Radiohead: In Rainbows

I may well be the last person on earth to review In Rainbows, but what can I say? It took me a while to find a toehold. The first few listens seemed to whiz by, with little repetition and, for lack of a better adjective, a lot of sound. This album is produced to within an inch of its life. Only in the first minute of “15 Step” does it feel like there is any air in the record, as Thom Yorke sings over the shifting drum n bass–influenced percussion. Once Johnny Greenwood’s guitar comes in, this album gets busy—as in, there is constantly, constantly something going on. Strings, samples, washes of synthesizer or guitar, bass punching in and out. Each song is sonically nimble, with fluid production: but the effect is that the dynamics are washed out. There is not an ounce of silence from the first note of “15 Step” to the last of “Videotape.”

Instead, the peaks and valleys of the album are only found in the whole—this song is high-energy, that song lethargic, that one languid. No individual song seems to explore more than one area (like, say, “Paranoid Android” does). Only after repeated listens did my ears break through all the aural wallpaper to grasp that there was more structure to each song than first perceived. In “Bodysnatchers,” for instance, Yorke sings in a verse-chorus-verse arc but the guitars don’t follow. Instead they take a riff—one that wouldn’t be out of place on a Pearl Jam record, incidentally—and let it mutate from beginning to end, linearly. Similar approaches to pop song structure abound—the band may nod to a hook, but they’re just as likely to look the other way.

Yet, in the context of Radiohead’s discography, In Rainbows is decidedly not experimental. They squeeze curious noises from their equipment and show total disregard for pop, but neither trait seems to be their intent (as it was on, say, “Like Spinning Plates” or “Kid A”). Those sounds and structures are now utterly integrated into their arsenal, so the band is putting them to new uses; they are applying their sonic aesthetic to new emotional territories. Gone is the paranoia of the last four albums. And that’s probably for the best; to remain out on the bleeding edge of dread would have made In Rainbows stale, if not a self-parody.

By choosing to branch out in this way—in tone, not in sound—Radiohead are rewriting their own history. The band’s notoriety is based upon their trilogy of game-changing albums: The Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A. What other band took such giant steps between every album? Radiohead have been so successful at pushing their envelope that anything less than complete redefinition might be viewed as failure. But that was the first half of their career. This century the band seems to have settled into a much more typical trajectory. Everything after Kid A has been a refinement, a soft exploration of an overall aesthetic. Radiohead are one of the few bands—maybe the only band—to blend electronica and rock so deftly that the end result is neither. In Rainbows finds that integration at its most organic: it’s not too electronic, like Kid A, and not too rockish, like Hail to the Thief.

Most interesting, the longer Radiohead remain in this aesthetic territory, the less OK Computer feels like the bridge from The Bends to Kid A. As Radiohead 2.0 evolves, OK Computer’s sonic resemblance to The Bends becomes more and more apparent, while its thematic similarities to Kid A and hints of the experimentalism to come seem almost quaint. Although In Rainbows is not, on its own, nearly as satisfying as OK Computer, it does re-locate that album on the band’s overall trajectory. Radiohead seems to be finished taking giant steps from album to album. If that really is so, then the post-Kid A output is poised to dwarf the classics that came prior.

Comments

[OKUdooder]

dum review lol

[james]

whats up

[lifeistao]

I don't know, I think you analyze too much, it really took away enjoying In Rainbow for what it is, inviting yourself to their world.

According to your review of "sound and song", I think In Rainbow has just the balance.

I'm a backward Radiohead fan. I became their fan when I first heard In Rainbow, then I backtracked all their older albums. I love almost all of their albums, except I don't have "Pablo Honey" & "Amnesiac". I fall in love with In Rainbow, then I got "OK Computer". I thought I didn't like it as much as In Rainbow, guess what, it grew on me. Their music is amazingly saturated in layers, never gets boring.

When you mentioned "but the effect is that the dynamics are washed out". Forgive them for growing older and maturer, "dynamics" may not be the first thing in their mind now.

Oh, not to mention Kid A! ;-)

I love Radiohead's music and their spirit, not afraid of changing or stick around enjoying what they've already built and have.

[lifeistao]

"Oh, not to mention Kid A! ;-)"

Supposed to be placed at the end of comment.

[lifeistao]

Sorry, my superstition just kicked in, need to take this back by saying "never gets boring", for my love of Radiohead. ;-)