bollox
Refugee
This. If it weren't Radiohead, I would probably have just listened to it once.
Radiohead: The King of Limbs, Continued
- Thread starter iron yuppie
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
I just got my truck back from the shop, so this morning was the first time I listened to the album on a great sound system. WOW! I have a decent system at home, but it really pops on with great sound. You can really hear the whole band.
That being said, I would probably give this album a 3 out of 5 or a 5.5/6 out of 10. There are clear moments of textural brilliance, but there is nothing on the album I find distinctive. I often have it on in the background and don't think about it. That's not a bad thing, but it's probably not an indication of brilliance either.
That being said, I would probably give this album a 3 out of 5 or a 5.5/6 out of 10. There are clear moments of textural brilliance, but there is nothing on the album I find distinctive. I often have it on in the background and don't think about it. That's not a bad thing, but it's probably not an indication of brilliance either.
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
On another note, I reread an article somewhere recently in which Thom said that the band couldn't go through another recording process like they did with In Rainbows. He indicated (if I remember correctly) that they were painstaking in the crafting of the melodies and even more so the structure of the song and it took its toll on them. The problem, in my opinion, is that that painstaking craftsmanship is Radiohead's brilliance.
U2, as an example, not as a comparison, are a band that often catch a "moment" (of surrender?), a sample of wonder or raw emotion, Radiohead seems to hew them out of the world around them. If they're not interested in that sort of work, I'm afraid they'll never again put out the kind of brilliance that we've had over the last two decades. We'll get albums of haunting beauty and technical brilliance, but not of magic.
U2, as an example, not as a comparison, are a band that often catch a "moment" (of surrender?), a sample of wonder or raw emotion, Radiohead seems to hew them out of the world around them. If they're not interested in that sort of work, I'm afraid they'll never again put out the kind of brilliance that we've had over the last two decades. We'll get albums of haunting beauty and technical brilliance, but not of magic.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Hey, you've already made it clear you're not into Radiohead, which no one really cared to know in the first place.
Why are you still in this thread?
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Because we need to be stripped of our human status for listening to Radiohead.
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
I like people with ridiculous tattoos. They're like the warning label on cigarettes.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Sort of like piercings on people's faces.
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Has this been posted here? Good show. Since it's not part of a tour, the set list is a sort of greatest hits collaboration.
YouTube - Radiohead For Haiti - January 24, 2010 - Complete Show
YouTube - Radiohead For Haiti - January 24, 2010 - Complete Show
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
So that's what Lotus Flower sounded like originally. Huh.
Anyway, it just dawned on me that the director of its music video was the director of the Hitchhiker's Guide movie. Neat.
Anyway, it just dawned on me that the director of its music video was the director of the Hitchhiker's Guide movie. Neat.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Indeed. And the Coffee & TV video
Danny Boy
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
super fly guy
New Yorker
lazarus said:
Just replying to the post,glad you are all enjoying the album. Will give it a few more listens,so I may be back!
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
And to think the hint of a second album has us in suspense...
cobl04
45:33
just reading more reviews... i'm getting pretty fed up with some reviewers (ie the "music" journos from daily papers) complaining about the album's length. in one of Melbourne's two daily papers, the reviewer suggests that the album's 38 minutes clearly means "the band were short on ideas". wtf? not every album has to an hour long for fuck's sake... i've said it before and i'll say it again, Nick Drake's Pink Moon is perfect at 26 minutes and would be ruined if they chucked another twenty minutes of material on there for the sake of it.
Complaints about a 38 minute album make no sense to me. There are entire genres of music where that's been the norm for decades. Right around 40 to 45 mins is the sweet spot for my own personal listening tastes. It's long enough to feel fully realized, and short enough to not overstay its welcome.
cobl04
45:33
back when i hated Radiohead, he was the only friend i had.
bono_man2002
Blue Crack Addict
That is exactly right.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Perhaps shorter albums are more fitting for our ADD, short-attention-span culture.
Personally, I like to go on a longer journey with my art. Does Achtung Birdie overstay its welcome at 55 minutes? Or Poppycock at 1 hr? How about OK Computer at 53?
I think that saying an album is great because of a shorter running time is more ludicrous than suggesting something misses the mark because it doesn't feel substantial enough.
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
As I've told every woman I've slept with, size doesn't matter.
My favorite album is London Calling, so it's not really an issue for me either way. In the grand scheme of things, if an album is good, it's good. I think far too many artists throw in a few tracks that didn't need on the album in order to extend the playtime, which is why I personally rather have a concise album where I actually enjoy every song, than one where I have to say, "I love this album except for....". Again, all of this is my personal opinion, I know there are many out there who prefer the "quantity" side of the argument. Different strokes.
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
I think the complaints and disappointment about the album's length before anyone had actually heard the damn thing were asinine. I mean, we'd all admit, personal preference aside, a work of art's duration in and of itself is no scale with which to judge. At the same time, I understand why people underwhelmed by the album might wish it simply offered more at this point. Though personally I love every song here, and it's possibly the first Radiohead album I enjoy this much from beginning to end, as even on Kid A and Amnesiac there is at least one track a piece I really don't care for. So I guess I'd say I am happy this one is as "short" as it is, as a complete listening experience.
Dfit00
War Child
That's disturbing. It should be her the one to tell you that, not you...
bono_man2002
Blue Crack Addict
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
Hah.
I know you're being facetious, but that criticism always kind of bothers me too. As though any musician or artist owes us anything after however long without creating something.
I know you're being facetious, but that criticism always kind of bothers me too. As though any musician or artist owes us anything after however long without creating something.
bono_man2002
Blue Crack Addict
That is very true. I don't get the shortness argument either, I mean I know the critics have their job to write stuff about stuff (for lack of better words) criticize, agree ect ect...and I suppose thats the whole point. But I don't see them coming out with a better solution. Most of the talk is the length of the whole thing, and not about the songs themselves, as someone mentioned earlier, in this day and age, when has lack of time been an issue?
Oh and for the record, I do actually like most of huttdab!
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Right...but as I've said before, many of the artists/albums that have been brought up as a defense of the shorter running time were putting out an album a year.
Lancemc
Blue Crack Addict
...so?
- Status
Similar threads
