[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulb09 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As to if they are the new Coldplay, I'd say no.

But what's your opinion of In Rainbows, not Radiohead in general? That's really what the post was about. As a Coldplay fan, don't you hear the comparison in Weird Fishes/Arpeggi?

 

[Sarchi]

Is it just that song, or is there some bigger comparison thing going on here?

I only know the Coldplay stuff that gets radio airplay..not my cuppa joe. I seriously doubt they've ever written anything approaching the caliber of songs like Nude or Reckoner.

 

[wower]

I can't believe I missed this thread. I don't know if they are the new Coldplay but I have a feeling it either doesn't matter or I don't care. In Rainbows is a great album. A couple of tracks stood out at first and on repeated listenings all but a 2 tracks showed themselves to be radiohead masterpieces. IR really puts RH's last three albums in perspective; I liked them but IR is so much more relaxed and free. I really like it and respect you if you disagree. I want to crack up ALL I NEED!

 

[Ingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarchi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it just that song, or is there some bigger comparison thing going on here? I only know the Coldplay stuff that gets radio airplay..not my cuppa joe. I seriously doubt they've ever written anything approaching the caliber of songs like Nude or Reckoner.

In your opinion, of course?

And if you've only heard radio singles of a band, why even comment on a comparison? Are Radiohead's singles indicative of their greatest work?

 

[rhythmdevils]

I think in rainbows is a brilliant album. And I think it is very inventive. They are trying something new- maybe not the direction some wanted them to go in- but it is something new for them. and that is what being a musician or an artist is all about. Let's add a little of this and see what happens. They can't be inventive, and be exactly what we all expected at the same time. They could probably make another kida or ok computer, but who needs that? we've already been listening to that for years.

 

[XxATOLxX]

I like all three of Coldplay's cds and the three have spent a considerable amount of time on my play list. For reason, I can't stand the sound of Thom Yorke's voice. I think Radiohead's music itself is great, but when Yorke starts singing it just ruins the whole song.

 

[Mercuttio]

The question is whether or not you have listened to the album in its entirety. Disc 1 and Disc 2. If someone tells me that they don't feel In Rainbows Disc One isn't complete or is lacking a biting edge, well, I'm inclined to agree with them. The best albums have a story in their subtext, but often feel wrong when you finish early or take certain parts out of context. Treefingers on Kid A is an excellent example. I'm not going to listen to it alone, but as a buffer between the chilling "How to Disappear" and the chugging "Optimistic" it is entirely essential.

In Rainbows is about context. A slow build to Videotape and euphoria, then the disintegration into Four Minute Warning. I tend to think of it as a relationship. Through the process of falling in love, you have the general sugar spiced with the occasional spike on Disc 1. At the close, the protagonist is in love and claims to be ready to face death. Everybody is ready for the end when they feel fulfilled.

Disc 2 pulls back from Videotape's immediacy and degenerates into the haunting Four Minute Warning. Alone and cold, the protagonist is faced with real death (the onset of nuclear war) and faces it with denial and fear. This may actually be precisely why I enjoy Disc 2 more. In the same way that OK Computer gives you a deep feeling of unrest, Disc 2 undoes the laces of Disc 1 and leaves you bare and exposed. Disc 1 isn't as good without Disc 2, and vice versa. It's a complete journey. That's the Radiohead I know and love.

As a complete experience, In Rainbows has been a return to the complex album experience that I missed from the days of OK Computer and Kid A. While my assessment of the actual meaning may or may not be correct, the build up and tear down over the two discs seems fairly reasonable.

And no, I don't see Coldplay pulling off anything even remotely similar.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercuttio /img/forum/go_quote.gif The question is whether or not you have listened to the album in its entirety. Disc 1 and Disc 2.

It only came with 1 disc, so that's all I've listened to.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think in rainbows is a brilliant album. And I think it is very inventive. They are trying something new- maybe not the direction some wanted them to go in- but it is something new for them.

Well, we're obviously pretty far apart on that issue since I don't think it is very inventive or something new, in fact one of the reasons it has been such a big seller and topped the charts in the US and UK and many other countries is the familiarity many feel with it. I gave a copy to my workmate to try out since we had talked about their distribution news back in October, and he liked it a lot on first listen, no Radiohead experience before, said it reminds him of a classic rock sound. Which is fine, different perspective maybe, but I think in the end most people really enjoy the record.

But all that aside, I just think some of the songs are a bit on the bland side. I understand some of you don't feel that way, but that's good. That's what I wanted to hear, along with some passionate talk. The Coldplay comparison was of course mainly to add a bit of spark to the discussion, since they were often described as Radiohead-lite in the past, so don't take it too seriously. There has been a lot of attention focused on Coldplay's upcoming record, and talk about some kind of novel distro plan, be interesting to see what happens with it. There aren't many hugely popular britpop bands like Radiohead and Coldplay anymore, though as I said in the original post, I don't see Coldplay moving much beyond where they started.

Good thread folks, how often do we get to talk seriously about a Billboard number 1 record around here, and have most people love it? And I do agree with everyone who has said that it does get better with each listen. Some nuances do become more apparent, and the flow feels better.

 

[Mercuttio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davey /img/forum/go_quote.gif It only came with 1 disc, so that's all I've listened to.

I strongly suggest tracking down the second disc in the discbox if you can. It really completes the experience. My understanding of its existence (based on interviews) is this: Radiohead made an album that was too long, and split it after Videotape because it was a natural end before the downward spiral of disc 2.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercuttio /img/forum/go_quote.gif I strongly suggest tracking down the second disc in the discbox if you can. It really completes the experience.

Yea, thanks, I probably will at some point after getting the complete feel for this first one. It is a good CD, overall. But just for some of you that think the somewhat tongue-in-cheek Coldplay comparison was totally out of left field, just did a sanity check at AMG, and here's a few words from one of the founders, and one of the best rock writers out there ...

Reviewby Stephen Thomas Erlewine

After Radiohead stubbornly refused to accept the mantle of world's biggest and most important rock band by releasing the willfully strange rocktronica fusion Kid A in 2000, Coldplay stepped up to the plate with their debut, Parachutes. Tasteful, earnest, introspective, anthemic, and grounded in guitars, the British quartet was everything Radiohead weren't but what the public wanted them to be, and benefited from the Oxford quintet's decision to abandon rock stardom for arcane art rock. Parachutes became a transatlantic hit and 2002's sequel, A Rush of Blood to the Head, consolidated their success by being bigger and better than Parachutes, positioning Coldplay to not be just the new Radiohead, but the new U2: a band that belongs to the world but whose fans believe that the music is for them alone.

 

[rhythmdevils]

what do you mean "in the discbox"?

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

I think that means you get the second cd if you bought the discbox with the LP.

 

[paulb09]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davey /img/forum/go_quote.gif But what's your opinion of In Rainbows, not Radiohead in general? That's really what the post was about. As a Coldplay fan, don't you hear the comparison in Weird Fishes/Arpeggi?

In Rainbows compared to what Coldplay album, or even song, in that case? Whilst it's similar music, there is still even enough difference to class Parachutes and X&Y somewhat apart on Coldplay's side. It's not the same material.

 

[Brian loves music]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yea, thanks, I probably will at some point after getting the complete feel for this first one. It is a good CD, overall. But just for some of you that think the somewhat tongue-in-cheek Coldplay comparison was totally out of left field, just did a sanity check at AMG, and here's a few words from one of the founders, and one of the best rock writers out there ... Reviewby Stephen Thomas Erlewine After Radiohead stubbornly refused to accept the mantle of world's biggest and most important rock band by releasing the willfully strange rocktronica fusion Kid A in 2000, Coldplay stepped up to the plate with their debut, Parachutes. Tasteful, earnest, introspective, anthemic, and grounded in guitars, the British quartet was everything Radiohead weren't but what the public wanted them to be, and benefited from the Oxford quintet's decision to abandon rock stardom for arcane art rock. Parachutes became a transatlantic hit and 2002's sequel, A Rush of Blood to the Head, consolidated their success by being bigger and better than Parachutes, positioning Coldplay to not be just the new Radiohead, but the new U2: a band that belongs to the world but whose fans believe that the music is for them alone.

looks like the reviewer is comparing coldplay to radiohead pre-Kid A. Even limiting radiohead to these first three albums, I think they are very unlike coldplay. OK computer and the bends are so much more realized/ developed sonically.

You seem to comparing radiohead in general/their new album to coldplay which is in my opinion very inaccurate. If you think the new album is lacking, give it another listen and I think you might like it more. I really have grown to like it a lot, and it took a while cause (as you can tell) i'm a big radiohead fan and I needed to get past all the anticipation to really listen critically. It's meloncoly/passive aggresive (very bad adjectives to describe the record I know), on the surface seems like the record is just ok. Once it sucks you in though...

This is just how I see it though, i'm glad to see that you're not pushing your views but rather looking for a dialouge. In a lot of the gear threads people get really offended if you propose a different/radical idea, i've found.