Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jaydot]

pulk/pull is bad, but its no transatlantic drawl.  now that's an awful song.  so bad.

also, pablo honey is a great guitar record if you look at it outside of the scope of the rest of the radiohead catalog.


man i haven't listened to ok computer of the bends in too long.  there goes my night!

[KvP]

Am I alone in thinking 'Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors' is a pretty cool song? It's certainly no worse than 'Fitter Happier' and that didn't even come close to ruining OK Computer.

I liked it, but I like bands like Nurse With Wound, so I'm used to that sort of sound. In agreement about "Fitter Happier" as well.

[Hat]

Am I alone in thinking 'Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors' is a pretty cool song? It's certainly no worse than 'Fitter Happier' and that didn't even come close to ruining OK Computer.

Do acid and listen to both those songs and come back and tell me your opinion hasn't changed.

[kablaaamo]

Also, Amnesiac?

I call shennanigans on this statement.  Amnesiac might not have been their best, but it certainly wasn't shitty.

No shenanigans intended. I just could never get into Amnesiac, nor could most of the Radiohead fans I knew at the time. The conclusion that it wasn't very good followed naturally.

[Jolijn]

i just paid 7 pounds! radiohead are guilting me into buying it!

also wtf you only get to download the first disc? is that true? is the second disc b-sides or actually part of the album...

[ScrambledGregs]

1) Pablo Honey is not a shitty album. It is definitely Radiohead's worst album, but it's still not shitty. A good half of it is unmemorable and bland, but it's not shitty.

2) Amnesiac is awesome, and I love 'Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors.' I even have that limited edition of it that came in the form of a small book.

3) Has In Rainbows leaked yet?? j/k

[muteKi]

1) Pablo Honey is not a shitty album. It is definitely Radiohead's worst album, but it's still not shitty. A good half of it is unmemorable and bland, but it's not shitty.

Radiohead suffers from what I call "3D Sonic Syndrome". Because some things associated with the name are very highly esteemed by critics and other people, there's a higher expectation for the quality. As such, when something doesn't deliver on that expectation or be on par with the original, it is considered shitty, even though mediocre would be a more apt term. (I can understand not everyone being into Sonic Heroes, but despite its faults it's mostly a nice game, though progressively more dysfunctional.)

[WriterofAllWrongs]

Pablo Honey was reasonably okay, I think.  Other than Creep and Anyone Can Play Guitar, it was just a different take on the advent of 90's "alt-rock", if not a little sloppily done and pedestrian.  But then again, it was their first album and they didn't have a huge amount of experience with things.

Amnesiac is among my favorite of their albums.  I don't really understand the problem with Pull/Pulk.  It was the same type of song as Kid A, just bass-driven.  The vocal modulation is very nice in my opinion.

On topic: I really want to get my hands on this album, but everything with the downloads and all that is hazy, so I'm just going to wait until December 7th to purchase it, seeing as it would just be easier and more convenient.

[Thrillho]

I'm wealthy enough now to pay the insanely extravagant price for the fancy-Dan, handjob-giving diskbox for £40, sterling.

[zerozero]

This news fills me with happy juices.

And no, not that kind, pervert.

[Joseph]

It's out.  Listening now.

[squawk]

I am going to listen to nothing but this and Sunset Rubdown for the rest of this month. And there is yet another disc! With Last Flowers on it! Oh my.

Here are my first thoughts:
They switched up their style again and it is less in your face than HTTT was.  Very crisp and clean and pretty.  Use of strings and other such arrangements is neat.  Overall it is a well-orchestrated piece of awesome and brilliant.

Eleven thumbs up!

Then again I am just a gigantic fangirl with no critical skills at all so whatever. I LIKE IT

[WriterofAllWrongs]

Man.  I went against what I originally said and got the download (for free, I might add).  Crazy good.  Reminiscent of OK Computer, but carries the technical skills that Radiohead gained through Hail To The Thief and Kid A over with it as well.

I really appreciate the fact that this band has managed to stay relatively fresh their entire career.

[ruyi]

why am i listening to this? honestly i have never listened to radiohead before.

oh well, i am enjoying it.

[undertone]

why am i listening to this? honestly i have never listened to radiohead before.

oh well, i am enjoying it.

better then trying to listen to Amnesiac the first time you really listen to radiohead.

i fucking love this album.

[Hat]

I am looking forward  to dancing spastically to this album.

It's kind of fun at parts, and then just ridiculous Radiohead in others.

It's quite short. I'm interested to see if the second disc is just a bonus disc of things, or a coherent continuation of this album, because this just seems like a bit of a tease to me.

[will: wanton sex god]

Anyone know if thers are any statistical breakdowns of what people ahve been paying, like piecharts or anyhthing?  also how much money its generated in total? i donno what to google.

[Ocarina654]

I'm curious to statistics as well, but I don't know if there would be any way to find out other than to get it from them.

Radiohead has a brilliant strategy here.  I'd bet most people who sorta like their sound (die-hard fans or casual listeners or newcomers), whether they pay for this release or not, will probably want more and will be curious as to the contents of the second disc.  This, then, generates more sales.
I know it's worked on me.  If I had the cash to spare that box-set would be mine, both for the second disc and the vinyl.

About the album: I find it quite good.  However, like Hat said, it is relatively short, and I feel like there should be more to it.

[Ishotdanieljohnston]

I actually am not a fan of long albums. 10 tracks has always been my perfect length. I love this album, i was sceptical at foirst, but it just seems richer and more layered on each listen. There doing things they haven't really played around with before- strings, heavy reverb, layered vocals, and it just sounds great. Also, Jonny Greenwood said in an interview this morning that they'd be finding out how much there'd mad thus far tomorrow morning... but i don't know if this will reach the public.

[valley_parade]

Not really that big of a Radiohead fan, but this album is pretty damn good!

[pat101]

on my first listen I really liked it, very diverse musically which I enjoyed.

and yes it's only in 160, which sucks.

[TheFuriousWombat]

I personally think it's great but I need more listens for it to truly sink in. There's a lot of really excellent tracks on here, however. In regards to the length, it's about a minute shorter than 'OK Computer' and it's longer than 'Amnesiac' and 'Kid A' by about 5 minutes each so it seems to me that the length is fitting. Only 'The Bends' and 'Hail to Thief' are longer and both of those albums have songs which could easily be cut out without hurting, and possibly with improving, upon the album. I really have no idea how long 'Pablo Honey' is.

[Joseph]

Actually, it's the shortest Radiohead album.  Every single other Radiohead album is longer.  I'm not sure how you've been counting album length here.  Amnesiac is close, but is longer by a minute.  Well, if you don't include the acoustic version of 'Creep' on Pablo Honey, then it's a bit shorter, but that's it.

[TheFuriousWombat]

Oh shit, you're right. I was looking at my CD rips on my computer and was looking at bitrates instead of actual album length. My mistake. Either way though, it's only a couple of minutes shorter than most of their other albums. I will admit one more song would have been nice though. It does feel a tiny bit short.

[Thrillho]

Well lucky for me, I'm getting the big-ass version so I'll get a second disc's worth to masturbate over.

However, I'm getting the download for free now anyway. I just can't wait any more, it's been more than four years as it is and they'll get plenty of money from me later.

[ScrambledGregs]

It is a really great album. The lyrics and music aren't as experimental and/or abstract as they have been. A few songs seem to even be simple love songs.

It's kind of like Radiohead figured they have nothing more to prove so they just wrote a great album and didn't worry about trying to ush music forward or continue to surprise.

[Johnny C]

Is there a cutoff date for diskbox orders?

I just need to make sure I can spare the eighty dollars.

[amok]

It does feel a tiny bit short.

This is probably because it's going to be paired with a CD2/2nd LP in the big ol' fat disk box release thing. We're effectively hearing half of the album early.

[ScrambledGregs]

You say "half of the album" but this is the album. All that other stuff was left off for a reason.

That's the fucking problem with CDs. Everybody decided that since they could hold 80ish minutes, then they should. I may be a purist here, but I hate when reissues have all kinds of bonus tracks stuck right after the album ends. They could at least have 30 seconds or so of silence to help you cleanse your palette, y'know??

I guess I place a lot of trust in the band/artist, and that they wanted the album to contain that many songs as a singular piece of art. I think it's why Beck's The Information bothers me, because he's essentially saying "here, you take all these songs and stickers and you decide what the album should be." That's a fun experiment and all, but it ends up making the individual songs better at the expense of watering down the album as a whole.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if your album is longer than 50 minutes, you better have a damn good reason to be that long. Otherwise, split it into two albums.

Which brings us back to Radiohead. I'm almost positive that somewhere they said Kid A and Amnesiac were originally going to be a double album, but decided to split them into two releases after some debate. I agree wholeheartedly with this decision, and it's why I like the idea of them releasing In Rainbows in a lean, pure form and then giving us the option to go whole hog with a disc box. Personally I think it's harder to make a great album that's short than a mediocre album that's long.

[StaedlerMars]

I'm sure tommy ranted about this recently... probably in the 'why aren't hipsters allowed to like cds' thread.

Not that I don't agree. If an album is going to be much longer than 40 minutes, it probably won't have my full attention anyway. I'd probably miss many songs.

I like this album, I haven't given it a proper listen yet (it's longer than 40 minutes) but the first few songs are great. Lots of bass, lots of drum. A lot more electronic. Lots of great bass riffs too.

I also think you need a decenter sound installation than mine to properly enjoy it.

Edit: realized i was responding to the poster above me

[Thrillho]

I've given it one listen and I wasn't terribly impressed. Honestly, it wasn't bad, but I was totally underwhelmed. I think I need to give it a few more listens, but right now...it doesn't feel like it's enough after four and a half years of absence, having led the British music press and fans by the testicles for five straight albums.

[Valrus]

four and a half years of absence

You mean besides the touring.

[muteKi]

You say "half of the album" but this is the album. All that other stuff was left off for a reason.

That's the fucking problem with CDs. Everybody decided that since they could hold 80ish minutes, then they should. I may be a purist here, but I hate when reissues have all kinds of bonus tracks stuck right after the album ends. They could at least have 30 seconds or so of silence to help you cleanse your palette, y'know??

As a collector, I tend to disagree. I like it when old albums get the bonus tracks added. When it comes right down to it, I can change the order and such in playlists and all. I mean, I guess it can totally derail the flow of the album, but I'd rather have them then go all around the world trying to find the B-sides and single remixes that I missed.

In other words YAY MORE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK or something, I think.

[Hat]

The thing about the 80 minutes argument seems a little defunct to me though. Haven't cassettes always held about 90 minutes, 45 on each side? And the idea of the double LP is pretty ancient. And generally the kind of bands that write 80 minute albums are the kind of long rambling pretentious bands that would have done a double LP even if CDs weren't the dominant form of distribution at the time.

Although I agree, seeing a classic album released and then stuffed with outtakes and bonus tracks until its 80 minutes bugs me, I just delete them when I rip them to my computer, and I hardly ever listen to the hard copies.

Anyway, I warmed to in Rainbows at first, although it hasn't really stuck in my mind and made me listen to it over and over again, which may be a good thing. It may be like Hail to the Thief where I'm basically sitting around in six months time, put it on and decide I acutally really fucking love it.

[Johnny C]

Some greatly-expanded reissues are pretty awesome though. I have the expanded Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain and the first chunk of songs on the second disc basically consists of takes of the album with their previous drummer.

The bonus disc for In Rainbows is, from what I understand, just that: a bonus disc. It's not some kind of second half to the record that only TRUE FANS can hear. It's odds and sods. It's things that didn't fit. It's leftovers, extras.

Hence, "bonus."

[Thrillho]

I don't think we can say 80 minutes is always too long any more than we can say 20 minutes is always too short. Albums are albums, and the medium is the medium. There will always be albums that only work as long as that and always be albums that only work as short as that. Tons of double albums work at 80 minutes, so why not a standard album at CD length?

It's an album-to-album thing.

As for bonus tracks - I like them, but I must say it's slightly annoying when they're on the same disc. However I know for a fact alternatives would make it more expensive and all this other bullshit. I mean my copy of Pet Sounds has the whole fucking album on there twice, with a bonus track in the MIDDLE because it's only in mono and mono mix comes first. What the fuck is that all about? However, the alternative would be two discs, which for the collectors would virtually double what they'd end up paying.

[Ishotdanieljohnston]

Radiohead had a list of 16 tracks and culled it down to 10... the bonus disc has these on them and i think i have most of them, like down is the new up... and i really like them.

[Ben yayayayayayayay]

That's the fucking problem with CDs. Everybody decided that since they could hold 80ish minutes, then they should. I may be a purist here, but I hate when reissues have all kinds of bonus tracks stuck right after the album ends. They could at least have 30 seconds or so of silence to help you cleanse your palette, y'know??

Frog Eyes actually did that with their reissue of The Golden River. It really helps to separate the original material from the bonus tracks.

I think I'm saying I agree with you!

[Thrillho]

Am I alone in thinking 'Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors' is a pretty cool song? It's certainly no worse than 'Fitter Happier' and that didn't even come close to ruining OK Computer.

Do acid and listen to both those songs and come back and tell me your opinion hasn't changed.

I'm comfortable making the virtually unfounded blanket statement that any song that can only truly be appreciated while on drugs isn't worth shit.

[Hat]

I don't know if you just didn't understand what I was trying to say there or you are simply agreeing with me.

[Gridgm]

ok so i've never really liked radiohead in the past despite people telling me i should and unsurprizingly to me this album was no exception to that rule

[Thrillho]

I don't know if you just didn't understand what I was trying to say there or you are simply agreeing with me.

I wasn't agreeing with you, but I understood what you said. Your suggestion was that on your particular drug of choice, 'Fitter, Happier' is a better song.

As far as I'm concerned, if you need drugs to truly enjoy a song, that song is virtually worthless.

[Lise]

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but I just had to share the laughs .

Lucid-TV strip titled, "In which Coldplay and Muse steal from Radiohead, one last time."

[Hat]

I wasn't agreeing with you, but I understood what you said. Your suggestion was that on your particular drug of choice, 'Fitter, Happier' is a better song.

You definately completely misunderstood me. What I meant was that they are both harrowing songs that put a feel of unease and uncertainty into an otherwise great album that ruins the experience of being able to enjoy the other songs.

Jeez, stop projecting for a minute and try to read some shit in context or something.

[Tehz]

That comic made me laugh.

Also, I can't stop listening to the new album. I love it.

[normz]

i can tell it is definatly one of those 'will grow on me albums' but then again most of my favourite albums i was kind of lukewarm about on first listen, so i guess only time will tell

[muteKi]

Ahh, thank heavens for torrents... will give a proper listen in a few minutes once everything is done downloading.


EDIT: Listening to the first track. I like quite a bit.

[ScrambledGregs]

I like the album quite a bit, but anyone who says that it's album of the year material is either an idiot or a diehard Radiohead fan who actually shelled out the import money for the Com Lag and My Iron Lung EPs.

[Thrillho]

Ahh, thank heavens for torrents...

Because otherwise you'd need to pay for it? >_>;

[Lexington, 125]

Just giving it a first listen, &  I'm not happy with Nude reworked.  The original version they played like 10 years ago blows it away.... replacing that sweet mini organ tone with more Yorke vocals was just a bad idea.