Radiohead - In Rainbows

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.

I was pretty startled to hear Thom at his most twinkly say "Wakey, wakey!" at the beginning of "Faust Arp."

"15 Step" = best use of "Etcetera, etcetera" in a lyric since "Sweet and Tender Hooligan" (perhaps).

HTTT > In Rainbows

sorry guys

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.

exactly!

a 10-track "best of" HTTT would put In Rainbows to shame

What would you remove? (I'd be perfectly fine without "Go to Sleep," honestly.)

I'd get rid of "We Suck Young Blood," "Where I End and You Begin," "Myxomatosis," and "Scatterbrain," methinks. I love "Go To Sleep."

sail to the moon
where i end & you begin
i will
we suck young blood (kinda cool but i never listen to it)

xpost

Go to Sleep is great

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.

I just think it's a different album, not better. And I like the difference.

(Keeping "Go to Sleep" and ditching "We Suck Young Blood" = madness, but anyway.)

"There There" = Radiohead's best song. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

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.

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).

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

who cares which is better

^^

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

i think his lyrics are top notch

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.

"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?

i would take about six songs off httt; i'd take one off this.

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.

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)

track times, anyone?

i'm gonna d/l this real soon, jut wanna know a few details first.

why does it matter?

wikipedia is your friend. at least for now.

cutty: yeah, i know it doesn't matter, i'm just anal like that.

mark: cheers!

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.

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

cutty: i'm just interested! wanted to see whether they'd done any real long-form pieces. answer, alas, is no.

lol indeed.

you are a real long form piece of turd

is the BoC track bits of "roygbiv" ?

any other questions you need to ask us?

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.

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?

i don't usually zing you, you know that, i just thought your question was ridiculous.

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.

like, for example, how long the songs are

After a really terrible, stressful, headache-inducing day, "Nude" sounds like musical aspirin. I love this album.

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.

you have no idea how interesting it is to hear you talk this

you have no idea how interesting it is to hear you talk ABOUT this

you have no idea