Radiohead begins work on new album!!!

[Josh]

Radiohead has started a blog to document the recording of their new album!

It is, of course, rather cryptic, and most of the posts are just photos, but, for what its worth... Dead Air Space.

[DvChWi]

most of the posts are just photos

AND WHATS WRONG WITH THAT?!?!

 

Interesting.  Hopefully they'll put up some sound clips sometime soon.

[starhawk]

I've been listening to Ok Computer from CDzInc.com (greatest thing ever), and I love it.  I think it was just the particular batch of songs I didn't like in my first and only Radiohead record I own, Hail to the Thief.  I find that these songs on OK sound much more like complete songs and pieces of music, where I felt like certain parts of Hail drifted nowhere.  Perhaps it's just taste.  But I really like this record, and I'm buying it soon.

[murlough23]

where I felt like certain parts of Hail drifted nowhere.

Or backdrifted, as the case may be.

[bloop]

Yeah, probably just taste.  There were a number of great songs on Thief, but it's not the cohesive, complete album experience that OK Computer is.  

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if you appreciated HTTT a bit more after spending some time with OK Computer, and you'd probably really understand where it's coming from if you listen to The Bends and Kid A while you're at it.  The album as a whole brings together the tendencies of all these records.  The one thing I wish it would have done, though, is brought all those ideas together in a single musical statement.  You could point to most of the tracks and say exactly on which of their albums it wouldn't feel out of place.

Oh yeah, and check out "Pyramid Song" (on Amnesiac if you're looking at cdzinc).  Then, after all that, I think Hail to the Thief will come into focus a bit better.

[murlough23]

"Pyramid Song" is awesome. Amnesiac is not one of my favorite RH albums, but it was the first one I bought, largely due to that song and a few other standouts.

[bloop]

Hmm, Amnesiac, let's see . . . Kid A, OK Computer, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief, The Bends, Pablo Honey if I were to rank them today, so #3 I guess.  Would that be considered one of my favorites?

[murlough23]

Hmm, Amnesiac, let's see . . . Kid A, OK Computer, Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief, The Bends, Pablo Honey if I were to rank them today, so #3 I guess.  Would that be considered one of my favorites?

I guess they only have 6 albums, so being one of the top three isn't too difficult.

I'd rank them as follows:

1) OK Computer
2) Kid A
3) Hail to the Thief
4) Amnesiac
5) The Bends
6) Pablo Honey

So our rankings are pretty much the same - we just swapped 1 and 2, and 3 and 4.

NP: "Stained Glass Masquerade", Casting Crowns

[dgp11776]

I would put them in the exact order murlough did.

[Josh]

Swap OKC and Kid A and I'd agree with murlough too.

[oneafroboy]

I like Amnesiac a lot actually. It has some of my favorite Radiohead songs on it. I like it much more than Hail to the Thief in fact. In terms of pure enjoyment, Kid A and then Amnesiac are on top for me, followed by OKC, HTTT, and The Bends. Note that Pablo Honey (which I have listened to) is not on the list.

I just like Radiohead better as a 21st Century avant-garde mainstream electro-whatever band than a '90s rock outfit. They did both well, but if the given the choice between more distorted guitars and little distorted guitars, I'll pick the latter.  

[bloop]

Everything other than Pablo Honey would rank as "one of my favorites", so while being top three isn't hard, a top three Radiohead album is pretty damn good.

I'm back and forth in the ranking of HTTT vs. Amnesiac, but Kid A at the top isn't contested with this listener.  Even though OK Computer is every bit as brilliant, it wasn't quite as risky as Kid A was.  That kind of uncompromising nature deserves rewarded, but I'd say I enjoy the two albums at about the same level.

But, I think Amnesiac ] HTTT might be settled with me as the latter hasn't much to compete with the very best songs on the former.

[murlough23]

Risky only works when the risk pays off. It did on almost every track on Kid A, but not on a couple of them, and that and the overall short list of songs are the only reasons I rank it behind OKC at this point.

[bloop]

Risky only works when the risk pays off. It did on almost every track on Kid A, but not on a couple of them, and that and the overall short list of songs are the only reasons I rank it behind OKC at this point.

Well, first of all, I disagree with you concerning the songs in question and always have, and secondly the album clocks in only about 6 minutes shorter than OK Computer (I'm subtracting the part of "M.P.S." where there is only silence - including that, it's more like 3, but I thought it was silly to include).  The average song on Kid A is just a little longer (closer to 5 minutes than 4), also.

But, a 10 is a 10, so choosing OK Computer over Kid A is like choosing the morning over evening as your favorite time of day.  They're both brilliantly conceived and executed albums.

[danny316]

This probably says something about my sanity, but I don't think Kid A was even remotely weird, and I think Kid A is a perfectly logical next step from OK Computer. It's not like there weren't synths hidden in the mix on some tracks on OK Computer (Exit Music comes to mind), and there was a bit of "weird" electronica on that album too. Kid A still has a few songs with guitars too - where's the big jump?

Also, I think that it's a bit more jarring to go from Mortal's "Wake" to "Pura". "Wake" isn't as good as OK Computer, but it is a bit heavier. "Pura" was much quieter and more synth-based, and it felt like a bad movie soundtrack - most of the songs didn't even have vocals, nevermind familiar instruments. Although I suppose "Speed of Sound" and "Vial" from the "Wake" album could be seen as hints to what the "Pura" album would sound like, I still think that there's a more jarring shift between those two albums than between OKC and Kid A.

That said, I've only heard the two Radiohead albums and I'd rank OK Computer ahead of Kid A. I think Kid A is good (at least 3 stars, maybe 4 if I give it more time), but I don't think it's some gigantic innovation.  

[bloop]

No, Danny, there is indeed a pretty considerable shift in the band's sound, primarily in the instrumentation that was turned up in the mix, and the influencing genres of music.  While I think the step was logical, a lot of people saw it as a rather massive shift in sound for very understandable reasons.  The sound essentially went from being mostly in the 90s alternative vein (but something of a culmination to that sound) to being in an electronica/IDM one (in other words, a bit more forward-thinking).  

In the realm of popular music, it was a very risky and, indeed, an innovative move if you choose to take it on its own terms and from that perspective - a very left-field sort of album, even if the genres from which it was culled had been around for a while.

So, with that in mind, I reiterate:  5 stars.

[danny316]

No, Danny, there is indeed a pretty considerable shift in the band's sound, primarily in the instrumentation that was turned up in the mix, and the influencing genres of music.  While I think the step was logical, a lot of people saw it as a rather massive shift in sound for very understandable reasons.  The sound essentially went from being mostly in the 90s alternative vein (but something of a culmination to that sound) to being in an electronica/IDM one (in other words, a bit more forward-thinking).  

In the realm of popular music, it was a very risky and, indeed, an innovative move if you choose to take it on its own terms and from that perspective - a very left-field sort of album, even if the genres from which it was culled had been around for a while.

So, with that in mind, I reiterate:  5 stars.

Yeah, there was a shift in sound, but I don't think it's a particularly jarring shift, or a shift that was particularly beneficial. They're not bad at the more electronic style, but to be honest, nothing so far sticks out as something I wouldn't have expected the OK Computer-era Radiohead to be capable of. To my ears, anyway, it feels like they're just exploring the other side of the sound they already had. I suppose that is rather unusual in pop music, but it's not daring enough for me to give it 5 stars. I have a feeling that I'll probably settle on something in the 4 star range once I've finished digesting the album, but for now, I really don't think it was that bizarre, even if it is a bit different sonically.  

[murlough23]

Kid A is definitely daring enough for me to give it 5 stars, assuming that I would give something 5 stars on the sole basis of being daring. That'll usually get a band 4 stars, unless the music is just unenjoyable to listen to, in which case it could go as low as 3, but not any lower, unless it's truly aurally offensive. To get 5 stars by making a daring mov,e you have to come up with a pretty solid set of tracks out of it. Radiohead almost did that on Kid A... there are just a few that I think miss the mark. (And no, Treefingers isn't one of them. I like that track. I'd prefer for it to appear on an album with more than 10 songs, though, simply because an ambient instrumental on an album otherwise filled with proper "songs" seems like a bit of an awkward transition piece.)

NP: "The Havens Grey", Andrew Peterson

[bloop]

[murlough23]

bloop, you've stated your points about "In Limbo" and "MPS" before, and I can appreciate what the songs are going for, but there's that bottom line for me - I don't enjoy listening to those songs. They drag and they frustrate, and not in entertaining ways. That's an opinion that I've tried to change by re-listening with your comments in mind, but it just doesn't change.

As for "Pulk/Pull" - I like it for the first minute or two, but then it just becomes a headache. It's interesting as an interlude, but doesn't need to carry on for nearly as long as it does.

[bloop]

bloop, you've stated your points about "In Limbo" and "MPS" before, and I can appreciate what the songs are going for, but there's that bottom line for me - I don't enjoy listening to those songs. They drag and they frustrate, and not in entertaining ways. That's an opinion that I've tried to change by re-listening with your comments in mind, but it just doesn't change.

Yeah, as I said, it's a difference of opinion - it's nothing to get bent out of shape about.  The bottom line may not be sheer entertainment value with me, either, but then again they must be entertaining to me in some way.  I just wanted to add that I think I'd go with 5 stars for that particular album even if I didn't think they were good tracks.  Since I do believe that they add to the album it just makes rating it so highly that much easier for me.

Also, I think the fact that we're even still debating the merits of the album after all this time says something positive about the album.  Art is supposed to elicit a response.  Kid A delivered on that better than any of the noughties albums, I would guess.

I like the last couple minutes of "Pulk/Pull" more than the first couple, but I'm still not completely sold on it.  I just appreciate it a bit more than I did at the beginning.

[murlough23]

Yeah, as I said, it's a difference of opinion - it's nothing to get bent out of shape about.  The bottom line may not be sheer entertainment value with me, either, but then again they must be entertaining to me in some way.  I just wanted to add that I think I'd go with 5 stars for that particular album even if I didn't think they were good tracks.  Since I do believe that they add to the album it just makes rating it so highly that much easier for me.

Well, that's kind of my point. Those tracks do entertain you - your entertainment may just come from something different, perhaps the realization of what they mean artistically or whatever. That is kind of a subjective thing, but the bottom line is, you can't say that you don't enjoy those tracks. And I can't say that I do, and we'll probably never see eye to eye there, other than to admit that once artistry and originality have been recognized, the rest is a bit subjective.

[bloop]

I think once artistry and originality is recognized, "good" or "not good" in an artistic sense can be agreed upon by reasonable people, and that much is.  It's the "how good?" that is more subjective as it depends much more on prioritizing the different aspects of art, in general.  I wish there were a simple way around that, but I guess I might not like it if there was such a system.

[murlough23]

I think once artistry and originality is recognized, "good" or "not good" in an artistic sense can be agreed upon by reasonable people, and that much is.  It's the "how good?" that is more subjective as it depends much more on prioritizing the different aspects of art, in general.  I wish there were a simple way around that, but I guess I might not like it if there was such a system.

I don't think there could be such a system - it would be highly individualized if one were to come up with such a thing. But I do agree with you on the basic guidelines for "good" and "not good". The majority of Radiohead songs that I dislike are still "good" - there are just some flaws that I personally find irritating, or it's a good idea taken too far, or not far enough - something like that. At the kernel of each of them, there is generally a good idea.

[bloop]

[danny316]

Several listens later, I realize I spoke too soon when I mentioned 3 stars. Besides "Everything in it's Right Place", the songs are all really strong. I'm willing to forgive a weak opening number when it sets the pace well, so this definitely qualifies to be some kind of "great" album. I still don't think it's a classic, but I think it's very solid. Although, more time could change that...I've taken me months to successfully spot what makes an album "classic" before.

[murlough23]

"Flaw" means either a technical mistake (I think the band is pretty much beyond that) or something they thought was brilliant that isn't brilliant. A mistake in logic, I suppose. And if it's subjective for me to say it's a flaw, it's subjective for you to say it's brilliant.

[bloop]

[murlough23]

If it doesn't communicate what they're trying to communicate (whether that be a vague feeling, a political message, a random thought, whatever), then it's flawed. Granted, that can only be said after the listener has put a fair amount of attention into receiving said communication. But all art is trying to do or say something, even if all it says is "I am pretty" or "I am a great guitar player". If it doesn't succeed in getting that across to an attentive, patient listener who has gone over the material several times, then I say it's flawed.

It's also flawed if it succeeds at its goal, but its goal is not a worthy one. Of course, what is a worthy goal is also a subjective matter.  

[bloop]

If it doesn't communicate what they're trying to communicate (whether that be a vague feeling, a political message, a random thought, whatever), then it's flawed. Granted, that can only be said after the listener has put a fair amount of attention into receiving said communication. But all art is trying to do or say something, even if all it says is "I am pretty" or "I am a great guitar player". If it doesn't succeed in getting that across to an attentive, patient listener who has gone over the material several times, then I say it's flawed.

True for the most part, but what does that have to do with Kid A?   =)

(I say "for the most part" because sometimes, albums and songs are specifically going for "difficult" in terms of interpretation - and it's fine if there's some wiggle room for diffferent interpretations)

It's also flawed if it succeeds at its goal, but its goal is not a worthy one. Of course, what is a worthy goal is also a subjective matter.

I could at least see how this could be applied, but I don't think such a strong case can be built either way for Kid A, especially given the cryptic nature of the goals if we get into the particulars of individual songs.  Only a few are what I'd call apparent.  

It tends to be more transparent in its goals for the musical creation rather than the message or lyrics - that's something I wish more people were able to appreciate.

Personally, I've listened to the album so many times, but I could still only name a few goals with any certainly - and that's not a shortcoming I see with the album.

[murlough23]

True for the most part, but what does that have to do with Kid A?

(I say "for the most part" because sometimes, albums and songs are specifically going for "difficult" in terms of interpretation - and it's fine if there's some wiggle room for diffferent interpretations)

Having obscure or difficult-to-decipher meaning doesn't absolve you of needing to accomplish what you're setting out to accomplish. I'm generally amused with the fact that Radiohead made an album that they knew would confuse the hell out of everybody. That's fine, so long as the actual music is enjoyable once you get used to it. And you know what, it really is, aside from those two tracks I keep griping about. I'm sure confusing people was not their only goal - there's clearly some sort of theme or mood to the whole thing.They've alluded to that much in interviews.

I could at least see how this could be applied, but I don't think such a strong case can be built either way for Kid A, especially given the cryptic nature of the goals if we get into the particulars of individual songs.

Well, what do you think "In Limbo" and "Motion Picture Soundtrack" are trying to do? What about the silence, then hidden track, then silence? (I can let that slide because it's more or less a joke on those of us who will wait until the seconds stop ticking just to see what else is there, but it sure as hell doesn't have a lot of replay value and can be annoying when yuor CD player's on random.) Those are my only real moments of annoyance with this album.

It tends to be more transparent in its goals for the musical creation rather than the message or lyrics - that's something I wish more people were able to appreciate.

I'm paying attention to the music, mostly. I take it for granted with Radiohead that the lyrics are generally "OK, whatever". Not in the sense that they're bad lyrics - I just can't decipher them and know I don't need to be able to in order to like the song. I'm generally amused by the confusing nature of the lyrics in Radiohead's case. It's a fun game. So when I criticize a song on an album like Kid A, it mostly has to do with the music.

NP: "Prodigal", Josh Bates

[bloop]

Well, at least these statements are sounding a bit less like the message over music scholarship of the late CMC, so I'm glad you're at least thinking specifically of the music.

Having obscure or difficult-to-decipher meaning doesn't absolve you of needing to accomplish what you're setting out to accomplish. I'm generally amused with the fact that Radiohead made an album that they knew would confuse the hell out of everybody. That's fine, so long as the actual music is enjoyable once you get used to it. And you know what, it really is, aside from those two tracks I keep griping about. I'm sure confusing people was not their only goal - there's clearly some sort of theme or mood to the whole thing.They've alluded to that much in interviews.

I'm more intrigued than amused, but ok.  

But, again, from an entirely subjective view, those two tracks are enjoyable to me.  I'd just rather not turn that into the be-all of my judgment on the album.

Well, what do you think "In Limbo" and "Motion Picture Soundtrack" are trying to do?

MPS, According to J.G.:

I love the sound of harps, the atmosphere we were trying to get was one of Disney films of the 50s where the colour fades slightly. I think one of the regular introductions included the fairy spinning around - a Blue Jay - and the sparks coming from behind. It was all a bit faded and watery - that was the kind of music we wanted to copy."

Very roughly, "In Limbo" occurrs at a place in the album, thematically, where the protagonist is supposed to be at the very height of his confusion, thus the music plays into that really rather simple message by sounding exactly as the lyrics are.  Even though I think this is an example of music serving lyrics, the music itself is very structured (it has to be to sound as unstructured as it is), and I do find that fascinating in its own right.

The latter is practically a Radiohead institution.  That is, end with just a glimmer of hope.  It starts off rather as rather bleak and haunting, and ends with that glimmer of hope that the brighter sound of the harp precedes and foreshadows, and that the lyrics catch up to.  I'm not so sure about this, but I read the verse-chorus structure as a dialogue of two characters.  

The song isn't at all strange, and it's tempting to see it as a step backward.  However, my take is that after all the left-of-center moves in the album, it's nice that it ends with a moment of beauty, especially the finale after those moments of silence.

As far as the silence that follows that - maybe a minimal time for digestion before a repeat of the album?  The joke thing is the only other possibility that I see at the moment.

I don't know why I'm writing all this, though, considering . . .

I can appreciate what the songs are going for, but there's that bottom line for me - I don't enjoy listening to those songs

it really is that simple.

[Josh]

Oh my-- sounds like we might be in for TWO new Radiohead albums this year!

[murlough23]

Meh. Wake me up when the album actually happens.

NP: "This Time", P.O.D.

[bloop]

Greenwood's Bodysong was interesting, so I'd want to hear the soundtrack anyway.  The movie sounds, eh, half promising I guess (Keanu Reeves is definitely deserving of a "meh").

[murlough23]

Greenwood's Bodysong was interesting, so I'd want to hear the soundtrack anyway.  The movie sounds, eh, half promising I guess (Keanu Reeves is definitely deserving of a "meh").

I didn't mean to imply that the soundtrack would be bad. It's more an issue of "quit farting around with these side projects and get the album done already".

NP: "Triple Fascination", The Listening

[bloop]

They've never worked on much of a time table, so I don't see why they would start now.

[murlough23]

They've never worked on much of a time table, so I don't see why they would start now.

You know you're right. I'm just engaging in a little selfish whining, I suppose.

[Josh]

UPDATE:

Warner Independent is singing a different tune now. Currently they're saying that Radiohead won't be SCORING the album, but that they will be contributing some songs to the film-- maybe old, maybe new.

But the weirdest thing about the article: It says that the film may feature one brand new song from... Thom Yorke's upcoming solo album?!?

[Josh]

Apparently them new songs are perty good.