Grammy Nods (if you still care)

[bloop]

A few bright spots, but meh.

[Josh]

Really surprised-- and pleasantly so!-- to see Radiohead make the cut. And I've got no problems with the new Coldplay getting some love-- it really is a fine record.

The jazz nominees, however, are pretty weak, especially since they totally shut out Brian Blade's album, by far the best jazz release of the year, or even in recent history.

[murlough23]

In Rainbows up against Viva la Vida? Uh, sorry Radiohead...

And of all the Radiohead songs to nominate for an outstanding Rock performance... "House of Cards"? Really?

Katy Perry for Best Female Vocal Performance is just WRONG.

So is Brandon Heath being up against all those Gospel singers who, y'know, actually sing Gospel. (Well, except for Kirk Franklin. He shouts Gospel.)

Sanctus Real's a better nominee that anyone I'd have expected them to notice from the CCM field, though.

[Ian]

...should not have clicked on this thread. >_<

[bloop]

In Rainbows up against Viva la Vida? Uh, sorry Radiohead...

In Rainbows is the stronger album, but Viva la Vida is more likely to win (it's more recent, and much more popular.  Then there's the political issue surrounding the way Radiohead chose to release initially).  I'm alright with that.  It's a very good album.

And of all the Radiohead songs to nominate for an outstanding Rock performance... "House of Cards"? Really?

What were their singles from that album?  "Nude", "Reckoner", and "House of Cards", maybe?  I've never thought of them as a singles-oriented band anyway (unlike the aforementioned Coldplay), so I wouldn't expect a win in that category regardless of the specific nomination.

[Josh]

I'm pretty sure "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" was a single... I sure heard it a lot on the radio. And that one's my personal favorite from the album.

Was "Bodysnatchers" a single?

Fwiw, I think "Viva la Vida" is actually my favorite single of 2008, so I'm glad to see it get some kudos.

[bloop]

I knew "House of Cards" was a video and both "Nude" and "Reckoner" were released in pieces as singles to be remixed, but I think I recall "Jigsaw" being played for a short time on my local rock station (but I don't listen to the radio much, so...)

[murlough23]

In Rainbows is the stronger album, but Viva la Vida is more likely to win (it's more recent, and much more popular).  I'm alright with that.  It's a very good album.

Viva la Vida is (in my opinion, obviously) a better album song for song. Not a song I don't like on that one - OK, maybe "Lost!" is a little shaky, but if that's the worst you've got, you're in pretty good shape. (Beats the hell out of "House of Cards", anyway.) That won't be why it wins - it'll win because it's more commercial, which is not a good reason to win an award. But for something "more commercial", it was still a pretty daring reinvention for Coldplay. I can't complain.

What were their singles from that album?  "Nude", "Reckoner", and "House of Cards", maybe?  I've never thought of them as a singles-oriented band anyway (unlike the aforementioned Coldplay), so I wouldn't expect a win in that category regardless of the specific nomination.

I wasn't even sure if that album had official singles or if radio stations that felt ambitious just played what the hell they wanted, like they did from Kid A. I thought "Jigsaw Falling into Place" had been a single; while not one of my favorites, at least it was a little more rock-oriented.

But if you want a great rock performance from In Rainbows, how could you pass up "Bodysnatchers"?

In any event, I agree that it's surprising to see Radiohead get nominated in the first place. The Grammys usually honor the major label machine; it's quite surprising to see that they care about something that was honestly and truly done independently by the artist after they said "No thanks" to the big label they used to belong to. So they get the award for independent achievement in a music industry where that's become rather difficult. I still feel that Coldplay's album is the greater musical achievement, but I won't complain if either one wins.

NP: "I've Always Loved You", Third Day

[murlough23]

Fwiw, I think "Viva la Vida" is actually my favorite single of 2008, so I'm glad to see it get some kudos.

It might be mine, too. (None of the other songs that I loved that much this year were single material, or if they were, they likely didn't chart on any mainstream format.) Occasionally a song I kinda like gets a Grammy nod, but it's extremely rare that one of my absolute favorites does.

This, of course, means that Lil' Wayne will probably sweep the Grammies.

[bloop]

Viva la Vida is (in my opinion, obviously) a better album song for song.

By the slimmest of margins, I disagree, but I like "House of Cards" (and "Lost!" for that matter).

I still feel that Coldplay's album is the greater musical achievement,

and here's where I say "absolutely not".  The band itself just doesn't have those kinds of chops (I don't think they've ever been as technically proficient as musicians).  It's daring as far as Coldplay goes, though, and I do like it a great deal.

This, of course, means that Lil' Wayne will probably sweep the Grammies.

Never underestimate the white guilt vote.

[Ian]

Tha Carter III was actually a pretty good CD.  I might even put "Dr. Carter" on my year end playlist depending on how big I make it.

[bloop]

Tha Carter III was actually a pretty good CD.  I might even put "Dr. Carter" on my year end playlist depending on how big I make it.

Yeah, it is pretty good.  Not album of the year material, though, IMO.

[murlough23]

By the slimmest of margins, I disagree, but I like "House of Cards" (and "Lost!" for that matter).

Isn't "House of Cards" your least favorite on In Rainbows?

and here's where I say "absolutely not".  The band itself just doesn't have those kinds of chops.  It's daring as far as Coldplay goes, though, and I do like it a great deal.

I don't think I can really rely on you for any sort of objectivity here, considering who we're discussing. Of course most of what Radiohead does is going to trump pretty much anyone else's achievements in your mind. Me, I try to spread the kudos around a little. Coldplay was starting to get stale before this album, so it's not like I was predisposed to gush about it. They proved that they had chops on this one, they did quite a bit of experimentation, and just because it didn't confuse the hell out of as many people doesn't mean it's not as worthy of an achievement.

NP: "Brightblur", Massivivid

[murlough23]

I'm not sure I could ever take an album seriously that had "Tha" in its title, but then, I'm not a hip-hop aficionado, so I should probably just stay out of that discussion.

The point is, two artists I really like actually got their fair share of nominations this year, so Murphy's Law dictates that someone I know nothing about will probably win instead.

[bloop]

Isn't "House of Cards" your least favorite on In Rainbows?

Yeah, it was, but that doesn't mean I didn't like it.

I don't think I can really rely on you for any sort of objectivity here, considering who we're discussing. Of course most of what Radiohead does is going to trump pretty much anyone else's achievements in your mind.

For albums from this year and the latter part of last year, actually, In Rainbows in particular wouldn't trump everything.

Me, I try to spread the kudos around a little. Coldplay was starting to get stale before this album, so it's not like I was predisposed to gush about it. They proved that they had chops on this one, they did quite a bit of experimentation, and just because it didn't confuse the hell out of as many people doesn't mean it's not as worthy of an achievement.

In terms of "chops", I am largely talking about technical proficiency as instrumentalists.  Coldplay's coup may be more in arrangement and production on Viva la Vida than virtuosity.

I don't see how In Rainbows confused the hell out of people.  Most people I've talked to seem to think it is a step toward more accessibility, not less.

Besides that, I already said Viva la Vida would be a solid choice if that's what the voters went for.  They never go for my ideal choice (which probably isn't In Rainbows, actually, but I'd have to remind myself of the cutoff dates of the releases in their "year"), but it's nice when they go with something that is excellent, and Coldplay's album certainly is that.  I really don't know what more you would want from me.

*edit* looked up the dates.  Nope, In Rainbows wouldn't be my ideal choice, either, as much as I think the band really is due.

[Ian]

Coldplay was starting to get stale before this album, so it's not like I was predisposed to gush about it. They proved that they had chops on this one, they did quite a bit of experimentation, and just because it didn't confuse the hell out of as many people doesn't mean it's not as worthy of an achievement.

Nah, they didn't do any experimenting, they just copied someone they hadn't before.

[bloop]

Nah, they didn't do any experimenting, they just copied someone they hadn't before.

Hmm.  I think that's still a form of experimentation (I would be such a hypocrite if I didn't).

[murlough23]

Yeah, it was, but that doesn't mean I didn't like it.

My point in that was to compare the weakest links on both albums. We agree on In Rainbows' weakest link. Maybe we don't about Viva la Vida's; I don't know. I like both songs as well, but as far as "rock" singles from In Rainbows, they could have chosen a far better song.

For albums from this year and the latter part of last year, actually, In Rainbows in particular wouldn't trump everything.

I said "most of" and "pretty much" because I knew they weren't #1 on your list in all cases. Still, I think this remains true most of the time.

In terms of "chops", I am largely talking about technical proficiency as instrumentalists.  Coldplay's coup may be more in arrangement and production on Viva la Vida than virtuosity.

We don't appear to have the same definition of "chops", then. I'd submit that arrangement and production play a huge role on both Radiohead's and Coldplay's albums. Sheer technical proficiency on one's instrument does not always make the greatest music - see Dream Theater, for example. There's having the power and then knowing how to use it. There's also songwriting and a host of other ingredients that go into the creation of songs and albums. And it's kind of short-sighted to whittle the success of Coldplay's album down to a bunch of production bells and whistles when a great deal of Radiohead's more recent work was meticulously assembled on a computer.

I don't see how In Rainbows confused the hell out of people.  Most people I've talked to seem to think it is a step toward more accessibility, not less.

And I would agree, but then that takes us back to the question of what makes In Rainbows the greater musical achievement. When you accomplish something with music that is truly innovative and brand new, 9 times out of 10 it tends to confuse people because it defies their expectations. If you can manage to experiment and reinvent yourselves and yet you're still accessible without having compromised the experimentation in the process, I'd say that's an achievement. And I'd say both bands achieved this.

Besides that, I already said Viva la Vida would be a solid choice if that's what the voters went for.  They never go for my ideal choice (which probably isn't In Rainbows, actually, but I'd have to remind myself of the cutoff dates of the releases in their "year"), but it's nice when they go with something that is excellent, and Coldplay's album certainly is that.  I really don't know what more you would want from me.

If you think both bands did excellent work, maybe all I'm asking from you is to stop bristling at the idea that one could possibly outdo the other - you seem to consider it ludicrous that Coldplay could ever even approach the Pantheon of the Holy Radiohead. I'm just trying to be realistic here. Radiohead's done some great boundary-breaking stuff, but they're not untouchable. Both bands don't have the same goal or reason for making music to begin with, so I can understand why we'd have our personal favorites and I'm not asking for my favorites to be yours - I'm just saying maybe there's a point at which both bands are very skilled at very different things, and we can't objectively say that one skill set is more important or award-worthy than the other.

Of course, I would be remiss to ever compare the two without acknowleding that Radiohead was an early influence on Coldplay. So there's certainly a bit of a teacher-student relationship here, but that doesn't mean that teacher will always outdo the student in all cases here.

[murlough23]

Hmm.  I think that's still a form of experimentation (I would be such a hypocrite if I didn't).

Yeah, I'm not in line with that whole train of thought that everything with easily detectable influences is "copying". I've heard enough attempts to sound like Radiohead, and attempts to sound like Coldplay, and attempts to sound like the Beatles, etc., that I know the difference between those and other artists who simply have a lot of respect from those bands and have learned good lessons from them.

But the "copying" accusation is usually an easy way to stigmatize a band you don't like for other reasons.

[bloop]

My point in that was to compare the weakest links on both albums. We agree on In Rainbows' weakest link. Maybe we don't about Viva la Vida's; I don't know. I like both songs as well, but as far as "rock" singles from In Rainbows, they could have chosen a far better song.

I agree with that.

I said "most of" and "pretty much" because I knew they weren't #1 on your list in all cases. Still, I think this remains true most of the time.

I think an album of theirs would top my list three times if I went back and included the one's I've heard since.  That's 3 out of 7 times, if you're keeping tally.

We don't appear to have the same definition of "chops", then. I'd submit that arrangement and production play a huge role on both Radiohead's and Coldplay's albums. Sheer technical proficiency on one's instrument does not always make the greatest music - see Dream Theater, for example. There's having the power and then knowing how to use it. There's also songwriting and a host of other ingredients that go into the creation of songs and albums. And it's kind of short-sighted to whittle the success of Coldplay's album down to a bunch of production bells and whistles when a great deal of Radiohead's more recent work was meticulously assembled on a computer.

It's electronic, but I'm not sure about "assembled on a computer" for much of it.  Remarkably, they've kept instrumentation intact to a large extent.  I would agree with you that Coldplay's album has more going for it than production, but the production is certainly a standout element on that particular album.

And I would agree, but then that takes us back to the question of what makes In Rainbows the greater musical achievement. When you accomplish something with music that is truly innovative and brand new, 9 times out of 10 it tends to confuse people because it defies their expectations. If you can manage to experiment and reinvent yourselves and yet you're still accessible without having compromised the experimentation in the process, I'd say that's an achievement. And I'd say both bands achieved this.

I'd argue that Coldplay has started doing that, and Radiohead has almost come full circle on it.  Viva la Vida is kind of Coldplay's OK Computer.  Kind of.

If you think both bands did excellent work, maybe all I'm asking from you is to stop bristling at the idea that one could possibly outdo the other - you seem to consider it ludicrous that Coldplay could ever even approach the Pantheon of the Holy Radiohead.

Right now, to use a sports metaphor, it's a little like comparing Matt Cassel to Tom Brady.  The former has performed generally admirably (with a few caveats), but comparison to the latter are, at this point, rather premature.

Of course, I would be remiss to ever compare the two without acknowleding that Radiohead was an early influence on Coldplay. So there's certainly a bit of a teacher-student relationship here, but that doesn't mean that teacher will always outdo the student in all cases here.

Well, the student eventually becomes the teacher.  I don't know if that's happened quite yet with Coldplay.

Yeah, I'm not in line with that whole train of thought that everything with easily detectable influences is "copying". I've heard enough attempts to sound like Radiohead, and attempts to sound like Coldplay, and attempts to sound like the Beatles, etc., that I know the difference between those and other artists who simply have a lot of respect from those bands and have learned good lessons from them.

But the "copying" accusation is usually an easy way to stigmatize a band you don't like for other reasons.

True, but I wasn't thinking of "copying" in a negative way myself (like "plagiarizing" would be).  Following a good model well, and adding a bit of yourself to it, IMO, is stretching one's comfort zone and is a form of personal experimentation.

[murlough23]

I think an album of theirs would top my list three times if I went back and included the one's I've heard since.  That's 3 out of 7 times, if you're keeping tally.

I would say 3 out of 6 because nobody in their right mind would give high marks to Pablo Honey. As for those other 3, what are they, number 2?

It's electronic, but I'm not sure about "assembled on a computer" for much of it.  Remarkably, they've kept instrumentation intact to a large extent.

A lot of the sounds recorded on instrument were filtered through various devices or otherwise electronically manipulated. This is not a bad thing. I'm just pointing out it takes a lot of proficiency on something other than your instrument to achieve that. It's another type of "chops", which both bands have demonstrated.

I would agree with you that Coldplay's album has more going for it than production, but the production is certainly a standout element on that particular album.

Sure, but I don't think it's there to cover a lack of some other type of ability. It's there because it supports the setting that they intended to create. One might argue that this was the work of outside producer, whereas Radiohead tends to self-produce, so that might tip the balance toward Radiohead, but the Grammy award for the album goes to the team involved in putting together, which I believe includes the producer(s). I think it's acceptable if a producer is brought in to support the artist's vision, rather than to run the show and force the artist to do things his or her way.

I'd argue that Coldplay has started doing that, and Radiohead has almost come full circle on it.  Viva la Vida is kind of Coldplay's OK Computer.  Kind of.

And that's "kind of" a big deal, a step in Coldplay's development that I'd argue is more important in the grand scheme of things than the current step in Radiohead's development. In Rainbows was not a quantum leap. It's a step down from Radiohead's best work. Radiohead hasn't had an OK Computer since... well... OK Computer. (Or, in your opinion, Kid A.)

Right now, to use a sports metaphor, it's a little like comparing Matt Cassel to Tom Brady.  The former has performed generally admirably (with a few caveats), but comparison to the latter are, at this point, rather premature.

I don't know who the hell those people are, but it sounds like you're comparing the amount of respect one player has won for consistently good performances year to year, versus a hotshot upstart who happens to have done really well this year. The player with the more long-term good record still deserves more respect in the long run... but that doesn't mean he had a better season than the young upstart player.

I'm comparing one Coldplay album to one Radiohead album here. I am not comparing the entire history of both bands, nor am I trying to say that Viva la Vida is better than Radiohead's best achievements.

Well, the student eventually becomes the teacher.  I don't know if that's happened quite yet with Coldplay.

No, but I could see the student's latest work outdoing the teacher's latest work. Not everything the teacher accomplishes after his most noteworthy achievement necessarily ranks among his most noteworthy achievements.

True, but I wasn't thinking of "copying" in a negative way myself (like "plagiarizing" would be).

That was the implication that I got from Ian's post, though. As far as criticisms of Coldplay go, I've seen that one since the beginning and I've rarely seen any factual basis for it. (I've heard them copy themselves, but that's another matter, and it's not something that they can be found guilty of on VLV.)

Following a good model well, and adding a bit of yourself to it, IMO, is stretching one's comfort zone and is a form of personal experimentation.

Which is what Coldplay and Radiohead both did in this case. Radiohead has cited influences as well; they just happen to be more obscure in most cases.

[bloop]

I would say 3 out of 6 because nobody in their right mind would give high marks to Pablo Honey. As for those other 3, what are they, number 2?

I don't think Pablo Honey is horrible, but it's just not in the same class.  Mediocre, with a few standouts - not a contender (but, mind, it's still a Radiohead album, so it's still 3 out of 7).  I don't rank as far back as 1995, but I can think of a couple albums off the top of my head that I would put over The Bends.  If I really dug in, I could probably find more.  Amnesiac . . . hmm . . . well, I'd definitely put Love and Theft, Vespertine, and Lateralus over it now.  Michigan over HTTT.  That one might actually be #2, sure.

And that's "kind of" a big deal, a step in Coldplay's development that I'd argue is more important in the grand scheme of things than the current step in Radiohead's development. In Rainbows was not a quantum leap. It's a step down from Radiohead's best work. Radiohead hasn't had an OK Computer since... well... OK Computer. (Or, in your opinion, Kid A.)

In the long run, I'm still not sure about that.  I know my initial reaction would put it below OK Computer and Kid A, but history and perspective aren't there yet.  A 9.5 album, in my book, has the potential to become a classic.  I'm just unsure whether I would put it there . . . yet.

I don't know who the hell those people are, but it sounds like you're comparing the amount of respect one player has won for consistently good performances year to year, versus a hotshot upstart who happens to have done really well this year. The player with the more long-term good record still deserves more respect in the long run... but that doesn't mean he had a better season than the young upstart player.

Heh.  Matt Cassel has had a much better season than Tom Brady (considering the latter went on injured reserve in the first quarter of the first game).  It's a limited comparison, I suppose.

I'm comparing one Coldplay album to one Radiohead album here.

So am I.

[murlough23]

I don't think Pablo Honey is horrible, but it's just not in the same class.  Mediocre, with a few standouts - not a contender (but, mind, it's still a Radiohead album, so it's still 3 out of 7).  I don't rank as far back as 1995, but I can think of a couple albums off the top of my head that I would put over The Bends.  If I really dug in, I could probably find more.  Amnesiac . . . hmm . . . well, I'd definitely put Love and Theft, Vespertine, and Lateralus over it now.  Michigan over HTTT.  That one might actually be #2, sure.

Well done. You managed to win this little argument by citing albums that I love so much I'd never argue with you about why they're obviously better than their Radiohead album contemporaries (Vespertine, Lateralus, Michigan).

Just for posterity, do you consider In Rainbows to be a 2007 or a 2008 release, and what came the closest to beating it in the year it competed?

In the long run, I'm still not sure about that.  I know my initial reaction would put it below OK Computer and Kid A, but history and perspective aren't there yet.

Yeah, it's hard to say that about anything that's been out for less than a year. I might put it below OK Computer as well, though we've already discussed why I didn't give the full five stars to Kid A, and we'll never see eye-to-eye on that one, so I just won't go there.

A 9.5 album, in my book, has the potential to become a classic.  I'm just unsure whether I would put it there . . . yet.

That sounds like your equivalent of a straight "A" without the "plus", so really, I think we have the same opinion of it. I figure I'm not terribly likely to start liking it a lot less, so to me, it's gonna remain a classic, but from an objective standpoint, I understand why you can't really declare it as such until you've had time to look back and see its impact. And there are some "classics" in my collection that have shaped my musical tastes and/or the world's in massive ways, and yet I might not even award some of them the full five stars. That might be because certain songs were really outstanding and horizon-broadening, but then this was balanced my some "merely good" or "just OK" stuff.

Heh.  Matt Cassel has had a much better season than Tom Brady (considering the latter went on injured reserve in the first quarter of the first game).  It's a limited comparison, I suppose.

Especially when it's wasted on the one grown man in America who has no knowledge of professional sports whatsoever.

NP: "Silent Night", Sixpence None the Richer feat. Dan Haseltine

[bloop]

Just for posterity, do you consider In Rainbows to be a 2007 or a 2008 release, and what came the closest to beating it in the year it competed?

I consider it an 07 release.  The hard copy was available through the band in December.  Granted, it was $80 and, so I waited until January 1.  (I love them, but I don't see myself ever parting with $80 for one album).

I find it strange that I own Coldplay's album in vinyl and I don't own a single Radiohead album in my favorite format.  I'm going to have to remedy that, considering they just reissued all of the big label albums (I'll jump on the greedy corporation's bandwagon on this one).

[bloop]

All of these were in a dead heat in 07:

1  In Rainbows, Radiohead (9.5)
2  The Shepherd's Dog, Iron & Wine (9.5)
3  Boxer, The National (9.5)
4  Person Pitch, Panda Bear (9.5)
5  Civilians, Joe Henry (9.5)

So, I guess it was the Iron & Wine album.

[murlough23]

So, I guess it was the Iron & Wine album.

That was my #1 for the year. I'm baffled as to how In Rainbows was that amazingly solid in comparison, but that seems to be more of a subjective matter, so I'll let it go.

NP: "Sky Maps", Iona

[bloop]

Dead heat, meaning I don't really see any of those five as being superior to its peers.  It really just came down to preference for ranking them.  Even now, I listen to In Rainbows more than any of the others (and I probably listen to Person Pitch somewhat more than its place would seem to indicate).

[murlough23]

I guess I'll be more direct. What was In Rainbows' great achievement, on a musical level? I mean specifically - I want to see how this was accomplished in specific songs and whether it was sustained throughout the album or merely seen in key songs that stood out.

[bloop]

Are you talking about a specific innovation, or something a little more vague (yet somehow specific)?  If you want innovation, I'm not sure I can name anything specific.  In terms of the band's history, I think it represents the very best kind of musical balancing act they've sought to find since they went into rock band "crisis mode" with Kid A.  Kid A, while awesome, was alienating to some and likely not sustainable.  They needed to take what their earlier 00s albums had to offer, and marry that with something warmer and more inviting.  Musically, it offers the best compendium of Radiohead's sounds to date, while adding something of a new element to the mix as well.

The term I remember Josh using was "romantic".  It seemed an odd choice of words at the time to me, but as I've listened more, it seems more and more apt.

I don't think I even touched your assignment, but I tried.  I may be more up to the challenge if I sleep on it.

[ajyouthguy]

Grammy Nods...
or...
Radiohead vs. Coldplay, celebrity deathmatch?

haha.

[murlough23]

Grammy Nods...
or...
Radiohead vs. Coldplay, celebrity deathmatch?

haha.

They're the only Grammy nominees worth giving a crap about, obviously.

[bloop]

Radiohead vs. Coldplay, celebrity deathmatch?

Well, Radiohead slightly outnumbers Coldplay, but Coldplay just looks like the more physical team.  I'll say Coldplay, but all bets are off if Godrich and Eno join the fray.

[spacebrat311]

Are you kidding? I hear Thom Yorke's lazy eye shoots lasers in a pinch.

[murlough23]

Are you kidding? I hear Thom Yorke's lazy eye shoots lasers in a pinch.

Unfortunately, they're usually aimed at the bleachers.

[murlough23]

Are you talking about a specific innovation, or something a little more vague (yet somehow specific)?  If you want innovation, I'm not sure I can name anything specific.

The difficulty with innovation is sometimes that the thing being innovated is hard to name or to describe. Or sometimes that it's a matter of combining existing sounds/styles in unexpected ways, but when you try to explain it, it's hard to differentiate between that and merely "copying". So I understand why it's difficult to be specific here - I have the same difficulty describing what I feel Coldplay did.

In terms of the band's history, I think it represents the very best kind of musical balancing act they've sought to find since they went into rock band "crisis mode" with Kid A.  Kid A, while awesome, was alienating to some and likely not sustainable.

You can only radically reinvent yourself so many times, I suppose. Kid A was the most drastic case for a band that is more or less constantly reinventing itself. I don't think they could have continued doing albums that were a lot like it, but then, I don't think they would have been happy regurgitating any of their albums or even sticking to one style. So don't get me wrong; I admire the willingness to move on and try something else, without completely abandoning what they were before.

We discussed Hail to the Thief once upon a time, and you described it as a "retrospective". Is that not also true for In Rainbows, on some level? It may have less in common with their more electronic meanderings on Kid A/Amnesiac, but isn't the more guitar-oriented stuff on that album reasonably similar to their 90's albums, just a bit less grungy?

There's nothing wrong with doing a "musical balancing act" that consists of all the things that have worked best for you in the past, but I don't see that as being something astoundingly new for a band, either. It's a consolidation. Certainly not a cause for criticism, but that's generally the minimum that I expect from a good band - to take what worked well before and do it well again. So any discussion of what makes In Rainbows an innovation has to start with what they did above and beyond the "musical balancing act" of sounds from their past.

They needed to take what their earlier 00s albums had to offer, and marry that with something warmer and more inviting.  Musically, it offers the best compendium of Radiohead's sounds to date, while adding something of a new element to the mix as well.

I'm trying to figure out how to describe that "new element". I can tell that it's there, but it's subtle. Radiohead's newest love actually seems to be minimalism, which I guess was something that they were enamored with on Kid A as well, but now they're doing a more organic take on it. This is why several songs are based on repeating guitar figures and the bass is very clearly audible in several songs and so forth - they didn't go for the usual full-throttle rock approach of denser albums like OK Computer. That might be the innovation there, but I should point out that this is more a demonstration of arrangement skills than a demonstration of instrumental prowess - they're making memorable music with instrumental parts that actually seem relatively easy to play.

The term I remember Josh using was "romantic".  It seemed an odd choice of words at the time to me, but as I've listened more, it seems more and more apt.

I'm still not sure how that term applies unless one isn't listening to the lyrics, but maybe you mean it in a different sense aside from "lovey-dovey".

I don't think I even touched your assignment, but I tried.  I may be more up to the challenge if I sleep on it.

If my assignment is vaguely defined, it's only because I'm having a hard time figuring out how to ask the question. I appreciate your bearing with me and walking me through it as well as you have.

NP: "Musicbox Superhero", The Juliana Theory

[bloop]

I'm still not sure how that term applies unless one isn't listening to the lyrics, but maybe you mean it in a different sense aside from "lovey-dovey".

I'm thinking of the term in the sense that the record feels more in touch with the writer's feelings and emotions, but in a healthier way.  It's less bleak and seems less, um, paranoid.

It has moments that are romantic in the more common sense of the word, too, though.

[murlough23]

I'm thinking of the term in the sense that the record feels more in touch with the writer's feelings and emotions, but in a healthier way.  It's less bleak and seems less, um, paranoid.

It's more self-aware, but I'm not sure how "romantic" is defined this way.

It has moments that are romantic in the more common sense of the word, too, though.

Musically, yes. "All I Need", and "House of Cards", and "Nude" in particular have that sort of feel to them, but if I'm interpreting the lyrics correctly, I'm getting, "I only stick with you because there are no others", "Put your keys in the bowl", and "You'll go to hell for what your dirty mind is thinking", so not so much. There's still a bit of self-loathing, paranoia, and lust lurking underneath. (I don't mean to sound like a Plugged In review. I'm not saying these are bad things to sing about. I'm just saying, it's still pretty dark when you examine it more closely.)

[bloop]

Well, those are part of the lyrics, but they aren't the whole picture.  I'm not saying they are lollipops and gumdrops, but certainly a little lighter, more personal, and more in touch with the rest of humanity than they have been recently. 

I guess anything that emphasizes emotion as much may be called romantic in the sense I mean it.  Perhaps I should capitalize it.

(Thankfully, it is not emo in the sense that we typically think.  It's more self-aware, but not so self-absorbed as that.  It's a delicate balance, if you will.)

[Ian]

It's romantic in an intimate, dimly lit sense, but not at all a lovey-dovey one.  Before IR, Radiohead hadn't written many songs that are clearly directed at a specific person, and even fewer with any kind of romantic intent, so that also makes it stand out as being more romantic, plus the feel of several songs musically gives the impression.

Of course, this is band that usually writes stuff like "We're not scaremongering, this is really happening," so you have to expect any new elements to be mixed with the dark themes.

[murlough23]

I guess anything that emphasizes emotion as much may be called romantic in the sense I mean it.  Perhaps I should capitalize it.

I think I understand what you mean now. "Romantic" with a capital "R" has a very different meaning, as it turns out. It's kind of like how "charismatic" with a little "c" means full of personality and easily drawing attention, but "Charismatic" with a big "C" means holy rollers who speak in tongues and faint at Benny Hinn crusades and so forth.

(Thankfully, it is not emo in the sense that we typically think.  It's more self-aware, but not so self-absorbed as that.  It's a delicate balance, if you will.)

Any music that dares to describe the songwriter's emotions gets labeled "emo" these days. The term has become so broad that it's lost its meaning. As a result, I never use "emo" as a genre label any more. It's more of a frame of mind, a way of describing those emotions with diary-like details and sometimes-overwrought attempts to phrase everyday thoughts as if they were the most poetic thing ever. I jokingly call my friends or my cat "emo" when they're being overly moody. But I'm done calling music "emo".