Radiohead - The King of Limbs

[murlough23]

I figure we should have a dedicated thread for this, as new Radiohead music tends to provoke a lot of discussion around here, and it's going to be scattered amongst other threads anyway. It'll help me to collect my thoughts for when I eventually review this thing.

I've been through The King of Limbs 3 or 4 times now. I think last night was when I crossed the bridge between "WTF?" and "Wow, some of this is really beautiful." As I mentioned in another thread, I actually like a lot of Radiohead's trance-y, loop-driven stuff, so I'm not opposed to the overall approach that this record takes, even if I do feel like it employs the same gimmick throughout most of its tracks. I am starting to hear more variance than I heard on The Eraser, particularly in the rhythm section contributions that bloop mentioned as setting this apart from a mere Thom Yorke solo record, and in sparser numbers like "Codex" and "Give Up the Ghost". I love the horns in "Bloom", and I don't know that they fully registered at first, what with all the other stuff going on. They made good use of layering here.

A few songs still feel like undercooked ideas. I'm rather "meh" about "Little by Little" and still truly baffled by "Feral". And my complaint about a lack of material overall still stands. It just doesn't feel like a complete listening experience. Much has been made of "Separator" and its hint that "If you think this is over, you're wrong", so hopefully we'll see this in its proper context as the first half of a completed whole by the time the physical record drops. We live in an age where a lot of artists - including some of my favorites are experimenting outside the confines of the expected full-length LP, releasing material as a series of EPs or even as an individual song whenever the inspiration strikes, and I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't decrease the frequency and quality of their output. But it seems like the waits between Radiohead albums get longer and longer, with less material to show for it. I don't mean to impose arbitrary limits on the band, or insist that they fill out their recordings with subpar material just to meet a quota. I just hope this isn't a sign of the band starting to run out of steam or else finding it difficult to be as productive together as they once were.

[bloop]

I can see where someone could feel that it sounds complete in itself, but it sort of sounds like two complete EPs rather than one LP, if that makes sense, with "Lotus Flower" being the opening track on the second. I know they recorded a lot more material than this in the time they had together and they're just holding out on some of it. Whether we see more released as "Part 2" or we just aren't waiting 3 to 4 years for another album (more like 1 year to mere months - see here), I don't know, but that's where I'm thinking they are going with this.

"Little by Little" is a lovely song, but sort of ordinary by Radiohead standards. One of the few places where guitar plays a prominent role, though. "Feral" is probably the most fun I've had listening to an instrumental (or semi-instrumental) track by them. It's not as baffling given what I tend to listen to, I guess. Sounds reminiscent of Flying Lotus.

[murlough23]

I can see where someone could feel that it sounds complete in itself, but it sort of sounds like two complete EPs rather than one LP, if that makes sense, with "Lotus Flower" being the opening track on the second

Maybe. Given that even some of their more complete albums were intentionally arranged with a jarring track order (most notably Amnesiac), figuring out what sounds like it could have been an opening track is sort of a moot point. I do agree that it feels like there could be a logical act break in between tracks 4 and 5, though, but that might just be because I'm subconsciously thinking of Sigur Ros's ( ) - a rather minimal, repetitive album with eight tracks split into distinct halves. (Though a much longer one.)

In terms of track order, though, the latter half flows beautifully and it sounds like those songs were meant to exist in continuity with one another.

and I know they recorded a lot more material than this in the time they had together and they're just holding out on some of it.

This is one of those things that baffles me with bands in general. I can understand not releasing everything you put out as part of an album, since you want the album to be a unified statement or at the very least a collection of your strongest material. But then you get really good songs that are left off of albums which don't feel so conceptually unified that they would be in any way ruined by having that fan favorite B-side inserted somewhere. It depends on the mood and feel of the cut songs, I guess, but just as an example, In Rainbows felt diverse enough to me (and not intentionally themed around any one idea) that I wouldn't have felt like a track or two from the second disk creeping into the main tracklisting would have hurt it in any way.

If eight or so of those remaining songs are best presented together as their own entity, intentionally separated from the first batch by an, um, separator, I suppose I can live with that.

Whether we see more released as "Part 2" or we just aren't waiting 3 to 4 years for another album (more like 1 year to mere months - see here), I don't know, but that's where I'm thinking they are going with this.

That's sort of how Kid A and Amnesiac worked, though for me Kid A flows well enough from beginning to end that I don't feel the urge to slam any tracks from Amnesiac in there (except perhaps for the sake of rescuing those tracks from the sounds-like-its-on-shuffle madness that is Amnesiac).

"Little by Little" is a lovely song, but sort of ordinary by Radiohead standards. One of the few places where guitar plays a prominent role, though.

I think that one just bugs me because it seems intentionally off the beat. "Bloom" felt that way at first but I've learned to adapt to it. "Little by Little" just keeps disorienting me and then not adding enough to the repetition to make it an enjoyably disorienting experience.

"Feral" is probably the most fun I've had listening to an instrumental (or semi-instrumental) track by them. It's not as baffling given what I tend to listen to, I guess.

Regarding it as an instrumental may help me to let go of my frustration with not being able to make out what the vocal snippets are saying. You know that intentionally obscured vocals are generally one of my pet peeves when it comes to music. I have to reprogram my brain to accept them as a sound effect and nothing more, but that's really difficult sometimes.

I just noticed today that the new Eisley album runs about half a minute longer than TKOL. Eisley's got 11 songs, but rather frustratingly, they conform to the 3-4 minute pop song mold without fail. Some of them are very good and well written, but feel like they could have been extended just to add some variance to the proceedings and give the band a chance to open up more instrumentally. Assuming the quality of the songs are good either way, I guess I'd rather have 11 brief ones than 8 slightly longer ones, but this just goes to show that even an album which meets my 10-song quota can still feel incomplete for other reasons. (I think I'm mostly unsatisfied with how Eisley seems to have built an album around a theme, but ended it abruptly with a song that doesn't really feel like it should be the final word on the matter. Compare to Radiohead, who intentionally ended with a "to be continued..." sort of thought.)

It's probably silly to compare Eisley to Radiohead, but that's what's most important in my Digesting pile right now, so there ya go.

[bloop]

That's sort of how Kid A and Amnesiac worked, though for me Kid A flows well enough from beginning to end that I don't feel the urge to slam any tracks from Amnesiac in there (except perhaps for the sake of rescuing those tracks from the sounds-like-its-on-shuffle madness that is Amnesiac).

This is what some of us actually like about Amnesiac.

[murlough23]

This is what some of us actually like about Amnesiac.

To each his own. I'm just glad that they don't generally do that sort of thing as a rule. (A little bit here and there on HTTT, but nothing too egregious.)

[bloop]

I've been thinking why this sounds like two complete short works rather than one long one to me. Loosely, the structure for the tracks that are on it seems to be ABBA, CDDC. I'm appreciating it most, and picking up on more of its nuances (there's a lot going on in most of these tracks) in a split listening session, perhaps due as much to who I am as a listener as who they are as a unit.

[murlough23]

So the first half is Swedish disco?

[bloop]

So the first half is Swedish disco?

This is why I was considering going with "1221, 3443".

[murlough23]

This is why I was considering going with "1221, 3443".

There would have been a Rush joke involved in that case.

[bloop]

I need to switch to entirely symbolic language a la Bertrand Russell.

[spacebrat311]

The King of Limbs feels to me like an album of inversions. It inverts dubstep, applying its deep bass emphasis to frantic rhythm sections that skitter underneath smooth, floating vocals. It inverts audience expectations after In Rainbows, eschewing that album's organic textures and romantic, soulful arrangements in favor of the most cold and mechanical instrumentation the band has ever put together, out-alienating even the paranoid robotics of Amnesiac. Coming in at 37 minutes, it inverts Radiohead's previous tendency towards weight in favor of a tense, spacious, so-light-it-could-float-away brevity.

Full disclosure: Feral might be my favorite track.

[murlough23]

Full disclosure: Feral might be my favorite track.

It's starting to grow on me.

[bloop]

I keep swinging between "Codex" and "Bloom", which inevitably means I'll eventually settle elsewhere. 

[Ian]

okc
kid a
bends
amnesiac
httt
ir
tkol
ph

[bloop]

I think I did this elsewhere. Let's see if it changes today:

Top Tier:
Kid A >= OKC > IR

Mid Tier (for a Radiohead album anyway - still very good):
HTTT > Amnesiac >= TKOL >= The Bends

Low Tier:
>>>>>>>>PH

That felt like a bit of a reductionist exercise, but it's about where I am atm.

[murlough23]

I think I did this elsewhere. Let's see if it changes today:

Top Tier:
Kid A >= OKC > IR

Mid Tier (for a Radiohead album anyway - still very good):
HTTT > Amnesiac >= TKOL >= The Bends

Low Tier:
>>>>>>>>PH

That felt like a bit of a reductionist exercise, but it's about where I am atm.

Flip Kid A and OKC, and maybe drop that equals sign before []The Bends[/i] to make the others definitively greater, and that's more or less my view. I want to say TKOL is stronger than Amnesiac track-for-track, but then there's nothing on TKOL that grabs me the way "Pyramid Song" does (yet), so I'm unsure.

[bloop]

On a good day for one of the lower albums, I'll go with an =, but most days I'd hazard to say > everywhere I have a >=.

(well, except for the >= between Kid A and OKC. I can't bring myself to change that one.)

[spacebrat311]

For me:

Kid A = OKC > IR > TKOL > HTTT > The Bends >> Amnesiac >>> Pablo Honey

[murlough23]

(well, except for the >= between Kid A and OKC. I can't bring myself to change that one.)

I love that. "I'm pretty sure that I'm not sure whether it's just as good, or better."

[bloop]

Yeah, that's not far off. I'm pretty sure they're approximately equals, but I know which I prefer of the two most of the time.

Interesting. I think the only things we could come to a board consensus on would be the top two (in varying orders) and the bottom one.

[Josh]

My favorite Radiohead album has sort of become In Rainbows.

But then, my favorite cut on the new album-- by a landslide, really-- is "Little by Little," so maybe I'm just not on the same page as everyone else at all. 

[ewok20t3]

My favorite Radiohead album has sort of become In Rainbows.

I enjoy it just as much as Kid A, even though it isn't quite the major artistic achievement that Kid A apparently is.


I still haven't heard the new album (waiting on the physical release), but here's where how I'd rank the Radiohead albums:
OK Computer > Kid A = In Rainbows > The Bends > Amnesiac > HTTT > Pablo Honey

[murlough23]

Board consensus?

BOARD CONSENSUS??!?!?!?

[ewok20t3]

Speaking of Radiohead...http://www.greenplastic.com/2011/03/04/jonny-greenwood-were-recording-again/

[bloop]

Yeah, I heard that interview. I think there may be something to the rumour that they're sort of experimenting with a shorter, 60s-style album release schedule.

[bloop]

So, Flying Lotus dude says something about "Thomorrow" (sic?), which leads me to wonder what's going on.

[murlough23]

So, Flying Lotus dude says something about "Thomorrow" (sic?), which leads me to wonder what's going on.

Nothing, apparently.

Speaking of wondering what's going on when nothing is going on, LOL at various fans' attempts to interpret the "lyrics" from "Feral".

http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858860820/
(scroll down to the comments section)

[bloop]

I have to wonder what he means by that - he seems like a more straight-up kind of guy than Radiohead band members tend to be. He is in LA, though, and it's still only 2:30 there.

[bloop]

Yeah, something did happen, but nothing to do with a studio recording. Flylo's tweet:

Wow Thom yorke ended up djing at low end theory after all.. Wow That really happened.

I sort of want to hear what Thom Yorke DJing sounds like.

[murlough23]

So in other words, nothing happened.

[bloop]

So in other words, nothing happened.

No, there aren't any other words than what I said. It was about something, but not about a studio recording.

[murlough23]

No, there aren't any other words than what I said. It was about something, but not about a studio recording.

Not trying to put words in your mouth that weren't there, but in the context of the previous discussion, one can assume this news would have only propagated because fans were hoping it was about a studio recording.

My use of "in other words" here was really just to say "OK, so what this really means is nothing of consequence to me."

[bloop]

I very seriously doubted it was. I was guessing some kind of live performance or webcast was more likely.

Actually, I doubt all such speculation up front.

[murlough23]

I very seriously doubted it was. I was guessing some kind of live performance or webcast was more likely.

Actually, I doubt all such speculation up front.

As did I. The timing of that post in the context of our prior discussion just led me to draw a connection that wasn't meant to be there.

All the same, Radiohead has the kind of fanbase that rivals the Lost fandom, in the sense that we will dissect every little insignificant thing that looks like it might be a clue - especially in a case like this where we've been given a shorter-than-expected new release and a fair amount of hints that more might be coming. We should probably know better than to extend that hype to things said by people who are only tangentially connected to the band.

[bloop]

All we know for certain about more music is that there's a 2-track very limited vinyl record coming with some of the newspaper editions. If that is indeed two new songs, I kind of wonder how it'll get out for the rest of the public's consumption (and whether they would want it to be considered part of this album or not).

[murlough23]

All we know for certain about more music is that there's a 2-track very limited vinyl record coming with some of the newspaper editions. If that is indeed two new songs, I kind of wonder how it'll get out for the rest of the public's consumption (and whether they would want it to be considered part of this album or not).

It's analogous to the bonus disc from In Rainbows, though released in more of a limited format. I can understand that sometimes a band records tracks during an album session that they ultimately feel don't fit the album, but that they figure extra-curious fans would probably want to hear anyway. That said, if the songs are good enough quality to be released at all, and the band is known for insisting their albums aren't concept albums, then I have to wonder why such content gets withheld from wider release in the first place, particularly in the case of an album that has more than enough room for 2 extra tracks.

If I hear those and they sound nothing at all like anything that would fit into TKOL (or else they're just not that great), then I suppose I can understand keeping them separate from the main body of the "album". Otherwise, I'll be kind of pissed that they gave us such a short album when they had the material to give us a longer one that wouldn't have suffered at all for the extra length.

[bloop]

If it's new, it'll get disseminated to the less lucky masses somehow, either by design or just through the realities of a digital world. There's something going on with these guys, but my finger's not on it, and I'm the kind of fan (LOST or Radiohead) that will wait for the reveal rather than try to keep guessing at it.

[murlough23]

If it's new, it'll get disseminated to the less lucky masses somehow, either by design or just through the realities of a digital world. There's something going on with these guys, but my finger's not on it, and I'm the kind of fan (LOST or Radiohead) that will wait for the reveal rather than try to keep guessing at it.

I've become more of a "wait for the reveal" type too, but I do think they've done something curiously outside of the norm with the intent of making us wonder what the heck's going on. I know I won't guess exactly what's going on until it's revealed, because I just plain don't have enough information to do otherwise, but let's just say that if it turns out there really is nothing left to be revealed, I'll be disappointed. If they don't mean to be hinting at anything beyond what they've already given us, then they're doing a really poor job at paying attention to their own marketing... which they don't exactly have a label to blame for these days.

[bloop]

Well, they've always kept fans at arms length, but to market the album as the "first newspaper album", taking people down a rabbit trail and seeming hints at something more, and then offering a very traditional release at the end of the day might actually cross a line from seeming ambivalent toward your fanbase to being a bit antagonistic - and I say this even though I rather like the album.

[murlough23]

Well, they've always kept fans at arms length, but to market the album as the "first newspaper album", taking people down a rabbit trail and seeming hints at something more, and then offering a very traditional release at the end of the day might actually cross a line from seeming ambivalent toward your fanbase to being a bit antagonistic - and I say this even though I rather like the album.

I think the idea behind the newspaper packaging was that it's sort of a temporary, ad hoc thing, as opposed to their comments about In Rainbows being more of a book. Something that's definitively finished (a story comes to an end) vs. something that's open-ended (news keeps happening). The thing about more of a 60s-style release schedule where they release music more often, but perhaps not as much of it, sort of fits with that idea of the music as content released in spurts rather than definitive volumes, because that's what the bands did back then - they released new content as it came to them. A lot of other bands are experimenting with the EP format instead of traditional LPs, which I'm fine with as long as I've got a road map telling me there's more coming and roughly when to expect it. Radiohead's just keeping us in the dark on the particulars, which could be because they themselves haven't worked out the long-term plan and are hoping to avoid locking themselves into a format.

I get all of that in principle. But in practice, I get more excited about the individual components (i.e. the songs) coming together into a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts, which is why I'm more of an albums guy than a singles guy. I'd feel a lot differently about Sleeping at last's EPs, for example, if they were just random crap released whenever, rather than a series of themed exercises released on a schedule (one which arguably goes above and beyond the call of duty due to the sheer amount of content being released within a year's time).

If Radiohead just wants to release a group of songs that aren't required to meet a quota, whenever they want, that's their prerogative. But they can't expect me to get as excited about it as the more complete work of an album like OK Computer or Kid A or even In Rainbows. It's similar to how I generally get less excited about movies than I do about TV series that tell a good ongoing story (but the movies will generally be more exciting than TV series that are purely episodic, with everything more or less back to the status quo at the end of each hour).