All method, no madness.
When it was announced that the new Radiohead album would be rush-released online with a mere 10 days notice, the internets were abuzz with the implications of such a bold move. Surely, the music world itself would be turned on its head by such an unprecedented act. After all, this was the groundbreaking Radiohead, the most forward thinking of bands. They would set the standard for the industry, just as they had ten years ago when OK Computer debuted at #1 on the Billboard charts, proving you needn't sacrifice your soul to have a hit record. Well, we all know that OK Computer pretty much changed the face of modern rock, for better or for worse. And, what did they do for an encore? The electronica-infused, difficult, sprawling Kid A. Clearly, Radiohead is a band that has long thrived on the element of surprise. They built up a rabid fan base throughout the 90's only as much on the strength of their musical talents as the feeling that with these guys, you never really knew what was coming next.
In this respect, In Rainbows is a colossal disappointment. Over four years have passed since their last LP, the sneering and raucous Hail to the Thief. And yet, on In Rainbows, there isn't much progression to speak of. In fact, it sounds even closer to its predecessor than Amnesiac did to Kid A, and those two albums were recorded during the same sessions. To be fair, there are differences; Thom Yorke's lyrics seem more personal, and less political. That, and the guitars that roared back with a vengeance on Hail to the Thief are still here, but have been subdued significantly, in favour of more atmospheric, sparser melodies.
Shockingly enough, In Rainbows actually sounds like a step back for Radiohead. It's been mentioned that the idea was to get back to the experimental tendencies that dominated Kid A. After a few listens to the record, it saddens me to say that they almost got there, but got stuck at Amnesiac, easily the weakest album in Radiohead's canon outside of Pablo Honey. And it really is a let down (no pun intended) to hear album closer "Videotape", a dirgy, stuttery piano pop song, then compare it to its far superior Amnesiac cousin "Pyramid Song". Or "Nude", a song they've been sitting on and retooling for over ten years. Listening to it here, one gets the feeling that it would have been a great addition to The Bends or OK Computer. On this album, though, it just sounds tired and given up on.
I shouldn't spend too much time dwelling on the negative because, the band's back catalogue notwithstanding, In Rainbows is not a bad record. The opening one-two punch of "15 Step" and "Bodysnatchers" is thrilling, with the former being a jazzy electro-stomper and the latter a visceral, loud juggernaut, the guitars killing everything in their paths. Think of it as "The National Anthem" all coked up and violently out of control. "All I Need", with its lazy beat and sinister keyboards, works both as a love song and a psychotic episode, much like OK Computer's "Climbing Up the Walls". Then, there's "Jigsaw Falling into Place", a quick little number that comes off like the less menacing little brother of "2+2=5", the undisputed masterpiece on Hail to the Thief.
Herein lies the problem on In Rainbows. Virtually every one of the album's finest moments is great partly because of its similarity to one of their other albums' finest moments. There's no grand stylistic detours here to shock you(see "Paranoid Android", "Everything in its Right Place", "We Suck Young Blood", etc.); it's the safest record Radiohead has ever made. Which, in a very strange way, also makes it the most shocking.
5 MEDIOCRE
Release Date: October 10, 2007 • TBD/XL
Comments
Post a Comment