The King of Limbs

February 14, 2011 4:30 AM

Once again, Radiohead give the music industry a monkey rub by announcing today that their next record - 'The King of Limbs' - is complete and will be available for download in less than 1 week's time. This time with Prix Fixe pre-order.
posted by robself (253 comments total)

Oh yes, I forgot to add, the physical version will be 'The World's First Newspaper Album' including:

-Two clear 10" vinyl records in a purpose-built record sleeve.
-A compact disc.
-Many large sheets of artwork, 625 tiny pieces of artwork and a full-colour piece of oxo-degradeable plastic to hold it all together.

And will cost 40 dollars more than the download.
posted by robself at 4:33 AM on February 14, 2011

Don't insult monkeys like that.
posted by item at 4:34 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't pay for digital music - is it normal for .wav files to be more expensive than mp3's?
posted by item at 4:37 AM on February 14, 2011

They burned me with that In Rainbows thing. I'm going to want to hear this one, first.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:41 AM on February 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

Interesting ...

MP3 version is a 320K constant bit rate file.

above 2/3 price of below

WAV version is a full CD quality uncompressed digital audio file.

Physical CD me up please .... convenient portable hardware back up, they may sit in my spare room, but they are mine forever, bwahahaha

Aside, does house insurance cover the loss of 'data'? My searches seem to suggest it doesn't.
posted by fistynuts at 4:45 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

They burned me with that In Rainbows thing. I'm going to want to hear this one, first.

You're kidding right? In Rainbows was incredible.
posted by splatta at 4:48 AM on February 14, 2011 [52 favorites]

Radiohead give the music industry a monkey rub

You mean they're doing this?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:49 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm down between the sheets, I do the monkey rub
I'm down between the sheets, I do the monkey rub, mama
I'm down between the sheets, I do the monkey rub

- Tim Buckley
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:51 AM on February 14, 2011

No, my musical taste is better than yours.
posted by John Cohen at 4:55 AM on February 14, 2011

They burned me with that In Rainbows thing. I'm going to want to hear this one, first.

Yeah, the Beatles burned me on Revolver. I was all like, "A nickel! Well, OK but this shit better be good," and they're all complaining about their taxes.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:59 AM on February 14, 2011 [28 favorites]

Physical CD me up please .... convenient portable hardware back up, they may sit in my spare room, but they are mine forever, bwahahaha

Yeah, I really want to go to a physical store, not find the CD I'm looking for and wind up buying one I didn't want, get a CD out of its case every time I want to play it, have it foul up inside my CD drive, get it scratched and have to replace it, and have them cluttering up my house.

I haven't bought a new CD in at least a couple of years. I don't think I'll ever feel the urge to buy one again unless it's a rare album I can't find any other way or unless it's a gift for somebody.

Aside, does house insurance cover the loss of 'data'? My searches seem to suggest it doesn't.

So home insurance is going to help you replace that irreplaceable one-of-a-kind physical CD you lost in the fire or that got scratched in your car stereo and became unplayable? Interesting.
posted by blucevalo at 5:00 AM on February 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

So no "pay as much as you want" pricing for this release? Although $9 seems like a reasonable price for 320K BPS MP3s.
posted by octothorpe at 5:01 AM on February 14, 2011

LOLSHINYMEDIA
posted by splatta at 5:01 AM on February 14, 2011

Wait... Radiohead is still around?

Wait... the music industry is still around?
posted by delmoi at 5:02 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Wait... delmoi is still around?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:04 AM on February 14, 2011 [58 favorites]

Look, I even googled it and everything (so don't bother googling it for me), but I'm still don't have a clue what a monkey rub is. Can anyone explain it so I can get over this derail and concentrate on the thread at hand? This is already turning out to be a distraction on par with taters.
posted by barnacles at 5:05 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I heard this new album is just ten trance remixes of Creep.
posted by item at 5:05 AM on February 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

They burned me with that In Rainbows thing.

Wha? You did click the link yeah?
posted by the noob at 5:06 AM on February 14, 2011

You're kidding right? In Rainbows was incredible.

It didn't float my boat. I had Ok Computer and The Bends, which are pretty melodic, and organized along normal song structure, so I guess I had preconceptions, which is really my problem. I've given it the old college try several times, and it just makes me wistful for the albums of theirs I do like. I think it's pretty cool that they're auguring their fame In a way that allows for unconventional distribution
methods, and I'd like to support them with that. Last time though, I ponied up without having heard a note out of general enthusiasm for the independent distribution thing. I should have been a bit more circumspect.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:06 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh Radiohead. I am such a masochist for you. I will never quit you, darlings.
posted by Windigo at 5:08 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is already turning out to be a distraction on par with taters.

Well, I'm definitely not going to mention monkey taters, then.
posted by robself at 5:08 AM on February 14, 2011

blucevalue, I'm guessing amazon doesn't deliver to the planet you are on?

Also, given your high pressure employment as a web snarker you are probably too time pressed to put it in the cd tray for ripping to your NAS ready for streaming ito your valve amp?
posted by fistynuts at 5:10 AM on February 14, 2011

Everybody's got something to rub, 'cept for me and my monkey.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:11 AM on February 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

But seriously, are .wav files usually more expensive than mp3's? My monkey wants to know.
posted by item at 5:12 AM on February 14, 2011

It didn't float my boat. I had Ok Computer and The Bends...

While both of those albums are great*, you skipped over 3 albums and 10 years. Most bands can't keep making the same sort of music without stagnating greatly.

*I generally advise people unfamiliar with Radiohead to skip Pablo Honey. The album's pretty much forgettable aside from "Creep," which everyone's heard. The band came into its own starting with The Bends.
posted by explosion at 5:12 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

In Rainbows was incredible.

It's easily my favorite album of theirs or at least I've listened to OK Computer so much that I don't really need to hear it again for a long time.
posted by octothorpe at 5:12 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why so greedy, Radiohead? If I can't get your music for free then you can keep it. I don't like your stuff anyways, it's not like you're Phil Collins.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:13 AM on February 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

This is already turning out to be a distraction on par with taters

Taters are shorthand for the common mispronunciation of mashed potatoes (pronounced mashed pa-tate-ers, or just taters for short).

I believe monkey rub refers to less aggressive handling of one's monkey. Less aggressive than, say, spanking.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:15 AM on February 14, 2011

But seriously, are .wav files usually more expensive than mp3's? My monkey wants to know.


Yes. Although the format of choice varies - I see FLAC as often as I see WAV.
posted by mykescipark at 5:16 AM on February 14, 2011

After seeing them a couple dozen times in concert, I am SO IN, that I preordered the WAV files. If I had lots of spare cash floating around, I'd happily go for the whole box set.

Music is a subjective taste, obviously, but as a lifelong musician, audio geek and rockhead, I can easily say that this is the best collection of talking monkeys playing music together on this planet - assuming you appreciate musical integrity - and a new album, sold directly to their fans, FUCK THE MUSIC INDUSTRY, is a Big Deal.

Normally, I detest Valentine's Day, but on this one, I feel like a fulfilled lover.
posted by dbiedny at 5:17 AM on February 14, 2011

you skipped over 3 albums and 10 years. Most bands can't keep making the same sort of music without stagnating greatly.

I understand that and heartily agree. Some career arcs just arc away from me, I guess.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:19 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

my baby don't like rock and roll
my baby don't like dub
and she don't like no Radiohead
but she sure loves the monkey rub

she don't listen to R&B
or no Irish, down at the pub
and she can't stand no Radiohead
but she sure loves the monkey rub
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:22 AM on February 14, 2011 [8 favorites]

...still don't have a clue what a monkey rub is.

It's just a common mispronunciation, here in Japan, of "monkey love".
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:27 AM on February 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

I really like the way they're cutting down on the waiting around: By selling it digitally only they don't need to deal with as many middlemen, risk as much piracy and so on. It'd be nice to be able to download it today, but I guess there are reasons to wait (see the potential demand, make sure the servers won't crash on Saturday, I guess)

Lady Gaga did the same thing on Friday when she announced the release of Born This Way together with a link to iTunes to download it immediately. It's now the fastest selling single ever on iTunes.
posted by DanCall at 5:33 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

I assume a monkey rub is something like a dutch rub or a noogie. In fact, I see "Monkey Scrub" as another term, so case closed.
posted by DU at 5:38 AM on February 14, 2011

THOSE GUYS!

Man, remember when Ed was all, "The album's almost finished!" and then everyone else in the band was like, "Oh, that's a translation error! It's not almost finished!"

It was totally almost finished.

I bought the deluxe set for In Rainbows, but I have to admit that I just don't listen to the record that much... 4 different sides for one album is quite a hassle.
posted by muddgirl at 5:40 AM on February 14, 2011

I bought the special edition of Kid A the morning it came out--then I went back that evening and bought a regular copy because it had that extra book of artwork hidden under the CD tray. Bought the special editions of Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief as well. I was incredibly excited about them releasing In Rainbows on their own... then I saw how much the special edition was going to cost and the wind went out of my sails. So I got the digital download, lost it when my computer crashed, never bothered to buy the regular ed. CD and since then I haven't been as excited for a new album as I have in the past. Which is to say nothing about how much I like In Rainbows--I think it's a really good album and "All I Need" is my jam. I'm not sure what accounts for this, but I guess not having much disposable income trumps my object fetishism. I sure wish I could justify dropping fifty bucks on an album, but I cannot. Looking forward to hearing it anyway.
posted by Maaik at 5:40 AM on February 14, 2011

risk as much piracy

Other than eliminating the half hour or so it would have taken someone to rip their CD and put it up in a torrent, I don't see how selling only digitally will affect piracy at all.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:42 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Other than eliminating the half hour or so it would have taken someone to rip their CD and put it up in a torrent, I don't see how selling only digitally will affect piracy at all.

I don't think it's so much the medium as it is keeping it under their hat until the week before the release date. With no advance copies sent to label suits and radio stations and record stores months before it drops, there is less opportunity for it to leak. If the album just sat on Thom Yorke's hard drive until they sent it to get pressed, there's far less opportunity for pre-sale piracy.
posted by Maaik at 5:49 AM on February 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

barnacles: "This is already turning out to be a distraction on par with taters."

Why, I believe you may have inadvertently offered a humorous tagline for Metafilter itself, old chap!

item: "But seriously, are .wav files usually more expensive than mp3's? My monkey wants to know."

I think it's common to offer a more expensive version with higher quality. I'm a little skeptical that anyone can hear a difference in quality between uncompressed WAVs and 320 Kbps MP3s, but I don't have the best ears myself so I'm not judging.

Incidentally, iTunes used to have tiered downloads like this, but switched to offering just the higher bitrate with no DRM. Check out this allegedly Frequently Asked question after they made the switch:

Can I still buy music encoded at 128 Kbps with Digital Rights Management (DRM)?
Music on the Store available in iTunes Plus will no longer be available as 128 kbps and with DRM.

There must be someone out there who was terribly disappointed ...
posted by jhc at 5:49 AM on February 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

I could be completely wrong about this, but I don't think it's possible to embed metadata in a .wav file. So there may be that.
posted by Maaik at 5:51 AM on February 14, 2011

@Joe Beese - Well, they don't need to send it out to pressing plants and so on, which minimised the chances of it getting into the wrong hands long before physical copies hit the shelves.

Music measurement company Big Champagne, and the music news site Digital Music News have listed lots of examples of artists like Timbaland, Mariah Carey and Dave Matthews Band having their albums available online over a week before they're in the shops.
posted by DanCall at 5:56 AM on February 14, 2011

I don't think it's possible to embed metadata in a .wav file.

What about those 70s songs where you play them backwards and you hear them telling us to worship the devil? Wikipedia says: "Metadata is defined as data providing information about one or more aspects of the data, such as: 'Purpose of the data'." Purpose = go worship the devil, so I guess that's metadata.
posted by crapmatic at 6:03 AM on February 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

@Joe Beese - Well, they don't need to send it out to pressing plants and so on

How do you think records are made?

Also: Am I really the only person who thinks paying $9 for a CD without getting an actual CD is absurd?
posted by Jairus at 6:05 AM on February 14, 2011

I am so in. Made my day to know a new Radiohead album is on the way.
posted by arcticseal at 6:07 AM on February 14, 2011 [4 favorites]

lots of examples of artists like Timbaland, Mariah Carey and Dave Matthews Band having their albums available online over a week before they're in the shops.

Indeed, it was those insane, never-ending melismas of Mariah Carey that clogged up the intertubes so badly a few months back. I couldn't get any emails in or out for 5 days at least.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:11 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Other than eliminating the half hour or so it would have taken someone to rip their CD and put it up in a torrent, I don't see how selling only digitally will affect piracy at all.

I think the theory is that many people use torrents because it's the easy way to get music in the format (digital) in which they will use it. It's not so much about the content being free, as it is the convenience of being able to download the music directly to their computer/mp3 player, etc. rather than having to go out and get the CD and then having the hassle of ripping it. By providing a legal download of digital files, you convert those specific downloaders into paying customers instead.
posted by gemmy at 6:12 AM on February 14, 2011

That said, it's quite difficult actually paying for it. How long will it be before it settles down and I can actually get through to the shop?

I love the fact that the physical copy is vinyl.
posted by Grangousier at 6:12 AM on February 14, 2011

Also: Am I really the only person who thinks paying $9 for a CD without getting an actual CD is absurd?

Not anymore - it's not a CD, it's an mp3 album and it's generally a dollar a song, with a slight discount for the buying the whole album. I think the cheapest I regularly find on Amazon is $5-6 an album.

Of course, $14 for an uncompressed WAV is exactly the same price as a CD release would be, without the CD.
posted by muddgirl at 6:13 AM on February 14, 2011

Also: How do you think records are made?

The records won't ship until May (can't verify the exact date - looks like the site is being bombarded), so it's quite likely that they won't even start the pressings until the digital albums are already released.
posted by muddgirl at 6:15 AM on February 14, 2011

Of course, $14 for an uncompressed WAV is exactly the same price as a CD release would be, without the CD.

Which kind of seems like a big 'fuck you' to the group's fans.
posted by item at 6:19 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

oxo-degradeable

Does that mean if you dip it in oxo, it melts? What about Marmite? What about normal gravy?

(As soon as I complained, then next attempt to load the page got through. Pre-ordered and everything. I'm such a Radiohead tart, I am.)
posted by Grangousier at 6:19 AM on February 14, 2011

Am I really the only person who thinks paying $9 for a CD without getting an actual CD is absurd?

This is only absurd when DRM is an issue. If I download a DRM'd game or whatever and then my computer dies, where am I? I'd like a physical CD. But when there's no DRM, you can make your own CDs as backups.

How I wish I could do this with my Wii discs. My kids have scratched up so many that I've run out of superlatives with which to exaggerate it.
posted by DU at 6:22 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

So the conclusion here is that if you're a big enough act to be able to charge fifty three dollars for your shit, you don't really need a big publishing industry.

The response that comes to mind is, "No shit."
posted by valkyryn at 6:26 AM on February 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Am I really the only person who thinks paying $9 for a CD without getting an actual CD is absurd?

Increasingly, people will pay $9 for the luxury of not having a physical disc to dispose of.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:34 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Dammit, now I've got a song stuck in my head: it's the Supremes' Baby Love, but, of course, they're singing "monkey rub, my monkey rub..."
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:37 AM on February 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

Increasingly, people will pay $9 for the luxury of not having a physical disc to dispose of.

There are people who throw out brand new 9$ cd's? Can you give them my address?
posted by fistynuts at 6:42 AM on February 14, 2011

Man, the Radioheads have been into this alternate distribution chain since much farther back than In Rainbows. I got Kid A on CD for $8, from a 4 foot tall elderly Asian lady with shopping bags full of CD's, in some awful bar (La Linea?) on the lower East side. I think I also got a Sade disc, but I lost it that same night. I was pretty drunk.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:45 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Someone needs to explain how this is giving the music industry the "monkey rub" (whatever that means). Has the industry been somehow bypassed with this release? And more importantly, if the music industry weasels aren't getting their usual bloated cut of this, why does it still cost 14 dollars?
posted by rocket88 at 6:47 AM on February 14, 2011

Does the choice of .WAV seem odd to anybody else? FLAC or Apple Lossless are used far more often these days, given that they offer much smaller file sizes, and the exact same quality.
posted by schmod at 6:49 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Already got the full set ordered. Radiohead is now about the only band left I still make an effort for, and anyone who doesn't like them is wrong. No, it isn't a matter of taste. You're objectively wrong. And you should feel bad about yourself because of it.
posted by Decani at 6:50 AM on February 14, 2011 [21 favorites]

Increasingly, people will pay $9 for the luxury of not having a physical disc to dispose of.

Exactly. If I buy a CD, I rip it, backup the files on the home server, drop copies into my phone and they put the CD in a box to never be looked at again. Seems like a waste.
posted by octothorpe at 6:51 AM on February 14, 2011

Radiohead should release an album of bitrates and prices, and no music. The discussion thread in the wake of that album would resemble this one quite a lot.
posted by sleevener at 6:54 AM on February 14, 2011 [8 favorites]

Also, $9 is just about the price that I paid for skippy, warpy, scratchy albums in 1980. That would be about 21 of today's dollars.
posted by octothorpe at 6:56 AM on February 14, 2011

fistynuts: blucevalue, I'm guessing amazon doesn't deliver to the planet you are on?

The point isn't Amazon, the point is the (obsolete) physical disc. Now I really must get back to my high pressure employment, you've already caused me to be docked five weeks of snark. Enjoy your tea coasters.

rocket88: Someone needs to explain how this is giving the music industry the "monkey rub" (whatever that means).

monkey rub = noogie (as far as I can tell)
posted by blucevalo at 6:56 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Which kind of seems like a big 'fuck you' to the group's fans.

Why? If I bought the CD, I would rip it to MP3 anyway, or increasingly I'd buy some lossy MP3s from amazon for about the same price.

Alternately, they are allowing you to buy a CD-quality version, a cheap CD, and rip it to CD yourself for the exact same cost of buying a CD from Best Buy.
posted by muddgirl at 6:57 AM on February 14, 2011

sleeveener, all we have right now are the bitrates and prices (and unusual packaging). We can talk about the music once we've heard it.
posted by skymt at 6:58 AM on February 14, 2011

Well I know what I'll be doing Saturday evening.

It will involve running a hot bath and pouring myself a fine scotch.
posted by panaceanot at 7:01 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Already got the full set ordered. Radiohead is now about the only band left I still make an effort for, and anyone who doesn't like them is wrong. No, it isn't a matter of taste. You're objectively wrong. And you should feel bad about yourself because of it.
posted by Decani at 9:50 AM on February 14 [+] [!]

I didn't know you worked for Pitchfork!
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:08 AM on February 14, 2011 [7 favorites]

And will cost 40 dollars more than the download.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I owe them more than $40 dollars for all of their music that I've stolen. Now that I have a real job, I might actually pony up and pay.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 7:13 AM on February 14, 2011

9$ for what amounts to instructions to flip bits on and off on my hard drive? Fuck that.
posted by Ad hominem at 7:14 AM on February 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Did anyone get an e-mail confirmation after ordering the pre-order? I went through it, oddly it took me back to the front page, and I also didn't receive an e-mail confirmation.
posted by geoff. at 7:17 AM on February 14, 2011

9$ for what amounts to instructions to flip bits on and off on my hard drive? Fuck that.

So I guess you've never, ever bought a single piece of any kind of software, eh? Excuse me if I'm missing an obvious snark, but seriously?
posted by dbiedny at 7:18 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

.WAV? Fuck that. Gimme .AIFF or you can DIE IN A FIRE, YOU ASSHOLE THOM.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:19 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

@geoff - yes, I got an email confirmation.
posted by dbiedny at 7:19 AM on February 14, 2011

Did anyone get an e-mail confirmation after ordering the pre-order? I went through it, oddly it took me back to the front page, and I also didn't receive an e-mail confirmation.
Yes, came through about five minutes after my order was placed...
posted by timshel at 7:20 AM on February 14, 2011

Alternately, they are allowing you to buy a CD-quality version, a cheap CD, and rip it to CD yourself for the exact same cost of buying a CD from Best Buy.

And why is it the exact same price? If there's no physical CD, no packaging, no retail markup, no wholesale markup, no inventory costs, and no physical transportation costs, shouldn't it be significantly cheaper?
posted by rocket88 at 7:20 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Awesome, it looks like there's a bit of wonkiness with the online form. Did it again and e-mail confirmation came through, along with taking me to a standard confirmation landing page. If you don't fill out the top section with password and such, but fill out the bottom section, it'll just loop you back to the home page.
posted by geoff. at 7:24 AM on February 14, 2011

That's assuming that retail CDs are sold for cost. They aren't - there's already a significant mark-up based on what people are willing to pay for an album.

And this is also assuming that there are no costs for this distribution model - websites, transaction servers, order trackers, etc etc. Major production houses can utilize an economy of scale to make these costs very small per album, but RH does not have that luxury.
posted by muddgirl at 7:24 AM on February 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

rocket88: And why is it the exact same price? If there's no physical CD, no packaging, no retail markup, no wholesale markup, no inventory costs, and no physical transportation costs, shouldn't it be significantly cheaper?

Same argument's being had over in publishing. So fair, is failing if you glimpse at Kindle book prices. Not saying it's right, but it is what it is.

You're paying for the benefit of getting it at that price on release date. No doubt there will be discount CDs in shops in May just as there were for In Rainbows.

Me? I ponied up for the vinyl about two seconds after reading the announcement. Because they're worth it.

Vinyl + digital download has caused me much expenditure of late. It's a dream release combo - digital for convenience, vinyl for quality and archiving.
posted by wingless_angel at 7:25 AM on February 14, 2011

Vinyl + digital download has caused me much expenditure of late. It's a dream release combo - digital for convenience, vinyl for quality and archiving.

wingless_angel has a point. Compact Disc is not an archival media.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:34 AM on February 14, 2011

Yay new Radiohead! I preordered the WAV download since I bought the whole special edition package of In Rainbows and haven't really touched it. Go digital me!
posted by biscotti at 7:35 AM on February 14, 2011

no physical CD

No DRM, either.

no packaging

No trash. It's green.

no retail markup

No middle man.

no wholesale markup

No wholesale market.

no inventory costs

Web servers are not free.

no physical transportation costs

Bandwidth is not free.

shouldn't it be significantly cheaper?

Why? If we all agree that the price is completely and utterly arbitrary and made up (and it is, by the way) then the price is simply what someone will pay for it. Why not five bucks? Why not a hundred? Why not just price it what everyone's already used to paying and call it a day? 'Cause that's a whole lot easier.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:35 AM on February 14, 2011 [13 favorites]

So ... Radiohead continue their habit of doing everything Kristin Hersh already did, except 6 months later. It's like, "ha ha, you released your latest album as a book, we're releasing ours as a newspaper! So there!"
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:37 AM on February 14, 2011

Am I the last one who still doesn't feel like I truly own an album unless I can touch it? The last one who likes leafing through the CD insert? The last one who likes seeing a thousand CDs all lined up on his wall? The last one who actually appreciates ECM and Nonesuch slipcases? I've got a ton of MP3 files, but I crave the physical.
posted by davebush at 7:37 AM on February 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

I've got a ton of MP3 files, but I crave the physical.

That's why I buy vinyl, when I can. Waaay more physical than some crappy CD that will degrade in 5 years.
posted by muddgirl at 7:41 AM on February 14, 2011

Wahh!! 9 Dollars!!

It's friggin' Radiohead! <3

I'm not stealing this one. Always wanted to see them live and still haven't, so the next best thing I can do to support them is to buy their album and tell other people to buy it.
posted by d1rge at 7:43 AM on February 14, 2011

*I generally advise people unfamiliar with Radiohead to skip Pablo Honey. The album's pretty much forgettable aside from "Creep,"
posted by explosion

Nope. Best song on that album is "Blow Out". Better than "Creep", even. Creep's just nostalgia at this point, really. Blow Out was the one song that gave us an inkling of what they might be capable of in the future.
posted by Windigo at 7:44 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

It sickens me how vinyl is becoming the new "exclusive hip" bullshit.. my gut reaction to reading this post was.. "Oh cool a new Radiohead, I'd love to pick this up on vinyl! For over 40 bucks?! FUCK THAT!" Consider me torrenting like everyone else.
posted by ReeMonster at 7:47 AM on February 14, 2011

Of course, $14 for an uncompressed WAV is exactly the same price as a CD release would be, without the CD.

Which kind of seems like a big 'fuck you' to the group's fans.

This is the pre-sale though, and they are effectively selling the equivalent of the advanced copies that get sent around before the official release date and end up on p2p filesharing networks. Eventually there will be a standard no-frills CD version just like the $11 In Rainbows CD that is on Amazon right now, and it will be on iTunes and all that like any other album. But if you want to pay the band (and not some record label) to hear it as soon as it's released to anyone, you have the pre-sale option.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:47 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's weird; by releasing stuff themselves this way online, they've shifted the discussion from whether the music is any good to the shape of the box it comes in.

The release pricing is entirely in line with other digital distribution. Warp (via Bleep) has been doing MP3 digital releases for awhile now, along with WAV and/or FLAC. They were the first big label source of DRM free music downloads. Typical pricing is about $10 for MP3 or $12 for WAV/FLAC.

I'm with Joe Beese; I've paid extra for MP3 releases on Amazon just to not have the nuisance of a CD shipped to me.

PS: they should release a special degraded digital MP3 version with cracks and pops slowly added over time as you play the album. And charge $40 for it.
posted by Nelson at 7:49 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

"Oh cool a new Radiohead, I'd love to pick this up on vinyl! For over 40 bucks?! FUCK THAT!"

It's not $40 for vinyl - it's $40 for exclusive art content. If you don't want the art content, then wait for the traditional release later this summer.
posted by muddgirl at 7:52 AM on February 14, 2011

I'll buy + download the mp3 set (because Radiohead is WORTH it, dammit!) and listen to that until I find someone's FLAC torrent of the CD, then I'll toss the mp3s and listen to that instead. I still like CD's, primarily for a.) the relative superiority of the audio quality contained therein and b.) the fact that as long as I have a basement, I'll have a backup of my music. So yeah, it would still be nice to have a lo-fi mp3 for the quick fix, but for the long haul I still want to have a CD of this and most other albums I buy so I can rip a lossless version of it. Preferably bought 'used'.
posted by the painkiller at 7:57 AM on February 14, 2011

mudd, I guess that is what I'm saying. Even if there wasn't "art" (coded word for bullcrap swag, glossy pictures, booklets of photos of crudely drawn stick figures and/or rabbits etc.), they would still probably charge 24.99 for the record. So they add in a bunch of disposable merch and jack the price up to the 40-50 range. They're a good band whose greatest days are behind them.. but I do want them to keep releasing stuff because even their worst albums are a better version of most Arcade Animal Fire XX Collective anything you can imagine. Disclaimer: JUST MY OH-PINION!!
posted by ReeMonster at 7:58 AM on February 14, 2011

Will there be guitars on this one? Or is it all weeble-dwee-wubble-flibbity-floo again? Not that I necessarily dislike weeble-dwee-wubble-flibbity-floo, mind. But honestly In Rainbows bored me to tears after about three listens. It's... background music. I hope the new one has some bite to it.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:00 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

get a CD out of its case every time I want to play it, have it foul up inside my CD drive, get it scratched and have to replace it,

I think the point is to rip it and then still have physical backup.
posted by kmz at 8:02 AM on February 14, 2011

ReeMonster - when Radiohead says "art", I think they actually mean art.
posted by muddgirl at 8:04 AM on February 14, 2011

So ... Radiohead continue their habit of doing everything Kristin Hersh already did, except 6 months later.

It's gonna suck so much when Jonny leaves to form Belly.
posted by mintcake! at 8:04 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Also, I have it on good authority that the instrumentation for this album has no guitars, drums, or basses. It is the second all-kazoo endeavor in the history of Western art.
posted by muddgirl at 8:05 AM on February 14, 2011

Nope. Best song on that album is "Blow Out".
posted by Windigo at 3:44 PM on February 14

Nope! Ripcord!
posted by Decani at 8:05 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Will there be guitars on this one? Or is it all weeble-dwee-wubble-flibbity-floo again? Not that I necessarily dislike weeble-dwee-wubble-flibbity-floo, mind. But honestly In Rainbows bored me to tears after about three listens. It's... background music.

Really? Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I think Radiohead's been getting more interesting, not less, since the embrace of the, as you put it, "weeble-dwee" element. So much so, that I'd actually be more excited at this point by another Eraser than a standard Radiohead album.

But then again, I never really got pre-Kid A Radiohead. Which is to say that I did get it, and it bored me stupid.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:07 AM on February 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Yeah, given their office charts, this album has 100% chance of being more electronic/dub than, say, OK Computer 2.
posted by muddgirl at 8:09 AM on February 14, 2011

ReeMonster - when Radiohead says "art", I think they actually mean art.

Point taken. Now maybe they should wash the finger paint off their hands and get back to practicing their instruments and making good rock songs, lest they join the ranks of whiny-voiced indie rock which is currently being sanctified by the mainstream.
posted by ReeMonster at 8:14 AM on February 14, 2011

Will there be guitars on this one? [...] In Rainbows bored me to tears after about three listens. It's... background music.

Oh, please. There are three different guitars in just that one track.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:15 AM on February 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

PS: they should release a special degraded digital MP3 version with cracks and pops slowly added over time as you play the album. And charge $40 for it.

Well there's also the factor that it is a lot easier to get a girl to lazily flip through your fancy Radiohead vinyl art set while it hypnotically twirls on your fancy player and you're looking for a merlot that you really hope your roommate didn't drink with his stupid work buddies, and then she's flipping through your other vinyls and finds something else she likes, and then begins looking through those liner notes and you're hoping to God almighty that your carefully selected vinyl collection is working its magic and you don't have to bullshit about, I don't know, "Glee" which I've never fucking seen.

Not quite the same when you hand them an iPod, "This is it?" "Yes! But it is acoustically perfect and does not degrade!" "Um, so what do you want me to do with it?" "Look at the cover!" She'll give you the side eye, slowly put the iPod down and now is acutely aware that your room has more electronics than the fucking Star Trek Enterprise and make an excuse as to having an early shift in the morning.
posted by geoff. at 8:17 AM on February 14, 2011 [24 favorites]

It's weird; by releasing stuff themselves this way online, they've shifted the discussion from whether the music is any good to the shape of the box it comes in.

Kinda hard to make that call until after I've heard it? But what the hell ...

This is the worst album since I released my own
posted by fistynuts at 8:17 AM on February 14, 2011

Metafilter: Not that I necessarily dislike weeble-dwee-wubble-flibbity-floo.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:18 AM on February 14, 2011 [3 favorites]

OK, you don't like Radiohead, I get it. The other guy in that photo, by the way, is Stanley Donwood. Again, if you don't want his art, don't buy the pre-release. Wait for the regular old release which will occur this summer.
posted by muddgirl at 8:19 AM on February 14, 2011

Why? If we all agree that the price is completely and utterly arbitrary and made up (and it is, by the way) then the price is simply what someone will pay for it. Why not five bucks? Why not a hundred? Why not just price it what everyone's already used to paying and call it a day? 'Cause that's a whole lot easier.

So Radiohead have bypassed the middle man and passed the savings on to you kept the extra for themselves. This is exactly why I pay for music from struggling startup bands and torrent from established millionaire capitalists who are obviously only in it for the money.
posted by rocket88 at 8:27 AM on February 14, 2011

That worked in preview.
posted by rocket88 at 8:28 AM on February 14, 2011

You folks know that Apple has been doing this digital-only thing for years already, right?
posted by The Lurkers Support Me in Email at 8:35 AM on February 14, 2011

> Well there's also the factor that it is a lot easier to get a girl to lazily flip through your fancy Radiohead vinyl art set...

I gotta say, the two (no more, no less) times a girl actually flipped through my physical music collection and oohed and aahed over how cool it was were almost certainly the highlights of my lifelong music fandom. One of those times, a romantic encounter followed shortly thereafter and I remember thinking the chain of events I was presently experiencing pretty much had to be the pinnacle of straight male music fan geekdom.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:39 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

...and you're hoping to God almighty that your carefully selected vinyl collection is working its magic and you don't have to bullshit about, I don't know, "Glee" ...

Sounds like a romance for the ages. Best of luck!
posted by sleevener at 8:41 AM on February 14, 2011

ReeMonster: "GRAR GRAR JUDGEYMCJUDGEPANTS LET ME SHIT ALL OVER YOUR EXCITEMENT FOR YOU THERE YOU GO"
posted by Windigo at 8:43 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Look I said it was just my opinion! I own everything Radiohead has released and think of them as one of the top rock bands out there but I don't roll over and love every single thing they release, and yes I have my own personal standards and I like to be informed and critical. They're a great great band. I just think they're kinda ripping us off for the crappy packed-in art. Plenty of bands used to include posters or art in their albums and I don't think they price-gouged.
posted by ReeMonster at 8:50 AM on February 14, 2011

....and based on the new songs Thom Yorke played over the summer at some of the Atoms for Peace shows, I expect this album to skew folk-rocky.

But you can never tell from a Radiohead song's beginnings where it will end up.
posted by Windigo at 8:50 AM on February 14, 2011

Am I the last one who... likes seeing a thousand CDs all lined up on his wall?

I now get that "Mine! All mine! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!" feeling from looking at Winamp and seeing that to listen to all my stuff would require 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for about six months.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:53 AM on February 14, 2011

You folks know that Apple has been doing this digital-only thing for years already, right?

Yeah Apple is an awesome band.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:11 AM on February 14, 2011

It's come to my attention that stuff costs money.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:12 AM on February 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Am I the last one who... likes seeing a thousand CDs all lined up on his wall?

Probably.

Am I the only one that likes to press "shuffle" or the Genius button and have it instantly play from my entire massive library without me having to fumble with a pile of CDs?

When's the last time an mp3 file got all scratched up for you?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:13 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

So I was thinking of selling our 7 song self produced digital album for $7. I take it, that is too much...
posted by dobie at 9:14 AM on February 14, 2011

So I was thinking of selling our 7 song self produced digital album for $7. I take it, that is too much...

Are you a member of Radiohead?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:14 AM on February 14, 2011

I really dug the .pdf booklet I got the other day with my iTunes download of the Jesus Lizard Head re-master. I think little baubles like that add to the value of a pile of bits quite nicely. I'm stuck right between loving all my CDs, and my Wall O' Disk, and loving my 16,000 songs on the hard drive. I really like artwork and liner notes, and wish that more downloadable albums came with a companion file, like Head.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:19 AM on February 14, 2011

because it had that extra book of artwork hidden under the CD tray

*grabs Kid A from the book case*

...

Well, I'll be damned.
posted by ymgve at 9:23 AM on February 14, 2011 [11 favorites]

ymgve, just the fact that they were able to plant that in your house and have it sit there for (a decade? did you buy on day of release? lets say less than a decade, but still a considerable amount of time) a considerable amount of time - they've given you a real-life easter egg. Like one of those digital things that get included in video games? These guys cross boundaries.
posted by Molesome at 9:28 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

But you can never tell from a Radiohead song's beginnings where it will end up

Sir, I believe you should have instead referenced this
posted by wingless_angel at 9:29 AM on February 14, 2011

*grabs Kid A from the book case*

...

Well, I'll be damned.

Radiohead, the gift that keeps on giving. Love it!
posted by dbiedny at 9:30 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

davebush: Am I the last one who still doesn't feel like I truly own an album unless I can touch it? The last one who likes leafing through the CD insert? The last one who likes seeing a thousand CDs all lined up on his wall? The last one who actually appreciates ECM and Nonesuch slipcases?

Joe Beese: I now get that "Mine! All mine! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!" feeling from looking at Winamp and seeing that to listen to all my stuff would require 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for about six months.

Why settle for one source of gloating, when you can have both? Walls of CDs, terabytes of music, and closets full of vinyl to boot. Now if people would stop making new music, I might be able to listen to it all at some point.


The Lurkers Support Me in Email: You folks know that Apple has been doing this digital-only thing for years already, right?

Pfft, Internet Underground Music Archive was there in '93. That's right, TEN YEARS ahead of Apple, and not in some new-fangled proprietary format with limited support.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:31 AM on February 14, 2011

Maybe this will be the one with Big Boots.
posted by timshel at 9:36 AM on February 14, 2011 [7 favorites]

Are you a member of Radiohead?

No, I am not.
posted by dobie at 9:38 AM on February 14, 2011

Sir, I believe you should have instead referenced this
posted by wingless_angel

I am a lass, but that's also a good example.

Also see: the original Reckoner & the In Rainbows version.
posted by Windigo at 9:45 AM on February 14, 2011

I am a lass, but that's also a good example.
Posted by Windigo

*blush* sorry

Maybe this will be the one with Big Boots.
posted by timshel

Man o War. Lift. Follow me Around. It goes on a bit, yes? :(

Around record release time I always get a bit sentimental for Convoy.
posted by wingless_angel at 9:56 AM on February 14, 2011

Man o War. Lift. Follow me Around. It goes on a bit, yes? :(

True Love Waits, kinda sorta.
posted by timshel at 10:02 AM on February 14, 2011

Oh yes, I forgot to add, the physical version will be 'The World's First Newspaper Album' including:

-Two clear 10" vinyl records in a purpose-built record sleeve.
-A compact disc.
-Many large sheets of artwork, 625 tiny pieces of artwork and a full-colour piece of oxo-degradeable plastic to hold it all together.

And with that, Radiohead completed their metamorphoses into the McSweeney's of music.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:03 AM on February 14, 2011 [5 favorites]

Oh, please. There are three different guitars in just that one track.

You're right. And checking my iTunes stats, I see that I've listened to "Bodysnatchers" about four times more often than any other tune on In Rainbows. I usually have it on shuffle, I'd forgotten which record that song was on. It's a great song.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:03 AM on February 14, 2011

This thread makes very depressing reading for a musician... It seems like every single one of you has lost sight of your relationship with the actual product here - the music. You argue about distribution costs, about media and method of delivery, about already-rich artists charging a fee for their (new) work, and about every other god-damn thing but the fact that five men have produced a work of art, which, if you like it, they should be recompensed for.

Why this price? Because it's the price they've put on it. You agree to that price, or you don't get the art - it's that simple.

Digital distribution has empowered artists, be they new or old, to take back the 90% of the purchase price traditionally split amongst people who had nothing to do with creating the work and keep it for themselves. Begrudging them that is, in effect, saying "No, fuck you, your art is only worth $1, because that's all the record companies let you have before." And if you seriously believe that's the case, then you don't deserve new music from anyone.
posted by benzo8 at 10:04 AM on February 14, 2011 [18 favorites]

Why would I pre-order a digital download? Are supplies going to run out? At least this time they got the bit rate right. I decided to be generous with In Rainbows (paid CD price) and was bit pissed to find out that I'd need to buy a physical copy to get a decent rip.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:06 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well hey, once I hear the darn thing, I'm sure that'll be all I'll talk about for a while.
posted by Maaik at 10:07 AM on February 14, 2011

And if you seriously believe that's the case, then you don't deserve new music from anyone.

Dude, I don't think anybody has said what you think they've said. Some people are kvetching about the extra few bucks for higher bitrate files, or cracked-wise about radio head, but people are still gonna buy the album.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 10:08 AM on February 14, 2011

This thread makes very depressing reading for a musician... It seems like every single one of you has lost sight of your relationship with the actual product here - the music.

Dude, they haven't released so much as a tracklist. How about we wait until we've heard the music or at least what songs are on the album to talk about that stuff?
posted by sparkletone at 10:09 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

How about we wait until we've heard the music or at least what songs are on the album to talk about that stuff?

On the other hand, why wait?

Y'know, I thought the triple-tracked melodica on "Retch & Kvetch" was boring at first, but on the fifth listen I caught the backward triangles they'd mixed under it, real quiet, and the song really opened up for me. And do you guys think Ed submerging himself in water added anything to his backing vocals on "Try Another Flightless Bird"?
posted by Maaik at 10:16 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

This thread makes very depressing reading for a musician... It seems like every single one of you has lost sight of your relationship with the actual product here - the music.

Trust me, I haven't lost sight of the music. But all we have to talk about concretely RIGHT NOW is the artwork, the price, and the distribution.

(rumor is, as of now, that it's 8 tracks.)
posted by Windigo at 10:27 AM on February 14, 2011

ONE OF MY FAVORITE BANDS IS PUTTING OUT A NEW RECORD AND I HAVE THE OPTION TO BUY IT AT VARYING PRICE LEVELS DEPENDING ON WHAT I WANT! EVERYTHING IS TERRIBLE!
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:36 AM on February 14, 2011 [9 favorites]

Y'know, I thought the triple-tracked melodica on "Retch & Kvetch" was boring at first, but on the fifth listen I caught the backward triangles they'd mixed under it, real quiet, and the song really opened up for me. And do you guys think Ed submerging himself in water added anything to his backing vocals on "Try Another Flightless Bird"?
posted by Maaik at 6:16 PM on February 14

Damn... that was backward triangles? I couldn't figure it out. Sounds awesome, though. Right now my favourite track is "Glum Racket" - only Radiohead could blend seventies funk with Gregorian chant and somehow transcend both genres.
posted by Decani at 10:37 AM on February 14, 2011

Dude, a PJ Harvey and a Radiohead album in the span of one week. Awesome.
posted by Weebot at 10:57 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

Radiohead was the first band to get me really excited about music. I spent a week's grocery-bagging wages importing two EPs from Japan just to get a handful of songs I hadn't heard before. (This was, it goes without saying, in the dark days before Napster.)

My first eBay purchase was a copy of Drill for I-don't-even-want-to-tell-you-how-much. I bought 7 Television Commercials and taped their other videos off MuchMusic. I skipped class the morning Kid A came out so I could get my hands on the regular and weirdo-cardboard-book editions; a few months later I was late to my own high-school graduation because I went to an Amnesiac listening party.

I was really, really into Radiohead, is what I'm saying. I've discovered and fallen in love with dozens of bands since then*, but none have ever really grabbed me like they did. Maybe I'm mellowing with age, I don't know. I'm a lot less vulnerable to the siren song of "limited edition" than I used to be, and generally smarter about my money now that I have to pay rent and student loans and whatnot.

But holy shit, when I checked Twitter on the train this morning and heard about this, I pre-ordered that shit so fast I nearly broke my iPhone. Plus ça change, I suppose.
posted by Zozo at 11:01 AM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

(* Forgotten footnote: Three of whom are releasing new albums just in March. "Not as excited as I used to get" is pretty relative.)
posted by Zozo at 11:03 AM on February 14, 2011

I'm going to go ahead and assume this is fake, but if not... o hai?
posted by sparkletone at 11:13 AM on February 14, 2011

"U FOLLOW ME ROUND"

As fake as this CHICKEN IN A BISKIT cracker I'm eating is.
posted by Windigo at 11:19 AM on February 14, 2011

As fake as this CHICKEN IN A BISKIT cracker I'm eating is.

I know, right?

I'm reading something or other about a page on the .jp king of limbs site saying 8 tracks, but I haven't bothered looking myself. 2x 10" vinyl is enough to hold several of their other albums, so presumably this one is about the same length as the others they've put out.
posted by sparkletone at 11:23 AM on February 14, 2011

Yeah, I was wondering about that - 8 tracks spread over two vinyl? Basically 2 songs per side? I don't know if I buy it.
posted by Windigo at 11:25 AM on February 14, 2011

.....at the very least, we're talking an album with 8 Paranoid Androids.
posted by Windigo at 11:25 AM on February 14, 2011

Yeah, I was wondering about that - 8 tracks spread over two vinyl? Basically 2 songs per side? I don't know if I buy it.

The other thought that occurred to me is that the download version will be missing 2 songs or something. Or perhaps some of the new material has gotten quite long. We'll see, I suppose.
posted by sparkletone at 11:28 AM on February 14, 2011

Everybody's got something to rub, 'cept for me and my monkey.

Actually, we have twice as much to rub.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:30 AM on February 14, 2011

Yeah, I was wondering about that - 8 tracks spread over two vinyl? Basically 2 songs per side? I don't know if I buy it.

It's not unusual. There are plenty of audiophile-quality vinyl releases on 2 12" 45rpm records. I'm not sure the reason for releasing it as a 10" though, that's a little annoying.
posted by Maaik at 11:32 AM on February 14, 2011

I'm not sure the reason for releasing it as a 10" though, that's a little annoying.

Note that the 2008 vinyl reissues of Kid A, Amnesiac and I think a couple of their other albums are 2x 10". Maybe a cost thing since the albums are only 40ish minutes? No clue.
posted by sparkletone at 11:35 AM on February 14, 2011

That makes sense. Or maybe they wanted those records to get lost in the rest of your collection.
posted by Maaik at 11:37 AM on February 14, 2011

Dude, a PJ Harvey and a Radiohead album in the span of one week. Awesome.
New Mogwai too. Listen (caveat: browser resizing bullshit).
posted by juv3nal at 11:37 AM on February 14, 2011 [1 favorite]

The original Kid A/Amnesiac were 10" as well.
posted by Windigo at 11:39 AM on February 14, 2011

The original Kid A/Amnesiac were 10" as well.

Thanks. I tried to look for info about those, but could only find stuff about the reissues due to them being so recent.
posted by sparkletone at 11:40 AM on February 14, 2011

I bought the original Amnesiac vinyl in Toronto. I hadn't seen a vinyl in stores for years and thought it was the weirdest thing. I don't think I owned a turntable for another 5 or 6 years on which to play it on.
posted by Windigo at 11:58 AM on February 14, 2011

Colored vinyl is my weakness. I'm going to take a chance on this - a friend recently busted out his super deluxe In Rainbows set and it's beautiful. Really good vinyl pressing, too. I dunno if the mastering is technically any different, but it really felt like there were more dynamics at work. Yay, new Radiohead record.
posted by mintcake! at 12:16 PM on February 14, 2011

Oh yes, I forgot to add, the physical version will be 'The World's First Newspaper Album'

previously (1972, to be specific):

The original LP cover was a spoof of a twelve by sixteen inch (305 by 406 mm) multipage local newspaper with stories, competitions, adverts, etc., lampooning the parochial and amateurish local journalism that still exists in many places today, as well as certain classical album covers, and even contains a review of the album itself.
posted by philip-random at 12:18 PM on February 14, 2011

Thick As A Brick, by Jethro Tull, that is ...
posted by philip-random at 12:18 PM on February 14, 2011

~omg just got excited for REALSIES~

Everyone else can stop making music this year. It will be futile.
posted by Windigo at 12:21 PM on February 14, 2011

Thick As A Brick, by Jethro Tull, that is ...

Heh. There is a "* perhaps" footnote on the page regarding the claim of "world's first."
posted by sparkletone at 12:25 PM on February 14, 2011

And why is it the exact same price? If there's no physical CD, no packaging, no retail markup, no wholesale markup, no inventory costs, and no physical transportation costs, shouldn't it be significantly cheaper?

You've been hanging out at Metafilter too long: it costs what it costs because that's (theoretically) the market-clearning price. Repeat after me: prices are based on the market's demand, not the cost of your inputs. Logic like yours is how owners manage to blame ticket prices on "expensive" players.
posted by yerfatma at 12:48 PM on February 14, 2011

(owners of sports teams, that is.)
posted by yerfatma at 12:51 PM on February 14, 2011

Radiohead continue their habit of doing everything Kristin Hersh already did, except 6 months later.

From your link: "In a music and publishing industry first, acclaimed musician Kristin Hersh releases her new studio album, Crooked, as a book."

How odd. Could have sworn Gas released an album as a book two years ago and that Aki Tsuyuko did it five years ago. I'm sure many more did it before that.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 1:52 PM on February 14, 2011

because it had that extra book of artwork hidden under the CD tray

*grabs Kid A from the book case*

...

Well, I'll be damned.

Check this one: you have Spoon's Ga Ga Ga? It's in a cardboard jacket... and has an extra CD hidden between the tray liner and the bottom cardboard.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 1:59 PM on February 14, 2011

I don't know too much about this Radiohead guy but I like that "Anyone Can Play Guitar" song he did.
posted by infinitywaltz at 2:17 PM on February 14, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't know too much about this Radiohead guy but I like that "Anyone Can Play Guitar" song he did.

Pity that that song can only ever be performed next to a swimming pool.
posted by sparkletone at 2:22 PM on February 14, 2011

Am I the only one that likes to press "shuffle" or the Genius button

Personally I'm not a big fan of this because I tend to keep entire albums on my hard drive when I only really like 4 or 5 songs on them, songs that might work in the context of the album more than in a mix. The "Genius" just isn't smart enough to cater to my finicky tastes and mood swings. I buy most of my music digitally these days, but I still love the physical sleeves and cover art for records and CDs and always have. I used to get excited when I opened a new tape and discovered the insert folded out into 12 panels and had lyrics written in tiny, barely readable text with more pictures and art inside. I'm not a big enough Radiohead fan to shell out $50 for this, however it doesn't surprise me that such people exist and there's probably bands out there that I would gladly pay $50 or more for a good boxed set with even half the material included in this.

Also, I realize prices are different in the US but the typical $10 price for downloaded music is significantly less than what this Canadian is used to paying for CDs. The price tag on this Radiohead album still represents savings on what I'd expect to pay for a hard copy. So while I can't be a jerk and offer them $1 for it, it still seems like a pretty good deal from where I'm sitting.
posted by Hoopo at 3:18 PM on February 14, 2011

Here in Australia, we have to pay $17 Australian dollars (which are now worth almost exactly the same as your American dollars) for albums on iTunes. It is very annoying, to have to pony up nearly twice what you do for an album because we're a peripheral market or some such BS.

(I don't like the pirate music because I like to reward musicians blahdy blah and I'm too lazy not to use iTunes.)

And physical CDs - you don't normally get them for under $20, especially not the newer releases.

So $10 - it's bargain.

Also... NEW RADIOHEAD ALBUM HAPPY DANCE!!!! (Please let them tour Australia again, and please let them come to Perth, and please let me get tickets.)
posted by jasperella at 5:21 PM on February 14, 2011

I'm reading something or other about a page on the .jp king of limbs site saying 8 tracks, but I haven't bothered looking myself. 2x 10" vinyl is enough to hold several of their other albums, so presumably this one is about the same length as the others they've put out.

Regarding this: I guess they saw people talking about this, as the .jp page that was getting linked no longer mentions a specific track count.

I'd find it amusing if it turns out they hadn't decided on the final track listing until right before they upload the zip files that gets sent out to everyone.
posted by sparkletone at 5:28 PM on February 14, 2011

*tiptoes in*

Is the thread full of haters? 'Cause if it is, I'll just excuse myself now... well hey, there's my girl Windigo (what, you didn't get enough of the release mania elsewhere? :D) and Decani and muddgirl and sparkletone! Have we all ordered our special edition vinyl + 625 pieces of genuine Donwood-ness? Is it not great, and is it not exciting, and have we not been waiting for LP8 for a very very long time; and I wonder how they arranged Give Up The Ghost which must surely be on this record and it's so odd to not have a tracklisting or anything yet and I'm starting to get Tour Anxiety already... will Ed sing? Will Ed get to play guitar? Has Jonny done some demented string arrangements this time around? Will we here Present Tense, Come to Your Senses, or Super Collider? What made the cut? And will there be proof of the existence of god in the (oh please) discarding of Lotus Flower? Questions, questions....
posted by jokeefe at 8:48 PM on February 14, 2011

^^ hear

And now I should get some sleep. It's nice to think that the compensation for being on the West Coast and therefore hours behind the curve on the announcement means that I'll get the download after midnight Friday.
posted by jokeefe at 8:51 PM on February 14, 2011

But you can never tell from a Radiohead song's beginnings where it will end up [Arpeggi]

Sir, I believe you should have instead referenced this [Big Ideas and it will always be Big Ideas to me I don't care what anyone says

Or this, which I still prefer to the IR version.
posted by jokeefe at 9:08 PM on February 14, 2011

my girl Windigo (what, you didn't get enough of the release mania elsewhere? :D) and Decani and muddgirl and sparkletone!

Psh. Atease has been down since about 45 seconds after the announcement. All we've really got is mortigi tempo and this thread.

Good times, and I at least (after some waffling) did go in for the swank edition.

I'll start worrying about shows when we have tour dates. Till then... Rampant pointless speculation about an album we don't even have a tracklist for!
posted by sparkletone at 11:31 PM on February 14, 2011

How odd. Could have sworn Gas released an album as a book two years ago and that Aki Tsuyuko did it five years ago. I'm sure many more did it before that.

Yeah. If you read further down that copy, HarperCollins proceed to qualify the hell out of that initial statement.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:56 AM on February 15, 2011

my girl Windigo (what, you didn't get enough of the release mania elsewhere? :D) and Decani and muddgirl and sparkletone!

Psh. Atease has been down since about 45 seconds after the announcement. All we've really got is mortigi tempo and this thread.

Windigo and myself are members of another music (with a major emphasis on RH) board; and I rarely go on Atease, but I couldn't get the site to load as of last night-- apparently Nigel made a new account there about a week ago? Don't know if he's been posting though; and I'm pretty much holding my breath hoping for a webcast announcement this week...
posted by jokeefe at 7:01 AM on February 15, 2011

Windigo and myself are members of another music (with a major emphasis on RH) board;

I'm on a couple other places as well. I don't hang out in main on atease basically ever (this week would be a huge exception). In fact, atease being down is rather inconvenient as the places I normally discuss non-rh music are now inaccessible until the usual IPS Driver Error is dealt with.

So as for Nigel... I wouldn't know! I'd find it funny if he forgot his password to his old account, in addition to not being able to use the reminder email thing to reset it.
posted by sparkletone at 8:12 AM on February 15, 2011

Physical CD due 28 March, currently at £8.99 on amazon.co.uk.
posted by rory at 8:19 AM on February 15, 2011

Physical CD due 28 March, currently at £8.99 on amazon.co.uk.

Price aside, they've been saying regular CD/vinyl release on that date the entire time. It's on the King Of Limbs site.

I'm sure the most boring, lazy question they'll get in interviews this time around is "HERP DERP Y NO SET YR OWN PRICE. Y NO PURE DIGITAL." when they never said that was going to be their model beyond the one-time experiment and the no-pure-digital thing they've already answered 500 times.
posted by sparkletone at 8:23 AM on February 15, 2011

Yeah, I almost never go on atease anymore except for tour planning stuff. I used to go a lot more often. I am happy with the small board Jokeefe & me inhabit.

And will there be proof of the existence of god in the (oh please) discarding of Lotus Flower?

I would be sad if that song is not on there! I like it.

Of all the songs I have heard, I want Super Collider most of all.
posted by Windigo at 8:24 AM on February 15, 2011

Of all the songs I have heard, I want Super Collider most of all.

Given the 2k6 touring, I remembering having somewhat distinct expectations for what In Rainbows would be like given the tracklisting and the live recordings floating around. Some of those expectations were met, others not (and that's a good thing in retrospect).

This time around, even if there was a tracklist, I'm not so sure there'd be the same expectation... The versions of new songs we've heard have all been very stripped down. Like most of the new song recordings come from Thom solo shows, or Thom+piano encore portions of radiohead shows.... And I just don't think there's anyway this is going to be a record of stuff that Thom could've made on his own with just a guitar and a looping pedal.

We'll see come Saturday, I suppose!
posted by sparkletone at 8:29 AM on February 15, 2011

Well, mostly I want Super Collider cuz I heard it on the rail in the south of France, in a centuries old amphitheater with a full moon overhead. It was a Moment. No matter how it turns out, I'll love it just for that, you know?
posted by Windigo at 10:13 AM on February 15, 2011

I remember; wish I could have been there too. And I bet there are a number of people who feel that way about GUTG at Cambridge, too. (We're devolving into fanspeak here...)

It feels really odd to have so little idea of what the album will contain. This is the first time in a decade that they haven't previewed songs live, except for the acoustic versions played by Thom (and the collection of sound check snippets collected at Citizen Insane, which are here, if anyone's interested). Even for Kid A there was Ed's online diary which provided some idea of the names of the songs they were working on...
posted by jokeefe at 10:24 AM on February 15, 2011

If you'd like, you can download it now. I'm listening to it as I type this. Again, they defy expectations...
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:56 AM on February 18, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfOa1a8hYP8 Lotus Flower
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:02 AM on February 18, 2011

Listening right now... not their best album ever, and definitely not as strong as "In Rainbows".

Track listing:

- Bloom
- Morning Mr. Magpie
- Little By Little
- Feral
- Lotus Flower
- Codex
- Give Up The Ghost
- Separator
posted by dbiedny at 7:18 AM on February 18, 2011

Listening right now... not their best album ever, and definitely not as strong as "In Rainbows".


This is exactly what I thought when I first listened to "In Rainbows" and it really grew on me. I give Radiohead the chance to ferment, or age like a fine wine. If in 3 months I realize I've been listening to it everyday on my way to work, that's when I make my decision.

Also I haven't received my e-mail download, yet (redacted site name) provides for me once again.
posted by geoff. at 8:22 AM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you bought the digital album or pre-ordered the fancy package, you can log into the TKoL site with your email address and password and download the album right now.

Or you can find it all over the interweb in the next few hours.

As for the album: it feels really short, and it starts out sounding like it was built on a computer - too accurately timed, sharp edges on the sounds. But good god, some tracks are fantastic, and it seems they've moved into the bass end of sounds more drastically with this album.

chuckdarwin - thanks for the video link - fun to see Thom dance, especially as used to be rather static on stage. A few albums back, he'd thrash about during the really energetic parts of some songs, but wouldn't move much. To see him writhe like that .. I'm glad he seems happier than he used to be.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:32 AM on February 18, 2011

Ugh, the video for Lotus Flower is unwatchable. I've tried twice.

Downloaded, and headed for work. Managed to listen to Give Up the Ghost first, though, as it was the song that I had the highest expectations of. It fulfilled them.

Have to wait for the rest until I get home.
posted by jokeefe at 8:43 AM on February 18, 2011

Thrilled to see Morning Mr. Magpie on the track listing, though. I thought that had been left behind around 2005. :)
posted by jokeefe at 8:46 AM on February 18, 2011

"Codex" is just breathtakingly gorgeous.
posted by Zozo at 9:04 AM on February 18, 2011

On my second listen through. Perhaps not as amazing as In Rainbows, but not a failure by any means. Really, truly gorgeous. It's amazing how a rock band can stay so true to pop while creating expertly composed music with brilliant polyrhythms, elegant and lush orchestration, haunting strange and beautiful melodies...

Long Live the King of Limbs.
posted by Lutoslawski at 11:37 AM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

The King of Limbs is the weakest album Radiohead has put out. There, I said it.

It's.....nice. It feels like an extended EP to me. Or it would have made a better "Thom Yorke" album than a "Radiohead" album. Maybe I just expect more from Radiohead? I quite enjoy 3 or 4 tracks, but nothing earth-shattering & hard to believe this took 4 years to make. And it's not that it's too difficult (it's not) or too avant-garde (it's not). It just isn't as good as all the rest of their albums. Yes, even Pablo Honey is better.
posted by Windigo at 12:07 PM on February 18, 2011

They said that about Kid A at first, too.

[Note: I still haven't heard it except for one half of Lotus Flower and Give Up the Ghost. I'm kind of enjoying not having to have an opinion yet.]
posted by jokeefe at 12:18 PM on February 18, 2011

Dear god, what did they do to Good Morning Mr. Magpie? wtf
posted by jokeefe at 12:23 PM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

Seriously, this was already kind of perfect, you know?
posted by jokeefe at 12:27 PM on February 18, 2011

They said that about Kid A at first, too.

I loved Kid A & Amnesiac right out of the gate. I don't actually know anyone who didn't, TBH.
posted by Windigo at 12:27 PM on February 18, 2011

Yeah, same here. Though there are some who say it took a while to catch up with them, because they were of course expecting another OKC...

I've listened to 2.5 songs now and what I hear so far is a Thom Yorke solo album. I can't hear the other band members at all. Is that Phil? It sounds like drum programming. Is that Jonny? That wispy guitar sound that vanishes after adding not much of anything but texture (and I love texture).

I just keep remembering that the first time I heard Reckoner I thought it sounded like U2 with tambourines, so who knows.
posted by jokeefe at 12:30 PM on February 18, 2011

So, is it true that Separator is Mouse Dog Bird from Cambridge? Have they done the same thing to it? Because that might be a little heartbreaking.
posted by jokeefe at 12:33 PM on February 18, 2011

Just tried listening to Little By Little. I made it to 1.36 and stopped there.

It might be good live. It might be one of those.

One of the things I love about Radiohead is the way they confound half their fanbase with every album. I just never expected to be in the confounded group. Fuckers.
posted by jokeefe at 12:38 PM on February 18, 2011

The best part of the album is the last three tracks. It's the high point of the valley, LOL
posted by Windigo at 12:57 PM on February 18, 2011

After having listened to it all the way through, I will now sum up the impending reactions from different people.

People wearing Converse All-Stars, right now: "Where's the GUITARSSS?!"
People wearing neon colors: "blah blah dubstep blah blah"
People that don't like music at all: "something something bleep bloop bleep bloop something something"
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:58 PM on February 18, 2011

Is there a phrase for hardcore fans who are really struggling with it?

Maybe I should stop listening to it on YouTube in my office at work. At home with the pair of headphones all will be revealed, right?
posted by jokeefe at 1:01 PM on February 18, 2011

It feels like an extended EP to me.

Yeah, my biggest complaint is that there are only 8 tracks. As an album, another three songs would have added a lot of strength.

Dear god, what did they do to Good Morning Mr. Magpie? wtf

heh, that actually might be my favorite track.

Is that Phil? It sounds like drum programming. Is that Jonny? That wispy guitar sound that vanishes after adding not much of anything but texture (and I love texture).

It's both Phil and programming, I assume, which is something they've been doing for awhile. And I think the guitar textures are stunning, honestly. Especially in, say, Little By Little.

One of the things I love about Radiohead is the way they confound half their fanbase with every album.

No doubt. If you try to please everyone all the time (heh), you'll make a lot of mediocre records. And this, whether it's what you wanted or not from them, is not mediocre. Kings of Leon is mediocre. This is still very fine rock.
posted by Lutoslawski at 1:01 PM on February 18, 2011

First listening now.

I'm loving it. The only track that hasn't fully engaged me so far is "Feral", but I think that'll grow. The bass and percussion on the first few tracks are wonderfully trancey and insistent. "Codex" is absolutely fucking gorgeous, as is "Give Up The Ghost".

Initial verdict: short, sweet, interesting. I think I'm going to be okay with this.
posted by Decani at 1:04 PM on February 18, 2011

jokeefe... wait until you hear "Codex". It'll blow you away.
posted by Decani at 1:06 PM on February 18, 2011

Threeway Handshake: it's not because its EXPERIMENTAL GOD SO AVANT GARDE IVE NEVER HEARD BLEEPS BEFORE. And it's not the lack of overwhelming guitar, I don't think anyone even thinks of them in that way anymore. Dubstep? So what? Its because the songs themselves aren't as good as what I have come to expect from them over the past 15+ years of being a hardcore fan of theirs.

Like I said. It's Nice. And that's all.

What do You think of it?
posted by Windigo at 1:09 PM on February 18, 2011

loved Kid A & Amnesiac right out of the gate. I don't actually know anyone who didn't, TBH.
posted by Windigo at 8:27 PM on February 18

I adore "Kid A". I think "Amnesiac" is Radiohead's weakest. I actually agree with the "Kid B" jibes. That's exactly how it sounds, to me. Not that I don't like it... even a weak Radiohead album is a damned sight better than the vast majority of stuff that's around.
posted by Decani at 1:12 PM on February 18, 2011

What do You think of it?

I think it is great. Not as good as In Rainbows, which I think is their best.
More along the lines of

Kid A : Amnesiac :: In Rainbows : The King of Limbs
posted by Threeway Handshake at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

I adore "Kid A". I think "Amnesiac" is Radiohead's weakest.

Really? God, I love Amnesiac. Except for Everything in its Right Place & How to Disappear Completely, I think Amnesiac is a better album than Kid A.
posted by Windigo at 1:15 PM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

Interesting. I'm with Decani in that Amnesiac, while a great record, is probably the one I put on the least (perhaps with the Pablo Honey exception). Kid A ranks with In Rainbows as a tie for my favorite record, I would probably say.

Threeway - I do sort of agree with you that this album feels a little bit like a B-side to In Rainbows.
posted by Lutoslawski at 1:16 PM on February 18, 2011

Also, this is REALLY growing on me, having it on loop for a few hours now. Codex, Give up the Ghost, Little By Little - really great tracks.
posted by Lutoslawski at 1:17 PM on February 18, 2011

Really? God, I love Amnesiac. Except for Everything in its Right Place & How to Disappear Completely, I think Amnesiac is a better album than Kid A.
posted by Windigo at 9:15 PM on February 18

Heh. I've heard other people say that, and I don't get it at all. I think "Amnesiac" had a couple of high points (Pyramid Song, Dollars and Cents), some interesting stuff (Spinning Plates) and a lot of... well, "Kid B". It was also all over the place, musically: it didn't flow like "Kid A" did. And I found "Life In a Glasshouse" unlistenable, frankly. The only Radiohead track ever I can say that about.
posted by Decani at 1:19 PM on February 18, 2011

Really? In Rainbows?

Kid A/Amnesiac/Ok Comp have always been a fluid 1st for me, I can't pick a fave. Then HttT, then Bends, then In Rainbows, then Pablo, then King of Limbs.
posted by Windigo at 1:21 PM on February 18, 2011

See, I adore "Life In a Glasshouse." Especially the extended version that came out as a B-side, with an extra long horn intro. And I Might Be Wrong. And Dollars and Cents....and Pyramid Song...You and Whose Army......gah! I love 'em all.

My least fave song is Motion Picture Soundtrack. I realize I am in the minority.
posted by Windigo at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2011

I love you radiohead nerds.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 1:38 PM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, this thread really reminds me of when my only online interaction was via the XTC Chalkhills mailing list, and all the excitement and gnashing of teeth that surrounded their release of Wasp Star. Nearly everyone on the board had demos of the songs that they supposed would be on the album, and there was a HUGE letdown when it was released -- not because it was necessarily bad, but because it didn't live up to what people imagined it would be. I had very strong visions of how some of those songs would flesh out, and was waaay off base on some of them, and sorely disappointed that the band hadn't conformed to my imagination.

I learned a lot about myself during that experience.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:44 PM on February 18, 2011 [3 favorites]

The fact that you can't really point to any of their records (maybe with the exception of OKC) and say "THAT ONE, THAT'S THE ONE EVERYBODY LIKES" is testament to the breadth and depth of their rocking abilities, and the range of their musical achievements. I think it's great.
posted by Lutoslawski at 1:45 PM on February 18, 2011 [2 favorites]

Right, I've listened to it twice now. I fucking love it.

I think it's really coherent: the way it flows from twitchy, insistent tranciness through to melodic loveliness and then out again is very nice. Like Kid A, I can only see myself listening to this as a full piece (although "Codex" is so fantastic it does stand alone). The bass is wonderfully throbby and warm, and the blend of Phil's crisp drumming and the electro beats seems more balanced than on many previous instances. It's like they really have that down, now.
posted by Decani at 2:02 PM on February 18, 2011

I'm not in love with this thing and I don't see myself listening to it obsessively like I did with Kid A and Amnesiac, but I'm pretty sure it would make for some terrific late-night empty highway driving music.
posted by theodolite at 2:39 PM on February 18, 2011 [2 favorites]

♥
posted by panaceanot at 2:41 PM on February 18, 2011

I avoid the which-is-better Kid A and Amnesiac debate by just thinking of them as two sides of one album. Yes, Amnesiac doesn't flow as well as Kid A, but how many albums do? And there isn't a single song on either that I don't adore; and I love the Amnesiac b-sides, as well.

I'm going to wait until I can have some proper time to listen to this record, because hearing snatches of the songs on YouTube while I'm at work is just not a good way to encounter them. And it feels really disorenting to listen to new songs-- really new songs, ones which have left no earlier footprints over the last years. You know, you're a hard core fan, you're vigilant, you listen to things like recordings of new songs played at soundcheck that are made by people waiting outside in line at stadiums, and you try to discern a direction in them; and then you pore over the videos of Thom's solo performances when he introduces new songs played on acoustic guitar, and you try to imagine what they will sound like after being worked on in the studio... and then you can love the new versions or be sentimental about the old ones. I knew all the songs on In Rainbows backwards before the album came out; I was in the audience when some of them were played for the first time. This album, though, is like a dive headlong into the complete unknown. It's very different.

But Windigo, the Pablo Honey thing is just a low blow and I think your lovely fiancee is having a dire influence on you. Can you really trust somebody who has a Night of the Living Dead cat? Huh?
posted by jokeefe at 3:00 PM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

I can't separate Pablo Honey from when I was 15 and discovered it. That album was mindblowing to my wee self, and affected me in a way this new one won't even scratch. And Blow Out still holds up as a GREAT song.
posted by Windigo at 3:24 PM on February 18, 2011

I think it's interesting that almost no one lists HttT as their least favorite. It's grown on me a bit, but that and Pablo Honey aren't even close to the rest in my opinion.

As for this one, I think it is good but not great. I think it gets better as it goes. "Codex" was the first track that jumped out and made me say "This is really fucking good". I suspect it will grow on me with time, but In Rainbows it ain't and I suspect it won't ever be.
posted by rollbiz at 5:02 PM on February 18, 2011

I am an electronic music fanatic, and perhaps because of that, I LOVE Feral. I love the haunted Burial sound. Codex seems too sleepy for me today, which is odd, as I love Pyramid Song.

But I agree that it feels like a long EP, though I think it starts in the "Thom York solo project" territory and sounds more like a band project in later tracks.

I'm hopeful for b-sides, especially with Paperbag Writer. I played it as part of a set of electronic songs, and people wanted to know who it was.
posted by filthy light thief at 5:08 PM on February 18, 2011

filthy light thief, sir: Codex will make perfect sense m at an d appropriate m moment a innit?
posted by panaceanot at 5:17 PM on February 18, 2011

I demand an edit button!
posted by panaceanot at 5:18 PM on February 18, 2011

Blow Out is a great song. I wish they still played it live.

I love many things about HTTT, but most of all its literary leanings. I would have cut at least two and perhaps three songs (I loathe Punch Up, and We Suck Young Blood should have been a b-side), but it is full of gems and imaginative landscapes and gorgeous sounds. I like it better, in some parts, than IR, to be honest.

The Lotus Flower video is much improved with a different soundtrack: dancingthom.tumblr.com has a fine collection.
posted by jokeefe at 8:06 PM on February 18, 2011

Oh, HttT was the last album that truly moved me, truly left its fingerprints all me. IR was mostly just a good time.
posted by Windigo at 8:36 PM on February 18, 2011 [1 favorite]

I cannot recommend highly enough the Dancing Thom Tumblr. The Abba one is sublime.
posted by jokeefe at 10:38 PM on February 18, 2011 [2 favorites]

I love many things about HTTT, but most of all its literary leanings. I would have cut at least two and perhaps three songs (I loathe Punch Up, and We Suck Young Blood should have been a b-side), but it is full of gems and imaginative landscapes and gorgeous sounds. I like it better, in some parts, than IR, to be honest.

Totally concur. I think HTTT is a fine album for its scope and variety. Where "Amnesiac" suffered from a sense of incoherence (for me), the range of styles on HTTT mostly works in its favour. "Punch-up" and "We Suck Young Blood" are indeed the weakest tracks but there are at least five on there I'd rate right up with Radiohead's best ("2 + 2 = 5", "There There", "Sail To The Moon", "I Will", "Where I End and You Begin")

I love "In Rainbows" but it was definitely the slowest grower for me. It took a while and i still don't rate it as highly as "The Bends", "OK Computer" and "Kid A''.I've listened to the new one three times now and I'm liking it more and more. Its shortness means it's never going to feel as expansive as their other albums, but I love how focused it feels, and how logically the tracks are ordered. It"s also going to sound awesome on vinyl. Especially that full bass.

Those who say "Pablo Honey" is all that are just bonkers, by the way. It was their Brit Pop album. :-)
posted by Decani at 1:26 AM on February 19, 2011

This album makes me miss having a car. A lot. Especially "Bloom".

Also, I predict they're gonna mess up starting "Morning Mr Magpie" live A LOT.
posted by azarbayejani at 5:55 AM on February 19, 2011

NME has a rundown on Thom's dance moves. For example, part 9, The Thinker: "All the pain and wisdom in the world exists behind your eyelids. No-one has ever felt mankind's sorrow as deeply as this, except for possibly Michael Stipe in the 'Losing My Religion' video."
posted by Nelson at 8:05 AM on February 19, 2011 [1 favorite]

I listened to In Rainbows a lot this week to psych myself up for the new album, and damn, it honestly gets better every time I listen to it.
posted by Zozo at 11:12 AM on February 19, 2011 [1 favorite]

Finally listened to it properly, and found it brilliant and beautiful. I'm now situated firmly in the "masterpiece" camp at this point; it's better than IR in my opinion.
posted by jokeefe at 3:42 PM on February 19, 2011 [2 favorites]

So I've been listening to the album on repeat as I've been working on my taxes today and it has definitely grown on me since the first listen. It's more interesting than In Rainbows so far. In Rainbows was good, but got to be a bit boring. I never felt the urge to put it on when I had other Radiohead albums to choose from. This one seems to keep my attention more.
posted by fishmasta at 4:04 PM on February 19, 2011

Finally listened to it properly, and found it brilliant and beautiful. I'm now situated firmly in the "masterpiece" camp at this point; it's better than IR in my opinion.
posted by jokeefe at 11:42 PM on February 19

Aha! I thought you'd end up there!

I listened to it on headphones last night. Loud. Blew me away. I can't wait to get the vinyl.
posted by Decani at 12:33 PM on February 20, 2011

Yep. It's a headphones album, like Kid A before it. I'm thrilled about what these songs are going to turn into when played live... though no tour rumours on the horizon, sadly (at least that I have heard-- lots of speculation though).
posted by jokeefe at 1:16 PM on February 20, 2011

Eh. I think this album is still just OK compared to the rest of the catalog. I think it's hyperbole to call it any sort of masterpiece.
posted by Windigo at 10:02 PM on February 20, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm on the verging on masterpiece camp. Listened to it loud on the plane last night for the second time and it is breathtaking in many ways.
posted by arcticseal at 5:31 AM on February 21, 2011

I really like Feral -> Lotus Flower -> Codex -> Give Up The Ghost.

I don't like Little by Little much at all.

Bloom's quite good. Morning Mr Magpie and Separator are fine.

I'm enjoying the bassiness and the drumminess, but don't think it's particularly interesting melodically.

It feels very slight for a full LP, and I think you could lose a couple of tracks and not miss much.

It will probably grow on me.
posted by Cantdosleepy at 8:36 AM on February 21, 2011

I still have to listen to this about 45 more times to really have an opinion about it.
posted by burnmp3s at 9:47 AM on February 21, 2011

I had this on repeat for a whole day.
I took a bike ride alone blasting it.
This is a great album.
posted by azarbayejani at 11:28 AM on February 21, 2011 [2 favorites]

You're kidding right? In Rainbows was incredible.

1. OK Computer
2. Hail to the Thief
3. The Bends
4. Kid A/Amnesiac (imagine one double album)
5. In Rainbows
6. King of Limbs
7. Pablo Honey

ymvv. the last 2 albums didn't do much for me, but nobody likes HTTT, so i am obviously wrong.

I also admit I downloaded it on 2/18, and no, I won't be paying for it. (I do reserve the right to change my opinion ;) It's only been a few listens.)

Yeah, I really want to go to a physical store, not find the CD I'm looking for and wind up buying one I didn't want, get a CD out of its case every time I want to play it, have it foul up inside my CD drive, get it scratched and have to replace it, and have them cluttering up my house.

I don't buy CDs any more, but it's very easy to order them directly from publishers via mail.

Also, $9 is just about the price that I paid for skippy, warpy, scratchy albums in 1980.

What? I was getting LPs for $9 (or less) until the late '90s (when people wised up to the fact that CDs cost much less to produce).

I avoid the which-is-better Kid A and Amnesiac debate by just thinking of them as two sides of one album.

I didn't know there was a debate. These are two albums from essentially the same sessions. It *is* a double album.

Those who say "Pablo Honey" is all that are just bonkers, by the way.

No one says that. Not a one.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:11 PM on February 22, 2011

In other exciting musical news, my The Rural Alberta Advantage's Departing LP just arrived from Saddle Creek.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:13 PM on February 22, 2011

Also, the Robotanists released a cover version of King of Limbs a mere 24 hours after the official release.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:14 PM on February 22, 2011

Despite being from the same sessions, I really don't think of Amnesiac and Kid as as 'the same album' at all. They have totally different feels.

1. Kid A
2. OK Computer
3. Amnesiac
4. In Rainbows
5. King of Limbs
6. Hail to the Thief
7. The Bends

and yes, Pablo Honey was some other band with the same name, if you ask me.

As for the new one, there's a real different feel to the first and second halves. The second half is much more traditional, easier to listen to, while the first half is more electronic, more experimental. I also found them (more specifically Thom) showing their influences more clearly on this one. I hear some dubstep influences, Burial, maybe James Blake and even possibly Bon Iver. Anyway, it's a damn fine album, though I agree it's not quite a 'masterpiece.'
posted by saul wright at 2:15 PM on March 9, 2011

Despite being from the same sessions, I really don't think of Amnesiac and Kid as as 'the same album' at all. They have totally different feels.

Others have said it better than I would: cut some songs and you'd have a killer 2LP. On their own, they're great, but somehow slightly unfulfilling.

and yes, Pablo Honey was some other band with the same name

You can still see a lot of the same influences/songwriting style from Pablo Honey show up on The Bends. Anyone Can Play Guitar (official video, w vevo/ads) (the second single, I assume) could have gone on The Bends and no one would have singled it out as sucking too bad.

Now On a Friday, that's some bad stuff. I can see why it's never been released under the Radiohead moniker.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:19 AM on March 10, 2011