Radiohead - The King of Limbs

I only really like about 3 songs on IR; the first 2 and Reckoner. The rest is OK, apart from the last tune, which bores me to tears.

One reason it's growing on me is that a lot of it's very beautiful on a pure ear-candy level. It develops the sleepy, sensual feel of In Rainbows, albeit without the hooks.

The hooks are there, just extremely understated.

Is it a hook if it doesn't hook you?

yes

sorry, it's a hook if it doesn't hook you. if it doesn't hook me, then it's not a hook.

If a hook doesn't have a fish on the end of it, it's still a hook.

http://thaddeus.snark404.net/vid&photo/three%20legged%20dog.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV4xhsYvU2g&feature=related

listening to the album this way^...halfway through Magpie; liking it so far, why are people whining about this?

sorry I don't mean to be a jerk & write ppl itt off as whiners; I just don't get what's wrong with this album...? First side at least sounds like the band taking one of the eerie highs from Side One of Kid A and stretching it across four songs kind of...?

One reason it's growing on me is that a lot of it's very beautiful on a pure ear-candy level. It develops the sleepy, sensual feel of In Rainbows, albeit without the hooks.

Yeah I'm hearing this too. It's just a very good sounding album, lack of songwriting besides

*Obama voice* let me be clear...

I do like this album, and I've listened to it repeatedly since Friday.

Buuuuut...

I think the underlying songwriting is some of radiohead's worst in a long time, but the production, the attention to detail, the "sound" of it, etc, is good enough to cover up the flaws. For example, "good morning mr. Magpie" is essentially a really polished turd. I remember hearing the early live versions of it and being disappointed with the tune itself. Well, they didn't really change the tune much, they just added a bunch of really cool production. And it comes out ok! It's not like I skip it or anything, it sounds alright.

Now, the obvious criticism of that criticism is that if you take, say, a four tet or burial or flying lotus song, and look at the underlying structure, you're not exactly going to find a song you can play around the campfire either. But those artists seem comfortable with working with loops, whereas radiohead understandably sounds like the residue of their more guitar oriented albums still hasn't worn off. Something just sounds a little off.

None of that makes sense, sorry. Still struggling with what I think if this new one tbh

just say 3/5

3/5 never forget

I know what your saying I think; this is the first album where the songs seem to be in thrall to the atmostpherics and production tricks and not the other way round. At their best Radiohead are spectacular and very original songwriters, and it's pity that this huge asset has barely been employed on King of Limbs.

xxpost

I see all that and raise you the fact that I now think their arranging / production skills are almost on a par with their influences / electronic peers, and that I, for one, am ore interested in that side of things than their songwriting.

I'm not arguing that all that stuff isn't beautifully done on the record, it's just that I come to a Radiohead album expecting something more song-based. That's not necessarily the album's problem, it's mine. To me they're at their best when they combine these two aspects of their craft (such as on Kid A and In Rainbows).

All of which is why, that while there's absolutely nothing wrong with the album, I strongly suspect I will never count it among my favourites.

still kinda sounds to me like bitching about "no guitars"

Not at all, anyone who's paid the slightest attention to what I post knows I'm no indie stan at all. Some of my favourites of theirs don't have any guitars at all (Everything in Right Place, Backdrifts, Pyramid Song). This is a different point.

Bloom actually kind of reminds me of Everything in its Right Place...I don't understand in what way that song is "well-written" and Bloom is not...

i don't think it's a slight to say that 'everything in its right place' is catchier, if only because the main keyboard riff is very precise and gets repeated throughout pretty much the whole song.

I think I know why it was hyped for pre-order.

Because they are a pretty well known band? Because the last one was too?

n1ts\/h article was rad

I've only listened to this once, but my initial impression was that everything sounded disappointingly familiar.

Hasn't everything post-Amnesiac?

Where's Nitsuh's article?

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/02/radioheads_king_of_limbs_revie.html

That's a typically great piece.

I see all that and raise you the fact that I now think their arranging / production skills are almost on a par with their influences / electronic peers

Bloom aside, I still think the exact opposite of this.

I'm not saying they sound 'new', in fact far from it. But I think there's a litheness and flexibility that was missing before from their more overtly electronic / rhythm based stuff.

I'd agree with that.

More on the production: The marvellously detailed sounds and arrangements they've assembled here are a treat, but every time I'm drawn into the record, I feel let down by the flat, immutable percussion on some songs. Interesting rhythms, but nothing grooves (wrong word, perhaps) like their supposed influences do. I'm curious what drove that particular stylistic choice.

but nothing grooves (wrong word, perhaps) like their supposed influences do

Apart from Lotus Flower, you're right.

Is that partly just Radiohead's perpetually hermetically sealed, disinfected aesthetic? Their sexlessness?

i think popmatters called this album "sexy" fwiw

maybe sensuous. sex has climaxes, this has none. at all.

so, they're saying that pop doesn't matter all that much, then?

It's like a Caribou album minus the banger that gets played on the radio.

This album is an instant classic. I love every second of it. It is way WAY out there.

really startling how many musicians have come out to explicitly mention how much they love/are enthralled by this, as opposed to radiohead fans. certainly seems to work on one level at least.

who is?

flying lotus, for one

he works with thom yorke directly. on music.

not saying that lots of musicians love it, just saying. i mean, haven't checked, but assuming bjork/pj harvey/unkle/neil finn love it too

i think other songs have grooves in them... flying lotus is the most obv. but i think the first half of the record has some pretty subtle ones. i thought this album was pretty flat until i started listening to it on my headphones. all of a sudden i was like "oh there you are, colin." for most of the record they're this tightly wound, frenetic group, up until about give up the ghost and separator, where everything kind of comes apart. so i would call that a sort of climax. i also see feral as a great centrepiece because it's just so tense. like when you have something on the tip of your tongue but can quite express it.

whoops, and by flying lotus i meant lotus flower.

I like this album but it's nothing huge to me...I think Codex slows the album down way too much for its own good and it never really recovers...Codex is probably a good song, but in context it just takes me out of the album entirely--the album up to this point is a bit too frail to be able to handle a drastic change of pace--and as a result I kind of don't have real opinions about the last two tracks...

people are really concerned about phil selway huh

he's a helluva guy

nabisco rilly nails it in that piece