My nominee for the Brent D Memorial Award for Most Over-The-Top Review of a Radiohead Album is...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

...Tom Moon of the Philadelphia Inqurier:

"In the low-budget apocalyptic thriller that resides within Radiohead's Hail to the Thief, evil agents work overtime trying to capture the thoughts running through the head of the last individualist in a colony of worker drones. When the rebel holdout - vocalist and lyricist Thom Yorke, in something of a recurring role - discovers he's being monitored, he concocts a typically subversive response: He begins to think in junk scrambles."

Does anyone else have a "favorite" Hail To The Thief review they'd like to share?

― Nick Mirov (nick), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the last sentence of that quote.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Alas I do not.

He begins to think in junk scrambles

Randy Newman once said that America's "A Horse With No Name" was about a kid who thinks he's taken acid. This is writing from someone who thinks he's in Burroughs' Interzone (and my comment is from someone who thinks he's Ambrose Bierce).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:39 (twenty-two years ago)

really there should be an award for any critic brave enough to slag radiohead in print.

― jack cole (jackcole), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:45 (twenty-two years ago)

the thing is most critics I can think of are willing to slag (or at least not regard with awe, which to radiohead fans is tantamount to slagging) radiohead. can anyone name a bigtime prominent critic who does love love love radiohead? maybe jon pareles, alex ross somewhat, also simon reynolds but that's just his indie guilt coming to the fore (a similar thing happens anytime he writes about music more than fifteen, twenty years old. the indie fanboy cums out fulltilt then.)

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:49 (twenty-two years ago)

d'you mean they then have to suffer a pitiless wave of hatas, jack? cz lots of ppl have been quite publicly harsh abt em surely?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:51 (twenty-two years ago)

The Tom Moom review read like he was really jazzed by the Matrix Reloaded and couldn't understand why people didn't like it. I don't think it had anything to do with the Radiohead album.

― Nicole (Nicole), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:53 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, one thing about sasha frere-jones take on the band (and haha I get to invoke him first) is that he thinks they're a good band, but doesn't think they're nearly as great as is claimed. the problem for most critics is that there's no middle ground - they're either the best band in the world, or they're crap.

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Heh, that's it -- we were all so spoiled by that that seeing the reviews this week is like, "Er, go away."

I like the idea that somewhere there's a Matrix review that talks about how the electronic tones and Thom Yorke's voice is what causes the artistic artifact to succeed.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 10 June 2003 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)

mark, maybe they have. i was thinking of more mainstream sources of reviews, none of which seems to ever have a bad word to say about radiohead. you know stuff like glossies, the voice, etc.

― jack cole (jackcole), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 00:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I read a great (as in awful) review in one of our newspapers the other day where the writer was content to simply slam them *repeatedly* for not returning to The Bends and OK Computer. He'd obviously been willing to put up with Kid A and Amnesiac for the band's sake, but was still genuinely shocked that Hail To The Thief wasn't the grand "return to form". And not just shocked, but furious, as if the band had broken a solemn promise and were now letting down the average listener (ie. the Nick Hornby argument).

I don't understand the headspace of these people who would get not one but two albums heading off in a very different direction and still expect an artist to snap back into their former roles. It's like Radiohead were awarded a special rock auteur's grant after OK Computer with which they could let off some creative steam, but now society as a whole are really getting antsy at their refusal to settle down to work and are questioning where their taxes are going.

The other reason the review was great is that it could amost have been writeen by Geir - lots of little unthinking asides about how electronics aren't music and are just this season's fashion tropes. At this point I really get mad that these people get salaries and exposure in national newspapers. We seriously need to rig up a system whereby people over the age of 40 require special dispensations in order to talk about music made after 1980.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 00:11 (twenty-two years ago)

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 00:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't worry Mark you've got one!

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 00:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark gets the special dispensation and the nude booze cruise (but not with Radiohead, that would be cruel).

― Nicole (Nicole), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 00:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Make sure it's good booze too. What's yer poison, sir.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 00:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Not only is he clever enough *know* what Myxamatosis is, and who Steve Reich is, but he is magnanimous to tell us! What a nice young man!

― kate (kate), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:13 (twenty-two years ago)

the idea that the Voice has "[n]ever ha[d] a bad word to say about radiohead" is laughable in the extreme

― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:16 (twenty-two years ago)

(Tim Simon R is 40 if I'm not mistaken...)

― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I reckon it's their best rekkid; unfortunately most of the reviews I've read have been asinine and crapulent (Petri Dish to thread).

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Simon Reynolds was born in 1963, but what month?

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Why, are you making an astrological chart for him?

― kate (kate), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:23 (twenty-two years ago)

We want to send him a card.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:25 (twenty-two years ago)

RADIOHEAD - 'Hail to the Thief' (***)

As usual, this keeps up their high standard of intriguing music and thought-provoking lyrics. Longtime fans won't be disappointed by anything here, and casual observers might find it worth checking out. Give it a listen if you want to 'take a chance'. -

― dave q, Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't that just a mad-lib review that could be used about ANYONE?

― kate (kate), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Is that from The Sunday Express bloke's magazine?

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 09:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Gee, you think my stuff's good enough to be in the Sunday Express? (*blushes*)

― dave q, Wednesday, 11 June 2003 12:11 (twenty-two years ago)

It's too on the fence, dave q. You should at least mention whether or not it's a worthwhile effort.

― Andy K (Andy K), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 12:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Two words, Mr. Queen: more cowbell.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 12:30 (twenty-two years ago)

dave q, I think your stuff is so good it should be in The Sunday Express bloke's magazine.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 12:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Heres my review of it:

"bleep bloop bleep bleep annoying yelp more bleep bloop."

― Chris V. (Chris V), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 13:03 (twenty-two years ago)

You do write for The Sunday Express, don't you Chris V?

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 13:08 (twenty-two years ago)

oh dave that was heartstoppingly brilliant, God bless you

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

This is the best review ever:

http://forum.onecenter.com/cgi-bin/forum/forum.cgi?c=msg&fid=fmbb&mid=28630

― schwantz, Thursday, 12 June 2003 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

This brings me to Radiohead's new album. It's kinda like an imaginary horse with big tits

A vision.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 12 June 2003 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

See, the problem with the moderate's "Radiohead are okay, but they're not all that" line -- which I pretty much subscribe to -- is that it's difficult to put forth without getting sucked into imaginary arguments with people who aren't there. It's easy to start off sounding mean and dismissive -- trying to puncture the perception that the stuff they're doing is quite as new as people think it is, or having to tell people that what they see as godlike can also seem a bit whiny and melodramatic -- and once you've done that, any praise you might have comes off sounding grudging: like, yeah, I suppose despite all that they do plenty of interesting things and have some very singular and often moving songs. All of the acclaim leaves very little breathing space to be middle-of-road about it, because in order to push the MOR line -- that they're one decent band among a lot of decent bands to have done similar things -- it's necessary to break down the common idea that they're the only band to have done any of it. Maybe it's just difficult for me personally: I get drawn off track easily, so in a room of Radiohead-lovers I wind up stressing the reasons they're not very good, and in a room of Radiohead-haters I wind up arguing the opposite.

I think my ideal Radiohead review approach would be to let their fans be fans and then throw up a shopping guide. "This Radiohead record is pretty nice," it would say. "If you like it, you might also like . . ."

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 12 June 2003 18:09 (twenty-two years ago)

it's difficult to put forth without getting sucked into imaginary arguments with people who aren't there

So it's like trying to reason with Momus on ilx?

― Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 12 June 2003 18:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Yorke may be an outdated romantic loathing life in this soulless technocratic age, or he may just be upset because he can't win at PlayStation, and it's hard to say which.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 12 June 2003 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Drop the word 'Radiohead' from that sentence and you're not far off from Dave Q's Ultimate Generic Review above.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 12 June 2003 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Good God. Hail DeRogatis, for moving me to baffled disagreement in six unexpected ways in the space of a dozen sentences. The funny thing is that after thinking about the line that made me groan most -- the Flaming Lips and Wilco thing -- I have to admit that it's probably a spot-on service to plenty of his readers, who want their ostensibly-arty records sparkly and cohesive, not full of attempts at disorientation or grandeur.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 12 June 2003 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Heh, the Moon one might actually have been more over-the-top than my comments. But this album deserves effusive praise. Was no one else as bowled over as I was? Who are these other decent bands that are doing comparable things? The idea that the Flaming Lips is one of them is absurd to me.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Thursday, 12 June 2003 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, to be fair to DeRogatis (ha!), he's not saying the Flaming Lips are doing the same thing -- he's saying the Flaming Lips are doing something better because they have proper tunes maan and not this computer bullshit etc. (That was me being "fair.")

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 12 June 2003 19:44 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, nabisco, but DeRo's readers by now are well aware that he is a fawning lips/wilco (also wire/corgan) fanboy.

But yeah that DeRo review is incredible -- like a string of the worst Radiohead crit clichés written during the kid a/amnesiac years, from 'return to rock' to the bit about 'if you want midblowing electronica, listen to Aphex Twin! There is almost no evidence of him trying to engage with this new record in any way.

yorke is an 'outdated romantic in a soulless technocratic age' is a particularly precious claim, esp. stood next to 'fuck technology [it's obviously soulless and all], let's rock' line taken by DeRo and other rock crits still hoping that "just" was the rule and not the exception.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Thursday, 12 June 2003 19:45 (twenty-two years ago)

By the way, that's the thing -- lots of people are doing or have done the constituent parts of what Radiohead do, but I can't think of anyone these days whose bringing them all together and wrapping them up in cohesive "statement" albums the way Radiohead has. I don't particularly need the stuff collected and formatted that way, but I'm not going to pretend there's anything wrong with preferring the package, and I'm not going to pretend that it's not nice to see the equivalent of unnoticed short stories in small-press lit mags having their stylisic good points assimilated and tied together in one big solid novel. This is surely Radiohead's biggest skill, and it surely has to do with the divergent interests of the individual members: they manage to engage relatively seriously with new things, keep hold of their Major Rock Band obligations, and hold the two together without seeming messy too often. The problem with this is that the whole thing can seem less pure than you want it to be, can seem like a whole lot of work is being put into keeping between the lines of things when it'd be nice to see them stop trying to be solid and serious and just go for something.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 12 June 2003 19:51 (twenty-two years ago)

They did, though. It was called "Creep" and they cried.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 12 June 2003 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)

my overcaffeinated Radiohead = IKEA blog entry is here. don't know if it's over-the-top, but it is definitely pointless.

― fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Friday, 13 June 2003 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

heheh you've not read my review yet... ;-)

― Marcello Carlin (six months away from 40 - give us that dispensation, Finney!), Friday, 13 June 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

pitchforks own review this time around wasnt much better

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 13 June 2003 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, Tom Moon's words are somewhat stretched and over-eager in applying a very facile 'meaning' to the record. But is a record invalidated by slightly askew reviewers? It is for the better, and surely natural that records have a level of ambiguity that can be tapped into in the form of vastly differing critical responses. Of course, the criticism can be itself questionable.
Mr Finney is completely OTM about many lazy, stereotyped approaches to Radiohead by the 'Hornbyites'; as if they owe anyone an 'obligation' indeed, to do 'easily accessible guitar-based music for mass consumption(TM)'! ;-)
I look forward a lot to Marcello's piece on it; is this imminently to be put on CoM?

― Tom May (Tom May), Friday, 13 June 2003 23:15 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.