atease servers are overloaded with people going insane.

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

The song titles read like SNL parodies of Radiohead.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

this is not my legal birth name. I am an artist. I passingly said I was selling cds for 1000 dollars as a joke. someone made a big thing about it, put up a false interview..and made it look real. I was never selling cd's for 1000.
they spread these lies all over the net and someone put an article in the San Fransico Weekly and another newspaper in Cleveland ..Sf Weekly is owned by News Times. They put a false newspaper article about my 1000 dollar cd..when I am selling my cd's for 20 dollars.

Curt1s Stephens, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

1000+ posts by Tuesday

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

haha the sneakiness of doing it now at midnight on a sunday.

pisces, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

i have an old live recording of "nude" from the ok computer tour and it's one of my favorite radiohead songs

ciderpress, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

WEIRD FISHES/ARPEGGI

I'm very curious how this will turn out. Loved the minimal live version of "Arpeggi"

van smack, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

WEIRD FISHES

good going, radiohead.

Clay, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh wow, a free download! (I am credit card-less, and they really don't need the money...)

I would eventually buy a real-life, NOT-40 pounds, one-format version in stores though. I wonder who will release it?

Simon H., Monday, 1 October 2007 00:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Fun. Hats off to them, this is clever. I ordered one just to be part of it all

Billy Pilgrim, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Am I a tightarse for getting free downnload maybe/n?

W4LTER, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

NO.

Jordan Sargent, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'll be buying the vinyl when it's priced sanely anyway, I don't see why I shouldn't take advantage of a free download when it's handed to me like this.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

Stereogum reports: http://www.stereogum.com/archives/new-radiohead-album-in-rainbows-out-october-10th.html#more

Waiting for the P4K news story any minute now . . .

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

me, too! ;)

scottpl, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

ILX BEATS P4K TO PUNCH, VOTED BEST SITE EVER < / lies >

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

@Scott: Hahaha. Good one. :D

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

YESSSSSSSSSSS

By the way, it looks like the download only includes the songs from the first disc.

Being the sucker I am, I will pay for all the special edition nonsense so that I do not kick myself later.

Z S, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

i have blogged it i wins pfuckers

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hahahaha. That headline (and sub-headline )sums up the general response quite well, I think.

Simon H., Monday, 1 October 2007 00:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

ONLY FIRST DISC FREE D/L==RADOIHEAD CAPITALIST SCUMFUXX

W4LTER, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

the first disc is the album, the second disc is bonus tracks, is the impression i get from the site

ciderpress, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I think you're right ciderpress.

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

ok

W4LTER, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

So, will the vinyl be just the first group of songs, the songs on CD1? Or will the vinyl have all the songs from CD1 and 2? On the website the photo of the vinyl looks like it's just the first group of songs.

Z S, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

umm, I'd say record no.1 = cd1 record no.2 = cd2

W4LTER, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, with only 10 songs on the actual album I find it hard to believe they'd need two slabs of vinyl. Unless they're going really prog this time.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Faust Arp" and "Jigsaw..." better not be wussy little segues...

Simon H., Monday, 1 October 2007 00:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

So, I guess they're releasing this themselves. This is really, really cool, and has made my night.

Z S, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.vvvu.ca/dryheeves/images/Prog.jpg
xxpost

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 1 October 2007 00:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is it worth 80? Everything's too fucking cryptic....

Stevie D, Monday, 1 October 2007 01:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.inrainbows.com/Content/12.jpg

Z S, Monday, 1 October 2007 01:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

"We've installed Sitemeter on our sleeves."

Andy K, Monday, 1 October 2007 01:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hahahaha someone reads one too many blogs. :)

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 01:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

In 2001, maybe.

Andy K, Monday, 1 October 2007 01:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Fair enough.

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 01:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

this is pretty awesome. they sure did take their damn time, though. can't decide whether to take the $80 plunge - someone upthread said it - may as well take it so i'm not kicking myself later. i'd be bummmed though if it's not a great collection of songs.

Mark Clemente, Monday, 1 October 2007 01:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

wow. wow. wow.

i like the whole notion of a 10-day window. it's like the polar opposite of kanye/50, let alone detox/cuban link II...10 days is enough to get the word out to virtually everyone who cares, but not enough time to build up unrealistic expectations. and no leaks? radiohead are geniuses.

i admit i'm choosing the, uh, least expensive option. as i can't afford $81, i'll buy the proper lp or cd version once it's out.

mike a, Monday, 1 October 2007 02:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ouch - expensive - Good for them for working outside the established industry - geez I hope they worked hard and it ends up being a great listen - the concert boots with new songs sound great - so I'm all for it ...

BlackIronPrison, Monday, 1 October 2007 03:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

I will now make a prediction:

After a flurry of observations regarding new elements never before heard, this will sound like a Radiohead record.

Naive Teen Idol, Monday, 1 October 2007 03:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Genius idea.

Tape Store, Monday, 1 October 2007 04:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

so i can download this for a cent if i want?

latebloomer, Monday, 1 October 2007 04:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yep.

Melissa W, Monday, 1 October 2007 04:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

OMG this is so awesome I don't know what to say.

Roz, Monday, 1 October 2007 04:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also while forty pounds is way out of my budget, I now have something to say when someone asks what I want for my birthday. WOOT.

Roz, Monday, 1 October 2007 04:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

I almost wonder if the whole idea of the set is pre-Xmas gift.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 04:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

i am a radiohead fan, & have visited the site, & i am looking forward to this album, but i do not understand what any of you are saying. can any of you explain what is going on to me as you might to a 12 year old brother in law (ie a 12 year old but one whom you had respect for or at least feared the potential consequences of upsetting or misleading).

deeznuts, Monday, 1 October 2007 05:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyone posting anything serious on this thread is on the verge of being banned from the noise board, fyi.

Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Monday, 1 October 2007 05:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hey there sport! That stupid weird band I seem to like so much? They're releasing some new media files (that we used to call "albums" back in the day) in 10 days! And they didn't start hyping it 8 months ago, which is typically the case, in order for rockstars to swim in their pools made of gold. And We The Fans can decide how much we want to pay for those files, because it's the 21st century and Anarchy's en vogue. So I opted not to pay, because I know I'll be a sucker for the eventual release of said files pressed to disc and smothered in artwork. Now lets forget about this nonsense and get back to Brett Favre.
xpost

Cosmo Vitelli, Monday, 1 October 2007 05:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

jaw drops and we only have to wait ten days.

brilliant!

Bee OK, Monday, 1 October 2007 06:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

the real question is how will Trent Reznor respond

http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/jariel/atomicblast.jpeg

The Macallan 18 Year, Monday, 1 October 2007 06:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

a new chapter in his year zero game surely

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 1 October 2007 06:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyone posting anything serious on this thread is on the verge of being banned from the noise board, fyi.

-- Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Monday, October 1, 2007 5:28 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

uh oh lol

latebloomer, Monday, 1 October 2007 06:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

OMG this is so awesome I don't know what to say.

OTM.

Bimble, Monday, 1 October 2007 07:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

this is great.
they came up with the best way i've seen to date for beating the leaks and avoiding fans from just downloading the album. this way its pretty much a donation type deal.
they certainly know their audience. i would have supported them and bought a new album but i feel like the majority wouldnt.

wish the free one was 18 tracks though.

gman, Monday, 1 October 2007 07:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

wish the free one was 18 tracks though.

they need some incentive to sell the 'discbox' besides vinyl and digital photos that'll be on the internet the day the thing is sent out anyway.

Jordan Sargent, Monday, 1 October 2007 07:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

so awesome

Dandy Don Weiner, Monday, 1 October 2007 10:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Speak of keeping a secret.

Always interesting even though they haven't been close to their artistic potential since "OK Computer".

Geir Hongro, Monday, 1 October 2007 11:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

t/s paying a cent for a new radiohead album because it's not worth any more

vs

just not bothering, and that being my comment.

darraghmac, Monday, 1 October 2007 11:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

October 10 prediction:

Skipping 2148 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Billy Pilgrim, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

free one?

jed_, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

October 10 prediction:

The earth opens up and swallows everyone who opted not to pay for their download. "It's up to you" ..!? Radiohead are obviously testing our moral character here.

adamj, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

I say that a Radiohead album is worth $0.00!!!!

Also, you people who like Radiohead are retards.

King Boy Pato, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

Billy Pilgrim OTM.

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

As someone mentioned on another board, I could totally see Radiohead sending out tickets for some special tour to those that bought the discbox while giving two fingers to the $0.00 downloaders.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Or: the more you pay, the longer before the tracks fade out :-)

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

Industry types resond:

Adam Benzine of music industry bible 'Music Week' said it will really shake things up in terms of album pricing.

"Radiohead have really put the cat amongst the pigeons with this one," he told NME.COM. "The album will revolutionise the way people think about music. It had already forced people to question how much music is actually worth.

http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/31470

Cheers industry types!

pisces, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Or: the more you pay, the longer before the tracks fade out :-)

This is an incentive!?

Trayce, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

Coolfer generally OTM, except I think this will shake things up more than he seems to suggest in his post.

http://www.coolfer.com/blog/archives/2007/09/radiohead_album.php

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 12:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

i wonder how much money Waste Products Ltd took last night?

jed_, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

They are regarded by some music critics as the world's best rock band.


Just so you know...

Mark G, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

wish the free one was 18 tracks though.

they need some incentive to sell the 'discbox' besides vinyl and digital photos that'll be on the internet the day the thing is sent out anyway.

No, I would guess they need some incentive to charge £40 for the deluxe version rather than the regular version. It says "So Far, it is only available from this website"-- so the idea is that eventually they will ship regular CDs, eh? I would guess this will happen on 12/3, same as when those who ordered the huge package get their shit. That is the release date.

Oct. 10, however, is the leak date: What Radiohead have done is leaked their own album, two months before its physical release -- same as everything else -- but they turned it into an event and a moral decision about whether you should pay for that leak or you should just steal/take it/sample it and maybe buy it later, whatever you want to call it. And they've enticed people to actually give them money for a leak in part by, at this moment, setting up this deluxe product as your only other choice to pay for their music.

scottpl, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

well, the NME is reporting that the regular version, the single-disc one, is coming out in early 08 (i.e. after the holiday buying season), so, if true, my guesswork is already proven wrong, haha.

scottpl, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was so enthusiastic about this this morning but now I just want to say - shittiest album title ever.

Roz, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, in this case they're really just "leaking" their album 3 months early, giving people an opportunity to buy a really nice physical product, and leaving it up to the individual to pay and consume as they see fit, really. It's really genius. "Hey, this is our album, and it's going to leak, but we'll be the ones to leak it. And some of you will never pay for this, and we understand that, so we're going to let you pay whatever you want to. We're respecting the way shit is done these days. We know that, if you respect us, you will pay us somehow for our hard work and good music, and if you don't you won't. This would happen either way, but at least now we're doing this on our own terms."

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

So why isn't it out today? What's the ten day hold up? Are they drunk?

caek, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also, whoever said they might give free concert tickets or something to the people who bought the $80 package thing is probably OTM here. Otherwise, I don't really see why they're bundling all that stuff up and making it impossible for anyone to order just the CD as of now . . . unless it's just because *that's what they want to do*, and that's what this whole thing is about anyway - a band creating and distributing its music the way it wants to as much as that can be done these days.

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

oops, sorry, xpost

three handclaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just heard it was a hoax. Have asked how he knows, but no reply.

Ah, no there was a hoax one last week. This is real. False alarm.

It would be a very easy way to steal a lot of money, though, especially with the 10-day delay. Mind you, you'd only be stealing as much as people volunteered to pay.

Jamie T Smith, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Disc 2: Bangers and Mash!

Bangers and Mash: as performed by Thom Yorke and PJ Harvey:

Him: I met her down in Napoli and didn't she look great?
And so I brought her back to Blighty just to show me mates,
And though we're married happily I'll tell you furthermore
I haven't had a decent meal since 1944.

Her: Eat your minestrone, Joe.
Him: That's all you ever say.
Her: Eat your macaroni, Joe.
Him: Ever blinking day.
Her: No wonder you're so bony, Joe, and skinny as a rake.
Him: Well then, give us a bash at the bangers and mash me mother used to make.

Him: Bangers and mash,
Her: Minestrone,
Him: Bangers and mash,
Her: Macaroni,
Him: Give us a bash at the bangers and mash me mother used to make.

Her: Eat your tagliatelle, Joe.
Him: That's all I've heard for years.
Her: Eat your vermicelli, Joe.
Him: It's coming out me ears!
Her: You've got to fill your belly, Joe, Joe for heaven's sake!
Him: Well then, give us a bash at the bangers and mash me mother used to make.

Her: Well alright!
Him: Bangers and mash,
Her: Tagliatelle,
Him: Bangers and mash,
Her: Vermicelli,
Him: Give us a bash at the bangers and mash me mother used to make.

Reporter: (Spoken) 1943. Allied forces land in Italy.
Him: There's a smashing-looking bird over there, Bert. I think she's showing out there.
Bert: (Camp) Well why don't you chat her up, then?
Him: Right. Bon-gorno, sig-noreena there. Here, are you married?
Her: Drop-a dead-a.
Him: There you are, you can't have a fairer answer than that, can you?

Her: I met him back in Italy, so dashing and good-looking,
He wined me and he dined me every night.
He said I smiled so prettily and how he loved my cooking,
But since he's married me it seems he's lost his appetite.

Him: Eat-a your tagliatelle, Soph.
Her: That's all you ever say.
Him: Eat-a your vermicelli, Soph.
Her: Ooh! Every blooming day.
Him: You've-a got to fill your belly, Soph, Soph for heaven's sake!
Her: Well then, give us a bash at the bangers and mash your mother used to make.

Him: Bangers and-a mash,
Her: Minestrone,
Him: Bangers and-a mash,
Her: Macaroni,
Him: Give me a bash with (she laughs uncontrollably) the banger and the mash like the same one that your mother was — what are you laughing at now? Now, this is miserable, please!

Her: Joe?
Him: Yes?
Her: Why don't you belt up, or I'll give you a punch up the throat!
Him: Now she's-a tells me. Ha! Mamma mia!

Mark G, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

What could the rationale possibly be for paying for the download, though? Once they offer it for free, then any money you decide to give is just like giving to charity. Only I'm not too sure Thom Yorke needs my charity.

Zelda Zonk, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Which band/label is it that does a pay as much as you like thing for downloads, and publishes the average as a guide?

caek, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

Can you get one though?

I can't.

Mark G, Monday, 1 October 2007 13:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Bought one. Rather excited.

kv_nol, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

ha ha "industry types" weighing in. These people--whose livelihood depends on the status quo--are the primary reason that the industry has tanked. They are the reason Radiohead is doing what they are doing. And if you've read Coolfer long enough, it's obvious that Glenn is dubious of technology and is empathetic to the old guard.

This is a great move by a great band.

Dandy Don Weiner, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really hope we get to see the stats on how many discboxes were ordered within the first 24 hours of that announcement.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is a great move by a great band.

Props to them for trying something different, but I'm not so sure that it is prefiguring the future of music delivery. It's a move that could only be made by a band that was already phenomenally successful, and its business model seems to be: "The music's free, but we'll soak the geek-fan who fetishises the object." Not sure that's really going to work for 99 percent of people who make music.

Zelda Zonk, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is it soaking if it's a package full of art and goodies?

Eazy, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is it soaking if it's a package full of art and goodies?

"soak" was maybe unnecessarily pejorative, no one's forced to buy anything. But the tactic is to go upmarket. Forget about trying to make money out of the average punter, and to make up for it, charge the uber-fans 4 times more. (You can be sure that the product itself is not going to cost 4 times more to produce).

Zelda Zonk, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's clearly not going to change things for most bands, let alone a billion dollar industry.

The thing I love is that it reinforces the value of DIY, or at least as DIY as band of Radiohead's stature can be.

I really don't see why anyone would care if someone wants to pay $80 for what amounts to art, especially given what the box contains (I thought soaking the rich was good!). Seems like a good value to me, although I probably won't buy it. I certainly would rather the band get more of my money than some dude on eBay.

Dandy Don Weiner, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think the main thing is that it prompts ideas. Obviously it's not going to change how things are done straightaway, but it's interesting and they're a band that's huge enough that when they do something like this, it gets the big labels to sit up and take notice.

A lot of artists these days are self-releasing records in a similar way but for the most part it's happening on the fringes. With Radiohead, at the very least, we'll get to see whether something like this can be viable or not in the long run, and yeah hopefully encourage more artists to take a bit more control in terms of how they want to make money from their music.

Roz, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is In Rainbows the new punk? A 24,000 word essay in multiple instalments. Coming soon to a magazine near you!

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Put it this way.

Fan, or person who does not want to wait, pays £12 for a new CD.

The rest of us wait a year and get it for £5.

This way, Fan, or person with £40 disposable, buys this.

The rest of us get a cheapie.

Mark G, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't care if someone wants to pay $80 and I don't think Radiohead are doing anything "wrong" and I think it's an interesting experiment - but I don't think this model's really leading anywhere either. From a financial perspective, I'm guessing they'll make a fraction of what they made from OK Computer or Kid A. But yeah, props for trying something different.

Zelda Zonk, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

From a financial perspective, I'm guessing they'll make a fraction of what they made from OK Computer or Kid A

Like EMI didn't make most of the money from those anyway, gimme a break!

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

I only think it's different in that it places a slight moral choice - should I or should I not pay something? Otherwise, it's just like any old album. Also even if you don't pay a cent, they still have your details and an excuse to spam your inbox.

Roz, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost OTM

I bet the five members of Radiohead will see more money from actual album sales on this than most of their studio records.

Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah, surely all the profit is going directly to radiohead, minus whatever cut they've worked out with the waste products people? there's no record company to siphon away massive chunks of the money.

haitch, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also, farts.

(I don't wanna get banned frm noize brd)

Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

Always interesting even though they haven't been close to their artistic potential since "OK Computer".
-- Geir Hongro, Monday, 1 October 2007 11:17 (3 hours ago) Link

WRONG

stephen, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wonder if they'll make the price people pay public?

caek, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

www.inrainbows.com down at the moment? (expected this to happen a lot sooner)

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Like EMI didn't make most of the money from those anyway, gimme a break!

Sure, evil record company made a bundle too. Don't know what percentage Radiohead was on, but I don't suppose they did too badly out of it. And now they don't have a record company to pay protection to. But in strict terms of business models, this latest strategy will generate only a fraction of what the previous (admittedly now unworkable) model generated. That's my guess anyway!

Zelda Zonk, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Zelda, I'm loving all these caveats of yours, because nothing about what you're saying suggests anything the band clearly haven't thought of already. Which is PRECISELY why they are trying this out.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

www.inrainbows.com down at the moment? (expected this to happen a lot sooner)

-- StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 14:58 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

They removed the "Enter" link.

So, do this one:
http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/Quickindex2.html

Mark G, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also even if you don't pay a cent, they still have your details and an excuse to spam your inbox.
-- Roz, Monday, October 1, 2007 2:55 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

exactly! you can bet there's a huge tour in the works, and that everyone who puts in their contact info for this download (whether they pay nothing, a little or a lot) is gonna get an announcement straight to their email in a few months.

NB: that's an really inexpensive way to market a really massive tour.

stephen, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Another thing that occurred to me as well -- no complaints about people making mp3 rips of radio broadcasts of pre-released tracks, not to mention no worries about radio stations playing anything before they're supposed to. Jack White must be grousing as we type.

(Also, some writer colleagues in the UK checked with the band's PR folks, who confirmed -- no advances/listening parties/etc., everyone gets it all at once.)

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

thanks - but that's not working either/very very slow right now (xxpost)

but anyway, it doesn't matter, I ordered teh box this morning.

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Just finished the process. Man, that was hard work!

Ned, did you check the google group?

Mark G, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

... so by the time a review appears in the monthlies, the download album will be more than two months old but it's going to be just in time for the box set (December) or the actual CD (if they release that in January).

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned, did you check the google group?

?

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

how many of you are going to be ordering this? i can't decide. the most i've paid for a single piece of music is pretty much around $25. i like radiohead a whole lot but 80 bucks is a lot of money.

also, for US people who have ordered stuff from the UK before -- how much of the $80 do you think goes towards shipping? somehow i can justify it more if the shipping cost is like $30 or something.....

Mark Clemente, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

grrrr NME

"listen to the album here!"
- click, page with ads and
"click here to go to the blog!"
- click, page with more ads and
"click here to see the whole message!"
- click, page with ads and the youtube live clips every blog has

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

YOUR PURCHASE MAY BE SUBJECT TO A TRANSACTION FEE.
THIS WILL BE SHOWN AT THE CHECKOUT.

oh yeah, pay 20 quid transaction fee as well now plz

no?

rizzx, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

No, I haven't seen anyone's posts anywhere who had to pay that transaction fee.

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

If Radiohead had done this with Hail To The Thief, I would have been one of the $80 discbox purchasers. I really love the Kid A/Amnesiac period, and went through a major period of Radiohead obsession based on those two CDs. As it turns out, they're the only two Radiohead CDs I truly like. So I'll do the cheap download to start, and will pay standard price for whatever lower-price CD or LP version ultimately comes out.

mike a, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

Drudge Report linked to the site this morning. That probably crashed it.

Comparing sales of this to OK Computer and Kid A and profits, keep in mind that each MP3 sold costs $0.00 to manufacture.

Eazy, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

and even so, that fee would only be 45p (xxxpost)

http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/Advice.html

What are your shipping rates?

There is no additional shipping charge for the Discbox.

Are there any additional costs?

A 45 pence bank charge may be incurred. This will be shown at the checkout.

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

No transaction fee for me...

kv_nol, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Transaction fee is 45p

I don't know if that applies if you went for the 0.00 option.

Mark G, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

No, if you go for the 0.00 option you only have to fill in your contact details apparently, not your visa number & so on.

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Comparing sales of this to OK Computer and Kid A and profits, keep in mind that each MP3 sold costs $0.00 to manufacture.

And also costs $0.00 to buy! (setting up the website and the backoffice technology etc would have cost something though).

Zelda Zonk, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

Everyone's acting like this box is limited edition and preorder only, but they didn't say that anywhere, or did they?

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

StanM is correct - no credit info required for the free purchase.

Simon H., Monday, 1 October 2007 15:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

If Radiohead had done this with Hail To The Thief, I would have been one of the $80 discbox purchasers. I really love the Kid A/Amnesiac period, and went through a major period of Radiohead obsession based on those two CDs. As it turns out, they're the only two Radiohead CDs I truly like.

this pretty much describes why i'm hesistant to drop the $80 on the discbox. i like the other albums just fine, but Kid A/Amnesiac are pretty much the only ones I'm motivated to listen to anymore. i'm just a little worried about dropping $80 on an album isn't nearly as good as my favorite radiohead stuff.

Mark Clemente, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

They had to write and practise and record and mix and master everything before they had the free mp3s though, and AFAIK those things tend to cost money (even when you have your own studio) (xxxpost)

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

hmm maybe i'll do the free download and if it's effin' great, i'll do the discbox.

Mark Clemente, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm more excited about this as a news story, and as a hugely interesting marketing model, than i am as an album :/

grimly fiendish, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

I ordered the box because I just have to have it. I'll worry about the music later :-)

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Maybe they figure that anyone who is going to download it for free would get the songs for free anyway.

Eazy, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

hmm maybe i'll do the free download and if it's effin' great, i'll do the discbox.

This is kinda what I figured most people interested in the box would be doing anyway!

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

Lefsetz has chimed in.

Simon H., Monday, 1 October 2007 15:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh pfft you whiners - try not being american or british, the pound is SEVEN times my currency. That's like half a month's rent right there. I won't pay that much even if I do like the album. Too bad cause the whole package looks so pretty.

Roz, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Lefsetz has chimed in.

Hahahah! I was waiting for that!

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Will they make a deal with a major for physical distribution? Will they do it themselves? Or will they leave ALL that money on the table? Shit, that would blow MY mind.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

how much of the $80 do you think goes towards shipping?
-- Mark Clemente, Monday, October 1, 2007 3:17 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

from an experienced ebayer who ships worldwide...maybe $10, $12

stephen, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

For that much weight? (double CD, double vinyl, hardcover booklet)

Wow. I've been had by some sellers, I think. :-/

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah, you've been had by at least 80% of eBay sellers, more than likely

stephen, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

I ordered the box because I just have to have it. I'll worry about the music later :-)

-- StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:34 (Monday, 1 October 2007 16:34)

Sadly very OTM u_u

kv_nol, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

The only problem with this release strategy is that there will be a shortage of sane, measured reviews of the album and a whole lot of "I wouldn't pay for this crap anyway har-dee-har-har!".

Simon H., Monday, 1 October 2007 15:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

It seems like the concerts in '06 received really strong reviews, and that some of these songs were developed then.

Eazy, Monday, 1 October 2007 15:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah as far as i can tell, at least 12 of the 18 songs were played on tour last year, maybe more, they might have changed some of the titles.

Roz, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

deadairspace update for whoever's having trouble accessing the online store:

Just to let you know - mel called to say that w.a.s.t.e are working on the current gear-grinding at inrainbows.com....it's getting busy in there - busier than they expected.

So if you please bear with us, it should get cleared out soon. I sound like a bouncer. Get behind the rope. No denim. Thanks for your patience with the site & interest in the record.

Jonny

Roz, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows

stephen, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

Which band/label is it that does a pay as much as you like thing for downloads, and publishes the average as a guide?

You're thinking of Magnatune maybe?

todd, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Radiohead's new music has been characterized by the band as "almost embarrassingly minimal," "sparse with lots of bass," and, more recently, "lush", according to Stanley Donwood, who is working closely with them on the artwork of the new album

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

ILM:

Oct. 10, however, is the leak date: What Radiohead have done is leaked their own album, two months before its physical release -- same as everything else -- but they turned it into an event and a moral decision about whether you should pay for that leak or you should just steal/take it/sample it and maybe buy it later, whatever you want to call it. And they've enticed people to actually give them money for a leak in part by, at this moment, setting up this deluxe product as your only other choice to pay for their music.
-- scottpl, Monday, October 1, 2007 1:10 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

Pitchfork:

What Radiohead's doing here is actually pretty cool. Rather than preface their new album's release with the usual three months of press ballyhoo, only to have it leak at some random time before it comes out, they've kept it completely under wraps, then essentially gone and leaked it themselves. What's more, they've turned this into a moral question of sorts, by giving us the freedom to pay actual money for what amounts to an album leak.

.............................................................................

stephen, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, how dare Scott use his own words in two places.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

lolol

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

HAHA oops i didn't catch that part, sorry guys

stephen, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

classic

HI DERE, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, of course they'd release it on CD as well. That's the whole reason I was able to fill out the total as $0.00. There's no ethical debate when you're downloading the album early because you need to listen to the music. I do this all the time, and I still buy the albums when they come out.

It is smart of them to leak it on their terms, ensuring that everyone gets it at the same time and will be talking about it together like a release back in the pre-leak days.

Cosmo Vitelli, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah it's pretty smart, it's like a big f u to the record industry and a whatever you want pal for the fans

best move ever

rizzx, Monday, 1 October 2007 18:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Where did the word "discbox" come from and can we stop saying it?

Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 1 October 2007 19:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Not the same thing, but it's being used like this too: DBS = discbox slider

http://search.storaenso.com/mini/media/index.html?p=false

StanM, Monday, 1 October 2007 19:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Wait, are the MP3s we're going to receive on 10.10.07 of inferior sound quality (e.g., because the band is making the songs available for any price to counter illegal leaking, you get what you pay for)? If that's so, I'll feel a bit foolish, having "donated" $10 for the MP3s.

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 1 October 2007 20:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

nah i doubt the mp3s will sound that bad. probably not any better or worse than most mp3s you'd get from itunes/emusic/etc. if anything maybe a little better than those venues, but who knows.

Mark Clemente, Monday, 1 October 2007 20:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Right, that's my xmas present sorted for this year :)

Herman G. Neuname, Monday, 1 October 2007 20:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

even if the album sucks i still applaud them for their inventiveness on handling their own leak better than anyone i have ever seen

im pumped and still in awe from how out of nowhere this all happend

gman, Monday, 1 October 2007 20:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

even if the album sucks i still applaud them for their inventiveness on handling their own leak better than anyone i have ever seen

Is it just me, or isn't what they're doing kind of the most obvious way to go about it? Not the $80 box part, just the free part. I'm guessing there's more than a few artists slapping their foreheads over this one, but of course they're all still shackled to their labels.

Not that I'm not glad they did it; it's more their courage than their inventiveness that I'm applauding.

Sara Sara Sara, Monday, 1 October 2007 20:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

im sure a lot of labels will take notice of this.

gman, Monday, 1 October 2007 21:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

bud_dwyer.jpg

Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 1 October 2007 21:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

bud_dwyer.jpg
-- Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, October 1, 2007 9:10 PM (50 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

this would've worked better had you spelled the man's name correctly.

stephen, Monday, 1 October 2007 21:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

You still managed to get the joke somehow.

Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 1 October 2007 22:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Unrelated: First magazine/blog to use the headline Gravitas Rainbow gets clowned.

Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 1 October 2007 22:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is it just me, or isn't what they're doing kind of the most obvious way to go about it? Not the $80 box part, just the free part. I'm guessing there's more than a few artists slapping their foreheads over this one, but of course they're all still shackled to their labels.

Stars -- who are signed to the Arts & Crafts label -- did something similar to this by releasing their new disc (In Our Bedroom After The War) to digital services months before the actual physical disc was released. But, by contrast, I think Stars' strategy killed enthusiasm for their disc, which was formally released just about a week ago with little fanfare.

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 1 October 2007 22:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

Unrelated: First magazine/blog to use the headline Gravitas Rainbow gets clowned.

-- Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, October 1, 2007 10:11 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

why wait when we can clown the first ILM poster who thought of it?

Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 1 October 2007 22:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

xxpost

If I recall correctly, Stars posted their album for sale digitally in response to the album leaking before the release date. It was not a premeditated release strategy like Radiohead is attempting.

I have no idea how to verify it, but I doubt releasing the digital copies of IOBATW hurt its sales. I know I bought it from their website immediately rather than search for a leak. It would surprise me if it sold any better or worse than previous Stars' albums.

The digital release of In Rainbows is less of a news item to me than the fact they're releasing it independent of any major label support.

turkey, Monday, 1 October 2007 22:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

i bought the stars album digitally to applaud their release of it and i will also pay for in rainbows digitally

cutty, Monday, 1 October 2007 23:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

This album better be about 1000000x better than that Stars record. (And I loved the previous.)

Simon H., Monday, 1 October 2007 23:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

This album better be about 1000000x better than that Stars record.

How have you heard it? I thought there was be no leaks or pre-release listening parties until the 10.10.07 digital release.

Daniel, Esq., Monday, 1 October 2007 23:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Frothing Radiohead fans so excited they can't read properly.

Bless.

Mister Craig, Monday, 1 October 2007 23:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

this is freaking awesome

bstep, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 00:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

LOL. Okay, yes, I'm a kid who can't read good. And a Radiohead fan.

My bad; I misread Simon's post.

Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 2 October 2007 00:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

Wow, whether it's a good record or not is entirely irrelevant, they've smashed the system!

w00t!!!!!!53!8008!

Mister Craig, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 00:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

radioglaad

johnny crunch, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 01:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

I guess this means no more groovy MTV music videos, then. :(

Mr. Snrub, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 02:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Who will be the next to venture into the discbox format? I would like a to have a whole shelf of discboxes.

Mark Rich@rdson, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 02:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol MTV?

xpost

Roz, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 02:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Did anyone here pay for the download (apart from me)?

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 11:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes. I also got done for 45p surcharge.

kv_nol, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 12:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

i did. i paid 3.14 pounds. first number that came in my head.

Billy Pilgrim, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

£2 (45p)

Mark G, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

£5.55 = £6.00, I forgot about the 45p. I was feeling generous. Now I'm feeling ripped off!

ledge, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

What is the point of paying for it, if they're giving it away for free? Do you think Radiohead needs the money? Do you think they're not going to make a hefty profit on the £40 version?

Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

Like others have said, I don't see any reason to pay if I'm a.)going to buy the discbox eventually or b.)going to buy the regular release when it comes out or c.)they are offering it for free (which they are).

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

What is the point of paying for it, if they're giving it away for free? Do you think Radiohead needs the money? Do you think they're not going to make a hefty profit on the £40 version?

haha guilty conscience much? considering how little i've paid for their last few records (i.e. none), i was happy to chip in a little as a tribute to the clever marketing.

Billy Pilgrim, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm not going to buy any other versions. I am in general willing to pay for hassle-free DRM-free good quality digital downloads. I don't want "the industry" seeing this as a failed experiment in goodwill.

ledge, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really don't get why people base their decision on whether or not Radiohead needs the money.

Dandy Don Weiner, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

haha guilty conscience much?

Yeah, I'm guessing most people who've paid are doing so because of niggling guilt at the idea of getting something for nothing. But I see no reason for the guilt. The download is just the loss leader for the discbox. It's a perfectly reasonable commercial strategy. You might just as well chip in a bit extra to Tesco when they offer 2-for-1 deals, or pay Murdoch an extra 50p when he engages in price wars or whatever.

Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Or put it this way: if Radiohead thought it was unfair to pay nothing for the downloads, they wouldn't have offered them for free.

Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

maybe they want to see how fair or otherwise people will be, given the chance

ledge, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

maybe they don't know how much to charge and are letting the market decide

ledge, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

You might just as well chip in a bit extra to Tesco when they offer 2-for-1 deals, or pay Murdoch an extra 50p when he engages in price wars or whatever.

No, this is completely different, but I haven't quite worked out how yet.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also ledge otmx3

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's not that I feel guilty it's just that I think 30p a track is totally an ok amount to spend. If you want it for free, that's fine too, it's not like Radiohead are laughing behind our backs at us giving them £3.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ok, except that one bloke...
http://img.search.com/thumb/d/dd/Radiohead_grass.jpg/315px-Radiohead_grass.jpg

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

I can predict that this album will most likely not be funky

pj, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's not that I feel guilty it's just that I think 30p a track is totally an ok amount to spend. If you want it for free, that's fine too, it's not like Radiohead are laughing behind our backs at us giving them £3.

Hmmm, I think £20 is a reasonable price to pay for the discbox. I hope Radiohead will be OK with that...

Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't understand.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 13:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

i would have paid a little bit but i don't own a credit card.

Roz, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 14:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

The money is a way of showing some appreciation of the band's work.
That being said, I'd rather download it for free and then pay for it afterwards if I liked it. I suppose they haven't a system in place for that. Having a "donate" button separate from the download-process would probably result in less money, as the way it is now it's easy for people to throw in a buck or two just as a gesture.
Oh well, free or not, I haven't enough interest in Radiohead to give this a listen.

Øystein, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 14:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't understand.

I just mean they've fixed an elevated price on the thing they actually intend to make their money on, they're not giving anyone the "choice" about that. Which of course is fine and totally their perogative to charge whatever they like for what they've produced. I think the "choosing" whether to pay or not for the download is a red herring in terms of their business model. The free download is part of the business model, a promotional tool for the discbox and, more generally, for the Radiohead "brand" which will generate money through merchandise, concert tickets etc.

I don't think Radiohead are all about money, but they're obviously trying to make what they do a commercial proposition and they're trying this new business model which has free downloads built into it as part of the model. For that reason I see no particular reason to pay for the download.

Anyway, God knows why I'm going on and on about this, let's just hope the album is good...

Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 14:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wonder what percentage of people will pay c. a tenner for this, or whatever the standard CD price is these days. I'm tempted to pay a pound, purely to say I bought it but without going overboard.

In any case any money Radiohead DO lose if this goes tits-up is likely to be recouped by a fucking massive tour anyway, isn't it?

Matt DC, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 14:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

A poll on what you are paying is here Radiohead - In Rainbows : What Are You Paying?

Herman G. Neuname, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 14:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

but touring is traditionally the way bands make money anyway, isn't it? how is this different?

Dimension 5ive, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 15:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Presumably less need to feel obligated to pose next to record execs with gold/platinum awards that they paid for out of their advances.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 15:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

how much is a pack of cigarettes in the UK in pounds? Or like going to McDonalds?

M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 15:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Happy Meal = £1.99

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 15:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Just typing that made me feel slightly nauseous.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 15:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ciggies are over a fiver a packet now I think.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 16:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

So I paid halfway between a Happy Meal and a packet of B & H. That makes me feel so much better.

Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 16:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

ok so that make sense the box isn't that expensive for UK people then...it's more like paying $40 USD, too bad they didn't adjust for exchange rates a bit...

M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 16:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

While we wait, I've started a little something.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 03:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

zelda did you pay anything

gman, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 04:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm starting to get so excited about this album and I know that's just not rational. I didn't like their last one.

I'm dead intrigued that they've picked up the ball with that song "Reckoner" again, I thought they'd left that one in the dust long ago, quite mysteriously.

Bimble, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 04:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yo, is it true what I heard that the Radioheads are gonna release a tribute album to Rainbow, and if you get the special 100 quid discobox it comes with a pot of gold?! I hope they cover "Since You Been Gone", that's all. Ronnie James Dio rules!

Tuomas, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

Timely as ever.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

they are painting the whole world as in rainbows...

Mark G, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Tuomas, it's much better than that: if you order the free mp3s there's a field where you can decide how much money they're going to send you. They're very generous, they say "it's up to you, really, it's up to you"

StanM, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

But I don't want any money the Radioheads have touched with their plucked gopher hands... Ronnie James Dio rules!

Tuomas, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Don't worry, you can fill in 0.00 - they'll still send you 45 cents, but you don't have to accept them.

StanM, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

45 cents of what?

Tuomas, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

45 cents, the 50 Cent tribute rappers.

StanM, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned, I like your piece. Not living in the US at that point, I hadn't realized how singlehandedly "Creep" introduced them to an American audience.

I had a cassette of Pablo Honey, and loved "Anyone Can Play Guitar," but found the rest of it, well, I'm not sure: I think I had difficulty placing it (as a 19 year old) within either shoegaze (my love at the time) or grunge (most of which I didn't like), so I gave up. I think I lumped them in with something like Ash (which came out in 94 I think), and assumed they'd be similarly important.

paulhw, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned, I like your piece.

Thanks -- yeah, it was VERY singlehanded. As you say, Pablo Honey is a bit of a there/not there album, but one thing that struck me on the relisten was that it was extremely well-produced. Usually everyone goes on about that for the following albums instead.

Second part up later today. Pretty much just keep checking back in.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyone want to put money as to when we'll actually hear this record? As opposed to repeatedly getting the same error message when the Radiohead site immediately falls over after being hit with the force equivalent to 1000 Glastonbury Ticket Sales.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

They'll probably roll out emails over a 24-hour period, just to take some of the burden off the server. That's my guess anyway.

Cosmo Vitelli, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Part two of my project is up.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 4 October 2007 02:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

They'll probably roll out emails over a 24-hour period, just to take some of the burden off the server. That's my guess anyway.

But how would they decide the order in which to send... oh. I knew I should have donated something. :-/

Vinnie, Thursday, 4 October 2007 13:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Part three of my project is up.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 5 October 2007 01:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

the section starting with "I hate OK Computer." is completely otm

ciderpress, Friday, 5 October 2007 01:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Damn, Ned!

Whiney G. Weingarten, Friday, 5 October 2007 01:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

(For those wondering, read the whole section indicated and you'll see what I mean.)

Ned Raggett, Friday, 5 October 2007 02:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned, you just made my evening with your piece. I wasn't really around for any of that myself, but I really enjoyed hearing your take on it all.

jonathan - stl, Friday, 5 October 2007 03:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thanks! This whole exercise has been interesting...

Ned Raggett, Friday, 5 October 2007 03:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thom's hair looks like Rod Stewart!

Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 5 October 2007 03:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm really enjoying these pieces too, Ned. It's pretty amazing how well you've captured the time that all this happened, both general reception to the band and your personal anecdotes. i can barely remember what i did last week much less stuff ten years ago, so yeah, wonderful stuff.

had fun with the accompanying youtube clips too - that performance of "Paranoid Android" on Jools Holland was blistering.

Roz, Friday, 5 October 2007 04:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thanks much, again. :-)

The clips were sort of a last minute idea, a 'wait a minute, duh' thing. My selections are kinda at random but at the same time I'm trying to find notable performances, or at least some unusual ones.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 5 October 2007 04:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol: http://guitar.blogfeedsworld.com/?p=2494

I enjoyed reading those entries, it certainly puts things in perspective (since I was probably teething then).

Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 5 October 2007 04:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Gotta love those guitar enthusiasts. Anyway, you kids today with your hula hoops and your iPods and your...

Ned Raggett, Friday, 5 October 2007 04:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

i was just noticing going through those clips, while the rest of the band seems to have gone through a bunch of different looks (especially Thom), the younger Greenwood appears not to have changed his hairstyle nor his wardrobe, or indeed aged a day, since 1993.

Roz, Friday, 5 October 2007 04:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

the younger Greenwood appears not to have changed his hairstyle nor his wardrobe, or indeed aged a day, since 1993.

Yep, pretty much.

This is from *last year*:
http://pics.livejournal.com/radioreverie/pic/0001qa1w.jpg

Melissa W, Friday, 5 October 2007 05:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Rest of the band is his own portrait of Dorian Grey.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 5 October 2007 05:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

I always felt that Kid A was Radiohead's pinnacle (thus far). Not only my favorite, it's the album where they clarified themselves and earned my eternal respect (and probably adoration).

With that, the next column in Ned's series is the one I'm anticipating the most. It's kind of old man Raggett to serve these appetizers before the 10th.

Cosmo Vitelli, Friday, 5 October 2007 06:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

"OLD...MAN...RAGGETT..."

http://www.marcnorton.us/media/DIR_73405/73516.jpg

Ned Raggett, Friday, 5 October 2007 06:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

Part four is up.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 6 October 2007 01:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

ditto cosmo vitelli, kid a is such vivid music

bstep, Saturday, 6 October 2007 04:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Listening again to it today made me realize how wrong a lot of people have been about that album, including myself. I had remembered it as this restrained calm, rather foolishly.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 6 October 2007 04:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Kid A was the first album that I remember mp3s wrongly informing perceptions of the whole. A random track like "Treefingers" could be your first (and only) foray into Radiohead's new music. I remember reading from people in forums at the time, who came for Karma Police redux and thought they were swindled into Music For Airports instead.

As for the chatter about Amnesiac being a "return to form" (take that, Kid A!), that notion had been so cemented in Truth by the time the band posted a stream on their website that I was intensely confused on first listen, getting through each track and thinking, "This is pretty cool, but what the fuck?"

Cosmo Vitelli, Saturday, 6 October 2007 04:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just keep thinking about this album "it won't be as good as Kid A"

Bimble, Saturday, 6 October 2007 08:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

If you go in with that expectation then it won't be!

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 6 October 2007 14:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Listening again to it today made me realize how wrong a lot of people have been about that album, including myself. I had remembered it as this restrained calm, rather foolishly.

The misperception that has always bugged me the most is the idea that Kid A was nothing but an Autechre/AFX/Squarepusher/Warp Records ripoff. I always asked for specific examples of which Radiohead song sounded like which Autechre song, but strangely, I never got a good response.

I enjoyed your article, Ned, and the last 3 as well.

Z S, Saturday, 6 October 2007 15:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just keep thinking about this album "it won't be as good as Kid A"

They've defied my expectations before, and it's been 4 years since HTTT. I really have no idea what this one will sound like. It just as easily could be a retread as it could be relevant. They're smart enough, so I'm hopful.

Cosmo Vitelli, Saturday, 6 October 2007 15:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

What does beer have to do with this? o_O

StanM, Saturday, 6 October 2007 15:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think it's good that they've been out of the limelight for a while. Doing it this way means that there'll be less "WTF, it's not as good as the last one" or any silyl expectation. I'm going to treat In Rainbows very much as a new leaf in the Radiohead book, a fourth chapter if you will.

the next grozart, Saturday, 6 October 2007 16:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

I still keep meaning to assemble a single mix CD from parts of Kid A and Amnesiac...and call it 'Kid Amnesiac'.

Edward Bax, Saturday, 6 October 2007 18:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

I still keep meaning to assemble a single mix CD from parts of Kid A and Amnesiac...and call it 'Kid Amnesiac'.

-- Edward Bax

You'll need "Worrywort" and "Kinetic," surely. . .

Soundslike, Saturday, 6 October 2007 18:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

I paid about $6 for the download. [pound symbol]2.90, to be exact.

unperson, Saturday, 6 October 2007 18:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

I paid $5. I always tend to remember Kid A as "restrained calm" myself. I guess that shows how little I listen to it now.

Bimble, Saturday, 6 October 2007 19:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Part five is up.

Ned Raggett, Sunday, 7 October 2007 00:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

And part five-a (since part six is tomorrow).

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 00:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

I always thought the "Here comes the flood" intro to Everything in its Right Place was a reference to R.E.M.'s "E-Bow the Letter", not Peter Gabriel.

"Will you show me something that nobody else has seen?
Smoke it, drink
Here comes the flood
Anything to thin the blood
These corrosives do their magic slowly and sweet"

What makes that interpretation more convincing to me is how close of friends Stipe and Yorke are and the fact that they've toured together.

Z S, Monday, 8 October 2007 00:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I heard R.E.M. in that song too -- especially after hearing Yorke sing the Patti Smith part at the Tibetan Freedom Concert.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 8 October 2007 00:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

You're actually almost certainly right there, though I wonder if REM didn't borrow the line from Gabriel. I can't say I remember a single thing about "E-Bow the Letter" at this point beyond the title. (On the 2001 Hollywood Bowl bootleg I have he sings part of the Beatles' "Baby You're a Rich Man Too" by way of introduction so I wonder if/how much it all varied.)

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 00:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

On the 2001 Hollywood Bowl bootleg I have he sings part of the Beatles' "Baby You're a Rich Man Too"

Could you possibly email just that track to me?

Melissa W, Monday, 8 October 2007 01:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

Drop me a line with a preferred address...

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 01:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

Did my email reach you?

Melissa W, Monday, 8 October 2007 01:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

It did, thanks!

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 02:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

He used to sing all sorts of stuff in front of that song. I used to have some boot where he sang "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next" at the beginning. I'm not sure if he's a Manics fan (for some reason it seems doubtful) or if he just liked the line.

Z S, Monday, 8 October 2007 03:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

though I wonder if REM didn't borrow the line from Gabriel.
-- Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 00:51 (5 hours ago) Link

OTM!

stephen, Monday, 8 October 2007 06:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

What makes that interpretation more convincing to me is how close of friends Stipe and Yorke are and the fact that they've toured together.

-- Z S, Monday, 8 October 2007 00:20 (11 hours ago) Link

yeah, plus the fact that it's that song in particular...

That song is about the whole period of time that OK Computer was happening. We did the Glastonbury Festival and this thing in Ireland. Something snapped in me. I just said, "That's it. I can't take it anymore." And more than a year later, we were still on the road. I hadn't had time to address things. The lyrics came from something Michael Stipe said to me. I rang him and said, "I cannot cope with this." And he said, "Pull the shutters down and keep saying, 'I'm not here, this is not happening.'"

bernard snowy, Monday, 8 October 2007 11:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

wow! michael stipe co-wrote HOW TO DISAPPEAR...
that's great! had no idea.

pisces, Monday, 8 October 2007 12:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

I should, though, point out that the song which these introductions are being added to is not "How to Disappear Completely" but "Everything In Its Right Place." That said that is a v. good anecdote.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 12:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

So with two days to go, has anyone gotten a reply back from WASTE yet?

Roz, Monday, 8 October 2007 13:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

You mean order confirmation? Yeah, pretty much immediately after I ordered, last Monday.

StanM, Monday, 8 October 2007 13:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Nope not the order confirmation but the activation code for the d/l.

Download customers.

You will receive a further e-mail shortly before the 10th October detailing your username and activation code. The e-mail will also provide the link to the download area.

Roz, Monday, 8 October 2007 13:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh, that one - I think we'll know the first mails have been sent out by a global slowing down of the internet.

StanM, Monday, 8 October 2007 13:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

StanM very funnily OTM.

kv_nol, Monday, 8 October 2007 13:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned, thanks for the blog countdown. It's kind of funny how reading through a couple entries on what's a pretty gloomy Monday morning here brought me back to the time when a couple of these albums were released.

mh, Monday, 8 October 2007 14:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

You're welcome -- I admit I'm quite pleasantly surprised at how well the series has gone down, it was just a random idea I had last Monday that I decided to run with. (And I know that a couple of people are probably sick of the Myspace bulletins by now...)

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 14:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

I should, though, point out that the song which these introductions are being added to is not "How to Disappear Completely" but "Everything In Its Right Place." That said that is a v. good anecdote.

-- Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 12:42 (6 hours ago) Link


oh whoops, I totally can't read.

bernard snowy, Monday, 8 October 2007 18:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Will the email notifications be sent at midnight UK time? Or will they be staggered so the damm site wont go down?

Herman G. Neuname, Monday, 8 October 2007 19:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Part six. This one was a little exhausting.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 20:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oooh - I already miss this series of articles and it's not even finished yet!

StanM, Monday, 8 October 2007 20:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

"remember when ned did that great series of posts leading up to in rainbows?"

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 8 October 2007 20:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

I remember it like it was just yesterday.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 8 October 2007 21:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

'Countdown to IN RAINBOWS' = Da Capo Best Music Writing nominee?

stephen, Monday, 8 October 2007 21:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

that would be awes.

I have a pretty major take-home exam coming up that's going to last from Thursday to Sunday. I have no idea how the hell I'm going to be able to focus on it if In Rainbows does come out tomorrow. Fuck. Everything from the big announcement to Ned's countdown (my problem, obv, not Ned's) has gotten me way more hyped up for this than I would have been.

Seriously considering waiting until after the weekend to hear it, and steering clear of any music sites including this one in the meantime. The problem is I don't know if I'm going to be able to do it argh.

Roz, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 02:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

What's the exam?

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 02:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Legal ethics. It shouldn't be a particularly difficult paper but I haven't started studying for it due to a bunch of other commitments.

Roz, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 02:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oops, that would do it. (I've been there...)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 02:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

uh huh. lolcollege

;__;

Roz, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 02:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm curious if at this point there's any fans that do expect this band to progress in a new direction. I've always seen (as with the majority, I think) that Hail To The Thief was a comfort record; an album made by musicians still bitter and passionate, but with the more modest goal of funneling that passion into a collection of great songs. Sans overriding statement or unexpected left turns. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if In Rainbows turns out similar in that regard. In fact I'd be totally content with that.

Cosmo Vitelli, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 05:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've held off from tracking all the 'new' songs (partially because I missed last year's tour -- about which more tomorrow on the blog), so hard to say on my end, but I'd want to hope for a break/progression similar between OK C and Kid A. Guess we'll find out.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 05:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

I haven't the slightest idea what to expect, but that didn't stop me paying 3.14 pounds.

bernard snowy, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 06:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'd want to hope for a break/progression similar between OK C and Kid A.

I think that's expecting too much at this stage, but if it happens I'll probably be skipping through meadows and flinging out daisies/kissing hummingbirds.

Cosmo Vitelli, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 06:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

THANK YOU FOR ORDERING IN RAINBOWS. THIS IS AN UPDATE.

YOUR UNIQUE ACTIVATION CODE(S) WILL BE SENT OUT TOMORROW MORNING (UK TIME). THIS WILL TAKE YOU STRAIGHT TO THE DOWNLOAD AREA.

HERE IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE DOWNLOAD:

THE ALBUM WILL COME AS A 48.4MB ZIP FILE CONTAINING 10 X 160KBPS DRM FREE MP3s.

MOST COMPUTERS NOW HAVE ZIP SOFTWARE AS PART OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM; IF YOUR COMPUTER DOES NOT, YOU NEED TO GET WINZIP OR ZIPIT INSTALLED PRIOR.

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THEM HERE:

PC: http://www.winzip.com/
MAC: http://www.maczipit.com/

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS DOWNLOADING YOUR FILE, PLEASE CONTACT OUR DOWNLOAD CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM AT downloadinrainb✧✧✧@wa✧✧✧.u✧.c✧✧

stephen, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 14:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Stop whispering, start shouting" indeed.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 14:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

160kbps? Wish they'd said that before I paid money.

mh, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

It says 10 x 160 KBPS! That's like... 1600 kbps! wow!

StanM, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

That puts the album at 46-48 mins, methinks. Yay calculators!

Simon H., Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

i thought it means ten (10) songs at 160kbps each...

stephen, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

(I was just kidding, but thanks for explaining anyway) :-/

StanM, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just got that update mail as well.

StanM, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

160kbps = ass.

caek, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

Probably what they were figuring in terms of demand vs. server capacity or something, who knows. And if you got it for free, you got what you paid for.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

(Personally I'm thinking that the final CD release will actually be a different mix or something similar.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 15:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

I came across this Thom Yorke article from last year, which in hindsight is kind of interesting, if only because it's clear they've been thinking about this whole thing for a long time now.

Radiohead hasn't resolved the question of how to release its new material. Although it seems that every last one of Radiohead's American and European fans is online, Mr. Yorke ruled out purely digital distribution because fans elsewhere -- Russia or South America, for instance -- are not so well connected. A company still needs to press CD's and get them to stores. ''The truth is that the traditional medium is still there, and you need it,'' he says.

Radiohead has been one of the holdouts against having their music sold on iTunes, Apple's online music store, because, Mr. Yorke says, ''the record companies basically don't want to pay the artists at all for the downloading.'' Without a contract, it can decide exactly how it wants to sell its recordings, which has left the band with ''too many variables,'' he adds.

''We were having endless debates, spending entire afternoons talking about, 'Well, if we do something, how do we put it out?' '' he recalls.'' It just became this endless and pointless discussion. Because in our dreams, it would be really nice to just let off this enormous stink bomb in the industry.''

Eventually the band simply decided to postpone any decision about recordings, although it has decided to own its recordings and license them for distribution rather than signing a standard recording contract.

''When we have something,'' he says with a shrug, ''then we'll find whatever seems the most appropriate way to put it out.''

He adds: ''I'm not really into the idea of picking an enormous fight now because I think the structure of the music business is in a state of collapse anyway. You might as well just let it get on with it. There's no point in us trying to help. And it makes you sound really arrogant, like, 'Yeah, we're going to mess up the system.' The system's built us, so that would be a bit silly, wouldn't it?''

Roz, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hopefully people who paid the most get emailed first so they can download it before the server melts.

Then all the people who paid nothing, or virtually nothing, can attack it en masse twelve hours later when whoever's hosting it has limited the connection speeds.

James Mitchell, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Somewhat against the spirit of the event isn't it?

Matt DC, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

Frankly I might just get it on Soulseek.

Matt DC, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

160!!! that's kinda bullshit

akm, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah...I do feel bad for those who paid more than a few bucks to get a poor quality download. 192 is pretty much the bare minimum these days, isn't it? They should have made it clear from the beginning that it was 160.

Z S, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was waiting to hear what the bitrate was before deciding how much to pay. Having heard, I am paying nothing.

caek, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hahahaha, I am so glad I didn't pay, now! Shame on you Radiohead!

Davey D, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Damn, I really hate that it had to be a low quality download, just because now it's going to shift from a "Radiohead sets off a landmine in the music industry" to a "Radiohead screw over their biggest fans with a shit quality download" type of story, for some people.

Z S, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

fella i know at work: "are you gonna download that new radiohead album?"

me: "nah, i'm not really into them."

"yeah, but it's free."

"but what would be the point? i'm not a fan."

"you may as well have a listen, it won't cost you anything."

"there's already way more music on peer to peer that i might like and haven't gotten around to listening to yet, that's always going to take priority, isn't it?"

"yeah...but it's radiohead."

: \

max r, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

last 5 posts otm :/
xpost

sleep, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

I actually don't think the low bitrate is "unfair," just that it kind of sucks for the time being. So many people, the bigger fans, have said that they are going to buy the regular version when it comes out anyway, so this is just more of an incentive. That said, it does suck for the people who decided to pay more for the mp3s.

iTunes only has 128 kbps files right? So this may be better than that...

jonathan - stl, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

radiohead money grabbing bastards after all shocker

max r, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

look who is on the front cover of the NME this week:

http://www.nme.com/images/thums/84_radioheadcovermagbits_01.jpg

djmartian, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

I am quite possibly being too optimistic with this though.

jonathan - stl, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was wondering what iTunes uses. I'm fine with those.

Jordan, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

DRM-free on iTunes (and Amazon, I think) is 256kbps. DRM on iTunes is 128, but that's AAC rather than MP3. Probably equivalent to a 160-192kbps MP3.

caek, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

DRM-free on Bleep is either something like 256 or FLAC (i.e. lossless).

caek, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

DRM-free on iTunes (and Amazon, I think) is 256kbps. DRM on iTunes is 128

How do you distinguish between the two on iTunes?

Jordan, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

i was totally expecting them to offer like, choice of FLAC or LAME VBR V0. durr

sleep, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's too bad they couldn't have arranged it so that those who opted for a free download got the lower quality version, while those who paid a bit more would get a higher quality download. Especially for those who paid 8 dollars and up for the download, they should get a 256 or 320kbps download, I think.

Z S, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

The DRM-free high-quality files will be tagged as "itunes plus" and have a little + in a grey box next to them in the pricing field.

xpost

Telephone thing, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah...I do feel bad for those who paid more than a few bucks to get a poor quality download. 192 is pretty much the bare minimum these days, isn't it? They should have made it clear from the beginning that it was 160.

-- Z S, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 16:51

This is pretty much OTM for me. I'd like to get defensive and suggest that from some sort of "self-preservation" standpoint this makes sense, but no.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

I seriously can't believe everyone's getting all worked up over all this! Then again I just muttered in an Idolator comment that really it's just showing how levels of expectation have shifted. This is so much sound and fury over nothing.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

Inevitable backlash, I suppose.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

160kbps isn't nearly as bad as you guys are making it out to be.

circa1916, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Has everyone received that notification e-mail? I haven't seen anything since my original order confirmation.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes it is. I really dislike the sound of an mp3 that's encoded at less than 192... it's a pretty big difference.

xpost

Davey D, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

I still think that it's a fucking amazingly great thing that Radiohead is doing - it just smacks of cluelessness in their tech dept.

Davey D, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

160 is surprisingly low for a band that is so precious about preserving the integrity of their albums when distributed digitally. Possible reasons:

- server/bandwidth issues which they think aren't worth spending money fixing for how many people will actually care.
- they want to upsell people to the regular CD when it comes out.

caek, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

ugh, who cares. for all we know these songs were specifically mixed and mastered to sound good as 160 kpbs mp3s.

bernard snowy, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

xxpost, yeah, probably. Never attribute to malice, etc.

caek, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

<i>ugh, who cares. for all we know these songs were specifically mixed and mastered to sound good as 160 kpbs mp3s.

-- bernard snowy, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:36 (5 minutes ago) Link</i>

i don't know if this is possible.

but jeez it's not that big of a deal.

still 256 would have been great.

M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 17:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's above itunes quality, and it's pretty obvious (given the site crash last week) that server-wise they need to skimp a bit.

Simon H., Tuesday, 9 October 2007 18:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's not above iTunes quality. 160k MP3 is about roughly the same audible quality as the 128k AAC they sell on iTunes.

caek, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 18:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

earlier today: Xfm (London) announced "a world radio exclusive" Radiohead album playback at Midday tomorrow, now NME Radio have usurped them with an 11am playback

djmartian, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 18:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

the original early-leaked unmastered HAIL TO THE THIEF mp3s sounded better in some cases than the finals.

pisces, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 18:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

I only really care about the 160kbps thing because I would have given a buck or two to cover bandwidth and my initial impressions with the assumption that I'll probably end up buying it in another format later to listen to at home. With bleep, or a few other sites, I don't mind paying a bit more since I know I won't really care about buying a physical copy later.

mh, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 19:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just bought the new Band of Horses on wax and it came with a digital download - 160k. Lame. Same story with Of Montreal's "Hissing Fauna" a few months back - except it was 128k. Super lame.

Davey D, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 20:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

GUYS OBVIOUSLY THE ALBUM WAS MEANT TO BE LISTENED TO AT 160KBPS

cutty, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 20:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol audiofiles

cutty, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 20:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

(sic)

cutty, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 20:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

audiophiles slam audio files.

Billy Dods, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 20:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

Same story with Of Montreal's "Hissing Fauna" a few months back - except it was 128k

hissing mp3s amirite

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 20:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Final post in the project. Aside from whatever I end up saying about the new one.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 21:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

TS: Audiophiles vs. Audio Files

stephen, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ever since my CD mania began in earnest in college, I’d always found there were discs I liked to set aside which, I knew, I would love. I’d only heard a song or two, maybe, but it was enough for me to guess that I’d really like the album when I finally gave it a full listen. These became my ‘rainy day’ discs, as I called them — something that would be around when the mood finally struck me, something that didn’t need to be heard right that second, but would be something best appreciated when I felt the impulse.

Ned, this is AWESOME -- I'm finishing up college this year, and I've done the same thing (more or less) for as long as I've been obsessive about music, in general. I'd guess there's *at least* couple hundred CDs (out of about 1000 currently owned) on my shelf that I've never listened to in full, some of which I've owned for years and wouldn't dream of selling, but imagine I'll pull out at the right time to enjoy.

stephen, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

So am I pretty much the only one still waiting on the second e-mail (besides the original confirmation)? I'm kinda pissed I gave them money for this if they aren't ever going to send my the follow-up e-mails.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm still waiting too but I'm not worried. Happens as does.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

audiophiles slam audio files.

funny

hissing mp3s amirite

funnier!

Davey D, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

ugh i'm so not looking forward to this thread tomorrow. everyone take a day off, ok?

cutty, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

Jesus, no kidding!

Davey D, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

hey, fuck you too, audiofiles was my joke

cutty, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm already lolling at the ratio boosting 320kbps transcodes gullible people will no doubt be downloading tomorrow.

StanM, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

cutty OTM

Davey D, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

Maybe we should have a seperate thread for when it's actually arrived? I'm not even going to download it, I'm waiting till my flatmate does and then I'm going to copy it off him - you can't trick me RADIOHEAD! HWAHWAHWA!

the next grozart, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's not above iTunes quality. 160k MP3 is about roughly the same audible quality as the 128k AAC they sell on iTunes.

I had no idea. I have been avoiding buying stuff on iTunes because I thought that it was low-quality. When filesharing, I prefer to get stuff at 192 or up, but if I can't find it at that bitrate, I'm content to do 160.

jaymc, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

So am I pretty much the only one still waiting on the second e-mail (besides the original confirmation)? I'm kinda pissed I gave them money for this if they aren't ever going to send my the follow-up e-mails.

It took mine a few hours after the first post about it here- it seems like they're sending them out in batches, not all at once. Perhaps to do with purchase order/priority? In any case, if you haven't gotten yours by the end of today, it might be worth emailing them and doublechecking. They should have your correct contact info if you got the original confirmation. Also be sure and check your spam filter, mine can be pretty finicky about this kind of mass mailout (I use GMail).

Telephone thing, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 22:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

I paid nothing earlier today. I got the original order receipt about three hours later and have heard nothing since. I'm guessing they're kinda busy.

caek, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 23:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

I know, let's all phone them and ask them how busy they are.

the next grozart, Tuesday, 9 October 2007 23:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

I hate how the term "morning" is so ambiguous. It could be any time now!

jonathan - stl, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

for anyone who appreciates the prog in radiohead, this mp3 quality / multiple format / musical progression discussion *does* feel a lot like beardy dudes sitting around a fire in the 70s discussing King Crimson.

paulhw, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

i just got an email 'update' at 1 a.m.
IN RAINBOWS UPDATE (Order # WAS4341803)‏

what's that all about?

pisces, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol xpost

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

this mp3 quality / multiple format / musical progression discussion *does* feel a lot like beardy dudes sitting around a fire in the 70s discussing King Crimson

Part of the appeal, except now it's the glow of computer screens. Though I suppose the beards are back.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyway I got my little update mail.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Okay people calm down, now. We'll get it when we get it. 160 is not going to kill us either, etc.

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 02:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

seen Control yet, Bimble? ;)

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 02:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Heheh. Hell, no, dude! It's not scheduled to be here until at least the 19th!

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 02:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

Although I guess I shouldn't assume you're a dude. :)

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 02:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

hehe yeah, i'm a girl the last time i checked.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 03:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh, glad I apologized then! :)

I'm starting to get excited about this Radiohead thing though, in fact, before I saw your post I read my update in my email and thought "ooh this is sexy! We're all downloading from Radiohead at more or less the same bloody time!"

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 03:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

I know! it's a weird sort of communal experience - usually with widely-anticipated albums, people tend to be more like "oh I'll get this tmr" or "i've got to hear this soon" but suddenly everyone's all "I want to hear this NOW".

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 03:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

viz "beardos discussing prog around the fire"

It's like we're all waiting in line outside Tower Records with our headphones & CD players or something. Old school shit.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 03:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

In Rainbows = a new Harry Potter book.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 03:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol that had not occurred to me

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 04:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm going to wait this one out despite having to wake up at a god awful hour. Shouldn't be much longer... maybe 4 hours? That's what, 9 in England? 2am here... better put on the coffee. :)

jbill, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 04:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

hmm... I paid for mine (possibly twice) and have received precisely squat. f u radiohedz I will download this shit for free in protest.

rogermexico., Wednesday, 10 October 2007 04:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's like we're all waiting in line outside Tower Records with our headphones & CD players or something. Old school shit.

This sends me into fits of laughter.

In Rainbows = a new Harry Potter book.

This sends me into even more fits of laughter.

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

No seriously...it really is like we're all standing outside in the freezing cold, winding around the block isn't it?

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

i like it. i like actually waiting for music to come out. im not used to it. usually ill find out an album has been leaked and ill get it. or ill get it when i can.

this is nice

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes, and I imagine this has been said before but what I admire them most for is the whole thing "OKAY BLAM! HERE IT IS! YOU'VE GOT A MERE TEN DAYS!" you know??? Instant's notice, a Gemini's dream. Etc. No anticipation, nothing. Now or never.

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

in such a short time something like this has become so rare.

it has to be an instant notice thing like that because if not it would never work. it would find its way onto the internet.

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

downloading!

oo, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

WAHT

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

IT BEGINS

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

does it suck yet?

Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

holy shit. downloading

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

almost done burning. no telling. i only heard some breakbeats so far.

oo, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm getting a lovely 215kb/sec

i bet tomorrow it will be a tenth of that as their server gets slammed by a million fans

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

whoa. university network don't fail me now.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

*walking away from the computer for 43 minutes*

oo, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

stolen signal be true

negotiable, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

wtf dudes does radiohead hate me

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

i should be liveblogging this

how can you say you were really there if you didn't liveblog it

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

32% of 1 file

this, right now, is really exciting

negotiable, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

bad news guys: it sounds like radiohead

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

did all you guys pay actual money or something????

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

i didn't.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

does it suck yet?

-- Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, October 10, 2007 5:42 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

OMG will someone please post this to the LOL Excelsior thread. For that just about sends me into all the LOL's I'm going to have tonight before I pass out.

WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT THIS IS NOT A SURE THING! THIS ALBUM MAY SUCK ASS! IT COULD BE WORSE THAN AMNESIAC! (whoops didn't mean to start a war about this kind of thing, please carry on, quite sorry)

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

In the middle of listening to this.

Predictions:
People will say this sounds like HTTT pt. 2
Little "progression"
Not nearly as good as Kid A or OK Computer

three handclaps, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also I think some of the live versions from the 2006 tour were better.

Oh fuck, "All I Need" is amazing.

I need to review what I just said!!

ALBUM OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

three handclaps, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

i didn't pay but i ordered it minutes after the order page went up on the 1st, maybe they're rolling it out in batches to prevent the server from buckling

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

no alarms and no spoilers, please? lol

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Someone upload this shit already so I can go to bed.

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh god, christ here we go. The positive hyperbole and the nasty put-downs. Where will it end?

5600 trillions posts by morning.

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

hahaha sorry, i'll shut up now.
no alarms and no spoilers 4 lyfe

three handclaps, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh god!!! What if it's one of those albums where 50% of the people like it and 50% think it's crap?

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

THE HORROR!

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

YES. I have listened to the first three tracks of this, am extremely tired and really pleased with what I heard. Must sleep now.
Bodysnatchers is a little kraut-rock, no?

jonathan - stl, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah i just ordered it today. comforting to think that maybe theyre just trying to be civil.

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh goodness, I feel like one of those hopeless kids about to get a new Harry Potter. (Except in my case cries of, "It's like HTT/Amnesiac" is like hearing that "Harry gets AIDS on page 84 and spends the rest of the book conjuring a cure. He dies on the last page.")

Cunga, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

ps I'm glad the internet didn't explode.

jonathan - stl, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 05:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

Amnesiacis their best album. And if Harry got AIDS and died that book would've been so much better.

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

you think yr contrarian but yr not

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'M BEIN SERIUS

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

3 tracks in and im loving it

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

Amnesiac? The best album they've ever done? Hey I'd even bump you The Bends on that one, mate. You are WRONG.

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

4 TRACKS IN THIS SHIT SUCKS I WANT A REFUND PLZ.

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Amesiac has their best songs, so it's their best album. It's that simple.

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah so i still havent gotten shit

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Which song? I admit it's been awhile since I've heard it. I love certain songs on Kid A but part of me is one of those lamers that "wants them to start playing REAL MUSIC" (i.e. simple guitar rock). Though, as I listen to In Rainbows, it certainly "rocks" like one of their earlier albums.

Cunga, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol already up on torrent sites

zappi, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

hahahaha I should have known this thread would progress this way.

Bimble, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

At this rate ILM will stop with the message board atmosphere and will become more of chatroom by midnight pacific time tonight. (And with, yes, a/s/l questions being fielded in the Teen Pop thread)

Cunga, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh fuck, it cut off at 30 mbs. WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh fuck, "All I Need" is amazing.

OTM

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://home.no/horojo/reckoner.jpg

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

1:55 into "15 Step" is where I start lovin it

Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/35/de/23c0b2c008a0a08a4c535010.L.jpg

this shit is totally worth the hype

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

I’M SORRY, BUT THIS ACTIVATION CODE HAS ALREADY BEEN USED.

booooooo.

fuck it, i'm torrenting this shit.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

*rocks out mightily to "Bodysnatchers"*

Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

All I Need is fucking amazing

Malcolm Money, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

WHERE roz

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

god knows right now. I'll wait it out then. Or does some kind person here who has it already want to upload to zshare or something?

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

the m i n i n o v a torrent seems to be working okay. eta around 20 minutes for me.

Clay, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

wtf is so bad about Reckoner?

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Roz, I have a sendspace...you want? What's yr email?

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

sweet. rozanna dot l at gmail.

thanks melissa!

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://rapidshare.com/files/61508055/inrainbows.zip.html

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

downloaded the official download in less than 3 minutes at over 330 KB/sec here - very impressive.

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

they're giving it away for free anyway so who cares amirite?

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

Sent, Roz.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

gman that's from a radiohead forum circa 2001 when they debuted the song live

(xpost)

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

ahh i see

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/news/46266-radiohead-album-now-available

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

thanks again, Melissa!

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

You're welcome!

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm not quite eating my hat, but I like this a *lot* more than I thought I would.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've heard the CD that will be in the discbox will be only 128 kbps!

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

am i allowed to talk about the music yet

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm not expecting this to be anywhere near as good as Kid A or Amnesiac, but I certainly hope it's as amazing as HTTT.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

I prefer the orchestral version of "Arpeggi" to this one.

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, the Ether version of Arpeggi is beautiful. This one is very bland in comparison.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

am i allowed to talk about the music yet

oops

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

I couldn't help but notice the similarity between bits on "House of Cards" and Galaxie 500's "Tugboat Captain." "I don' wanna be your friend...I just wanna be your lover" is similarly sung even.

Cunga, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

six tracks in and loving this so far.

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

"I am listening to the studio version of this. This is the most perfect moment of my life. I don't have a girlfriend I have nothing. But I don't care. Because I have the studio version of this song."

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Got to "House Of Cards" and I'm ranking this better than HTTT and Amnesiac

Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

its definitely better than httt. shame about "house of cards" though.

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

WHAT IS WITH YOU PEOPLE HATING ON AMNESIAC?

Pyramid Song
Life In a Glass House
Like Spinning Plates
I Might Be Wrong
Packt Like Sardines
etc.

EXCELLENT RECORD.

The Brainwasher, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

And don't forget "Dollars & Cents," The Brainwasher. That song slays me.

Turangalila, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

at laaaaaaaaaaaaast

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

If my shamefully late rediscovery & appreciation of HTTT is anything to go by, I'll love this in 2011.

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

"nude"
"all i need"

incredible

whole album is good but those are the big standouts for me right now

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ok. Predict the Pitchfork score.

Mister Craig, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

6.2

Mister Craig, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

wow. that was gorgeous. love the last two songs.

8.6

negotiable, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

my official cover art:

http://givemetakeyou.com/supercentral/inrainbows.png

oo, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

downloaded the official download in less than 3 minutes at over 330 KB/sec here - very impressive.

-- StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:24

same here

lolz to hyperbacklash

lovin this so far

"15th Step" so much better than the shitty bootleg I played on my podcast last summer.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 06:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

'Videotape' is a good closer. Love the percussion on that.

If anything, Thom's the weak link on this imho.

Mister Craig, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

THERE IS ROCKINGS NOW

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

guys i am 45 minutes late to the party

THE GOOD TIMES ARE OVA

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

9.1 PFM score

Cunga, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

"All I need", "Faust Arp", definite standouts at this point. Wow.

This feels much more immediate than HTTT, though I'm not entirely sure if this is because I'm already somewhat familiar with the tracks.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

PFM score: 9.0

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is their "love" record. Slow and ballad-y. On the initial spin, my favorite moment is early in "Nude", when Thom's voice comes in, clear as daylight, exactly as it should.

And didn't "Reckoner" used to be a rocker? Although the version here is appropriate for the album.

Cosmo Vitelli, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

thom sounds better than ever, i think. his voice just weaves through the general lushness of it all.

negotiable, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, Thom sounds amazing on this.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

"v v immediate" agreed, coming from someone sig less familiar than the "i've been following these songs on tour for a decade" crowd

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

yah roz...faust arp is great

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

'Bodysnatchers' makes me think of Devo at the start.

Mister Craig, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

thom used to call HTTT their sexy record, I think he was an album early.

This is a pretty sexy record.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

It really is.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

the infrastructure will collapse

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was totally calling this a very sensual, sexy record to a friend a few minutes ago on aim. God then reckoner came on and I would have never imagined it being the sexiest thing Radiohead's ever done!

Clay, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

bodysnatchers yesssss.

Jordan Sargent, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

also MP3 QUALITY MOST OVERRATED INTERNET CONTROVERSY EVVVVVVEEEEER.

Jordan Sargent, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

aka this sounds great.

Jordan Sargent, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol jordan otm about the mp3 quality.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

also MP3 QUALITY MOST OVERRATED INTERNET CONTROVERSY EVVVVVVEEEEER.

-- Jordan Sargent, Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:17 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

lol... i was thinking that exact thing when listening !!! ... i think i've regained sanity and remembered all of the times i've listened to an mp3 album then heard it on cd later and liked it better

oo, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

'House Of Cards' is great. Thom sounds reflective rather than righteous, it's far more affecting.

Of course it sounds fine, it sound well compressed though.

Mister Craig, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

Faust Arp sounds like an undiscovered Beatles song. So beautiful.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

i think i've regained sanity and remembered all of the times i've listened to an mp3 album then heard it on cd later and liked it better

sorry to gatecrash the thread like this but i thought jordan was implying that mp3's sounded ok!?

sam500, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ha I just heard the earlier version of Reckoner and can now see why so many people are pissed about it.

I think it's nice though.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

bodysnatchers yesssss.

Agreed. This will most likely not go down as my fave Radiohead album, but I'm loving it all the same.

Cosmo Vitelli, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Well it sounds a bit like a released one from the guitar pattern. Reminds me a little of 'Julia'. But yeah, the strings are pretty Beatlesy.

Mister Craig, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

They've done well with the running order on this I think.

Mister Craig, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

hm well my mp3s sound just fine sorry for your loss :( :( :(

Jordan Sargent, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

reckoner is surely the standout track here

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

agreed.

Clay, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Reckoner is amazing. His voice, those strings... And it's a weird progression for them. Kind of 1970s folk-rockish.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

nude is stunning.

negotiable, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

hm well my mp3s sound just fine sorry for your loss :( :( :(

-- Jordan Sargent, Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:30 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

now worries, probably only about 15-20 bucks when i buy it :)

oo, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

The kinetics are a little too front-loaded for my taste, I think. I'll like this just as well on shuffle.

I eagerly await the vinyl, which will surely melt my speakers with awesome.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

guys jigsaw falling into place

it is great

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think I wanted this record to be more dancey and angry, but I think I quite like this more.

Alright, I'm going home to listen to this on proper speakers.

Roz, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

IT BEGINS

-- Ned Raggett, Wednesday, October 10, 2007 5:40 AM

a classic

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

guys we're getting almost doubled by the comments on the oink torrent.

Jordan Sargent, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

now's no time for resting on our laurels.

Jordan Sargent, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Okay. I have a feast of hats to eat.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Backing Vox on 'House of Cards' sound disturbingly Bono Vox.

Huey in Melbourne, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

i think weird fishes/arpeggi is getting srsly underrated by everyone thanks to youtube or whatever. 2nd best song here.

deeznuts, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 08:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

Not sure about the sequencing yet, doesn't seem necessary. And a few stretches sound kinda lightweight. Can't see the forest etc. I think.

Reckoner is fucking sublime. Going back to that now.

Cosmo Vitelli, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 08:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

THE KING BOY PATO OFFICIAL REVIEW OF RADIOHEAD'S LATEST AND GREATEST ARTISTIC PIECE WHICH AGAIN BLOWS THE MIND WHILE CREATING A SINGULAR PIECE OF ART NEVER BEFORE SEEN IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND NEVER WILL BE AGAIN, "IN RAINBOWS":

What a load of boring old shit.

King Boy Pato, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 08:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

7 years ago, I bought Kid A at a midnight sale, came back home, put on the headphones and fell asleep while listening. tonight I finished a book at 2 am, turned on computer, downloaded, and once again fell asleep listening with the same headphones. I woke back up during Reckoner though, thinking it was great, made it through to the end, and am now on my 2nd listen cuz I wanted to hear the middle tracks that I slept through the first time.

stingy, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 08:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

I fail to hate this album at the moment. :-/

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

:(

Where's my activation code?

Matthew H, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

fuck you spam filter, i thought the internet hated me for a minute there

tissp, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Huh? Did they make the Atease board registered only all of a sudden?

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've listened to it twice now.
I think I like it.

treefell, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

bizarrely, i have fallen for the hype.
i love the whole event aspect, and subsequently didn't want to be left out (a rare situation with regards to radiohead product for me)
also, as a sideline, the servers are holding up remarkably well - registered and d/l'd all within 7 minutes.

mark e, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

guys we're getting almost doubled by the comments on the oink torrent.

What does that mean?

Need to get home. I really want to download this album!

kv_nol, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

I didn't expect anything out of this record. I never cared at all for Hail to the Thief, but man. This record is really, really good. Just so sensual and quiet and so warm and I'm loving it.

Clay, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's so warm!

Clay, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

ysi?

koogs, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

I want to email them pretending to be someone's grandma who downloaded the wrong album for her grandson's birthday but it turns out he really wanted 'The Bends' and wants to ask if she could get an exchange or refund.

James Mitchell, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 10:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

d/l real quick - now listening - warm is right.

Ned Trifle II, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 10:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

Warm is good, most of their best material is warm. Radiohead have never been particularly good at doing chilly.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 10:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

This may have been covered upthread, but am I right in assuming this record won't chart?

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 10:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Xfm are doing a full album playback at 12 midday (NOW) listen in

X-clusive: Hear The New Radiohead Album Today On Xfm
http://www.xfm.co.uk/Article.asp?b=news&id=490630#

first established media review of the album posted by John Mulvey @ Uncut

Uncut.co.uk | Wild Mercury Sound - Post details: Radiohead's "In Rainbows"
http://tinyurl.com/2ygc7r

djmartian, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 11:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

Sounds nice so far.

Mr. Perpetua, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 11:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

is there a pop song on it?

pisces, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 11:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, there's about 10 or so I'd say.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 11:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

Paul Morley blogging about it:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observermusic/2007/10/rainbow_warriors.html

NickB, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 11:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

some very quick first thoughts

some tracks:

Bodysnatchers = The Notwist + Smashing Pumpkins. The most rock track on the album?

Weird Fishes/Arpeggi = Brian Eno produced U2 Unforgettable Fire

All I Need = Talk Talk + Manual + Ulrich Schnauss + Kraftwerk + The Blue Nile + The Broadway Project

Faust ARP = Beatles influenced melodies

House Of Cards - more Talk Talk and a.r.kane influences

Jigsaw Falling Into Place - more The Notwist + The Woodentops circa 1986 + even James - the way the acoustic guitars have an uptempo jangle style

Videotape - more Talk Talk / Mark Holis slow paced arty-rock piano minimalism, this even sounds like Ulver on their new album !

djmartian, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 11:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Bodysnatchers starts off like a long lost Pablo Honey rarity - especially Thom's voice which he uses in a way I haven't heard in a very long time. It soon bursts into something else though.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

Will everyone stop fucking fooling themselves? This is typical Radiohead - ie: a load of boring old shit. Anyone who can compare this to Talk Talk is a really stupid cunt who needs to educate themselves on how to fucking listen asap.

King Boy Pato, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

You can fuck off any time you want, thank you.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

open up your ears - they have used similar sound construction techniques to talk talk on this album, e.g slow paced delicate drummimg

djmartian, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

King Boy Pato: you do know that Talk Talk made more than just the two hits everyone knows, right?

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Faust Arp sounds like Polyethylene part 1 crossed with Exit Music. But there's more to it once again.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh, come on.

Why am I trying to talk sense about Radiohead to Radiohead fans anyway?

*dissipates into a fog of anti-logic*

King Boy Pato, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's not a million miles away from Hail To The Thief though is it? Those expecting a complete change like Kid A after the long break will be disappointed. Those expecting a great Radiohead album won't.

Pato: I don't think this is the right day to be slagging off Radiohead, even if you don't care for them.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

Why am I trying to talk sense about Radiohead to Radiohead fans anyway?

You're not "talking sense" or even just disagreeing or being critical of the album, you're being a dick and calling everyone who is enjoying the album a "really stupid cunt". Did you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

Prick.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Has there been any artwork released with the download yet?

the next grozart, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Will everyone stop fucking fooling themselves? This is typical Radiohead - ie: a load of boring old shit. Anyone who can compare this to Talk Talk is a really stupid cunt who needs to educate themselves on how to fucking listen asap.

Correct, this is much better.

Ned Trifle II, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thanks King Boy Pato, i've now seen the error of my ways and am going to destroy all my Radiohead records as i'm clearly a stupid cunt for having them.

leigh, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Melissa, please listen to the Ulver new track Funebre and compare it to Radiohead - Videotape - there are some similarities, both are slow paced piano tracks

myspace - Ulver
http://www.myspace.com/ulver1

djmartian, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

I am really digging this album right now. Style is very much in the vein of HTTT but it's much much more cohesive. It's very successful at merging the two sides of their sound (rock/ambient, pop/avant, whatever you want to call it), rather than their last album which was kind of both and neither at the same time.

MC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Just woke up, had the mail in my inbox and the download went like a charm in two, three minutes. *NICE.* Will listen to it once I'm in at work.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

Apparently, people who order it now are getting a "you are in a queue" message.

So they DID have some load balancing mail system going on. Roz' "it cut off after 30 Mb" is the only complaint I've read about the download so far, really impressive.

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

Got it, listening to it, it is NOICE. Oddly upbeat for York & company- first track "15 Step" even has a repeated sample of what sounds like a crowd of children cheering.

And for the record, the 160kbps files sound fine, surprisingly so in fact. The only thing I'm annoyed about is a lack of embedded cover art in the file or a .jpg of it in the zip archive as I like to use Coverflow.

Telephone thing, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm printing one from www.rainbowpuke.com

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it actually is a crowd of children cheering. :D

x-post

Melissa W, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 12:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wrote these note on my semi-private site, but I may as well share with the group:

It seems rather appropriate that I hear In Rainbows for the first time in the early morning, after the rain. After "15 Step" and "Bodysnatchers," the record feels like the calm after a storm. It feels extremely light and airy -- lots of empty space, little to no strumming or heavy chords. The band are obsessed with arpeggiation, enough so that "arp" ends up part of the titles of two cuts. (I was kinda hoping that the Arp in "Faust Arp" would be a reference to Arp synthesizers, but no such luck.) It's funny, I think this album is a lot more accessible to people who listen to a lot of melancholy guitar music, but anyone who might call this easy or straightforward or wants to say that this is much of anything like pre-Kid A Radiohead has no idea what they are talking about.

I totally get why "Bangers N Mash" and "Down Is The New Up" were cut, though. They are both better than some of the songs that made the cut, but they would've radically altered the character of the album. This is a beautifully composed album, but I think a few of these songs wouldn't quite work outside of its context.

The band's discography continues to roughly mirror that of David Byrne/Talking Heads. If you count Amnesiac along with Kid A as the parallel to Remain In Light, Thom Yorke's The Eraser was his The Catherine Wheel, and In Rainbows is Radiohead's Little Creatures. I mean, it's not at all peppy, but in both cases it is a deliberate move towards simple yet very sophisticated songwriting.

Mr. Perpetua, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 13:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

I thought that Faust Arp would be a krautrockesque analogue synth wig out, how wrong i was...

leigh, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 13:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

comparing this to little creatures does not bode well for me, but i'm sure i'll like it anyway

akm, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 13:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

ha! i was wondering where the kids were!

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 13:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

akm, I want to stress that I don't think it SOUNDS like Little Creatures, I just think it follows a rough parallel of the two bands' career arcs.

Mr. Perpetua, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 13:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm getting the talk talk vibe on some of it too. nude especially.

LaMonte, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 13:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Style is very much in the vein of HTTT but it's much much more cohesive. It's very successful at merging the two sides of their sound (rock/ambient, pop/avant, whatever you want to call it), rather than their last album which was kind of both and neither at the same time.

This pretty much hits it as far as my first impression goes. HTTT sounded kind of sloppy in that regard, a mish-mash of stuff that never cohesed (is that even a word?), but this one really works better as an album. All the tracks sit well next to each other, it has enough variation to address the various sounds the band has used over the years.

Other things: a lot of these tracks are surprisingly upbeat. Very little vocal processing, too. Like the Eraser, Thom's voice is pretty upfront and clear. Sometimes I like that, sometimes I don't.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 13:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

This may have been covered upthread, but am I right in assuming this record won't chart?

Yes, doesn't meet chart criteria.

On Last FM, '15 Step', 48,632 plays. 'Weird Fish/Arpeggi', 104 plays. Are people abandoning it so quickly? Sounds like their most accessible work since OKC.

Billy Dods, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 13:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

yea that BBC article was pretty dumb

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

sorry wrong thread maybe? it may have been on the other radiohead thread

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

billy are you serious?!

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

The guitar riff on "Bodysnatchers" sounds like Wire circa Read And Burn. Me likey.

unperson, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

Loving "House of Cards."

mike a, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

Billy, I suspect it's an issue with the tagging?

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

The sound feels really un-labored over. They've still got all their tricks, but it's almost all live drums and it feels like there aren't as many layers as on the last couple. It reminds me the most of Amnesiac, except with way less electronics?

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol @ Radiodread on "House of Cards"

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

billy are you serious?!

I presume you mean about Lastfm? Yes.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2363/1532701141_adeb06ae7d.jpg?v=0

Billy Dods, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Weird, tags comes up ok on my page overview (unterwasser, if anyone's interested).

Billy Dods, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

10 song albums are the best

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

OTM mike a. House of Cards is a fucking tune. First time through I was suffering a bit of fatigue by that point, but on a second listen it really stood out. Also really really liking 15 Step and All I Need. The situation remains fluid though--may end up liking one of the others more.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

someone do a poll!

pisces, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

I missed the kids cheering on the first track, where is it?

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's a bit too early for a poll, i think. this album has barely sunk in.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

Blimey, Petridish has given it five stars http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/10/radioheads_in_rainbows_is_it_a.html

leigh, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/31706

The Kids aren't happy.

pisces, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Very good indeed. Like it a lot. Must relisten.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

The kids need to get a life.

leigh, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyone who can compare this to Talk Talk is a really stupid cunt who needs to educate themselves on how to fucking listen asap.

The ironing is delicious. Because no one would ever accuse Talk Talk of being boring. Or old. Or shit.

(For the record, I like Talk Talk; but would never defend them on the grounds of not being boring)

Sara Sara Sara, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned - you mean you haven't blogged it already? Fucking amateur.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

i like that this album has ushered in the return of the release date. everyone excitedly listening at once instead of the scattered mess that leaks have made major releases in the past 6 years. it's great listening knowing everyone else is absorbing the album at once.

cutty, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Reckoner" is nice, "House of Cards" and the "Jigsaw" song VERY nice.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Didn't like Jigsaw.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

i like that this album has ushered in the return of the release date. everyone excitedly listening at once instead of the scattered mess that leaks have made major releases in the past 6 years. it's great listening knowing everyone else is absorbing the album at once.

abso-fucking-lutely.
its this kind of mass excitement thats missing with album releases cos of the world of leaks.

mark e, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

has this leaked yet

am0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

yes.

Mark G, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

The album ends really strongly, great second half. I'm listening again to get a better feeling for the beginning.

Euler, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Gah! I want to be home so I can listen to this! I checked my e-mail before I left for work, but neither had come yet. They're both there now though.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

Radiohead have never been particularly good at doing chilly.
-- Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 10:47 (4 hours ago) Link

*cough* IDIOTEQUE

stephen, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

billy "15 step"s plays are all the live versions! whereas "arpeggi" has only been subtitled "weird fishes" for the studio version.

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

it is NOICE.

lolol

it's great listening knowing everyone else is absorbing the album at once.

Agreed. Being up late last night for the dl and following along with everyone as we absorb is the most fun I've had on ILM in ages.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

wow, this is approx 50 times better than I expected! Not totally convinced by what they've done to "nude", but a lot of this record is gorgeous, especially "all I need" and "videotape". Perhaps I should even to back to HTTT...

Also everyone totally OTM re return of excitement of release dates. Presumably there are kids out there experiencing this for the first time?

toby, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

I like the guitar playing on this record. On House of Cards and 15 Step it kind of reminds me of Mark Knopfler or some recent Stephen Malkmus. A lot of chords being plucked, kind of jazzy even.

filthy dylan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't think this is a step forward in any meaningful sense, but where HTTT felt like amalgamation, this feels like codification. They've turned the stew into a broth that's ready to take whatever form they pour it into. It's incredible.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol "meaningful sense" wtf me

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

I missed the kids cheering on the first track, where is it?

First one's at 2:13.

Telephone thing, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

where HTTT felt like amalgamation, this feels like codification.

yes.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

lol

http://i21.tinypic.com/2ugje4j.jpg

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

has this leaked yet

-- am0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:25 (30 minutes ago) Link

now it has!

Radiohead - In Rainbows [2007/MP3/192](New)

lol

sleep, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Agreed. Being up late last night for the dl and following along with everyone as we absorb is the most fun I've had on ILM in ages.

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:46 AM (16 minutes ago)

ok, that's not what i meant. dork!

cutty, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

haha!

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

when does the ogg vorbis version drop

am0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

some very quick first thoughts

some tracks:

Bodysnatchers = The Notwist + Smashing Pumpkins. The most rock track on the album?

Weird Fishes/Arpeggi = Brian Eno produced U2 Unforgettable Fire

All I Need = Talk Talk + Manual + Ulrich Schnauss + Kraftwerk + The Blue Nile + The Broadway Project

Faust ARP = Beatles influenced melodies

House Of Cards - more Talk Talk and a.r.kane influences

Jigsaw Falling Into Place - more The Notwist + The Woodentops circa 1986 + even James - the way the acoustic guitars have an uptempo jangle style

Videotape - more Talk Talk / Mark Holis slow paced arty-rock piano minimalism, this even sounds like Ulver on their new album !

-- djmartian, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 11:52 (4 hours ago) Link

Talk Talk never would've occurred to me as a point of comparison... and yet, I love Talk Talk, and the three songs you compared to them are all among my favorites on this album. coincidence?

bernard snowy, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Reckoner" is the Talk Talk song for me on this one.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

(Which might have been said upthread, so I should read all these eight million posts already.)

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Reckoner" is the Talk Talk song for me on this one.

"Ascension Day," vaguely.

it's also the early seventies Miles Davis tune too.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

just got my download. went really fast. 15 step is great.

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned - you mean you haven't blogged it already? Fucking amateur.

Oh hell no I'm not blogging this today. I'm reviewing it for the OC Weekly and that runs tomorrow, and the review will essentially be a 'first couple of listens' summation and will say as much. Whatever longer thoughts I have on it will be for down the road.

"Ascension Day," vaguely.

Yup.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

something about the "Bodysnatchers" guitar riff reminded me of Television when I first heard it, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it was now. the Wire comparison someone made upthread is dead-on, though.

bernard snowy, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

hm...is there any cover art for this download?

stephen, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

album art is here

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

I still prefer http://www.rainbowpuke.com (sorry to repeat this from earlier on in this thread, but I forgot the http that time and now it's clickable and everything!)

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've listened to this something like 6 times all the way through now and I swear it's not sounded the same any of those times.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

bullshit i wrote on my blog:

Obligatory Radiohead post, because I'm an unapologetic non-hater:

I love ten track, 40-some minute records. I like this record. The melodies aren't really sticking after a few listens, but that's okay. The sound reminds me a lot of Amnesiac (I think it's because of all the clean guitars and relatively small amount of layers...maybe the mastering too? Hail to the Thief sounds like there's a ton going on even when there's not and I think it might be because of the super-hot mastering job [which I don't mind]).

In general it doesn't sound too labored over (whether it was or not)...there's not a whole lot of electronics, and when they show up they're generally on top of the live band sound. They still have all of their tricks, which are pretty identifiable by now. It sounds like Radiohead.

15 Step - Might be my favorite track. It's in five, it's one of the few tracks with beats, cool melody.

Bodysnatchers - obligatory track 2 rocker (good)

Nude - gorgeous. What would they do without those strings?

Weird Fishes/Arpeggi - I hoped this would be a little more slamming after hearing the live version, but it's cool. The drums sound really un-produced and naked in the first half.

All I Need - hip-hop tempo, pretty cool

Faust Arp - short

Reckoner - I guess they're going for a Motown thing here, the drums are panned hard right and there is some great tambourine on the left. I really like this one (judging from a youtube clip this was pulled way back from the live version too).

House of Cards - Radioh(dr)ead doing fake reggae? It kind of sounds like a Sea & Cake song with Foreboding Radiohead Keyboards over the top. I'm not sure how I feel about this song.

Jigsaw Falling Into Place - rocks

Videotape - pretty

Oh yeah, I pretty much love everything about how they handled this. It really does feel like an old-school exciting release day - looking forward to it, knowing that a lot of other people are listening to it at the same time.

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

faust arp is the most explicitly prog they've ever been, pretty little tune.

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 16:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hey, the ordering site is down - finished? Was the discbox a limited edition after all?

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

i think it's just overloaded.

LaMonte, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just paid and downloaded. once you get past the front page things go alright.

lukas, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh - ok. I just noticed that the link in jonny's announcement immediately returned to the same page, that's why I wondered.

( http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/ )

StanM, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

"House of Cards" is really something special, definitely one of the most beautiful songs they've ever done. I wasn't so into "Videotape" when I saw them last year, but that came out very well in the studio, as did "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi."

Mr. Perpetua, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

start to finish this album is clutch

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Stan - yeah that was odd. I've decided to think that their web presence is charmingly amateurish / English.

lukas, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

I can't get "All I Need" out of my head.

pinkie, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

Cudos to radiohead for making listening to an album an EVENT again. It's been so long since so many people were listening to an album together for the first time. For that alone this album is incredible. It was refreshing to see something like that.

On top of it they made an amazing album. I seriously enjoy every song. They fucking did it again. This album could have totally been an over hyped piece of shit. Thank god it wasn't. Everything I wanted and more. Im so excited about this. Sorry.

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

anyone worked out the code on johnny's page?

koogs, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's been so long since so many people were listening to an album together for the first time.

Almost every great ILM album thread from the last 5 years is so many people listening to an album together for the first time! Rhead's masterstroke has been working out how to combine that excitement, which is totally a download-age thing, with the pre-download excitement of a fixed release date so you can anticipate the excitement too.

Groke, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Jordan, I agree with you on the Amnesiac comparison.

jaymc, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Groke has it exactly right. Very, VERY clever of them. I've muttered that Radiohead are the highest profile started-pre-widespread-Internet-use era band to have figured out -- step by step, a working-out-of-ideas in public -- how best to make the Net work for them. Arguably they were perfectly positioned to do so.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost-Except it doesn't suck.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

(In Rainbows doesn't suck, that it is)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

I want to know what Geir thinks.

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

^ otm

sleep, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 17:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

isn't there a thread for that

ciderpress, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

maybe he'll start a poll for it

sleep, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

I want to start a poll just for Geir.

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

Four tracks in and god, Nude sounds incredible. Also the beat on 15 Steps, especially towards the end!

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

haha i was wondering about geir too, mostly because this time there IS actually a song with lots of chord changes that sounds like the beatles.

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is gonna sound AWESOME on vinyl. I just hope I don't have to shell out for the diskbox to get it.

Davey D, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

OK that second half = they've made a Radiohead version of a psychedelic folk-pop record. There are more strings and acoustic guitars on here than any other Radiohead record, but the arrangements and textures are complex and interesting enough that it never feels like bog-standard strumming.

I wasn't sure if Radiohead would be able to make a guitar-centric record again without it sounding like a retread, and they have. By and large, it doesn't actually sound like any of the others, although all the recognisably Radiohead elements are here.

Also they've really hit it with backing vocals this time - that warm You And Whose Army sound.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

I wasn't sure if Radiohead would be able to make a guitar-centric record again without it sounding like a retread, and they have.

I think it's interesting that the only song that immediately makes me think 'Radiohead guitars' is "Bodysnatchers." It's done very well and it's the only thing like it on the album.

Third listen in. Noticing something new each time.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is gonna sound AWESOME on vinyl.

OK that second half = they've made a Radiohead version of a psychedelic folk-pop record.

Noticing something new each time.

^^^^^^^ these things = yes

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

I like it. I'm eager to hear it at home, where it has some room to breathe. Everything sounds a bit claustrophobic at work, in my cubicle, listening on in-ear 'phones staring a screen.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

*at

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

word i hate hearing shit for the first time at work on computer.

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

^^^^^^

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Same here. I listened to the first half in the car, which was great, but then I've been listening all day while working and it keeps blurring together.

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm at work but it's been a reasonably quiet day. That said I like my speakers at home more, so.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

I listened to it all the way through during lunch eating beef U-dong noodle soup at a crowded counter at Tokyo Lunchbox on my Sennheiser PXC-250s. Sounded pretty nice. I considered wearing my AKG 701s on the train but 160kbps isn't worth risking getting mugged for my cans. After Yorke's mellow solo album, I was hoping for something a bit more explosive, but I do like.

Fastnbulbous, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't have much interest in Radiohead's music but I am thrilled that IN RAINBOWS's sudden appearance in this way means that virtually every fan on ILM has a chance to experience it all together on the day of release, without the slow burn of leaks/people not being able to afford to buy it at once/whatever else.

Sorry if this point has been made already - I couldn't face wading through the whole thread.

Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

i love how the first song gives no idea about the arc of the rest.

tricky, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

sounding ok for 160, too.

tricky, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

Alba OTM - my friends and I have been making the same point to each other all morning.

And yeah - it's sounding pretty good for 160

Davey D, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

it sounds like a trompe l'oeil of radiohead which is really pretty cool.

tricky, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

Radiohead - In Rainbows [Started by Melissa W, last updated 3 minutes ago] 420 new answers

Stoners, all of you.

stephen, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

Other thoughts:

- It's a really organic album, more so than any of the others. What's missing is the trademark Radiohead modernist sheen. Electronics are used sparingly (and when they are they sound like ancient instruments) and there are virtually no OK Computer style spacey effects pedals.

- Conversely the song it reminds me most of is In Limbo from Kid A. It also, strangely, reminds me of the Gravenhurst album from earlier this year, but I can't quite put my finger on why.

- It's more cohesive in sound than any of their records since Kid A. I take this as a sign that second disc will be full of really great stuff that just didn't fit - Amnesiac style. I expect screaming guitars and electronics in abundance.

- Thom Yorke isn't supposed to write lyrics like "I don't wanna be your friend, I just wanna be your lover" these days, is he?

- For all these reasons, it doesn't sound anywhere near as much like 'a Radiohead record' as people are claiming. Hail To The Thief felt like 'Radiohead doing what Radiohead do now' - this doesn't.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

The amount of love / lack of backlash on this thread warms my soul.

Davey D, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I can't wait to hear the bonus tracks now. I expect the 52 ilxors who shelled out to YSI!!

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

It does sound like a band who maybe don't want to spend as much time in the studio now, who just want to get it on tape and go home.

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyone hear about them using a Serpent on this?

Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.guitarshop.net/GuitarImagesESPCustomShop/glserpent1.jpg

?

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

listened to it one and a half times. there is something alarmingly proggy about it. songs often start in an interesting way but then go off to nowhere. considered deleting the mp3s. didn't yet. will give it another try tomorrow.

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

This record is tight, 10 songs--bish bash bosh. I also love the light touch they've shown in laying these songs down. It feels like delicate ensemble playing in lots of places, although it probably isn't.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thom Yorke isn't supposed to write lyrics like "I don't wanna be your friend, I just wanna be your lover" these days, is he?

Like I mentioned earlier, when I heard that line I half-expected "I don't wanna vote for your President..." to follow.

One wonders how much success the band could have on the maintream radio if Thom started signing really lucid and quasi-romantic lyrics on one of their more ballad-like songs.

Cunga, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

man, I hope this record is better than the live preview.

CaptainLorax, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah that kind of bummed me out to, but i think it's way better.

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

and it better not be flowery

CaptainLorax, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

after listeing through it 5 times. this will definately being going down as one of my favorite (if not my favorite) radiohead albums.

everything about it is great

its also a big "wake the fuck up" the the recording industry

one thing no one has really talked about though.....this is probably really hurting local music stores.

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Seriously - have they done something to these MP3s so they sound completely different each time I play them?

One thing I must say is that none of these are songs you could sing in a traditional way. Not like anything off the Bends, or OK Computer or even "Optimistic" or "Scatterbrain" or "You And Whose Army". That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable, it's just a lot more organic and less hooky. Songs flow, they don't stay rigidly to a structure.

They nicked the "kids cheering" idea from Boards of Canada's "Orange Romeda" I reckon.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's definitely not as scarey and cold as the last three records. Whoever said it's their warmest one yet is absolutely correct. It's nice seeing pictures of Radiohead having a giggle on their website too.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost-Plus, the bass line from All I Need is 100% BoC.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's definitely not as scarey and cold as the last three records.

Here's where I say that one of the biggest and most ridiculous myths around Radiohead is the perception that they haven't always been 'warm' -- because they have. VERY much so.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Amnesiac is pretty cold in a lot of places.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ok. Predict the Pitchfork score.
-- Mister Craig, Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:56 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Link

9.5

stephen, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thom Yorke isn't supposed to write lyrics like "I don't wanna be your friend, I just wanna be your lover" these days, is he?

My feelings exactly whilst listenign to the album on the bus and car ride home. I've listened to the thing three times; am most struck now by "Faust Arp" and "Jigsaw...," both of whose titles are the only nods towarsd their penchant for preciousness.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thoom's been listening to Sarah Records again.

Cunga, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

I always characterized Kid A, among other things, as being pretty 'warm.'

OK, time to actually DL this album, as I'm obviously the last person on earth who hasn't.

Jamesy, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was pretty startled to hear Thom at his most twinkly say "Wakey, wakey!" at the beginning of "Faust Arp."

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

"15 Step" = best use of "Etcetera, etcetera" in a lyric since "Sweet and Tender Hooligan" (perhaps).

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

HTTT > In Rainbows

sorry guys

stephen, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think so as well TBH. In Rainbows is more consistent but if you chopped HTTT down to its ten best tracks it'd be pretty unstoppable.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

exactly!

a 10-track "best of" HTTT would put In Rainbows to shame

stephen, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

What would you remove? (I'd be perfectly fine without "Go to Sleep," honestly.)

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'd get rid of "We Suck Young Blood," "Where I End and You Begin," "Myxomatosis," and "Scatterbrain," methinks. I love "Go To Sleep."

Davey D, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

sail to the moon
where i end & you begin
i will
we suck young blood (kinda cool but i never listen to it)

xpost

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Go to Sleep is great

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

HTTT, at it could have been:

1. 2 + 2 = 5
2. Sit Down, Stand Up
3. Backdrifts
4. Go to Sleep
5. Where I End and You Begin
6. The Gloaming
7. There There
8. A Punchup at a Wedding
9. Myxomatosis
10. A Wolf at the Door

(Removed: Sail to the Moon, We Suck Young Blood, I Will, Scatterbrain)

Come on guys, tell me that's not a better album than In Rainbows.

stephen, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just think it's a different album, not better. And I like the difference.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

(Keeping "Go to Sleep" and ditching "We Suck Young Blood" = madness, but anyway.)

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

"There There" = Radiohead's best song. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Davey D, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

sail to the moon
where i end & you begin
i will
we suck young blood (kinda cool but i never listen to it)
-- Jordan, Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:56 PM (31 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

I almost completely agreed with this! and didn't even look at your post when creating my 10-track version, believe it or not. I do think Where I End... is quality, and I'd remove Scatterbrain instead -- get rid of the sappy/cute/emo Radiohead tracks (Sail to the Moon, I Will, Scatterbrain) and the failed experimental track (We Suck Young Blood) and it's a great fucking album.

Ned, I think Go to Sleep works as the obligatory "pop" track from the album, esp. sitting inside that depressing Backdrifts-WhereIEnd-Gloaming sequence. Varies the pace a bit.

stephen, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

There's probably another thread for this - this one's going to be long enough without us compiling fantasy tracklistings for an album that came out four years ago.

My opinion my change, In Rainbows is less bombastic, far more subtle than any other Radiohead album. HTTT was pretty blunt in the way it approached you.

(Still, anyone removing I Will = mentalism. But that might be because it still sends shivers down my spine thinking about Thom playing it solo, at the start of the Earl's Court encore, in the week Bush was in London).

Matt DC, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

Go to Sleep is a groove, We Suck Young Blood has cool claps but it just makes me want to listen to "Freedom", and the out-of-nowhere heavy part is kinda silly.

Anyway I love HTTT and I think it's probably going to stick with me more, but In Rainbows is new!

xpost

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

who cares which is better

cutty, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

^^

Jordan, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Wow, on the fifth listen to "15 Step" today, I heard the kids cheering for the first time; my own kids have been making so much noise around the house today that I mistook the sound on the record for my kids each time so far.

Euler, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think many of us have our own versions of HTTT that would make it a much stronger, shorter, and altogether more consistent album. I've been meaning to cut it down and make another copy since 2003. But as was said, let's leave it to another thread.

I know I like IR, as I like just about all Radiohead minus PH. But I can't help but wish that they really went "out there", and maybe did more of the Mingus-Eno-free jazz-New Orleans funeral-mixed with Warp-stuff of Kid A/Amnesiac. It seems like a stupid criticism, because what they did was just give us a really strong "solid Radiohead album" but something inside me wishes that they gave us an album that we really had to sit with, and take a long time to get into it and see what they're doing. Oh well, I guess Radiohead has never been the place to go to for the really weird challenging stuff, even if they've flirted with experimentation with much success before. I guess I'll just be the stereotype that wishes they'd do more Kid A/Amnesiac stuff. But this one will maybe grow on me a lot more.

Also, I'm glad someone posted this, as I thought the same thing (or at least I think it's the same, as I don't have my tracklist handy and
I don't yet know the song number):

Plus, the bass line from All I Need is 100% BoC

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Another thing: anyone remember that Sasha Frere-Jones New Yorker article he did on Radiohead a while back? I happened to just read it recently, and hearing the new album made me think about some of his comments. One thing he mentioned (I think he did, at least, if my memory's right) is that Yorke's voice works best when it's used as just another instrument in the band, and I think that's true. I find his lyrics a little silly sometimes (and this is coming from someone who normally doesn't care much about lyrics), and I think the crystal clear production of his vocals on IR (as well as the Eraser) kind of reveal the not-so-great lyrics, to some detriment. Which is another reason I like Kid A/Amnesiac so much, the vocal processing 1.) sounds really fuckin cool and 2.) obscures Yorke's silly lyrics and 3.) really does the effect SFJ was talking about in terms of making Yorke's voice another instrument in the band rather than the upfront focus.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

people seem to remember Kid A and Amnesiac as being a lot weirder than they really are...i hadn't listened to Kid A in years and i did recently and was struck by how much of a regular record it sounded like to me...a good one, but not this crazed ass noisey clatter i'd built it up to be in my head.

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

people seem to remember Kid A and Amnesiac as being a lot weirder than they really are

i'm probably guilty of this, especially since I first heard it in high school and, apart from some Aphex Twin, hadn't really heard any of the weirder influences that Radiohead took from in making those two records.

also, someone upthread said how proggy IR seems at times, I def. agree on that one. though I don't think it's a bad thing at all. it's pretty cool how a lot of these songs start in one place and totally change course and wind up in this atmospheric gloop.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

i think his lyrics are top notch

cutty, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm kinda glad i didn't pay for this. 'warm' Radiohead isn't doing it for me.

people seem to remember Kid A and Amnesiac as being a lot weirder than they really are

in relation to what they were doing prior, they're still pretty damn weird.

circa1916, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

"I am a moth
who just wants to share your light
I'm just an insect
trying to get out of the night

I only stick with you
because there are no others"

That's great.

Other highlights: when Thom finally shifts into the upper register in "Jigsaw Falling into Place", during the "The beat goes round and round" part.

Can we talk about the fucking awesome production sometime soon?

Z S, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

i would take about six songs off httt; i'd take one off this.

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 22:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

Reckoner - I guess they're going for a Motown thing here, the drums are panned hard right and there is some great tambourine on the left.

This is why the whole album sounds so good on headphones, and Reckoner doesn't. It wasn't until my third listen (first on speakers) that I really enjoyed Reckoner.

Z S, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

one of the things that shocks me most about this record is how much the more tepid live songs have improved. "bodysnatchers" is a monster, especially after it opens up in the second half, and "open pick" (which was always kind of non-descript live) is awesome as the requisite breathless rant moment (see: idioteque, wolf at the door, etc)

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

track times, anyone?

i'm gonna d/l this real soon, jut wanna know a few details first.

Just got offed, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

why does it matter?

cutty, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

wikipedia is your friend. at least for now.

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

cutty: yeah, i know it doesn't matter, i'm just anal like that.

mark: cheers!

Just got offed, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

you need to know track times before you listen to the album? what the fuck is wrong with you. close your eyes and listen to it.

cutty, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

is it weird that i've been almost more excited for the bonus disc than for the album?

xpost you just asked louis jagger what is wrong with him. lol

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

cutty: i'm just interested! wanted to see whether they'd done any real long-form pieces. answer, alas, is no.

lol indeed.

Just got offed, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

you are a real long form piece of turd

cutty, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

is the BoC track bits of "roygbiv" ?

gman, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

any other questions you need to ask us?

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

My own 2c is that this record is fine, but lacks some emotional punch. maybe it'll sink in. it's a nice mood piece, and i'm happy to file it next to httt (which means I like the idea of it more often than I actually put it on). i also think that this is as good as they can be, which is pretty good.

what makes a lot of people here think that they're capable of something out of this world? it's not like they're a band with potential anymore. they're good, and good at what they do, and they'll do this stuff from here on out, I assume.

paulhw, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

any other questions you need to ask us?

yeah, why do you and cutty feel the need to keep zinging when there's clearly no fuel left in the tank?

Just got offed, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

i don't usually zing you, you know that, i just thought your question was ridiculous.

cutty, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah ok it was ridiculous, but i'm a bit drunk, i've just got back from a gig, i feel a bit guilty for not having acquired the album, and i just wanted to know a bit more about what i'd be getting. i know it sounds stupid, but you can sometimes determine quite a lot from track-times.

Just got offed, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

like, for example, how long the songs are

max, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

After a really terrible, stressful, headache-inducing day, "Nude" sounds like musical aspirin. I love this album.

Tape Store, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

well, if there were, like, three 8-minute tracks on that wikipedia list, i would currently be slavering at the chops, eyes agog, probably trying to d/l the record right fucking now.

that is what track-times can do for folks like me.

Just got offed, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

you have no idea how interesting it is to hear you talk this

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

you have no idea how interesting it is to hear you talk ABOUT this

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

you have no idea

^@^, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

why are long songs better than short songs?

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

that doesn't make sense. i have no idea? what, about how you should or shouldn't approach a record? under the autocratic leadership of mark p, will it become illegal to pleasantly request information regarding an album's track-times? it really isn't that weird.

matt: long songs aren't necessarily better, but i've long said that i'd be incredibly interested in hearing Radiohead attempt something more drawn-out, more free-form, dare i say more 'progressive'.

mind you, their best disc IMO was the airbag EP, and that was, like, 26 minutes long, with only two tracks over 4 minutes in length. maybe it's for the best.

Just got offed, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

More seconds, overall, in general.
xpost

Z S, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

ts: person pitch/strawberry jam vs. the eraser/in rainbows

kamerad, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 23:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

love the first track. what sort of music is like this and 'everything in it's right place'? i know everyone always says AUTECHRE but zzzz. what else though?

pisces, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

It was always more Aphex b-side and BoC than Autechre, by a long way.

Mister Craig, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

Actually, I think my least favorite parts of the album may be the bookends: the first part of "15 Step", before the band starts to kick in, and "Videotape", pretty much as a whole. The rest I couldn't be more delighted with.

Z S, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thom speaks:

hope you are enjoying listening to the download of In Rainbows.
its a relief to us all that finally its out there.
its been a mad couple of weeks.. as i'm sure you can imagine...

"I love pop music to death..... Most great composers rely on folk music. I rely on pop music.
I'm not saying I'm a great composer or that pop music is folk music. There's a whole endless thing going on out there.
You make your little pond but if your pond isn't connected to the river, which isn't connected to an ocean,
it's just going to dry up. It's just a little piss pool. I've lived too long to be happy in a pond."

I found this in WIRE magazine over a pint in the pub last night.. its Robert Wyatt

Thom

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'd be incredibly interested in hearing Radiohead attempt something more drawn-out, more free-form, dare i say more 'progressive'.

I can't wait until Louis graduates college.

Jordan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

Funny Yorke should mention Wyatt. Listening to this after spending most of yesterday afternoon absorbing Comicopera, I'm struck by how much Yorke's new tone resembles Wyatt's -- singing slightly behind the beat, allowing himself to sound woozy while textures swell and ebb.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

i've been busting 'moon in june' over the past couple of days...wyatt is as good a role model as any. even if his politics are a tad extreme.

Just got offed, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

the ride accents in reckoner are wonderful, give the drummer some

cutty, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Can't...Stop...Listening. I'm on number 5 in a row now.

Generally, I'm preferring the first half to the second, slightly. It isn't that Faust Arp to the end isn't good, it's that the first five songs are all pretty much perfect.

Z S, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

Already though, I'm wishing "Nude" were the closing song, and [insert standout track from bonus disc] was in the #3 slot instead.

Z S, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

My speakers distort a few times during this album. Looks like I'm not the only one.
Here's Bodysnatchers:
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g6/Coldacre/Bodysnatchers.png
and House of Cards:
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g6/Coldacre/Houseofcards.png

I'm not sure if that's because of the mastering, or what, but hopefully the final, physical copy will be a bit better sounding.

Z S, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

love the dub sound of house of cards

bstep, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

What program is that? It looks fun.

pinkie, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

That's Audacity, I think, a free download.

Z S, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh yeah, does anyone else think Thom's vocals on "Bodysnatchers" are very reminiscent of Jeff Buckley's attempts at unhinged rock'n'roll snarling? (best examples of this phenomenon are on Sketches For My Sweetheart the Drunk (and yes I realize that by admitting to having heard that album I've just outed myself as someone who went through a total Jeff Buckley fanboy phase))

bernard snowy, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

So I downloaded it and I've thought about it some more, regarding the release strategy. I think the smart thing was making someone like myself even consider the money again.

In soulseek or oink or bit torrent, when I get money, I feel like I'm a world where all music is raining from the sky and equally free, flowing from some source that is a step removed from the artist.

Here I actually get it for free, but the artist themselves are bringing up the idea, not forcing me, just reminding me that they are offering a good or service - something that they spent time and money on - but it's also art, it's music, its this thing they built inherently to be for everyone. I think it's smart not because of the guilt trip I feel in not paying (although that happened), it's just a cognizance on the part of the band that this would've entered the domain of Free Music Everywhere that is currently the norm no matter what, and reminding me and people like me that this music came from someone.

I'm sure this is all very obvious and pedestrian to say and I don't even like Radiohead that much, but these are the things I think hours after downloading it for free, about to go back and donate some money.

filthy dylan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

That first use of "money" should have been music.

filthy dylan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm noticing a weird chop/edit around 3:25 on 15 Step. anyone else hear this? i don't know if it's the song or my file is wonky.

LaMonte, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

so this is shareware, huh?

sleeve, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

Well, after an evening of Radiohead holiday, reality slaps me in the face as my girlfriend walks in, politely listens to 15 Step and Bodysnatchers, and then asks me to turn it off so she can watch that reality show about the restaurants that suck until the one guy comes in and makes them not suck, while making people cry.

Seeya tomorrow, Radiohead.

Z S, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

that show sounds tight

Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 11 October 2007 01:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

haven't read this thread but just finish hearing this for the first time.

WoW! the production is amazing.

Bee OK, Thursday, 11 October 2007 03:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

what sort of music is like this and 'everything in it's right place'?

not sure why, but EIIRP has always reminded me of In a Silent Way

ryan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 04:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm in the middle of an exam paper now but here's some extra quick thoughts:

1. they sound looser and more comfortable than they ever have.
2. This is a record for the fans: it's got some rockers, and it's got some weird, woozy stuff, it's got a mix of both, and it's got stuff from the past.
3. It might be their most immediate record since The Bends, yet I'm still hearing new stuff with each listen. (have played it about 4 times since yesterday)
4. "Reckoner"/"Jigsaw Falling Into Place" are awesome.
5. I got cut off at 30 mbs most likely not because of Radiohead but because i was on my shitty uni network. i emailed waste and they replied back relatively quickly with a new activation code, so kudos to those guys.
5. Because Radiohead are great, whoever works for them at waste are great, and because I love this record, I feel like paying for the damn discbox now.

Roz, Thursday, 11 October 2007 04:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

I listened to it three times today and I can't say I'm too thrilled with it. "15 Step" and "Bodysnatchers" get me all excited and then the rest is just this depressing, formless meltdown. More "poor me" mope-fest Radiohead is the last thing I wanted from them. And WTF "Reckoner" is an entirely different song than the balls-to-the-wall rock and roll song called "Reckoner" they did on tour in 2001.

But fine, I've said my peace, I'll leave it to those who appreciate it.

Bimble, Thursday, 11 October 2007 05:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

now that i have read over this thread, this is/was an EVENT. something music hasn't had in a very long time when it pertains to the music.

i like how you see some old faces around this thread, classic. now where the hell is Geir Hongro view?

Bee OK, Thursday, 11 October 2007 05:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

LOLOLZ

Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 11 October 2007 06:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

Perfect! I was talking on Facebook with a friend about how the cover needed a unicorn.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2007 06:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

i've been busting 'moon in june' over the past couple of days...wyatt is as good a role model as any. even if his politics are a tad extreme.

-- Just got offed, Thursday, 11 October 2007 00:27

I'm so glad that Radiohead didn't cover that song. I thought they did for a second after skimming up through this thread.

Wyatt and Radiohead do have some similarities. They both make music that can be 'absorbing'. The main difference is that more people listen to Radiohead than Robert Wyatt. I'm happy when people aren't familiar with Wyatt or any other of my favorite musicians because I'm not ready to hear idiots singing my favorite songs on the bus.

CaptainLorax, Thursday, 11 October 2007 06:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

LOLZ at my little ponyhead!

Roz, Thursday, 11 October 2007 06:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

I dunno, I'd love "Born again Cretin" to be sung on many buses.

So, this morning, I wondered, Is it on sale at ebay?

Yep!

This is the latest release from Radiohead that is available as a free download from their web site. In the same way we are offering the music on this CD for free. We will charge you only for the manufacture, postage and packing. The designs used in the CD have been created by iUK Music and are not those used by or approved by Radiohead. The artists name and the name of the tracks are also supplied for free by Radiohead as part of the download information. You can send money to Radiohead for the music on this CD by visiting their web site at www.radiohead.com.

This is an un-official issue of the free download by Radiohead from their web site at www.radiohead.com, it's an exact copy of the music on that free download which is the original recording. It is in a CDO format that uses graphics supplied by iUK Music for the cover. See www.thedisckiosk.com/cdo.htm for more details.

Mark G, Thursday, 11 October 2007 09:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

love the dub sound of house of cards

picked this detail in the mix when listening properly on the bus this morning.
totally makes the track for me.

mark e, Thursday, 11 October 2007 09:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

In Rainbows - is rated number 3 album on rateyourmusic.com for 2007 albums

Top 1000 Albums of 2007
http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/2007

djmartian, Thursday, 11 October 2007 10:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

why always links to RYM?

poortheatre, Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Why not?

Anyway, hi dere all. Now imagine if that shutdown today had happened yesterday.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2007 19:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Radiohead broke ILM

Davey D, Thursday, 11 October 2007 19:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was just coming onto this thread to mention Robert Wyatt - it's really there in the warm jazz guitar tones.

Matt DC, Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

radiohead are reefer duberland
http://gapersblock.com/transmission/archives/2007/10/#023128
or not
nice dusted review (as usual) even if the guy's wrong about the album being a let down
http://www.dustedmagazine.com/reviews/3903

kamerad, Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

after one on-the-bus listen (i was going to be all aloof and wait a couple of weeks, but succumbed at 7.30 this morning) i've remembered many of the reasons i really like radiohead. it's good to be reminded of this. i think i'm going to spend a lot of time with this album.

grimly fiendish, Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's got thumbs up from me!

(hey, with reviewing style like that, I'm off to Plan B!)

Mark G, Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

Five listens in and '15 Step', 'Weird Fishes' and 'Bodysnatchers' look like being highlights; 'All I Need' is the only thing even approaching a weak link. Other thoughts: Thom's voice sounds in fine form throughout and 'Faust Arp' is more Five Leaves Left than Beatles to these ears. Really enjoying the whole thing.

Gavin in Leeds, Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

'All I Need' is the only thing even approaching a weak link

no wai!

grimly fiendish, Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

no wai!

It outstays its welcome a little... It's a minor quibble though, I'm very much impressed with this.

Gavin in Leeds, Thursday, 11 October 2007 20:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

what has happened to ilm? around 2001 i was one of the few who defended "amnesiac" (besides john and melissa). i hadn't cared about them before. "hail to the thief" i liked too, don't remember what ilm thought. now they release an album which i find as uninteresting as everything pre-amnesiac and everybody (except bimble) is totally nuts about it. this reaction baffles me. or maybe it doesn't. i like what i like and you like what you like. thom yorke's voice really goes on my nerves again as it used to in the nineties. there are no melodies on the new album. which could be a good thing. but i don't think it is. there is meandering, the album doesn't flow. the songs are too similar, too exchangeable. just listening to "nude" and it is a crappy soft rock ballad. the next song isn't better. it's all wishy-washy. i thought prog was dead but the dead live longest, it seems. "five leaves left" and "faust arp"? if you compare any nick drake to it then please compare it to the right album. which would be "bryter later". the weakest nick drake. but whereas the strings on it are just an extra topping on "faust arp" they seem to be the whole meal. i don't hear anything remotely interesting in terms of melody, rhythm or harmonies. my fave is the opener i guess. because it rocks.

alex in mainhattan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think its simply a by-product of lots of Radiohead fans being caught up in a moment and everyone else sitting on the sidelines. Not to say everybody's reactions in the last 30 hours haven't been sincere, but that the effusion was predictable. For my part I've listened to it a couple of times and it's not really grabbing me, but I'm not trying to kickstart the inevitable backlash coming at the 48 hour mark either

Billy Pilgrim, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

now they release an album which i find as uninteresting as everything pre-amnesiac and everybody (except bimble) is totally nuts about it.

People saying "hey, I like this bit" or "I don't know about this song" interspersed with a thousand comments about the pricing and download model aren't exactly indicators of people "going nuts." People usually listen to an album for a bit before declaring it anything, right?

mh, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

SOMEONE TELL ME JUST WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ILM

cutty, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

Stuff. Things.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

9/11

Matt DC, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

cutty would probably like in rainbows

chaki, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

Actual answer = nothing has happened to ILM. Well, nothing and everything, but what's happened is irrelevant, because the Amnesiac thread is largely full of of praise. Bit like this one.

Matt DC, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't know why that didn't work.

So... Amnesiac

Matt DC, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh god marcello

cutty, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyway:

My formal review for the OC Weekly

My acknowledgment of its inherent limitations. There's a lot there I'd already rewrite, but I think that about everything.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really like how Arpeggi keeps that 3 over 4 hemiola or whatever going for the whole song, it's tricky but sounds natural.

Jordan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

"15 Step" finds drummer Phil Selway going off on acoustic and electronic beats that could easily have been hitting the charts in recent times (they'll surely be used on mixtapes before the year is out).

Ned, you know I love you, but there's not a lot of rap in 5, dude. :>

Jordan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

LET ME DREAM (however stupidly).

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Actually that would be a great Radiohead B-side title from 1995.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

which would be "bryter later". the weakest nick drake.

Totally wrong there of course

trailofgybe, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

That's okay, I remember making a post after HttT came out, something about wanting to hear Ludacris on Backdrifts. :/

Jordan, Thursday, 11 October 2007 21:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

I may have missed the corresponding Billboard article, but is this album being tabulated like any other, i.e. will it show up on the album chart next week?

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

"reckoner" = radiohead's "new grass"?

jackl, Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned made this comparison in his review

W4LTER, Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think

W4LTER, Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

Not to the song specifically. "Ascension Day" is the other song I've heard so mentioned...

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 11 October 2007 22:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

Aaah, Rainbows; I like those.

G00blar, Friday, 12 October 2007 00:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Alex very much OTM upthread there. I don't get the love.

circa1916, Friday, 12 October 2007 00:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

They've never done anything as pretty as 'Nude'.

the next grozart, Friday, 12 October 2007 01:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

'Faust Arp' is a big fuck you to all those crap buskers who learnt to play 'Street Spirit' and thought they could impress people. Let's see you play these chords then!

the next grozart, Friday, 12 October 2007 01:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

At Ease sez that someone else sez 1.2 million "sales". I guess that's a combination of downloads from the sites and orders for the discbox.

Z S, Friday, 12 October 2007 02:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hmmm...that's 1.2 miilion without counting discboxes, whoops. "The band will cash in again when the payments clear for the ‘In Rainbows’ box set which are on sale for £40 a go"

Z S, Friday, 12 October 2007 02:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquDCsalbgA

Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 12 October 2007 03:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

First sentence of album review on Rolling Stone dot com:

These wily boys may have a secret album-title exchange program with Kelly Clarkson, but everything else about In Rainbows is typically hard-rocking Radiohead.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 06:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

In reference to Rolling Stone review, from Idolator dot com:

BY CHRIS N. AT 10:54 AM
"None of it sounds like any other band on earth," yet "'House of Cards' is a fragile lovers-rock ballad closely resembling Dusty Springfield's (and the Byrds') 'Going Back.'"

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 06:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

i had never seen a shooting star before

ciderpress, Friday, 12 October 2007 06:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also of interest?...
One of the guys from Portishead speaks about In Rainbows, and its effects on the industry:

"so then.......music for free is it? well fuking great. so if you get our album for nothing or very little , does that mean i can get my boiler fixed for free... --------i could tell the plumber that its all for the love of sharing and its to combat the evil money grabbing corperation that is zanussi. ...............im sure he will understand. also im not having a pop at radiohead they are fuking good and clever with it. anyways im sure it will all become clear at some point"

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 06:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

Couldn't you also argue the opposite? Why should Bono get a million dollars for singing some shitty song and a plumber get much less for hammering away all day long?

filthy dylan, Friday, 12 October 2007 07:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

Why would a plumber be hammering? Welding, more like.

nate woolls, Friday, 12 October 2007 07:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm still not sure where the hell "free jazz" comes in on Kid A or Amnesiac.

lol xpost

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 12 October 2007 07:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

They've never done anything as pretty effeminate as 'Nude'.

-- the next grozart, Friday, October 12, 2007 1:15 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Link

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 08:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

In Rainbows - is rated number 3 album on rateyourmusic.com for 2007 albums
-- djmartian, Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:14 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

Well to be fair, In Rainbows at #3 on RYM'07 isn't too crazy.
The rest of the top ten, however...

1 Neil Young - Live at Massey Hall 1971
2 CMX - Talvikuningas
3 Radiohead - In Rainbows
4 Between the Buried and Me - Colors
5 Pearl Jam - Live at the Gorge 05/06
6 Wolves in the Throne Room - Two Hunters
7 Ulver - Shadows of the Sun
8 Porcupine Tree - Fear of a Blank Planet
9 Reverend Bizarre - III: So Long Suckers
10 Moonsorrow - Viides Luku - Hävitetty

WAU

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 08:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, "House of cards" is like "Going back" I have to say, but it's still the most catchy tune on there.

Mark G, Friday, 12 October 2007 08:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Here's what I think of the songs, though. Honestly.

------

Brilliant: 15 Step, All I Need, Reckoner

Enjoyable: Bodysnatchers, Jigsaw Falling Into Place

Boring: Nude, House of Cards, Videotape

Utter crap: Weird Fishes/Arpeggi, Faust Arp

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 08:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

SOMEONE TELL ME JUST WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ILM
-- cutty, Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:24 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

9/11
-- Matt DC, Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:32 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

actual lols

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 08:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

downloading right now...

Just got offed, Friday, 12 October 2007 08:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Best - Reckoner; Worst - Weird Fishes/Arpeggi.

nate woolls, Friday, 12 October 2007 08:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

^^^ Yeah.

Bummer, I loved the version of Arpeggi from 2 years ago.

Roz, Friday, 12 October 2007 08:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost otm

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Best - Reckoner; Worst - Weird Fishes/Arpeggi.

-- nate woolls, Friday, October 12, 2007 8:53 AM

^^^

mad rongs

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

pssh!

what is rite, then?

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Don't get me wrong, no doubt they'll grow on me soon and my whole perception of the album will change. Bad songs will become good, good songs will dull slightly, etc. Always the way with Radiohead albums somehow. I hated Let Down and loved Electioneering when I first heard OK Computer.

nate woolls, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned made this comparison in his review

Can I be the only one to compare the world-unites Radiohead chatter to the simultaneous "Doctor" shouts that freed David Tennant from his cage and made him a God?

Thanks.

Matthew H, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_WzTXp8Yvs

WAU

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

I hated Let Down and loved Electioneering when I first heard OK Computer.
-- nate woolls, Friday, October 12, 2007 9:32 AM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

sounds like you had it right the first time, bud.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

hmmmmm on first listen this isn't exactly brilliant (or memorable), but doubtless it'll grow!

Just got offed, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

not related to http://e-design-it.com/avatars/rainbow5.gif but i swear, this cover version of "No Surprises" is more beautiful than anything on the new album:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pbOGNR4VlY

watch the whole thing and tell me i'm wrong.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

this is kind of revelatory

Melissa W, Friday, 12 October 2007 09:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Okay now that the album has set in a little bit, I can formulate a little better of a response that's not as much "OMG NEW RADIOHEAD!!! THIS IS AMAZING!!"

'15 step' is really great, even though I really, really don't like how Yorke sings the "how come I end up where I started/how come I end up where I went wrong/won't take my eyes off the ball again' lines.

'Jigsaw' is pretty boring, probably my least favorite song on here. "Beat goes round and round" ughh. I'm also not totally digging the upfront rock stuff of 'Bodysnatchers' either (though the song ends up a lot better than it started, right around the 2-minute mark it gets pretty cool)

I think "Nude" is great and one of the best songs on here, and I'm not sure if that bodes too well as this is an old song, right? It seems this is one a lot of people are ragging on (especially those who think 'Jigsaw' and 'Bodysnatchers' are the best two things on here), but I like the mopey, atmospheric Radiohead stuff. Yorke's voice just sounds fantastic on this, and hits pretty well on what I mentioned upthread about using his voice as just this gorgeous instrument. The snarling rock n' roll Yorke, with few exceptions, is kind of annoying and I don't really get into it. (I HATE 'Electioneering') I like it when his voice is either pretty, mopey, or weirdly processed.

'Weird Fishes/Arpeggi' I also really like, even if it's nothing remarkable. Just a good Radiohead song.

'All I need' won't hold much appeal once the newness of it fades away, I think.

'Faust Arp' is alright, I could take it or leave it.

I dig 'Reckoner' a lot, and I'm very glad they didn't do another rocker one for this as the early versions might have indicated. It does kinda remind me of U2, though, at least the kind of falsetto Bono hits sometimes.

Someone said it right upthread, the dub stuff is what makes 'House of Cards' work, as well as the atmospheric stuff going on in the background. The production on Yorke's voice is wonderful on this, too. I don't like the "I don't wanna be your friend line.' I'm not sure of the main guitar line either.

'Videotape' is alright, but I think they've done much, much better closers.

So all in all, it's a pretty good album with some holes. Doesn't flow as well as I thought it did upon first listen. It's solid enough Radiohead stuff as I mentioned before, but there's nothing on here that's as dynamic or as interesting as the Kid A/Amnesiac stuff.

Also:

I'm still not sure where the hell "free jazz" comes in on Kid A or Amnesiac.
lol xpost
-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 12 October 2007 07:15 (6 hours ago) Link

Yea you're right, it's pretty much just on the last part of "National Anthem" when all those horns start going crazy, and that is all. Sorry. I just wish Radiohead explored that stuff more.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

that clip is pretty cool, btw, Melissa.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

so pretty much you don't like bodysnatchers, all i need or jigsaw -- which i'd rank as 3 of the top 5 songs on the album (alongside 15 step and reckoner)...go figure.

xpost

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

ha, yea pretty much. Though like I mentioned "bodysnatchers' ends up working well. I'm glad it's on the album.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

Jigsaw is fantastic - part of the reason I like it is that, Thom aside, you could put it on Forever Changes and no one would notice.

Matt DC, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

Bodysnatchers is simply enjoyable, not too crazy great or anything. Here's how i rate everything:

Brilliant: 15 Step, All I Need, Reckoner
Enjoyable: Bodysnatchers, Jigsaw Falling Into Place
Boring: Nude, House of Cards, Videotape
Utter crap: Weird Fishes/Arpeggi, Faust Arp
-- stephen, Friday, October 12, 2007 3:45 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Link

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

i guess you could say i don't like quiet/sensitive/emo Radiohead, in general. had the same problem with Hail to the Thief.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Having listened to this something like 10 times now, I can say it's fast becoming my favourite album of theirs since OK Computer.

the next grozart, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

i don't like it nearly as much as well, anything except Pablo Honey. boo!

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Can someone explain what's going on in Melissa's clip? I R at work and I can't listen :-/

StanM, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's the first time they've managed to get the rock/electronica balance right. Kid A through HTTF, it's always felt like they're forcing somebody else's sound over their own. The electronic influences were really obvious and compared with this album they stuck out like a sore thumb. In Rainbows is a very guitar-orientated album, although you wouldn't notice it at first. Johnny's guitar works with Thom's voice as one, as if you're strapped to the roof of a cathedral, listening to the band rehearse down below you. I love it. It takes a while for it to sink in, in fact I'm still letting it do that, but on the whole I think it's their greatest achievement.

the next grozart, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think the fact that the album *is* quiet/emo Radiohead is what intrigues me the most. It wasn't what people were expecting, so.

Meantime, now I'm wondering what the second disc will be like.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

^^^ yes, I can't wait to hear the second disc.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Though I won't be doing the discbox. Wonder if you'll be able to get a regular release of the second disc, or if it's discbox exclusive?

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

melissa where did that come from?

^@^, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's very guitary driven.

It's not necessarily overdriven though.

Mark G, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned I just opened the link to your Om review -- I too nearly forgot about this release in the Radiohead craze, which prior to 10/10 I listened to quite a bit. I think I'll put it on today.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

back to Radiohead. from Charlie Wilmoth's Dusted Review:

They've dedicated a lot of their time the past seven years to making bleeps and bloops and space noises, which is fine except, again, that's not what they're good at.

hardy-har-har. ughh.

In any case, I can't shake the feeling that In Rainbows is like watching a great movie on an amazing flat-screen TV that I'm only allowed to watch while wearing glasses with the wrong prescription. (Which almost sounds like a the subject of a Radiohead song, come to think of it.)

I don't understand this at all.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

also from the Dusted review:

In Rainbows is pretty much exactly what we'd expect - not quite as strange as Kid A, not quite as rock-based as 2003's Hail to the Thief, and not quite as paranoid as Yorke's 2006 solo album The Eraser.

and highly OTM. this album is missing its identity.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

the best parallel i can draw: it's most similar (out of Radiohead's back catalog) to Amnesiac, cause it feels like a handful of good songs scattered among nearly a full album's worth of b-sides.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

melissa where did that come from?

It's from the middle of Reckoner with the central channel cut out so that you can hear Thom singing "in rainbows in rainbows in rainbows".

Melissa W, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

xxpost really? i'd almost HTTT had less of an identity. IR seems to be a lot more cohesive, even if it doesn't flow as well as I thought it did on first listen.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

^ exposes Reckoner as the album's thematic centerpiece?

xpost

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

this album is missing its identity.

I don't sense this at all, honestly. I think it very cleverly suggests one tone at the start with the opening two songs, then shifts into the predominant one from there on in. And I like that.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Mark - for one, i think Nude and Videotape both sound *very* similar, mood-wise to Pyramid Song, like throwaways that were discarded in favor of Pyramid Song at the time, then used for this album later. Nude in particular, maybe there's a reason it's been around for years and never been recorded for an album...

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

I watched that studio clip on the dvd where they're working on it, it sounds like a totally different song.

Jordan, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think it very cleverly suggests one tone at the start with the opening two songs, then shifts into the predominant one from there on in. And I like that.

so which is the album's true identity, the one presented in the first two songs? or the one suggested thereafter? i'll admit i too see the distinction in mood/tone between the 2nd and 3rd songs, but it seems disjointed to me -- as opposed to say, Kid A, which very effectively maintains the *same* mood from start to finish.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

which is the album's true identity

Does it need one?

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure about the b-sides description of Amnesiac (partly because there are so many incredible songs on it) It is a kind of fragmented album, in a sense, but I think that makes it for a much more dynamic narrative. The instrumental bits, the interludes, the choppiness of a lot of it, it just works so well for Amnesiac. Those parts also give a sense of spaciousness to the album that I don't really think HTTT or IR really have, apart from a few songs.

xxxpost (to Stephen) -- hmm I can see where you're coming from in regards to those two songs.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

(regarding Nude/Videotape)

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

I actually hadn't realized people still considered Amnesiac a B-side/throwaway collection! Wow. That actually kinda surprises me. (Then again I hadn't realized people still called Kid A 'cold' so who knows.)

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yea it always baffled me because I've always thought Amnesiac is their best album.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

They've actually been playing Nude live in various guises since 1997. I think they've been sitting on that song in search of the right arrangement for ages, it used to have a big loud Fake Plastic Trees guitar bit in the final third. I like it more than Pyramid Song, not that they actually sound very similar at all.

Matt DC, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

(I think Amnesiac is their worst album that just happens to contain a couple of their best songs)

Matt DC, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

That's a good take!

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

it would've made more sense of IR came out after Amnesiac, HtTT really does feel out of place in between those two.

rizzx, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

*if

rizzx, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

All we need now is for them to record Lift, Big Boots and Follow Me Around.

leigh, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've got a ropey old mp3 of Lift, 128kbps, and it's fantastic. One of their top 5 songs I think. I'd love to hear a "proper" version of it.

nate woolls, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

While hearing the Talk Talk reference, Reckoner sounds to me like a John Frusciante song with good vocals (Fall out of Love rhythm, Scar Tissue / Smile is a Rifle guitar). Obvi not meaning it's an influence, but others hear this? Same Frusciante guitar sound on House of Cards...

Mittens, I Guess, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

all this stuff about IR not being thematically consistent or whatever is mind-boggling. Why can't they just make a record that's just a strong collection of songs like any other artist? It's the same problem that I had with HTTT when it came out, people were so eager to read into it some sort of political statement or commentary on the state of the world. and if it wasn't that, they wanted the music itself to represent some kind of overarching feeling of unease, that sound that says "we're all doomed".

you could argue that the band asked for it after OK Computer/Kid A but it just seems kind of unfair at this point. even for a band like Radiohead. Sometimes Thom just wants to sing about a thwarted hook-up (I just looked up the lyrics to "Jigsaw" and haha.. if it's not a "Creep" for a new generation).

Roz, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

people caring about thematic content of an album = no music fans

rizzx, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

ha frusciante

cutty, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Haha I noticed the Scar Tissue but have been trying to ignore it.

Matt DC, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

As have I.

Melissa W, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Does it need one?
-- Ned Raggett, Friday, October 12, 2007 9:50 AM (1 hour ago)

not necessarily - but that's part of the distinction (for me) between a good radiohead album and a great radiohead album. pablo honey, amnesiac, hail to the thief = no overarching mood/theme = good radiohead albums. the bends, ok computer, kid a = distinct moods, themes, lyrical structures through entire albums = great radiohead albums. so i would file In Rainbows with the first set.

I actually hadn't realized people still considered Amnesiac a B-side/throwaway collection! Wow. That actually kinda surprises me. (Then again I hadn't realized people still called Kid A 'cold' so who knows.)
-- Ned Raggett, Friday, October 12, 2007 9:55 AM (1 hour ago)

I wouldn't call Amnesiac a b-sides collection per se. it's a collection of about 4-5 fucking excellent songs, a few really good songs and then about 3 more that are just throwaways. it's a pretty good album but not consistent re: mood/sound. as for Kid A, i'd say it's pretty warm with Idioteque being the one *clear* exception - right down to the "ice age coming" lyrics.

(I think Amnesiac is their worst album that just happens to contain a couple of their best songs)
-- Matt DC, Friday, October 12, 2007 10:00 AM (1 hour ago)

OTM!

Why can't they just make a record that's just a strong collection of songs like any other artist?
-- Roz, Friday, October 12, 2007 10:36 AM (32 minutes ago)

i never said they can't do exactly that - it just won't result in their best work, cause they've already set a pretty ridiculously high precedent for cohesive album-length statements.

people caring about thematic content of an album = no music fans
-- rizzx, Friday, October 12, 2007 10:41 AM (27 minutes ago)

okay, ignoring the thematic content for a moment - the music behind Nude, Weird Fishes/Arpeggi, Faust Arp, House of Cards and Videotape just doesn't work well for me, honestly. i wouldn't feel like these songs were throwaways (some to greater degrees than others) if they were woven into the record a little better thematically.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 16:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

if you're going with that distinction, three out of seven ain't bad!

Roz, Friday, 12 October 2007 16:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

how does The Bends have more "distinct moods, themes, lyrical structures through entire albums than Pablo Honey or HTTT? I'm having trouble accepting your criteria for good vs great Radiohead.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 12 October 2007 16:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

After one half-listen (not paying full attention, rather than only listened to one half), this is the least annoying vocal performance by Thom Yorke since ever. Promising.

caek, Friday, 12 October 2007 16:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was just reading some of the comments on Idolator. Is there that many people out there that think this isn't going to be the final, physically released version?

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 12 October 2007 16:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

how does The Bends have more "distinct moods, themes, lyrical structures through entire albums than Pablo Honey or HTTT?
-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, October 12, 2007 11:21 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

The Bends is sonically consistent - it's a straightforward pop/rock album with excellent songs all around; the melodies to most of those songs are easily recalled just by looking at the song titles, i recall someone here saying recently, and none of the songs stray too far from the straightforward-ness of the album. you could really pull almost any of its songs, play it on UK rock radio in '95 and it'd work out pretty well i imagine.

same with Kid A - compared to everything else, it's highly experimental; the closest you'd come to finding a straightforward "single" worthy song is Optimistic, which due to its production/sonic layering and such is *still* way beyond anything on The Bends in terms of accessibility. so the album sticks to its guns, it's cohesive.

now looking at HTTT, you've got a handful of pop/rock songs (2+2=5, Go to Sleep, There there) another set of ballads (Sail to the moon, I will, Scatterbrain), a third set of songs that are very bassy/beat-driven, emphasis on low end (Backdrifts, The gloaming, Myxomatosis), a couple that are just fucking weird sonically and structurally (Sit down stand up, We suck young blood, A wolf at the door).......and another song or two I'm forgetting i suppose. and these songs fit together a lot less as a coherent *whole* album than Kid A or The Bends - you couldn't switch out songs on either of those records and still have the same record, whereas you could swap out a rocker, a ballad, a beatsong, and an experimental track on HTTT and still have more or less the same record as a whole entity. if that makes any sense.

Pablo Honey is not a "great album" for a different reason - because the songs are not consistently strong; it's The Bends v.1, aka Radiohead before they became themselves, set apart from the mid '90s pack of UK pop/rock, britrock-influenced, whatever bands. the songs aren't as good as The Bends (on average) and it affects the album as a while. just too many throwaway songs -- but it's a fun record, i'll give it that!

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 16:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

as a whole*

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 16:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

In one of those Idolator articles, the author claims to hear an Eagles influence on In Rainbows. Anybody else hear it? In what song?

Daniel, Esq., Friday, 12 October 2007 16:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

there is a recent-ish interview with yorke somewhere where he mentions his fondness for recent chili peppers albums. it will make you cringe.

LaMonte, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

Frusciante's the only guy in that band who I like so if that's the connection I have no problems.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

What I wouldn't give for the Radiohead Five to mimic the cover of Freaky Styley.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

i actually like a lot of those sappy chili pepper ballads and the frusciante solo songs from the brown bunny soundtrack. i just can't imagine radiohead loving bro-ish, bland funk-rock.

LaMonte, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

after listeing to this album quite a bit in the past few days. for me this is probably the best album they have ever released. It's everything I could ever want in a radiohead LP and more. still love this.

gman, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

the atmosphere of the album is more or less it's red line. it's woozy, out there feeling, sort of like Amnesiac's more coherent brother. I feel their back-to-Kid A-style-experimenting-in-the-studio comments, the comfort of their studio with them just getting into a zone, not caring too much about it all and then something like this comes out. For me, All I Need perfectly illustrates that, calm, warm but ending with a little explosion of joy

it's how they must feel right now

rizzx, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

from an august 2006 Mojo interview with thom:

"There's one called Bodysnatchers - it's a little bit like Neu! meets dodgy hippy rock. It sounds like that new Australian band Wolfmother - I really like them actually. They're totally unashamed about what they're doing. They just don't give a fuck - and I really love that. There's a track called 15 Steps which was born out of a mad rhythm experiment that we did last year. At first we thought, "How the fuck can we pull this off live?" But then we were listening to Fuck The Pain Away by Peaches a lot and that indirectly inspired us to turn it into something different. It's got a bass line like Airbag and it's in 5/4 time with this 'clapping' groove throughout. I really like the lyrics. "You used to be alright / W hat happened? / Et cetera et cetera / Friends forever! 15 steps -then a sheer drop."

LaMonte, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

There's another song called House Of Cards - that's my personal favourite. It reminds me a lot of that tune by Fleetwood Mac - Albatross, which I absolutely love. House Of Cards sounds satisfying, really mellow and summery...

LaMonte, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Albatross," yeah, I can hear that pretty immediately now that I read that!

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Frusciante's the only guy in that band who I like so if that's the connection I have no problems.
-- Ned Raggett, Friday, October 12, 2007 1:08 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Agreed. Just because it was nagging at me, the specific comparison just now clicked in my head, 'Murderers' (which is kinda a great song):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vMsL41ZSUPk

Mittens, I Guess, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

i dig the Fleetwood Mac comment a lot, actually one of the first things IR reminded me of was Tusk. i can't really pin down why exactly

rizzx, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

Probably a lot of the lyrics.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yikes! The review on local blog Austinist.com is nothing less than scathing:

First things first: we must differentiate between the chutzpah of a band at Radiohead's level of critical distinction and popularity initially releasing their album for donation and making the most revolutionary music industry statement since the dawn of the Internet Age...

(big breath)

...and the chutzpah it takes to make truly ground-breaking musical statements.

In Rainbows does not employ the latter. Still, one leaves with the impression that the boys from Oxford are convinced that, once again, they're setting the benchmark as they did with OK Computer and Kid A. Notwithstanding a handful of transcendent moments wherein the album almost achieves escape velocity to catapult itself out from the immense gravity of Radiohead's legacy, it's a mediocre, lazily conceived, and underwhelmingly produced project. Where it aspires to be organic or minimal it comes off as haphazard. Where it strains at creating catharsis, it merely herniates a "diskbox". I mean, Jesus, we all want Jonny, Thom, and the other three to stay best friends and make music forever and ever, but are we really going to convince ourselves that the lion's share of this record isn't jarringly derivative?

Continued here: http://austinist.com/2007/10/12/austinist_album_5.php

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Teaser sentence for the rest of the Austinist review:

Then there are songs like "Faust Arp" which sounds like a Doves B-side.

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm actually looking forward to a good comedown over the weekend so I can hide under my bedsheets listening to this. Any other Radiohead album would be dreadful in this circumstance but this album isn't as dreary.

the next grozart, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

i think someone probably already said this, but sonically this record seems much closer to Amnesiac than any of their other records

it's a slightly stronger, more cohesive set of songs than Amnesiac though

ciderpress, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

hahah I really like that Austinist review, even though I like the album okay. I think I have always partially enjoyed bad reviews of Radiohead so long as they have some thought to them.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's a slightly stronger, more weaker, less cohesive set of songs than Amnesiac though
-- ciderpress, Friday, October 12, 2007 1:43 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

no worries, i fixed the typo for you!

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

all i need = you and whose army
house of cards = dollars & cents

reckoner = pyramid song??

ok i'll stop

ciderpress, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

if only they were that good

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

i mentioned already, i think nude = pyramid song

stephen, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm suddenly reminded of how great the amnesiac b-sides were esp. "worrywort" and "fog"

ciderpress, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh god. ok now i definitely think that IR is nowhere near as good as amnesiac. still better than HTTT though.

Roz, Friday, 12 October 2007 18:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'd like to go back on what I said the other day that it sounded like HTTT. It sounds like "In Rainbows". It's seriously amazing.

the next grozart, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

IT's definitely the best of their latter-day albums (i.e. Kid A onwards).

the next grozart, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

IT's definitely the best of their latter-day albums (i.e. Kid A onwards).

Fixed!

Davey D, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

Wow, dudes are going crazy with the comparison stuff.

Jordan, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

The increasing amount of "I want Radiohead to sound like the boundary-testing sonic warriors I have built themselves up in my head to be" responses (not here, but I'm thinking of that Austinist review) amuse me.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah that's pretty much what i get from all the criticism, eventhough there is some justice in every man's own fantasies

rizzx, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm happy to amuse you then, Ned :)

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hooray amusement!

I mean, I said that it'd be nice if this was a definite break like Kid A proved to be -- it isn't, but I really like it on its own merits as opposed to NOT being whatever that fantasy record was in my head. (And I'm frankly not sure what it was I had in place at this point.) As such, a success.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ann Powers has a nice take up. (My one '?' moment is that Pearl Jam is about the LAST band I would have thought of when it comes "Bodysnatchers" but that's the personal pantheon for you, to use her v. good phrase.)

Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 October 2007 19:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm sure it's been mentioned (what hasn't in the last 60 hours) but I love the melding between initial listener reactions and more objective critical reviews that this album is forcing right now. Everything bleeding together at once, with an unprecedented lack of distinction. There's gotta be some frustrated writers (and their editors) out there.

Cosmo Vitelli, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ahhh... I wondered when thebacklash would start creeping in.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

My feelings exactly – the tension between inchoate thoughts and a fully considered review fit for publication, plus a natural instinct to compete.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ann Powers OTM with the Prince comparison.

LaMonte, Friday, 12 October 2007 21:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

The idea that In Rainbows doesn't have a consistent sonic mood is fucking ludicrous.

Matt DC, Friday, 12 October 2007 22:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

BUT I REQUIRE ALL MY ALBUMS TO HAVE CONSISTENT SONIC MOODS OR BE EASILY RATE-ABLE AMONGST SAID ARTISTS ENTIRE DISCOGRAPHY

cutty, Friday, 12 October 2007 22:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

jesus christ i feel sorry for radiohaed

cutty, Friday, 12 October 2007 22:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

me too

Davey D, Friday, 12 October 2007 22:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

arggh i keep going back and forth with this one on every listen. i'll just say it's a decent enough Radiohead album and i'm quite happy with it.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 22:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

15 Steps is kind of frustrating me at the moment, the first 40 seconds or so are rubbish (I put this down to Thom's annoying yelping vocal performance, too Eraser for me) but from then on it gets better and better. Also children shouting or whatever, that song is all about the bass - Colin plays a fucking blinder.

Matt DC, Friday, 12 October 2007 23:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes, once that bass comes is in it is ON

Davey D, Friday, 12 October 2007 23:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

15 Steps is kind of frustrating me at the moment, the first 40 seconds or so are rubbish (I put this down to Thom's annoying yelping vocal performance, too Eraser for me) but from then on it gets better and better.

i agree with all of this.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 23:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

^me too. It's annoying, because everytime I play In Rainbows for someone else(all two times, so far), I can't stop myself from saying "...actually, the first minute is actually the worst on the album", and so on.

It's going to be fun to get the other disc and construct an improved tracklist and order.

Z S, Friday, 12 October 2007 23:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

^I've been having the same experience! I'm all "hold on! It gets really amazing! Just wait! No, seriously, this is way different than his solo album!"

Davey D, Saturday, 13 October 2007 00:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

Actually, I always say actually way too much in real life, actually.

Z S, Saturday, 13 October 2007 00:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

God, I love that opening. Y'all are freaks. (I love you all too.)

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 13 October 2007 00:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm liking this more with each listen. it is slowly revealing itself. the production on thom's voice is beautiful. all these little touches like when, halfway through 15 steps, his voice seems to briefly escape the rigid machinery of the song, curling in dusty echoes to the horizon, only to be brought back into the panic. also how nude's intro and backing is like ghosts being sucked into heaven. and more or less every other moment. like when all i need finally breaks. it will be cool to eventually sing the words "weird fishes" alongside 10000 other concertgoers. anyways, right now my lights are off and this is a silk cocoon and it is my favorite radiohead.

negotiable, Saturday, 13 October 2007 00:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yea you're right, it's pretty much just on the last part of "National Anthem" when all those horns start going crazy, and that is all. Sorry. I just wish Radiohead explored that stuff more.

-- Mark Clemente, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:58

I agree! I'd love to have Joe McPhee show up and squawk all over (say) Weird Fishes.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 October 2007 00:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think this is the most I've enjoyed a radiohead album since, well, forever. What stands out for me after like the 13th or 14th play is the incredible care with which the album, as an album, was constructed. Each song seems a bit like a different flavor of sorbet on a tasting menu; you take a bite and it lingers around on your tongue for the first minute and a half or so, not really doing much besides creating an overwhelming, intense sensation of its particular "flavorness"; and then around the 2 minute mark the flavor changes a little bit, does something weird, which alters the sense of the overall flavor but remains decidedly "itself". And then the song ends and you take a bite of the next flavor on the plate. So different sonic sensations are offered in bite size portions, really, as long as you take really slow, sensuous kind of bites; but some bites take longer to reveal all their subtleties than others. And each flavor is sequenced really carefully with all the rest to intensify the sensation of having these 10 unique, individual 'essences' of songs. I think the only time we really have similar songs back to back is like with Faust Arp moving into Reckoner, and that is really effective as a way of kind of ramping up into the climax which reckoner kind of is.

In fact I think these are kind of the 'essences' of all the songs presented here, the most unique, strange, different-from-everything-next-to-them versions that could have been created. At first I hated the Videotape and All I Need on this album, because they were really gorgeous songs with such amazing movement and catharsis in the versions we have from tour bootlegs. But I realize now that these songs, as well as Arpeggi and House of Cards, were changed--flattened out, perhaps--in order to not give us any resolution within themselves; rather, they have to fit in the context of the album. And emotional satisfaction is experienced over the course of the Album, NOT on a song by song basis. I can't imagine really enjoying any of these except like Nude and Jigsaw on their own, outside of the album. The comparisons to HTTF and Amnesiac are, for that reason, I think really off the mark; those two albums are collections of songs, which may or may not cohere into an album; but this is an album, which just happens to be made of songs.
Thus, I think most of the experimentation that is going on here is about pushing four minute songs to be as intense and peculiar as they can possibly be and still fit the mood. In a sense these aren't pop songs anymore, in that they often don't give the pleasures of a pop song, or at least those pleasures: movement, climax, resolution etc., are really diluted, in favor of a different goal. I could say more about this later but I've already typed too much. Anyways I think, for 2007, I like this about the same as Sound of Silver which is its diametrical opposite in a lot of ways, but not in the way that both albums create grooves and then try to more or less sustain them over the course of individual tracks before a new track comes in and makes a different mood or groove. Theres nothing nearly as good as All My Friends on In Rainbows, and of course nothing I can really dance to or spin out etc. But so far I've listened to the entire Radiohead album more often in three days than the LCD Soundsystem in like 8 months anyways.

xpost wonderful comment about the silk cocoon etc, thats exactly where I've been for like the last 2 days.

walter benjamin, Saturday, 13 October 2007 00:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

what the fuck are you on about sorbet

cutty, Saturday, 13 October 2007 00:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

sensuous bites of radiohead

cutty, Saturday, 13 October 2007 01:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

you can't dance to it? i've been dancing to "jigsaw" and "bodysnatchers" all day.

I love the bit in "bodysnatchers" just before the "has the light gone out" bit where it sounds like the bottom falling out and there's this sudden... space.

Roz, Saturday, 13 October 2007 01:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

xxpost yer right it does look ridiculous when you say it like that. its kinda like the album: makes more sense in its context.

walter benjamin, Saturday, 13 October 2007 01:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

the context being my head

walter benjamin, Saturday, 13 October 2007 01:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

nude sounds like elbow. i like this record.

jed_, Saturday, 13 October 2007 01:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

Glad someone posted that rateyourmusic link way above...got the album artwork now. The album is great upon first few listens.

van smack, Saturday, 13 October 2007 02:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

So far, we have Frusciante playing guitar with Mark Hollis alongside Tusk-era Fleetwood Mac and a smattering of Pearl Jam and the Eagles, with elements of Dusty Springfield, Neu, Wolfmother, Nick Drake and Peaches. This must be either awesome or a truly horrible mess!

(Actually, I dl'ed it and am still trying to absorb it here. First impressions: yes, most like Amnesiac which is good -- for me -- since the latter is my favourite Radiohead album. But all these comparisons get confusing, so I'll share impressions on its own terms later.)

Lostandfound, Saturday, 13 October 2007 02:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

i think it's the most confident sounding and least dark, anxiety-ridden album they've done. i have no idea where i'd place it in their oeuvre but i'm just really enjoying listening to it, really.

LaMonte, Saturday, 13 October 2007 03:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

what has happened to ilm? around 2001 i was one of the few who defended "amnesiac" (besides john and melissa). i hadn't cared about them before. "hail to the thief" i liked too, don't remember what ilm thought. now they release an album which i find as uninteresting as everything pre-amnesiac and everybody (except bimble) is totally nuts about it. this reaction baffles me. or maybe it doesn't.

Don't feel alone, Alex in Mainhattan. My good friend Mr. Odd (who has neglected to post his opinion here) said he feels exactly as bored with this album as I do and that he has another friend who feels the same.

Bimble, Saturday, 13 October 2007 04:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Who's to say it isn't somehow Coldplay's fault that they've sunk so low? Just a theory...

Bimble, Saturday, 13 October 2007 04:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

hehehe ouch Bimble. (actually, Faust Arp kinda sounded a little Coldplay to me, more so than Nick Drake.)

Roz, Saturday, 13 October 2007 04:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

15 Steps is kind of frustrating me at the moment, the first 40 seconds or so are rubbish (I put this down to Thom's annoying yelping vocal performance, too Eraser for me) but from then on it gets better and better. Also children shouting or whatever, that song is all about the bass - Colin plays a fucking blinder.

-- Matt DC, Friday, 12 October 2007 23:05 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

OTM. The first 15 seconds are what initially stabbed me in the heart. I felt like a helium balloon that had been burst. Those 15 seconds are shit. They instantly make you think "Oh god, they're trying to be electronicky but instead it's just bad industrial music". Then this guitar line comes along and you're like "Oh?" and it builds and builds and builds. It only sounds like HTTT because of those first 15 seconds which throw your entire conception of the album. In reality it's a proper futuristic album. Remember when we were asking what music we could go back in time to 1994 and say "I am from the future, and I have the music to prove it" and no one could come up with very much? Ladies and gents, no one in 1994 could have made "In Rainbows". They could have made "Kid A" I reckon. "I Care Because You Do" and "Tri Repetae" aren't far off that record, but this is something else entirely.

the next grozart, Saturday, 13 October 2007 04:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

Weird, but I think of Paul McCartney when I listen to Faust Arp.

van smack, Saturday, 13 October 2007 04:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

the 13th or 14th play is the incredible care with which the album, as an album, was constructed.

100% OTM. Headphoning listening is required.

the next grozart, Saturday, 13 October 2007 04:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

The end of Nude.

the next grozart, Saturday, 13 October 2007 04:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

You notice I'm drunk? It's tragic.

the next grozart, Saturday, 13 October 2007 04:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Tell me: I'm on my second listen and this sounds great - I mean like Bjork or Scott Walker - and I'm just wondering if it sounds that way after, say, the seventh listen.

Rich Smörgasbord, Saturday, 13 October 2007 06:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

It sounds like Radiohead after the seventh listen.

Cosmo Vitelli, Saturday, 13 October 2007 07:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

Wrote a review:
(hope you don't mind the spam.)

How long has it been since an album release was an event? When In Rainbows, the new Radiohead album, launched I received delirious text messages from long forgotten people known by my phone only as [first name] Radiohead, random, mostly strangers, many met on the last Radiohead tour all sharing a long lost feeling. If you're of a certain youth- say, post Napster- you may have never have done this but I remember queueing with friends at midnight and rushing home for the first listen knowing that everyone else was also hearing this for the first time. By releasing their album online, at whatever price you wish to pay for it and only ten days after it was announced, Radiohead have recaptured this moment and neatly side stepped the promo and marketing bullshit. There are no interviews, no launch parties and no television advertisements but plenty of hype. Hype that has been left unshaped by the critics who are all without advance copies. Listeners are left entirely to make up their own mind. I have mine, In Rainbows is Radiohead's best album.

The dark clouds of label life have cleared and a gay Radiohead is shown In Rainbows. At just ten tracks and a little over forty minutes, with purposeful sequencing, this asks to be listened to as an album rather than a collection of songs. In Rainbows has none of the patience-trying sprawl of their last album, 2003's Hail to the Thief, which felt like a disjointed Best of composed entirely of new songs. It is far more cohesive, akin to Kid A, but paradoxically it is also Radiohead's least electronic album since The Bends. The vast majority of the percussion is live and many songs are built upon sparse piano or acoustic guitar with the other instruments flowing organically in and out of the song. On last year's solo album, The Eraser, Thom Yorke discovered how not to hide his voice under the music, or, when that technique did not suit the song, distort the humanity out the performance. Evolving from that, his vocals, especially on the upbeat tracks, have a comfortable swagger that I've never heard from him before and which is reflected by the rest of the band.

The album opens with a false start, glitchy drums that sound like a sped up slow jam -a Timbaland technique thrown into 5/4- and Thom sings 'How come I end up where I started' to begin 15 Step, which can be read as loose parable of Radiohead's career only with samples of happy school children cheering and the dismissive, 'You used to be alright, What happened? Etcetera etcetera, Facts for whatever'. Bodysnatchers is reminiscent of The National Anthem with its heavy fuzzed-out bass. Thom snarls, 'I have no idea what you are talking about' and the track builds to create a breathless conclusion to the one two punch of using the album's most straight up rock songs as openers. A long breath and then a beat, that, I imagine, sounds like the last thing you hear before hypnotherapy, begins Nude whose gentle, swelling strings make you feel like you're floating down the Liffey. Weird Fishes/Arpeggi follows next and, rather literally, sounds like arpeggios mixed underwater, slightly outstaying its welcome. All I Need, one of the album's standouts, completes the first half and is anchored by a subtle sythn (one of the few) bass and the despairing romance of , 'I am a moth, who just wants to share your light'. A track sure to launch a thousand mix tapes at people too cute to speak to in person.

The second half of the album begins with the playful, 'One two three four, Wakey wakey' of Faust Arp which sounds absolutely nothing like the krautrock band. It is built around an intricate acoustic guitar and a insanely beautiful melody reminiscent of the The Beatles' finest. Thom slyly name drops 'Blackbird'. The next song, Reckoner, is set to be the most discussed among nerdy musical types. Drums hard right, tamberine hard left, which could be equally Motown as In a Silent Way era Miles Davis, yet Reckoner sounds more like something from Talk Talk's Laughing Stock. I can not get my head around it but I think it is brilliant. 'House of Cards' is an unlikely Radiohead song about sex and infidelity opening with the incongruous line, 'I don't want to be your friend, I just want to be your lover' over a deep southern-soul groove filtered through dub; all elongated sounds and echoy vocals that transform what is a very simple song into something much more. Jigsaw Out of Place is the most accessible song on the album and sure single material. You can dance, or as Radiohead fans tend to do, nod your head to this shameless crowd-bait. Videotape is the piano and vocal closer. Very beautiful and filling its purpose adequately in much the same way as Motion Picture Soundtrack or True Love Waits but will be a love it or hate it affair.

At this price there is no reason not to listen to In Rainbows. If you are the eager for more, and you should be, the on sale only from Radiohead's website discbox ships by the 3rd of December and includes the album, in much higher fidelity, a second disc consisting of eight bonus tracks recorded during the same sessions and a bunch of other stuff. Will the bonus disc be the Amnesiac to this Kid A, ie. a less cohesive collection of arguably greater songs? Stay detuned.

Anthony Walsh, Saturday, 13 October 2007 07:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

Somehow I missed dude's sarcasm. Long day.
^^^

Cosmo Vitelli, Saturday, 13 October 2007 07:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

Also children shouting or whatever, that song is all about the bass - Colin plays a fucking blinder.

otm. I didn't even notice the children cheering until the third listen. On headphones that bass is so badass, surely his best since Airbag.

Roz, Saturday, 13 October 2007 08:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

didn't think i was really getting into this album much. then WEIRD FISHES/ARPEGGI popped up in a dream last night.

pisces, Saturday, 13 October 2007 09:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ned, there's no AMG review yet. Pls advise.

Davey D, Saturday, 13 October 2007 09:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Still no reaction from geir?

MRZBW, Saturday, 13 October 2007 11:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

House of Cards sounds like a Grizzly Bear record.

caek, Saturday, 13 October 2007 13:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

It sounds like Radiohead after the seventh listen.

-- Cosmo Vitelli, Saturday, October 13, 2007 7:03 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Link

I want this enshrined in a plaque, thanks. This is the Nobel peace price (I mean prize) of this thread. Let's hang it on the wall and be done with it.

Bimble, Saturday, 13 October 2007 13:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

17 times and it still sounds remarkably like Radiohead, to wit.

Bimble, Saturday, 13 October 2007 14:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

Do us a favor Radiohead. Tell us you're going to e-mail codes to everybody who purchased "In Rainbows" online so they can get the bonus material included on the CD FOR FREE! And then stop talking shit about files. CDs sound bad. I'm surprised you're even selling them. The sampling rate is so LOW! Why not make everybody buy an SACD player, to hear your music right. Or, buy turntables to hear the infinitely superior vinyl. You think you're doing something innovative, but it just looks like you've got contempt for your audience. I never fire up the big rig anymore. I LOVE my iPod. Files rule. Get OVER IT!

Lefsetz chimes in on the idea that Radiohead will be selling a cd version in the stores soon with extra tracks. http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

curmudgeon, Saturday, 13 October 2007 14:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

BUT I REQUIRE ALL MY ALBUMS TO ... BE EASILY RATE-ABLE AMONGST SAID ARTISTS ENTIRE DISCOGRAPHY

Wow, dudes are going crazy with the comparison stuff.

Mos def:

OK Computer > In Rainbows > Kid A > Hail To The Thief > The Bends > Amnesiac > Pablo Honey *

* Subject to change by 2012

MC, Saturday, 13 October 2007 15:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

* or tomorrow, which ever comes first

MC, Saturday, 13 October 2007 15:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh and:

Thus, I think most of the experimentation that is going on here is about pushing four minute songs to be as intense and peculiar as they can possibly be and still fit the mood. In a sense these aren't pop songs anymore, in that they often don't give the pleasures of a pop song, or at least those pleasures: movement, climax, resolution etc., are really diluted, in favor of a different goal.

OTM

MC, Saturday, 13 October 2007 15:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thus, I think most of the experimentation that is going on here is about pushing four minute songs to be as intense and peculiar as they can possibly be and still fit the mood. In a sense these aren't pop songs anymore, in that they often don't give the pleasures of a pop song, or at least those pleasures: movement, climax, resolution etc., are really diluted, in favor of a different goal.

Well, OTM except for this edit.

MC, Saturday, 13 October 2007 16:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

the last minute of Reckoner still kills me every time

ciderpress, Saturday, 13 October 2007 16:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh and AMG's written review isn't up yet, but they have given it 4.5 stars and best track checkmarks to Bodysnatchers, Weird Fishes/Arpeggi, All I Need, and Jigsaw Falling Into Place.

Can't really argue with that, though I might have checked Reckoner or House of Cards instead of All I Need.

MC, Saturday, 13 October 2007 16:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

i was going to post about not liking house of cards but then i listened to it and it's great.

LaMonte, Saturday, 13 October 2007 16:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

First two tracks = good, especially "15 Step"

Rest of album = boring shit that only serves to remind me why I don't like Radiohead

The Reverend, Saturday, 13 October 2007 17:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Faust Arp" is such a weird little song. I can't seem to wrap my head around it. At first I was on board with all of the "sounds like the Beatles, sorta" references, until I realized that it was only because the fingerpicking on it is almost a deadringer with John Lennon's "Julia".

Z S, Saturday, 13 October 2007 17:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

the last minute of Reckoner still kills me every time

Yeah, me too, but it's been out for 3 1/2 days.

Cosmo Vitelli, Saturday, 13 October 2007 18:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

updated today on metacritic, Radiohead currently ranked number 2 for 2007 albums

http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2007.shtml

djmartian, Saturday, 13 October 2007 19:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah but only because a small handful of publications have the arrogance to review it at this point.

Cosmo Vitelli, Saturday, 13 October 2007 19:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

the last minute of Reckoner still kills me every time
i seriously don't get that. reckoner like most songs on the album starts well and doesn't go anywhere. it's all in the first two minutes before the break. afterwards there is a big void. just rehashing and strings and rubbish. i think they have kind of lost it. they can hardly write a three minute song which holds the tension and is varied from beginning to end. except 15 step. this album could well be the last album ever a million or so people are listening to. albums are anachronistic in these fast-paced days. which is quite sad. and this album would be a very disappointing last album.

alex in mainhattan, Saturday, 13 October 2007 19:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

this has a few really good tracks. but it also has a LOT of tracks that are so fucking boring that dont really go anywhere, just like half the songs on the last one.

titchyschneiderMk2, Saturday, 13 October 2007 21:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

I seem to be the only person on earth that thinks the opening minute is exhilarating.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 October 2007 21:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

But I've always kinda wanted them to do d&b + skronk or something.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 October 2007 21:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

I seem to be the only person on earth that thinks the opening minute is exhilarating.

Nope.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 13 October 2007 21:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

far from the only person.

titchyschneiderMk2, Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

it might be the best minute of the album.

titchyschneiderMk2, Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm with you, HOOS. It's just the rest of the album that sucks, amirite.

The Reverend, Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

Best moment of listening to record: about 20 seconds before the end of "15 Step" when I figured out the joke of the name.

The Reverend, Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

i don't get it

ledge, Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

there have supposedly been 1.3 million downloads of this so far.

tricky, Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

"i don't get it"

2step---------->15step

rofl etc

titchyschneiderMk2, Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

cute

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 October 2007 22:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

there have supposedly been 1.3 million downloads of this so far.

is it just me, or does that seem like rather a small number?

i'm still absolutely loving this album; i felt like i'd stopped caring about them about 5 years ago, but at this rate i'll be digging around in my cupboards for the letter i got from thom yorke a decade ago before the week is out.

toby, Saturday, 13 October 2007 23:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's a preposterously large number by the standards of physical releases. OK Computer has sold about three times as many copies, but it's been out for ten years, not four days.

And it's not too shabby considering that the website was basically unusable for people who tried to order on Thursday and Friday (rather than pre-order).

Also, if the average price people are paying really is £4, it's not exactly pocket change for the band, either.

caek, Sunday, 14 October 2007 00:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'll be digging around in my cupboards for the letter i got from thom yorke a decade ago

!

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 14 October 2007 00:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was trying to pretend like I wasn't really, really intrigued by that comment.

Z S, Sunday, 14 October 2007 00:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

"DAEREST TOBY WAHT IS IT MAED SINED HTOM"

Ned Raggett, Sunday, 14 October 2007 00:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/1554963486_b9401453c4.jpg?v=0

Z S, Sunday, 14 October 2007 02:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

^ a victory

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 14 October 2007 02:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

Toilet has a weird tongue.

Ned Raggett, Sunday, 14 October 2007 03:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

mommy y is clown fellating that toilette

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 14 October 2007 03:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

i wrote to him first. it's a very cool letter though, featuring little cartoons like the ones on the liner notes to the bends.

it's funny that i have no feeling at all for how many CDs a band sells - i guess i would have estimated OK computer at like 30 million worldwide by now. so i take it back, 1.3 million is indeed impressive.

toby, Sunday, 14 October 2007 05:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

First two tracks = good, especially "15 Step"

Rest of album = boring shit that only serves to remind me why I don't like Radiohead

-- The Reverend, Saturday, October 13, 2007 5:34 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

Reverend so OTM it's not funny, but I agree the first two tracks are great, I said so before and I shall listen to them again right now.

The reason I got all excited when I first heard "15 Step" was "oh my god! Who thought they'd do JAZZ!?" I mean in a lot of ways, that kind of jazz is a real weakness of mine, for real. And I was just walking out the door to work and I was so excited that I could take the brand new album to work with me. And well...the rest of the album was a downer disappointment, I've already said that.

Someone upthread said the use of "Etcetera" was as good as anything Smiths had on whatever that song is where they said etcetera and I fully agree.

Can we all please imagine a 15 Step 12" on DFA with a mix or two by James Murphy & Co. Thanks.

What went wrong? And what's with lyrics about romantic love when he should be singing about Bush & co. or global warming? Just my opinion.

Bimble, Sunday, 14 October 2007 06:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

Okay so we have to wait for how many months to get this damn bonus CD??

Bimble, Sunday, 14 October 2007 06:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

Haha, yeah. Two tracks in I was like "THIS IS THE ALBUM THAT'S FINALLY GOING TO GET ME INTO RADIOHEAD", but it was not to be.

Can we all please imagine a 15 Step 12" on DFA with a mix or two by James Murphy & Co. Thanks.

That sounds sexy.

The Reverend, Sunday, 14 October 2007 08:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

What went wrong? And what's with lyrics about romantic love when he should be singing about Bush & co. or global warming? Just my opinion.

-- Bimble, domingo 14 de octubre de 2007 6:55 a.m. (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

Are you being serious?

Turangalila, Sunday, 14 October 2007 08:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes, but I'm afraid truth be told I listened to this entire album earlier tonight, full of guilty pleasures. All of a sudden, a lot of it made sense to me. I was worried I'd have to eat all my negative words about this album on this board. "All I Need" especially. Stay tuned, thanks.

Bimble, Sunday, 14 October 2007 08:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think 'All I Need' is terrible...just sounds like a lame trip-hop cast off type thing, y'know UNKLE collaboration type territory.

And even 'Reckoner', with it's Four Tet/Fridgesque percussion falls flat for me. And those horrible post-Radiohead (heh) high register plaintive guitar parts just make me think of the Coldplays > iLiKETRAiNSes of the world. This is Jonny Greenwood on this record, one of the most amazing guitar/multi-instrumentalists of the last 10-15 years (certainly in popular music anyways) - and you can't hear his personality at all in this).

Best tracks for me: 'Faust Arp' and 'House Of Cards' now.

Mister Craig, Sunday, 14 October 2007 08:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

EDIT: The horrible post-Radiohead high reg plaintive guit parts bit was aimed at 'Bodysnatchers'.

Mister Craig, Sunday, 14 October 2007 08:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

the strings bother me a lot on this record - Greenwood just re-discovered melody apparently. It's all very Fake Plastic Trees, which is great of course, but I kinda prefer the horror-movie/atonal/start-stop strings on Amnesiac.

Roz, Sunday, 14 October 2007 08:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

jazz????

Jordan, Sunday, 14 October 2007 09:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

right right heh.

Roz, Sunday, 14 October 2007 09:31 (ten years ago) Permalink

oh wait were you referring to Bimble's post? Cause I was thinking of Amnesiac and jazz strings, bah nvm.

Roz, Sunday, 14 October 2007 09:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

surely "life in a glass house" counts as jazz?

toby, Sunday, 14 October 2007 17:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

yes, jazz?????

titchyschneiderMk2, Sunday, 14 October 2007 17:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

roffles @ pitchfork rating.

Jordan Sargent, Monday, 15 October 2007 06:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

u____u

W4LTER, Monday, 15 October 2007 06:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

would be better if they didnt even reveal the score at all

ciderpress, Monday, 15 October 2007 06:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

or if they revealed it in 10 days.

Jordan Sargent, Monday, 15 October 2007 06:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

*rimshot*

Bimble, Monday, 15 October 2007 06:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

As the "what did P4K give it?" era lingers on, I actually have to hand it to them for that rating.

Cosmo Vitelli, Monday, 15 October 2007 06:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

Sonofabitch, never mind. I only clicked the "?" once. I thought they had balls for a minute.

Cosmo Vitelli, Monday, 15 October 2007 07:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Sly comment on "how much did you pay?" shenanigans?

MC, Monday, 15 October 2007 11:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ya think?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 15 October 2007 12:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Radiohead? Is that a band?

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 15 October 2007 16:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.last.fm/music/+charts/track/

Curt1s Stephens, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 01:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

Say you pay £4 to download the album and you like it. Is it then okay to pay another £4 to the Radiohead site and download disc 2 of the boxset from Soulseek?

mei, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 02:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

holy shit @ last.fm

I guess the drop-off through the album wasn't nearly as bad as some suggested!

Simon H., Tuesday, 16 October 2007 02:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

Haha take that "kanYe"

Future_Perfect, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 03:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Wonderwall?

Davey D, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 07:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Up 41,620%"

James Mitchell, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 09:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

The new sickmouthy blog entry is well worth a read people.

butchy, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 09:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

my boss has been playing this nonstop since last week! his office is right next to me. i can't take it anymore.

carne asada, Thursday, 18 October 2007 16:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

dano perino is a str8 beaver

M@tt He1ges0n, Thursday, 18 October 2007 16:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

According to Metacritic, Pitchfork gave In Rainbows a 9.3 (thereby explaining its landing in the latter's Best New Music). Or wait, maybe we did it...

dblcheeksneek, Saturday, 20 October 2007 02:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

They did - click the "?" twice in the review.

Simon H., Saturday, 20 October 2007 02:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've decided I want this on thick vinyl so bad I could spit.

Bimble, Sunday, 21 October 2007 01:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's a marketing gimmick! Send out your download at a most unsatisfactory bitrate and watch the money roll in for the real thing!

Bimble, Sunday, 21 October 2007 01:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've decided I want this on thick vinyl so bad I could spit.

-- Bimble, Sunday, October 21, 2007 1:39 AM

i thought you didn't want it at all?

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 21 October 2007 01:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

I thought you were of the opinion that tracks 3-x were the suxxorz. Have I lost my one compadre?

xp

The Reverend, Sunday, 21 October 2007 01:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm trying to put my finger on what classic rock song "Bodysnatchers" reminds me of. I'm hoping it's not "Bittersweet Symphony."

Classic, obv. I really like how the bass sounds.

Sundar, Sunday, 21 October 2007 23:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

a lot of people i know think bodysnatchers sounds like paperback writer

LaMonte, Monday, 22 October 2007 22:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

Killer Cars sounds a bit like Paperback Writer.

the next grozart, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 01:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

I can see the PW thing. I think it might actually be that the riff in "Bodysnatchers" reminds me of how John sings "He's a new (and better man)" in "Dr Robert." In a weird way. Maybe.

Sundar, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 02:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Radiohead said to shun majors in next deal" (for the physical CD) :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/business/media/23music.html?ref=business

StanM, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 20:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anybody tried this yet?

http://puddlegum.net/radiohead-01-and-10/

nate woolls, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 20:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

i heard it works better if you play it simultaneously to "the wizard of oz"

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 20:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

xpost: I LOVE stuff like that. No, I haven't, though.

StanM, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 20:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

I made a rough copy last night. Whether or not it's deliberate, it sounds brilliant. The fade between Bodysnatchers and SHA sounds amazing. I'm just finishing off making a higher quality version. Be ready tomorrow,if anyone wants a copy. I'll YSI or something.

nate woolls, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 20:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

“The meaning behind all of this is right in front of our faces, we’re just overlooking it. (Thom) has been expecting an article much like this one for a couple of years, as have I. But I’m willing to wager he’ll have fun waiting a few more. On the other hand, it seems to annoy him that no one ‘gets it’ yet, given the mountain of clues.”

This at least intrigues me. I like the idea of this band playing some sort of game with its ravenous audience. The rest of this interlocking OK RAINBOWS darksidewizardofthemoon bullshit needs to stop. It's gonna turn this band back into Pink Floyd. You don't want that again people, do you?

Cosmo Vitelli, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 06:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

Brent Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Um.. this is only radiohead’s 7th album.
Darnell Says:
October 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
>Um.. this is only radiohead’s 7th album.
This was the TENTH COMMENT!!!!! Coincidence…or psychic phenomenon?

J0rdan S., Wednesday, 24 October 2007 07:04 (ten years ago) Permalink

ROFL

StanM, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 07:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

There's this golden section stuff too, by the way.

StanM, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 07:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anybody tried this yet?

http://puddlegum.net/radiohead-01-and-10/

haha. made the tracklist. going to try it out on a transatlantic flight in a few hours. to make sure i'll listen to this in the right context, i've booked a seat in row 10.

willem, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 08:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

all this does is make me wanna skip through the In Rainbows tracks. :/

Roz, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 10:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

i think in rainbows is now my favorite radiohead record. it makes the other ones seem kind of like they are trying too hard or something.

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 16:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Okay, I hate to be the bringer of sceptical news, but I just tried the 1010 thing and I'm afraid it doesn't really work. I tried it with and without crossfades and really the only times the tracks segue well into each other is clumsily and quite obviously by accident. It doesn't sound awful but there's no great significance to it.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 17:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

my guess is the 1010 thing was originally just a hint that it was coming out on the 10th of October - all that cryptic code stuff came out before the big announcement. i don't think they meant for it to say anything beyond that. Radiohead fans be over-analysing, big surprise. Besides, technically In Rainbows is a 2-Disc album, doesn't really make sense to just play one side.

that said, i like how Bodysnatchers segues into Subterranean Homesick Alien. I just wish it was the other way around because then it would start with Thom wishing aliens would pick him up and then end with "I've seen them coming! I've seen them coming!"

Roz, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 17:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've been listening to this album pretty much nonstop for the last 12 hours. I've decided the tracks after #2 have to be judged separately from what comes before. Still, it is annoying the way I have these fave tracks that are followed by a boring track, followed by a favorite track, followed by a boring track, etc etc. Faust Arp can go fuck itself, really. Weird fishes is almost as boring. What a snoozefest. Still I'd give this album an 8/10.

My fave is actually Reckoner after all, who would have thought I'd forgive them for a song which doesn't have a single thing to do with the bad ass rock and roll one they did live in 2001 called that. But the falsetto is so hypnotic and haunting...

My second fave is House of Cards, which just happens to follow Reckoner, what luck!

The thing you have to realize about tracks 3 and on is that it's so slow it's a whole other wavelength. Kindof like that band Codeine. You have to get used to it, let it sit awhile. 6 plays minimum before you begin to understand.

Still, upon hearing Bodysnatchers for the 15th time or whatever I thought "THOSE FUCKERS BETTER PLAY LIVE HERE!!!"

Bimble, Thursday, 25 October 2007 05:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

All I Need is my third fave track, as if anyone cares. Or was that my fave track? Whoops! No but the ending of that...you know what I mean when piano ending starts and it builds and he starts doing the "aaah aaaah"...hell yeah. I'm not really sure if that's my fave track or Reckoner anymore.

Bimble, Thursday, 25 October 2007 05:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

They're like mini more quiet versions of Paranoid Android, I swear, the best of these tracks

Bimble, Thursday, 25 October 2007 05:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's all about the beat with House of Cards, fantastic Halloween intro.

Bimble, Thursday, 25 October 2007 05:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Adam Says:
October 20th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
So in effect, In Rainbows is the Sonic & Knuckles expansion cartridge to OK Computer’s Sonic the Hedgehog?

^^ actual lols

stephen, Thursday, 25 October 2007 16:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just revived this Saul Williams thread because it's about him, but Trent mentions Radiohead too:

What's The Deal With Saul Williams?

StanM, Thursday, 25 October 2007 17:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

"House of Cards" I'm pretty sure is my favorite Radiohead song, of them all, although it may be because it sounds like it is outside here (chilly, colorful, shiny with rain, etc [not like that's new territory for them lol]).

nickalicious, Thursday, 25 October 2007 18:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

all this does is make me wanna skip through the In Rainbows tracks. :/

Ha, it made me wanna skip through the OK Computer tracks (lol prog).

jaymc, Thursday, 25 October 2007 18:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

i'm surprised by the house of cards love, it's easily my least favourite song on the album (though not without it's charms).

LaMonte, Thursday, 25 October 2007 18:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

2x

Jordan, Thursday, 25 October 2007 18:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

hahaha nah In Rainbows is great, I'm just getting a bit sick of it whereas I haven't listened to OK Computer for a while.

xposts

Roz, Thursday, 25 October 2007 18:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

After a few plays on the first couple of days I've stayed away from it for a while, except for a random unfocused listen while in Hawaii. Which turned out to be great because a lot of the lyrics suddenly stood out the less I concentrated on them (which I often find is the case with me and lyrics anyway).

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 25 October 2007 18:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes, the lyrics stood out...I agree!

I've been trying to play other things, and I have played other things but really I just want to play this album on repeat all day and night long, I'm afraid. Even the songs I hate I've learned to tolerate because I just don't really want to hear anything else but this album over and over. I'm sorry that's the way it is. And to think they've got more tracks up their sleeve, I mean...holy christ.

Bimble, Monday, 29 October 2007 05:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Nude" --> "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi" --> "All I Need" is the best 1-2-3 combo of the year.

three handclaps, Monday, 29 October 2007 05:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

i listened and enjoyed, but wasn't really thrilled. i listened to the track i pegged as my early favourite - weird fishes - today, and i realised i liked it because it's basically a sea and cake song! that's ok, but it really is a sea and cake song.

i'll spend more time with this.

derrrick, Monday, 29 October 2007 05:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

EMI counterattack:

http://www.radioheadstore.com/home.asp

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 14:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

"On the 10th December Radiohead are releasing a limited edition box set collection of all their Parlophone albums from 1993 - 2003."

= We, EMI/Parlophone, are releasing

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 14:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

I haven't paid anything for this yet, as I intend to buy the actual physical album when it arrives in the shops. Still their best album since "OK Computer".

Geir Hongro, Monday, 5 November 2007 14:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm not trolling, but honestly, I think this album is deadly boring. I listened to it all the way through 5 times, which is about three more times than I would normally give it, and I can't bring myself to play it again.

Billy Pilgrim, Monday, 5 November 2007 14:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

But it's free!

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way as Billy. Mostly glad that I put 0.00 in for what I wanted to pay.

Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think it's got 3 or 4 great songs on it. And the rest is not exactly bad but it's Radiohead-by-numbers. About the same as I felt about Hail To The Thief.

Zelda Zonk, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

I love it. My favourite Radiohead album.

nate woolls, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Somebody upthread or somewhere else said that it's a rich man's album, and I have to agree. That's not inherently bad, but it made me think that what I have always really liked about Radiohead was the visceral impact of their best songs. They go for the jugular. and I don't mean just the uptempo songs, I just mean the performances/productions are fully committed to the band's conception of the song. These songs, otoh, sound curated, hedged, smoothed out, refined. That's okay too, but the songs themselves don't have much to say either, so it's all very nice and polite and I'm off to listen to something else thank you very much

Billy Pilgrim, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

I like it well enough, and I think there are some really great moments on it that get up there with some of their best stuff. It's funny too how some tunes I didn't really like very much now seem to work really well. I'll probably reach for this one before any of the others besides Kid A/Amnesiac.

Maybe my musical interests have changed a bit since 2000/2001, but this one hasn't really dominated my listening repetoire in any way similar to the way Kid A/Amnesiac both did.

Mark Clemente, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

I maintain that the 10 best songs on HTTT are a better "album" than this one.

Still love this one, mind.

stephen, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

you might be right on that, one of these days I'll finally put on my own sequenced, edited-down version of HTTT

Mark Clemente, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

HTTT just never happened for me. 4 good songs at best.

nate woolls, Monday, 5 November 2007 15:54 (ten years ago) Permalink


Special editions of Thom Yorke and co's early work out this year
2 hours ago
Radiohead's first six studio albums are set to be made available as a box set.

'Pablo Honey', 'The Bends', 'OK Computer', 'Kid A', 'Amnesiac' and 'Hail To The Thief', plus live album 'I Might Be Wrong', will be released in a box set on December 10.

The new releases - the band's output for old label Parlophone - will come in new 'digipack' sleeves featuring the original artwork. Owners of the new editions will also get access access to stream special footage via "Digital Insert technology" by putting the new CDs into their computer.

A limited edition USB stick shaped like the band's bear logo, will also be available featuring the same contents on CD-quality WAV files, along with digital artwork.

A download bundle of the boxset will also be available from www.radioheadstore.com

As previously reported, the band have left Parlophone, and following the download and deluxe releases of new album 'In Rainbows' via their own website, they have signed a deal to release the album on CD with XL Recordings.

Mark G, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

£34.99 for the download

£39.99 for the 7 CD boxset, and

£79.99 for : this:
http://www.radioheadstore.com/images/usb_img.jpg

Mark G, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:05 (ten years ago) Permalink

This is dumb.

But In Rainbows is the album of the year.

three handclaps, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

it does strike me as kind of dumb. the bear logo usb? plus all these releases are some of the most widely available releases out there.

Mark Clemente, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

I have a feeling that Radiohead played little part in this and they're probably a bit pissed off because this move seems totally contrary to the direction they're moving in from a marketing perspective.

three handclaps, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

yea, you're right. just seems like parlophone trying to cash in on the in rainbows profits which they obviously aren't going to see anything of.

Mark Clemente, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:26 (ten years ago) Permalink

i won't be buying this.

stephen, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Dry Humping the Cash Cow

nate woolls, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I bet they had nothing to say in this. It's all old fonts & designs too.

Awaiting a comment on their site... (will they even acknowledge this? ask people to boycott it?)

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

Number of bonus tracks: 0

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

40 pounds/80 bucks for a box set of Radiohead's first 6 albums >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40 pounds/80 bucks for a box set of Radiohead's one most recent album

Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

I don't think they need to get people to boycott it - where's the demand for an ugly white box they shoved all the old records into?

Simon H., Monday, 5 November 2007 16:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

Alex, would you really pay 80 pounds for a USB stick? At least the discbox has bonus tracks.

Simon H., Monday, 5 November 2007 16:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hell, they could have at least thrown in a b-sides comp.

Simon H., Monday, 5 November 2007 16:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

To be honest, I expected Parlophone to release a "Radiohead's Greatest Hits" (called exactly that, just to spite them) :-)

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Radiohead's Greatest Hits (not out-of-date for some time, right lads?)" on Parlophone.

Mark G, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

the day will soon come when we'll see that, though

Mark Clemente, Monday, 5 November 2007 16:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

We Might Be Right: The Very Best of Radiohead

Simon H., Monday, 5 November 2007 16:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

Fitter Happier: Twelve Classic Radiohead Hits infomercials at 3 in the morning.

nickalicious, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

I didn't say I'd buy the USB stick, I have no use for that, if anything from that deal I'd get the CD box set. But to be honest I'm kind of right in the target audience for this kind of thing (have heard/liked 4 of their first 6 albums but currently only own a copy of 1 of them).

Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

And in the last few years I've been really big on buying up bands' entire catalogs all at once as box sets (Steely Dan, The Police, have my eye on the Led Zep one next).

Alex in Baltimore, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

you just wonder how many executive meetings they had @ emi as to exactly where they were going to put the usb connection in the bear logo.

mark e, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:18 (ten years ago) Permalink

as long as Pull/Pulk is on any future best of, all will be right in the world.

three handclaps, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

Alex, i think you're the exception to the rule. every Radiohead fan i know has their *entire* fucking catalog. myself included.

stephen, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

and this is off topic, but as for entire catalogs in box sets, Alex: Joy Division's Heart and Soul is excellent

stephen, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

from Billboard news article:

A Radiohead boxed set, spanning the British band's first six studio albums plus a live record, will be available from Dec. 10 via the band's Web site.

??????

the band's web site? if radiohead didn't have anything to do with this, why their own web site?

stephen, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

nothing about this on radiohead.com, it's EMI's radiohead site.

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:43 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, the article's wrong.

three handclaps, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

ah

stephen, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=radiohead.com :

Administrative Contact : someone at waste.uk.com

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=radioheadstore.com

Administrative Contact: someone at virginmusic.com

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 17:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

are they ever gonna price this shit in dollars for U.S. third world folks in America?

M@tt He1ges0n, Monday, 5 November 2007 18:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

The site has been changed!

"On the 10th December Parlophone are releasing a limited edition box set collection of all their Radiohead albums from 1993 - 2003."

vs. 3 hours ago (scroll up a little) :

"On the 10th December Radiohead are releasing a limited edition box set collection of all their Parlophone albums from 1993 - 2003."

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 18:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

Did EMI/Parlophone REALLY think they could get away with "Radiohead are releasing" or does this prove that they're amateurs and not P/R specialists at all?

StanM, Monday, 5 November 2007 18:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

I was wondering how long they'd have the nerve to keep that up for.

Simon H., Monday, 5 November 2007 18:45 (ten years ago) Permalink

When Parlaphone tosses around the term "strictly limited" (the USB thingy) without committing to a number?

Industry rule number 4080: Record company people are shady

dblcheeksneek, Monday, 5 November 2007 20:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm actually thinking about picking this up. Never even listened to Pablo Honey, my copies of The Bends and OK Computer are burned CD-Rs from a friend, downloaded I Might Be Wrong, and my copies of Kid A thru Hail to the Thief are in the gorgeous "limited" packaging which of course means the actual discs are all scratched to shit (why is it so hard for bands to make fancy-schmancy packaging with a standard jewel case-style tray in the back of the book or whatever?). Filling out the rest of their back catalogue and getting some of the more dodgily packaged releases (I Might Be Wrong in particular, I have seen the super-tight gatefold thing it comes in and it makes me wince) in digipaks isn't all bad. And really, it's no less legitimate than buying the albums outside the box; the same major profits off of them regardless.

Also I can put it next to my Talking Heads and Sly Stone box sets, I am weak-willed consumer whore :(

xpost: oh yeah, the USB stick is going to be "limited" like, well, the previous "limited" Radiohead albums were. You don't make the molds to manufacture the plastic bits for that thing and then get some electronics manufacturer to slap USB sticks in them just to make a thousand of them or whatever, you'd barely break even, even at the ridiculous price they're asking.

Telephone thing, Monday, 5 November 2007 20:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

Though I do wonder: 7 albums in .wav format, that's somewhere in the region of 4.5 GB, isn't it?

Telephone thing, Monday, 5 November 2007 20:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

Shady notwithstanding. Agreed. I am a weak-willed (Radiohead) whore and will likely pick up the "box set" at least (for the digipacks alone).

dblcheeksneek, Monday, 5 November 2007 20:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

repackaged in digipack sleeves featuring the original artwork.

If you look at the picture on the website, there is no tray that the disc snaps into; it appears to be the cardboard things a la "Funeral"

Stevie D, Monday, 5 November 2007 21:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

You sure? It looks to me like the open I Might Be Wrong is in a standard clear tray, and while the others are probably mockups and not actual photographs they do look like the right thickness/form factor for digipacks.

Another thing that wasn't noted much here on ILM: earlier this year Capitol/Parlophone released domestic editions of all of the Radiohead tour EPs except Itch (My Iron Lung, Airbag/How Am I Driving? and Com Lag/2+2=5). Again, it's a transparently cynical cash-in on their older Radiohead recordings now that they won't have new ones to release anymore, but getting a hard copy of the fantastic Iron Lung EP for less than $10 wasn't bad as far as blatant marketing ploys go.

Telephone thing, Monday, 5 November 2007 22:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

I finally picked up Com Lag on that rerelease for a few bucks. Much cheaper than the $31.99 import versions I saw in shops previously...so I'm okay with a domestic release. Already had the other EPs.

stephen, Monday, 5 November 2007 22:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

Not that I'd ever buy this, but how in the world is this usb stick going to plug into my computer? Look how bulky that thing is!

http://www.radioheadstore.com/images/usb_left_03.jpg

van smack, Monday, 5 November 2007 23:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

That thing is awful.

W4LTER, Monday, 5 November 2007 23:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

I finally picked up Com Lag on that rerelease for a few bucks. Much cheaper than the $31.99 import versions I saw in shops previously

Did they finally fix the horrible audio glitches on the Four Tet remix?

Telephone thing, Monday, 5 November 2007 23:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

webcast going on right now (to continue for a couple of hours, apparently. just started)

http://www.radiohead.tv

mac os users; download flip4mac
http://www.flip4mac.com/wmv_download.htm

pc users; windows media

StanM, Friday, 9 November 2007 21:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Thom is dancing to M.I.A. Good times.

three handclaps, Friday, 9 November 2007 21:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

First track he played: Burial, then M.I.A., then something else, now Heart of Hearts by !!! - nice!

StanM, Friday, 9 November 2007 21:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

BRILLIANT! (they did something vv funny with the final scene of Se7en)

StanM, Friday, 9 November 2007 21:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

too bad I'm getting disconnected all the time, I'm going to have to find a download later (can't keep watching like this). Great Smiths cover right now! (The Headmaster Ritual)

StanM, Friday, 9 November 2007 21:54 (ten years ago) Permalink

Is that Ed? Hahaha, this is classic.

three handclaps, Friday, 9 November 2007 22:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

yuk

Surmounter, Friday, 9 November 2007 22:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh man now they're playing. Reckoner!

three handclaps, Friday, 9 November 2007 22:29 (ten years ago) Permalink

That was brilliant.

Greist, Friday, 9 November 2007 22:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

New Order!

bakerstreetsaxsolo, Friday, 9 November 2007 22:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Ceremony"!

x-post

Simon H., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

hahaha "I thought you were squirting milk out of your breast...that's not going to convince anyone!"

Simon H., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:10 (ten years ago) Permalink

Phil is playing Iron & Wine, hahaha.

three handclaps, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Pagan Angel And A Borrowed Car," btw.

three handclaps, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ahhh, what is this?

Hey, they played Iron & Wine! Cool. Still, what is this?

Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

What was that after I&W?

Simon H., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

(and before Will Oldham - I guess Phil is the resident folkie?)

Simon H., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

The folk just died a bit

Greist, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

So this is a stupid time to ask this question, I guess, but what is the DJ's creative role in this, and how does he carry it out? I mean, the songs he's playing sound unchanged from when I hear them on the original discs. Isn't the DJ supposed to enhance or manipulate certain sounds in the song, or add new elements to a song, or mash up a few different songs, to create something new? Again, I realize this is a stupid question, but I've wondered about it, and I'm curious.

Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:23 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm not watching anymore, but I assume you're asking about DJing in general?

The DJ selects the tracks he plays, may or may not beatmix (the good ones usually do), may or may not follow the mood of the crowd (the good ones can play with a crowd and speed up their set slowly or get to big climaxes and then suddenly drop a slower song), they don't necessarily have to scratch or mash up or speed up/slow down/add beats with a drumcomputer/rap over it. Some do, because that's what happens in their niche, but in general: selecting & playing the records and try to get the crowd behind them.

StanM, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

Ideally, you should go see a bad DJ and then a good DJ. The difference can be enormous. They can play the same records, but one will have no reaction from the crowd and the other one will have them raising the roof.

StanM, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

I think this is more along the lines of a video podcast. And, I vote to keep up a running tracklist, ha.

pinkie, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:33 (ten years ago) Permalink

I saw Girl Talk earlier this year at the Langerado festival. He was a very good DJ, if that's the right word for what he does. He mashed up snippets of dozens of songs into something new. The (hippie/indie) crowd loved it.

And I guess his set had to be especially good, because that wasn't a DJ crowd (it was a Greatful Dead-type crowd).

So how was this DJ? (Now that his set's over)

Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

There's lots of different kinds of DJ: the one you saw specialized in mashups, others do scratching and other hardly danceable stuff, most do dance stuff though. This one, anyone who was watching? (I gave up because of the disconnects I got, I'm hoping people are ripping the stream to upload it later)

StanM, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm not watching anymore, but I assume you're asking about DJing in general?

I was, and your explanation helps a lot. Thanks.

Maybe I will go see a DJ, but man -- at nearly 40 these days -- I think I'd feel very, very old.

Daniel, Esq., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

Anyone catch that Bjork cover? (Unravel) That keyboard at the end....

Greist, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've always thought the lyric "the devil collects it / with a grin" was extremely Yorke-ian.

Simon H., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Unravel was beautiful.

Is it currently silent for everyone?

pinkie, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yep.

Simon H., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

Shame, it looks like they're doing something exciting.

pinkie, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

it's the sequel to the "just" video

ciderpress, Friday, 9 November 2007 23:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

according to the msg board they're plaing "I might be wrong", but I don't hear anything yet.

Simon H., Friday, 9 November 2007 23:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

they've got everything from last night online too:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/forkcast/47014-radiohead-omg-another-webcast

StanM, Saturday, 10 November 2007 11:37 (ten years ago) Permalink

I missed this, yay for youtube. The covers were excellent - "Unravel" especially, was gorgeous.

Lol @ 15 Step/Se7en.

Roz, Saturday, 10 November 2007 11:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Still only one accurate review of this GUFF: http://estebanbuttez.blogspot.com/2007/10/buttezview-radiohead-in-rainbows.html

King Boy Pato, Sunday, 11 November 2007 13:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

regular CD release dates & labels:

Europe: 31st of December, XL Recordings
US: 2nd of January, ATO Records Group

( http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003671150 )

StanM, Monday, 12 November 2007 13:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

FANTASTIC piece on "Videotape" by Eric Harvey over at his blog Marathonpacks

http://www.marathonpacks.com/2007/11/radiohead-videotape.html

three handclaps, Monday, 12 November 2007 20:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

King Boy, that review is just dumb. Does Matt Cale write for that site or something?

I'm all for entertaining reviews, but Mark Prindle owns the market on that--dude could slay an album I love and still have me in stitches.

Bo Jackson Overdrive, Monday, 12 November 2007 23:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

new Radiohead is solid as ever.

Bo Jackson Overdrive, Monday, 12 November 2007 23:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

The thing I love about this board and its Radiohead worship is that if Thom Yorke has diarrhea, it's on Ilxor before the toilet flushes

Bo Jackson Overdrive, Monday, 12 November 2007 23:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

The thing I love about this board and its Radiohead worship is that if Thom Yorke has diarrhea, it's on Ilxor before the toilet flushes.

Stay classy, Bo Jackson Overdrive!

Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 13 November 2007 00:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

At Ease had a few different interesting updates today:

1. Paul McCartney approached Thom Yorke about collaborating on his last album, but Thom turned him down, saying that he preferred to only work on his own material and Radiohead's (and ignoring the collabs he's done with Modeselektor, Bjork, PJ Harvey, UNKLE, and...Drugstore).

2. The official cover art for In Rainbows is confirmed:

http://www.ateaseweb.com/discography/inrainbows/ateaseweb_inrainbowscover.jpg

Z S, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 01:00 (ten years ago) Permalink

poor mccartney

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 01:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

Wow, I am thrilled with that webcast stuff. Thanks for posting it, folks.

Bimble, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 04:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

I miss esteban.

isn't thom a beatles fan? Pretty sure I read somewhere he listened to nothing but Beatles records when he was writing HTTT. Maybe he's more of a Lennon guy.

Roz, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 05:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'm sure McCartney asked while they were making In Rainbows or something; there's more to this story than we'll ever hear.

three handclaps, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 05:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

can't blame em, Paul hasn't written anything noteworthy in ages

Bo Jackson Overdrive, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 05:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

Because she didn't get famous by putting her music up for free listening on myspace or anything. Riiiiiiiiiight.

Melissa W, Thursday, 15 November 2007 11:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

Hahahaha, Melissa OTM.

three handclaps, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:16 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh that wacky Thom

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I put this on the "what are you paying" thread 1/2 way down todays...

Mark G, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

Haha, I was *wondering* when something would start happening about the second disc's tracks. (I am also wondering if the regular release will include that as well.)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 November 2007 18:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

i want a mash up of silly love songs and reckoner

nicko, Wednesday, 28 November 2007 18:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

UK tour dates coming soon!

nate woolls, Thursday, 29 November 2007 14:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

So the second disc, then.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 05:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

After two listens I like it a lot, especially Bangers & Mash and Last Flowers. Some of the songs remind me vaguely of other Radiohead songs - there's a little bit of Karma Police in one song, a little bit of There There in another. Also the acoustic guitar on one or two of the songs sounds brilliant.

And the low bitrate on disc 1 really made a difference - it really shines now, whereas it used to sound like it had a layer of dust on it.

nate woolls, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 08:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

So, we all gettin' our LP boxes today?

Mark G, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 09:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

Mine arrived about 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, by courier. Keep your mobile handy because they'll phone if need to because it has to be signed for.

nate woolls, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 10:08 (ten years ago) Permalink

Oh great. I'm nowhere near my home (which is in cleethorpes, you burglars)

Mark G, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 10:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

Mine just arrived 15 mins ago (by courier)

Herman G. Neuname, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 12:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

The box set that will be released by EMI (who don't understand the music business, alledgedly) will contain a bonus live album.

StanM, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 13:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

(i.e. an online stream of the Eurockéennes show from 2003)

StanM, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 13:39 (ten years ago) Permalink

Still not interested.

Judging by the tour venues on Dead Air Space, it looks like they're putting on a few big open air concerts, or maybe more big tent style shows like a few years ago.

nate woolls, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 13:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

It's hard to believe that's the best they could come up with.

lou, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 13:47 (ten years ago) Permalink

In Rainbows disc 2 >>> disc 1 ?

StanM, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 14:13 (ten years ago) Permalink

yeah disc 2 is really nice. a lot more spacious than disc 1, which says a lot. i think the mk bits are very nice.

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 16:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

Right, I here, no sign.

Presumably, those that ordered first, get theirs first.

I bought mine in a fit of madness, then thought "DoI really want this?"

And now I have the music anyway (ta the mxxxxxx's)

Mark G, Tuesday, 4 December 2007 18:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

US release date for In Rainbows:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000YXMMAE/ref=amb_link_5899772_7?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=13JFYWKX68Y7QWZ557T5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=334889701&pf_rd_i=320225011

# Audio CD (January 1, 2008)
# Original Release Date: October 10, 2007
# Number of Discs: 1
# Label: Ato Records / Red

Bee OK, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 02:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

i still hope there's another avenue for the disc 2 songs, like a normal 2-cd release; but i doubt it

stephen, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 02:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

no way is disc 2 better than disc 1. (i say this as someone who thinks disc one is really pretty, but nothing particularly special.) loooove "4 minute warning" though.

sean gramophone, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 03:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

I've played disc 2 several times now but it still seems to me they're wandering a lot and my attention wavers. "Bangers & Mash" is promising, though...and the Prince-style falsetto on "Down Is The New Up" is a hoot. I'd still like to think these guys have got another boundary-stretching album up their sleeves in the future.

I'm gonna continue to listen to this disc, though. Maybe it just takes awhile to sink in like the first one did.

I'm delighted to know they're touring and that the US is first. I've been playing my live boots lately. They are so good live, it's ridiculous. I'm not even sure if I can think of another band I appreciate more live. I listened to Amnesiac last night and it was so weird to hear the (substandard) studio versions of those songs!

Bimble, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 04:42 (ten years ago) Permalink

Tickets on sale Friday morning for the 2 UK shows and too broke right now to buy them.

Savannah Smiles, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 09:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

just bid £0.00 duh

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 09:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

Uh, tickets are on sale now from W.A.S.T.E.

go go go!

nate woolls, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 11:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

For UK dates, that is.

nate woolls, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 11:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

yes i'll repeat it, disc 2 is very very nice. there's lots of stuff on here that i like a lot more than disc 1. seems a little darker, doesn't it? maybe.

still hope there's another avenue for the disc 2 songs, like a normal 2-cd release; but i doubt it

yea, this kind of sucks. i just downloaded it. after liking IR quite a lot but not enough to buy the discbox, there's no way i was gonna drop $80 just to hear disc 2. i'd pay for a ep-priced release for it but that probably won't happen. shame that the only way this will probably be released is with the big expensive package.

Mark Clemente, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 16:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

I have heard a rumor that the physical release of the album will contain bonus tracks (source: fimoculous.com)?

Savannah Smiles, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 16:20 (ten years ago) Permalink

I would like to thank the internets for this.

"Bangers and Mash" SO GOOD.

Roz, Wednesday, 5 December 2007 16:35 (ten years ago) Permalink

I actually think "Last Flowers" is a little embarrassing, I think it's an older song and it really sounds it. The rest are great though, especially "Bangers", which rivals Idioteque as their most dance-able track.

Simon H., Thursday, 6 December 2007 04:07 (ten years ago) Permalink

Just got this:

FAREWELL TO IN RAINBOWS DOWNLOAD AREA
We also thought you'd like to know that the download area that is 'In Rainbows' will be
shutting its doors on the 10th December so if you've not yet downloaded,
here is the place to go www.inrainbows.com

The discbox will still be available at w.a.s.t.e. until they have all gone. We then have no plans to make further stock.

Mark G, Thursday, 6 December 2007 14:41 (ten years ago) Permalink

4 Minute Warning is really good.

Jordan, Friday, 7 December 2007 16:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'd kind of prefer Disc 2 to have seven Mks and 4 Minute Warning.

pinkie, Friday, 7 December 2007 19:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

drums + piano in "down is the new up" are fantastic

Mark Clemente, Friday, 7 December 2007 19:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

"shame that the only way this will probably be released is with the big expensive package"

right, so why not just steal it instead?

dblcheeksneek, Friday, 7 December 2007 19:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

yes that's what i did, which i don't like doing. i just meant that it'd be cool if they released it as an ep-priced thing, and then i would buy it.

Mark Clemente, Friday, 7 December 2007 19:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

agreed, it'd be cool if they released the extra tracks as an EP (and who knows, they still might). in the meantime, unfortunately (for radiohead), you don't dislike doing it enough to not do it.

the irony of file "sharing" the second disc after they effectively gave the first disc away for less than the price of an EP should not be lost on anyone.

dblcheeksneek, Friday, 7 December 2007 20:57 (ten years ago) Permalink

My disc box still hasn't arrived yet (Belgian post, come on!) :-(

StanM, Friday, 7 December 2007 21:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

could be worse, you could be on the other side of the pond,

"Wherever possible (especially to customers in the USA), we’ve sent these by road and sea."

by sea!(?) how quaint!(?)

needless to say, my discbox hasn't arrived yet either.

dblcheeksneek, Friday, 7 December 2007 21:12 (ten years ago) Permalink

New York Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/arts/music/09pare.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin

three handclaps, Saturday, 8 December 2007 17:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Pay What You Want for This Article

Taking chances with commerce as well as art: From left, Ed O’Brien, Colin Greenwood, Thom Yorke, Phil Selway (reflected in the mirror) and Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead.

By JON PARELES
Published: December 9, 2007"

three handclaps, Saturday, 8 December 2007 17:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

“Money makes you numb, as M.I.A. wrote."

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Saturday, 8 December 2007 17:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

I am also in Belgium and still no sign of the discbox arriving. Hard to believe it is coming by courier and can take more than 1 week!! hope it is worth the wait!!!

JamesEdward, Monday, 10 December 2007 12:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Four Minute Warning OMG!

I don't really 'get' Bangers & Mash, but I keep wanting Thom to follow that last line with "I've got the remedy".

Matt DC, Monday, 10 December 2007 22:49 (ten years ago) Permalink

Am I the only one who likes Weird Fishes/Arpeggi? The last 1:40 of the song are glorious

youcangoyourownway, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 13:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

No, I love it too. It's gone from being my least favourite to my nearly-favourite - Faust Arp is now top.

nate woolls, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 13:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

yea i think it's great.

Mark Clemente, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 14:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

"Down Is the New Up"... grooves. Reminds me of "Talk Show Host" a bit.

Roz, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 14:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

Top 3 (subject to change once I hear Disc 2):

1. Weird Fishes/Arpeggi
2. Reckoner
3. Videotape

dblcheeksneek, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 14:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

4 minute warning should have taken Videotape's spot on disc 1.

For people who already got the discbox: Does the vinyl include all the songs, or just the songs from disc 1?

Z S, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 20:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Vinyl = disc one.

Mark G, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 20:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

4 minute warning should have taken Videotape's spot on disc 1.

To quote one Vincent Vega, "That's a bold statement." Cue the Pepsi challenge once my discbox arrives...stay tuned (and hot with anticipation).

dblcheeksneek, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 20:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

Vinyl = disc one.

Damn, 2 LPs for 10 songs? Oh well.

Z S, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 20:56 (ten years ago) Permalink

Last Flowers has some interesting guitar parts in the right channel that weave nicely and subtly with the piano, but Thom's voice is mixed so high it's almost hard to hear. Still a nice song, though.

Z S, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 20:59 (ten years ago) Permalink

Got my discbox today!

lou, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 00:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

Where do you live?

(not trying to be creepy, I'm just wondering if any packages have hit the US yet)

Z S, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 01:14 (ten years ago) Permalink

In DC.

lou, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 01:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

I got mines today too (Greater Boston). Encoding Disc 1 as I write this...

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 02:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

As for the vinyl, it's two plates but only the first disc b/c they're 45 RPM.

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 02:36 (ten years ago) Permalink

There's not enough love for "Up On The Ladder."

Turangalila, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 07:19 (ten years ago) Permalink

I just got my box too! A winner is me!

StanM, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 09:25 (ten years ago) Permalink

OMG!!! They've thought of everything! Vinyl run out groove inscriptions! (old Sisters of Mercy fan here, I don't know why I checked, even, but they did it)

disc 1 side A: RIPPLES
disc 1 side B: ON A
disc 2 side A: BLANK
disc 2 side B: SHORE

StanM, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 09:32 (ten years ago) Permalink

That's the first thing I checked for when I opened my box!

New Order always used to have good run-out inscriptions.

nate woolls, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 09:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

Does Thom really sing "I'm trapped in the Tardis" at the beginning of one of the songs?

I really don't get the love for Bangers and Mash, it just sounds like an awkward half-finished mess to me.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 09:48 (ten years ago) Permalink

Does Thom really sing "I'm trapped in the Tardis" at the beginning of one of the songs?

Yes, yes he does.

Melissa W, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 11:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

disc 2 : "this CD contains some photos and some pictures." "here are a few suggestions of what to do with them:"

StanM, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 11:22 (ten years ago) Permalink

What's that? Other stuff on Disc 2?

nate woolls, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 11:24 (ten years ago) Permalink

I never thought of exploring it!

this CD contains some photos and some pictures.

the photos are by jonny & colin.
the ones with an SK in the filename are by steve keros.
the pictures are by donwood & tchock.
all of them were taken/made during the making of this record.

here are a few suggestions of what to do with them:

1. use them as a screensaver.

2. make a slideshow of the photos or pictures. play the record at the
same time. ?.

3. print them out massive, frame them and hang them above your bed.

4. admire the dynamic artistes at work, as they plunge flailing into
middle age.

5. attempt to trace the arguably bizarre trajectory of donwood and
tchock as they begin by doing urban landscapes and end up with work
that even they cannot describe.

6. adapt or alter to your liking. it's extraordinary what you can do
with photoshop. or even scissors and glue.

7. turn an old tshirt inside-out. print something out on that iron-on
transfer stuff and stick it on the tshirt.

8. actually thinking about it, just type 'inkjet media' into a search
engine and see what the possibilities are.

9. for instance, you can print onto thin magnetic sheet and then stick
it onto a vehicle or a fridge or something.

10. try to work out which photos we edited out, and why.

bye

nate woolls, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 11:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Listening to my 320/LAME encoderings, the bump in fidelity (and mastering!) was much overdue. Adios 160kbps bottoming out and/or distortion! I didn't appreciate the greatness of "Faust Arp" or "All I Need" until now.

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 16:11 (ten years ago) Permalink

I'll definitely be picking this up the day it comes out. (1) to support the band (2) added fidelity will be welcome.

three handclaps, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 16:17 (ten years ago) Permalink

Dammit, I didn't realize they were going to play at 45RPM.

Once again my fucked up turntable (plays 33s fine, but plays 45s at about 38-39RPM) lets me down.

Z S, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 16:28 (ten years ago) Permalink

Presently understanding why "Down Is The New Up" didn't make the Disc 1 cut (didn't like it live, don't like it recorded either - the title & lyrics of spiritually kindred "2+2=5" strike me as a touch clevererer).

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 16:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really like Down Is The New Up - the best bit is the enormous empty half-moan-half-roar that emerges from god knows where to offset Thom's fake Prince yelp.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 16:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Love the lyrics to "Down is the New Up", and I'm pleased with the studio version even if I think the Thom solo performance from that Nigel Godrich show is my favorite.

lou, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 16:51 (ten years ago) Permalink

Not to bolster my argument with an artist's own decisions, but: they did relegate it to the second disc for a reason. Musically it's a fine b-side; interesting, "pleasing" - to paraphrase.

It's the obviousness of its title/chorus that irks me (which is unusual for Radiohead's otherwise consistent meeting/exceeding of my lyrical/creative expectations). So it's not all of the lyrics, it's just the title/chorus that makes me cringe (a little).

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 17:06 (ten years ago) Permalink

At least for "Down is the New Up" and "4 Minute Warning", it seems to me that they were left off the album primarily for thematic reasons--they don't suit the more personal nature of proper album.

lou, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 17:21 (ten years ago) Permalink

Assuming this transcription of the lyrics is accurate (my discbox and I are suffering a bit of separation anxiety at the mo'), "Down..." would fit thematically (i.e., sufficient amount of the personal "you" and "I", no?):

Get yourself together
Let the light pour in
Pour yourself a hot bath, pour yourself a drink
Nothing's gonna happen without a warning
Down is the new up
What is up, buttercup
Down is the new up, is the new up

Your services are not required
Your future's bleak, you're so last week

Ladies and gentlemen, without a safety net
I shall now perform a 180 flip-flop
I shall now amputate, I shall now contort
Because down is the new up
What if I just flip-flopped?
Down is the new up
Down is the new up
Down is the new up, is the new up

You're on Candid Camera
The chink in your armor
Topsy turvy town, topsy turvy town
Shake your pockets out
Pass it on, pass it down
Topsy turvy town, topsy turvy town

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 17:38 (ten years ago) Permalink

45 12 inches sound really awesome though

M@tt He1ges0n, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 17:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

dblcheeksneek: I don't know, the lyrics still seem politically-oriented, or they at least seem to address the outside world rather than his own self or a personal relationship like so many of the songs on In Rainbows. I think it's the "flip-flop" references that make me feel this way--they immediately call to mind the 2004 election.

lou, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 18:09 (ten years ago) Permalink

Some of the lyrics of "Down..." immediately call to mind the 2004 election. You're making my point: it's one thing to be direct and lyrically clever ("2+2=5"") vs. direct and patently obvious ("Down..."); the latter I (and, in my opinion, Radiohead) can do without.

To your point, I can see where not all of the first-person lyrics of "Down..." fit with Disc 1's mostly relational theme, but, for now, I'm sticking by relegated-for-quality-rather-than-thematic rationale.

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 18:40 (ten years ago) Permalink

In other news, the break at 2:06 of "Bodysnatchers" is brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 18:44 (ten years ago) Permalink

Fair enough, though I don't think that being direct and patently obvious is necessarily an issue. And the lyrics to "2+2=5" don't strike me as particularly clever either.

lou, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 19:03 (ten years ago) Permalink

As one of many masters of the obvious here at ILM, I'd like to point out that differing points of view can co-exist and be equally right: I don't think that being direct and patently obvious is necessarily an issue.

No. It's not. For you. But as you may glean from my posts above: it is, for me. I'm not atop a soapbox here. Not proselytizing.

You : "2+2=5" :: Me : "Down Is The New Up"

I get it. And I'm OK with it.

dblcheeksneek, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 19:27 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yup, it's all good.

Anyone else having a bitch of a time getting the vinyl in and out of the discbox?

lou, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 19:34 (ten years ago) Permalink

yep. not a big fan of those little round cardboard things the center holes of the CDs are supposed to fit around either

StanM, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 19:46 (ten years ago) Permalink

Yes on both accounts. The foam buttons the cds click onto are a pain in the ass.

nate woolls, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 20:01 (ten years ago) Permalink

I received mine in the mail today. It fits in my record shelves - without the outer sleeve. So now the sleeve is laying on top of some old jeans in my closet.

Z S, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 21:15 (ten years ago) Permalink

agh i'm still waiting for this. i'm a bit upset, i kind of assumed the vinyl would be the bonus disk too.

LaMonte, Thursday, 13 December 2007 00:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, at least you can't say Radiohead/w.a.s.t.e. misled you,

DISCBOX

THIS CONSISTS OF THE NEW ALBUM, IN RAINBOWS, ON CD
AND ON 2 X 12 INCH HEAVYWEIGHT VINYL RECORDS.

A SECOND, ENHANCED CD CONTAINS MORE NEW SONGS, ALONG WITH DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND ARTWORK.

THE DISCBOX ALSO INCLUDES ARTWORK AND LYRIC BOOKLETS.
ALL ARE ENCASED IN A HARDBACK BOOK AND SLIPCASE.

dblcheeksneek, Thursday, 13 December 2007 14:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

Huge praise from Alex Ross in Salon today:
http://www.salon.com/books/awards/2007/12/13/book_week_picks/

But my record of the year came from outside the classical field. Radiohead are filed under rock, but to me they are collectively one of the most interesting composers in contemporary music. The secret weapon on "In Rainbows" is Phil Selway, drumming intricate, tricky, spiky patterns under the surface of what seems to be a lush, almost romantic album. Was there some story about the price? I forget: "Videotape" puts me in another world.

three handclaps, Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

nice review:

http://soundsect.com/review/154.html

StanM, Thursday, 13 December 2007 18:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

Pitchfork reviews disc 2:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/47597-in-rainbows-cd-2

three handclaps, Friday, 14 December 2007 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

Where's my discbox? Come on w.a.s.t.e. - by boat, really? Knowing that the retail version would be nearly out before I finally received my discbox might've factored into my decision to buy this thing.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Monday, 17 December 2007 18:18 (nine years ago) Permalink

I've ordered shoes off the net since i had the email saying my Discbox had left, which have arrived, and still no sign of my Discbox.

Kind of annoyed about the fact that tickets to their concerts aren't being sent out now too. In the confirmation email it says they won't be sent out till 2 weeks before the concert. I completly missed this, if it was stated on the page where you order them. Why not send them out now? I won't even be at this address two weeks before the concert. Waste of time for everyone involved.

micarl, Monday, 17 December 2007 18:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

Why not send them out now?

In a word? Scalping.

dblcheeksneek, Monday, 17 December 2007 20:00 (nine years ago) Permalink

Oh, right, so they're just delaying the scalping? Great.

micarl, Monday, 17 December 2007 20:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

You got a better solution? (I'm not being snarky, actually.)

Ned Raggett, Monday, 17 December 2007 20:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

Sending them out late isn't a solution.

micarl, Monday, 17 December 2007 20:56 (nine years ago)