In Rainbows has got to be a challenge for any musical journalist. Since I am far from a musical journalist (please see all my grammatical errors) I thought I would share my perspective. First off, how can one be objective about an album where people expect so much? These expectations will automatically skew the outcome. I have already read stuff like; “this is nothing new”, “It sounds like amnesiac B-sides”, and “Radiohead lite” I think these are simple canned responses and frankly I fine them lazy. Honestly a band that has worked so hard deserves more or at least an attempt for objectivity.
Whenever I listen to music I try to remember a quote from Michael Stipe that basically said, “good music should require at least 6 or 7 listens” or something to that effect. I think Radiohead have got to be a key example of this. With the exception of Hail to the thief Radiohead spend months in the studio slaving over every detail. Like Leonard Cohen’s lyrics, with Radiohead you feel that ever bar of music was carefully crafted with no song being complete with out the utmost scrutiny. Don’t get me wrong HTTT was an important album for Radiohead. I think of it as their most experimental because they spent so little time to perfect it. To me it’s their punk rock record angry and a little flawed.
Anyway back to in rainbows. I find it interesting that so often we complain about great bands not changing their sound enough. I have already read this about In rainbows. Being a band like Radiohead seems to require constant change to remain a critical darling. Yet, if a band changes to much REM after Berry, then critics complain and then long for the bands past sound. U2 experiments, for a few albums and fall out of critical favour then goes back to the old winning formula and gets praised. My point being, what happened to the idea of taking art and refining it to the point of absolute beauty? I think of the Japanese tea ceremony where every movement is significant, every nuance a part of the beauty. If you listen really closely to In rainbows I think you hear a band that understands this, a band searching for perfection in a the structure of a pop song. In the end the nature of the medium will have its on limitations to me the art is perfecting the sound within that. Radiohead music feels like a Stanly Kubrick movie sometimes antiseptic, abstract, detailed, and challenging. I can imagine Radiohead focusing on one bar of music for hours the way Kubrick would shoot the same door closing 50 times to make sure he got it just right.
All this of rambling and I haven’t even provided an over view of the album track by track. Well it’s not going to happen to paraphrase Thom “Radiohead albums are meant to be listened to in their entirety” Instead of rating this album with a number which means nothing (because one I am not a journalist and two I cannot be objective its radiohead after all) I will share with you how I felt listening to the album. The album felt warm, rich, intoxicating and truly satisfying. Radiohead seems to understand the art of contrast better then any band. Often the songs sound beautiful, yet are very dark in content. If I where to close my eyes and picture what Radiohead’s sound looks like, I would say it would look “pretty as a mushroom cloud.”
