Sick of all the instant (and over) analysis of Radiohead‘s In Rainbows? Too bad, ’cause you really need to read the great Charlie Wilmoth‘s take over at Dusted. He appears to like the album less than I do, but man, what insight.
One thing in particular about which we disagree is Radiohead’s aesthetic detachedness. Wilmoth seems to regard the band’s creative arc as a blase waltz into namby-pamby nihilism, whereas I hear glimmers of hope and even transcendence in their themes of self-surrender.
He also believes that they’ll never be able to "jam" as well as their krautrock forbears, so they ought not to try. Well, I challenge anyone to listen to "The National Anthem" from Kid A and argue against its lockgroove awesomeness.
OK, I promise that’s it for Radiohead and The Contrarian for a long, long while. Unless they play a show in my apartment, that is.
October 11th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Sorry, but I think Charlie’s review was some of the worst writing on music that I’ve ever read–it just seemed like a stream of consciousness diatribe where he didn’t even bother to review & edit the obvious contradictions in his text. The fact that he doesn’t think Radiohead is writing “songs” anymore is just outright laughable–the songs on “In Rainbows” have just as distinct and definable structures as anything on “The Bends” or “Ok Computer”.
I have read a lot of negative reviews on this album, and even though I don’t agree with most, I’ve been at least able to respect the viewpoints expressed. Wilmouth’s “review” was just a naive, half-assed attempt at playing the Devil’s Advocate.
October 11th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I disagree. I think his points are well thought out and articulated. He actually tells you why his expectations of/for Radiohead run counter to what they’ve been up to lately. At some points in its recent history, the band has attempted to “erase themselves,” as Charlie puts it and, while I agree with you that In Rainbows features actual songs, I also understand why someone would comment on the band’s lack of commitment to either rock or be more forward in experimentation.
I personally don’t see it as an either-or scenario, and really love the new album. Best since Kid A, even (although “Pyramid Song” alone is enough to make Amnesiac worthwhile.) Each and every one of Wilmoth’s opinions are valid from a certain perspective. He’s rarely contradictory for it’s own sake — just read his Feist review (which you’ll probably disagree with, too!) for another example. He calls it like he sees it, in a broad context and clearly, which I admire.
I’m sure this won’t taint your own personal enjoyment of the album, either way!
October 11th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Casey: I agree, “The National Anthem” is pretty awesome. I don’t think they’ve done nearly so well with the semi-improvised-sounding stuff since then, though.
Jay: Actually, when I was writing the review, I went and read some lyrics from the album and was surprised how many there were. Maybe it’s more accurate to say that they don’t sound comfortable with their songs anymore. But I think there’s still too much reliance on catchphrases and melismatic mumblings.
October 11th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
By the way, Jay, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I really take issue with your contention that the song structures on In Rainbows are just as “distinct” as those of The Bends. Really, you hear the songs on In Rainbows as verses bursting into choruses, and so on? It seems really obvious to me that a sort of haziness has become a big part of their sound since then… do you disagree?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I don’t think their song structures are any less formal than they were on “Ok Computer” and several songs on “The Bends”. And even if they’re not, who cares? If you only appreciate Radiohead for being a “structured rock band”, then you’re completely missing the point. They haven’t been that way since Pablo Honey. If you’re expecting Radiohead to turn into Coldplay, I wouldn’t hold your breath. Because, no, that is not at all what they “do best”.
So, yes, we’ll agree to disagree. Plain and simple, I think it’s an incredibly weak and shortsighted review.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Basically, I think folks like Charlie feel that the band has lost some of their vitality by neither commiting to explosivo rock nor the experimentalism hinted at on Kid A. Many have the similar complaints about Wilco.
But where Charlie hears a band uncomfortable with itself, I’m hearing the opposite — they sound more confident and relaxed than they ever have. Which, of course, does sap some of the tension. But you can’t be angry and aliented forever. Well, you can pretend to be, but that usually comes across even worse.
I take issue less with the argument of opinion (most of these points are valid one way or another) and more with the critique of Charlie’s writing, which, to me is as clear as a bell and not really even all that provocative. Dude’s a pretty rational guy, as borne out by his scads of reviews over the years.
I have my opinions of the album (really fucking like it), but I appreciate how Charlie’s peice made me reflect and consider the damn thing from another angle. Which is what good writing should do. If it didn’t work for you, Jay, that’s fine, too.