|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: This album is good for people who like this sort of music but not for others OK album, recommended if you are into this sort of music but otherwise you may not like it. One of the many reasons OK Computer stands out from its contemporaries is that it was the first rock album in almost two decades that dared to deal with themes of urban alienation and technology's effect on the human psyche. Coming out in a period where a gaggle of bands were sticking rigidly to a revisionist, oversimplified reading of their progenitors' music - Kula Shaker's psychedelia revivalism, Ocean Colour Scene's "mod" revivalism, Oasis's increasingly moronic tributes to the Beatles - OK Computer stuck out like a sore thumb.
With this album, Radiohead dared to catch up with the surrounding popular culture; it stands proudly alongside works by Martin Amis, Oliver Bevan, JG Ballard, David Cronenberg and other who focused on the dystopian aspects of an increasingly technology-driven world.
One of the album's strengths lies in Thom Yorke's lyrically Orwellian depiction of a terror-filled yet hopeful world peopled by characters who buzz like fridges. This was in such stark contrast to much of the music from the Britpop moment as to sound like something entirely new (the honourable exception being Blur's sublime The Universal which predates Radiohead's millennialism by a good two years), There is Airbag's Ballardian tale of surviving a car crash, where technology nearly takes and then rescues life; Paranoid Android's disorientated, scattershot anger towards the alienating effects of digital sound, featuring some mind-boggling guitar work from Jonny Greenwood; Subterranean Homesick Alien's Miles Davis-influenced, innocent fantasy of seeing the world new and beautiful; and the album's great opus, No Surprises, an unspeakably atmospheric, beautifully disillusioned update of the Beach Boys' Caroline, No, delivered with humanity and a fatalistic compassion that its authors would lose in the imperious and paradoxically technology-embracing drone of their subsequent albums.
| other reviews of this album |
|
Album Rating: 4.5
Did we need this review?
Anyway, decent review for a first.This Message Edited On 04.18.07
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Yeah what he said. I'll still vote, though.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
This review, while well-written, is pretty annoying. I love this album just as much as the next Radiohead fanboy, but a lot of your statements are just way too ridiculous (i.e. calling it mankind's magnum opus). Also, anyone who thinks Pablo Honey should be bought before Kid A, Amnesiac or Hail to the Thief is brain dead.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
basically what jungler said
I wonder if anyone will ever write a negative review for this. or something below 5. And after Med reviews basically anything, there's no need for anotherThis Message Edited On 04.18.07
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Med's is a great track by track, but overalls are much more effective so I think Holland's (Eliminator's) is the best.
| | |
I've been meaning to buy this. This is an excellent review for a first. Eventually you will naturally get better. To answer IsITLuck's question, I'm going to buy it and intentionally give it a 1 to get respect and a review with over 20 votes :p
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
lol :p
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
I agree with Jungler about the review.
Ive listened to this album tons of times but it still isn't a 5 for me, though its excellent, to say the least. Karma Police, Climbing up the Walls, No Surprises are probably my favorites.
| | |
[quote=Review]Radiohead would sadly go on to release very average rhythmic electronic music[/quote]
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
Oh and decent review.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
All Radiohead is awesome, save Pablo, so your electronica statment is very off. Amnesiac contains my favorite Radiohead tracks, and Kid A is a magnificent effort. And the same as everyone, This is Perfect.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Not the best Radiohead, not even the second best Radiohead.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Review is meh. Like previously stated, your comment about "average rhythmic electronic music" could never be more wrong.
| | |
Do you expect anything else from a first time reviewier though?
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
[quote=zepdude]I'm going to buy it and intentionally give it a 1 to get respect and a review with over 20 votes [/quote]Yeah because a shitty, negative review of a well-liked album is going to get you respect.
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
I just find this album kinda average, I'd like to write a review why, but really, I just don't know why. It'd be like reviewing Converge, giving it a 2.5, and not knowing why.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
It's really bleak, and does the whole 'technology terror' thing very well. But I reckon you've gotta be in a very specific mood to listen to it. Still excellent, though.
Review was better than a lot of firsts but Ilu's right, it needs a bit of structure/reorganisationThis Message Edited On 04.18.07
| | |
[quote=planewreq]Praising him for a first review when it shouldn't be praised is kind of against the point. He's supposed to get better, and not telling him why his review isn't good just because it's expected of a first reviewer isn't going to make him better.[/quote]
Well I've seen a lot worse 1st reviews
[quote=jungler]Yeah because a shitty, negative review of a well-liked album is going to get you respect.[/quote]
I was kidding there. Hence the ":p"This Message Edited On 09.09.07
| | |
I know, I know.
And the open-minded thing: I didn't think you'd take it that seriously so I am sorryThis Message Edited On 04.18.07
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
So i hear this album is pretty good.
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
Do really need 7 reviews with a five star rating?
Ok, I'm going to be working on one, just not promising anything.
| | | |
|
| |
