Conrad Blog:

Why It's So Hard To Write About Radiohead

Radiohead's newest album "In Rainbows" has been "out" (if you can call it that, considering that there has been NO promotion other than word-of-mouth for the record, and it's not actually sold in any stores) for a little under three days now, and the reviews are piling in. Being the huge fan that I am, I of course have to read all of them. I've been doing this for years now, and I've noticed a trend: Radiohead are an impossible band to write about.

First of all, let's acknowledge what we're dealing with as a starting point... People writing about music is famously said to be like dancing about politics. It is a mismatch of mediums, which is probably why the writing has been reduced to "i like this, it is good" rather than actually cutting deep into any of it. Many of the rock world's writers are no the Bard, either, and this just adds to the problem. Heck, many of the rock world's writers get simple musical stuff (like what time signature a song is in, for example) just plain wrong. We are indeed looking through a glass dimly.

That applies to all music reviews, and yet writing about Radiohead seems harder. There are a number of reasons for this...

First of all, every single review (even from music magazines) that I have so far read about the album spent OVER HALF the review talking about the cool little trick radiohead played with the "pay what you think it is worth" business model. This is neet, and if there was ever any doubt that radiohead are a socially conscious band that cares deeply about the music, there isn't anymore, after they stuck their money where their mouth is. Incidentally, they aren't going broke off this. I heard a report this morning that they've had 1.2 million downloads already. For a reference, consider that John Mayer's strong effort CONTINUUM has not sold that many yet. Consider that Mayer's album has been out many, many times the 3-day length that In Rainbows has been out. Radiohead reports that over 2/3 of the downloaders have paid an average of $10 for the record. With the massively-reduced overhead they are enjoying by being free of a label, it is not hard to do the math and see that they will not need to he clipping coupons any time soon.

And there I go, starting my "review" off with economics talk. I had to address it, but it IS hard to resist the urge to ramble.

Radiohead's music, even for a die-hard fan like myself, is not easily grasped at first. I've listened to the album probably about ten times now, and I'm still getting used to it and finding things that I love. On first listen, its not typically gonna give you the same kind of immediate "pretty song" feelings that a lot of bands do, which is precisely why 1997's ok computer is still a freaking great album. They age well.

But that's also a problem for rock critics. Especially with EVERYONE on the planet having to wait to the same day to hear the songs, reviewers had to stay up late and get in a scant few listens before firing off their reviews to their editors. For a band that makes such beautiful, foreign music, this certainly doesn't make the critics job any easier.

Of course the obvious point here is that Radiohead makes "Wierd" music. The easies trend to spot while reading a conglomeration of reviews is that the same track that magazine X thinks is an absolute low-point, website Y thinks is the very best on the track. Or of the whole band. Half the rock world thinks radiohead's music is ALWAYS brash, depressing - the other half thinks its the most life-affirming music out there. The Guardian review claims that they have had a "consistent album" since OK COMPUTER, but the wide consensus is that KID A is a "concept album," and a successful one at that - by definition it would need to be consistent. So I hear that "All I Need" drags. Then I hear its one of their best tracks. You can listen to any of these people because, with Radiohead, you are so far outside of the realm of preference that its pointless to mention it.

There are other reasons why its hard to write about radiohead. Thom sorta has "press moodswings." They are judicious with their communication at times. They only put out an album every few years, it seems. They seem to conform to a non-Russion version of the Holy Fool, speaking in all kinds of nonsense, yet truthful nonsense. Lets just say there are a lot of reasons Radiohead reviews are usually pretty poor reflections of the thing itself.

That said, here's my brief summation:

WOW - poppy? At least it would be poppy, if it weren't for all the wierd dronging happening everywhere. But this album has the best use of strings I think I have ever heard. Johnny learned some serious stuff since HTTT. And they are EVERYWHERE! Its glorious. (they claim they are influenced by Berlioz, and since Johnny is actually a Composer-in-Residence, it probably is not a facetious claim). Really, really good feeling songs, more present sounds than usual, and what may really blow you away is the energy in the songs. Wow. Anyway, I love it, and the first time I heard the song "Nude" i thought "Finally - 'somewhere over the rainbow' has some competition for the best song of the 20th century."

And then I realized this is the 21st century, a fact that Thom later confirmed on "Jigsaw Falling Into Place."