Loading ...
Good morning! Wait, why are you reading a blog? Shouldn’t you be prepping your insta-review of/context-free MP3 post about Radiohead’s In Rainbows, which hit the inboxes of people who ordered it last night/this morning? (My download code arrived at 2:30 a.m. ET, about 90 minutes after I threw in the towel.) Well, you may not be in the mood to digest your music after you’ve regurgitated your reaction to it, but these bloggers and journalists, bleary-eyed from their all-night waiting-for-e-mail vigils, have lined up to shout “First!” across Google’s void (even if they were already beaten to the punch):
• “They’ve made entertainment history, unless they haven’t, as if that was their role all along, as if they set themselves up as epic melancholy pop radicals with pseudo majestic conceptual breadth just so that they could be the ones that finally finished off the dinausaurian 20th Century music industry. So that the rock music business doesn’t end with a bang but with a well calibrated well intentioned sloganeering Radiohead whimper. Four stars. And a couple of complaints. And a hint of middle brow madness. And a note of dismay about the forty quid.” [Observer]
• “Overall, well worth the four bucks I paid for it — with is twice what the band would have made from a physical copy sold through a label. Color us pleased androids.” [Donewaiting]
• “For what it’s worth, In Rainbows was sent to me at 6.30am. Three hours later, this insidious index of sonic surprises is stacking up in my mind, like planes waiting to land. The trick, I guess, is to give your fans what they didn’t know they wanted. Radiohead, old hands at this, have been doing it for over a decade now. With In Rainbows, they appear to have done it again.” [Times Online]
• “I want to listen again — more important, I’m intrigued. It doesn’t leave me cold; it didn’t stab me in the heart the way Band of Horses just did. But there’s a quiet, understated beauty to it that’s welcoming and makes me want to explore more.” [Riverfront Times]
• “Early buzz says In Rainbows is … well, actually you’re gonna help dictate that early buzz right now. ” [Stereogum]
My download code arrived some time after I had gone to bed, so I snagged it when I woke up and listened to it before work. FYI, the download only took about thirty seconds. Not bad!
As I’ve only heard the thing ONCE, I don’t think I’m ready to offer a full opinion on it.
That being said, a few little impressions:
1. It’s pretty.
2. It’s probably the most straightforward thing they’ve done since “The Bends.”
3. The pacing of the album seems a bit strange.
4. “House of Cards” almost sounds like “Zooropa” era U2. I haven’t really figured out if that’s a good thing or a bad thing…
Fucking fantastic record. Dunno what Nigel was talking about.
I plan to review this for my blog when…oh, lemme check my calender here…ah, yes. I have an insta-review scheduled for between now and the 12th of Never.
WOW!
Seriously, this album blew away “Hail to the Thief” by about the third track.
The pacing is a bit strange, but how could they have maintained the concussive drive of the first two tracks? No band could do such a thing!
I was prepared to be amazed, and even then, still amazed.
Great album, but also great marketing genius–live versions of all but one of these tracks have been floating around for sometimes more than a decade and yet this was the most excited I ever got while burning a CD.
Very very very nice indeed. Well worth the wait.
Is anyone else out there disapointed that there wasn’t any cover art included in the zip file? Anyway, I’m liking it so far. I’ve avoided any live versions of the new tracks so it’s all new to me. Good stuff.
I’m happily shocked that it’s great.
I can’t believe how amazing the Lil Wayne guest spot on the fourth track is. Really gutsy move on Radiohead’s part.
@The Van Buren Boys: Very disapointed. I just added the photo of the disc box set as the album art, because I’m gay like that.
@Dead Air ummm Dead Air:
i used the main splash page from the inrainbows.com site. it works pretty well.
@Charlie Kerfelds Jetsons Tee: “House of Cards” almost sounds like “Zooropa” era U2.
Haha, I was thinking U2-in-Berlin more than once with a couple of the ballads!
“Reckoner,” though, makes me think a bit of Talk Talk circa Laughing Stock.
I was thinking about whether I liked the album or not after listening to it last nite in bed and I realized: since the moment I had stopped listening for the night, I wanted to get back up and listen more. That’s proof to me that it’s great. (Also, I consciously think it’s great too).
Let’s get a couple things straight before I tackle my insta-review of THE MOST IMPORTANT ALBUM OF ALL TIME OMG: 1) I did not, to my knowledge, hear any of these songs before 10:22 AM, when I downloaded them — with the exception of “Arpeggi,” which is only technically half a song (”Weird…
@Ned Raggett: I adore Laughingstock! And Zooropa is my #1 album in need of a critical reevaluation. No, really! I think it’s great. It’s certainly weird. I wish U2 would take more chances like that these days.
@Lucas Jensen: “Zooropa” definitely has some choice songs on it. I’m of the opinion that it’s pretty underrated.
Am I the only person who thinks that “The Wanderer” ISN’T a total trainwreck?
“Nude” proves that Radiohead should cover more non-existent Judy Garland songs. They do it a lot better than Rufus Wainwright.
With respect to those more learned that I, there is one possibility that it seems no one here is ready to consider. . . the possibility that Thom of Yorke may be, in fact, the Messiah awaited by our people. I only know what I’ve heard him preach. I was moved, lifted out of myself, and seemed to see all things in a new and blinding light. I was aware of wonders and signs, that God may be with him, and through him, with us.
And to think it only cost me 99 cents!