MUSIC: Radiohead’s In Rainbows

A quick guide to In Rainbows.

I like Radiohead. “Creep” was a fluke that would have, no, should have been a footnote in pop music history. It’s a silly piece of mopery, with an unironically majestic chorus that caught the ear of the mainstream. Unfortunately, these guys are “smart” – something that is deadly in their chosen profession.

And that’s the tragedy of popular music: If it weren’t for “Creep” somehow seeping into the American mainstream these poor “chaps” would’ve never had the chance to grow – and growth is essential to all important and relevant art. The remainder of Pablo Honey is sub-standard, The Bends is adequate at best, but the formulaic depression of “Fake Plastic Trees” and the MTV friendly video with it’s silly anti-consumerist stance helped Radiohead beat the odds of fading into oblivion. They scored just enough hipster popularity to stay relevant long enough to record OK Computer, and it isn’t until then that they really make an original mark.

OK Computer is basically lauded by every critic in the world as the second coming, and generally they’re right. So once you live up to the hype, what happens next? They put out Kid A in an attempt to find an identity, all the while knowing you’ll never live up to your previous success. They put out Amnesiac saying “Hey, man, it’s b-sides.” But then your real slump is Hail to the Thief. I can’t even begin to go into what a schizophrenic morass that one is. [ed. note – I agree 100%, HTTT is so terrible that playing it at someone should be considered a war crime. Perhaps the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay should use it frequently.] After that your lead singer decides to sequester himself with a laptop and a microphone and vomit out a solo record with bleeps and farts.

Time passes, Yorke returns, Greenwood does a soundtrack, and Radiohead has fulfilled they’re obligation to the big bad record company which is supposedly a sign of hope. A few new songs leak out live, and they serve up In Rainbows. When I first hear the title I think “if this doesn’t suck I’ll be surprised.” Then I hear that they’re going
to release it “on the internet” and that you could “pay what you want.” So then I think “if this doesn’t suck I’ll be surprised.” They put out a bunch of YouTube videos, blah, blah, blah…

All this is bullshit – totally superfluous – a great “marketing ploy.” And all the history is bullshit, too. The question is: “Is the music good?”

Here’s the deal with Radiohead 2008 – they are incredible musicians. They are incredible song arrangers. They are incredibly smart, and they are finding a real, unique identity and voice. A niche, if you will. It’s not the second coming all over again, but they have made a record that is strong, textured, occasionally soulful, and almost always beautiful. But they still are pretentious bastards who have their heads just far enough up their own asses that they can’t leave the mediocre ones off the record and then sequence it correctly.

So, yeah, it’s good.

But you have to do a little work. As I said, I like Radiohead, but I couldn’t get into this record until I figured out what was holding me back. First, you have to ignore the titles of the songs. They took to this semi-retarded naming scheme on Hail to the Thief and some of it seeps through here. Then you have to start with #4 “Weird Fishes/Arpeggi”, skip “Faust Arp” (see what I mean about the names?), then play through the rest of the record. After you’ve become thoroughly familiar with that sequence, play the first 2 (which means skip “Nude,” too). Eventually, you’ll come to start at the beginning and simply skip 2 and 6. Too esoteric? Well, that’s what happened to me.

I can nearly guarantee that they’ll come out with a ‘b-sides’ companion. We can fill in the blanks then.

If you like Radiohead, In Rainbows has the gold, but ya gotta mine it.