Drenched In Blog: Gold at the End of Radioheadâ€™s Rainbows?
Just like any other elitist music writer out there, I like Radiohead. I bought OK Computer in ninth grade and listened to it a week straight while I was sick from school. I loved it, as did pretty much all of us. Each album since has been a resounding triumph in the eyes of even the most fickle fans.
Whatâ€™s eating me about In Rainbows is the sentiment I get that weâ€™ve been cheated. We the fans havenâ€™t been conned per se; we didnâ€™t have to wait for a label to deem it worthy of release. But the whole pricing gambit and the albumâ€™s rushed-out release seem a bit conspicuous, a little too slick, like there was dough behind it. These weird viral-net things have been all the rage lately. Was all this just a clever way to put out leftovers disguised as groundbreaking new material? We waited through a Thom Yorke solo album and almost four years of silence for this? On the plus side, fans didnâ€™t have to spend almost a month to hear from David Fricke about its flaws â€“ by last Wednesday morning, the fandom world already had judged for itself.
After a week of absorption, I have my assessment: In Rainbows is not a horrible album. Itâ€™s not lackluster. It seems to me that itâ€™s their first album that is merely a serviceable RH album. I wonâ€™t go as far to say itâ€™s stereotypical; itâ€™s just a tad obvious for them. But still, there are tracks that jump out and hit you. Take â€śBodysnatchers,â€ť for instance. Itâ€™s got that tired restless feeling for just that right time before dawn. And Iâ€™ve never heard Thom Yorke be as overtly sexual as on â€śHouse of Cards.â€ť Dude totally wants to do you.
Eh, Iâ€™m sure this record will hit me like a ton of hung-over bricks on some stretch of highway. And my prickly first impression will go out the window. But hereâ€™s some Radiohead of yoreâ€¦ - Craig Hlavaty