Radiohead
The King of Limbs


2.5
average

Review

by DrEpic4181 USER (12 Reviews)
February 21st, 2011 | 76 replies | 7,919 views


Release Date: 2011 | Tracklist

Review Summary: Hype sucks.

3 of 9 thought this review was well written

Yeah, It does. This is a band that has received so much critical praise, that when they put out a bad album, none of the Pitchfork readers dare say a word against it. If Sergeant Peppers was bombed on critical outings, would people hail it as the best album of all time anymore? No. If Pink Floyd's albums had been trashed upon release, would they be regarded highly today? No. People have a tendency to care too much about critical reviews/hype. I do it too sometimes, when i want to get into a band. I will search for their highest rated album on Sputnik, and end up listening to that one first. What sucks with a band like radiohead, is that they are so famous, weeks before the album is even LEAKED, people praise it as a small masterpiece.

I can see the beauty in OK Computer. It was a mix of different, cool, melodic sounds that made great music. But after a while, it seems like Radiohead realized that their music was slightly weird, and decided to make an album trying to be the band they were back in 2000. They can't, that time has passed. They sound like they are trying to DUPLICATE their own sound, and that is not how an album should be made. That may sound a little mean, cruel, rude, and just plain blunt. But what else is the truth? When a band makes a song consisting of random sounds, people yelling, alarm clocks, cats on the street, people doing cocaine, and other completely random f*cking sounds, how is that considered music? People call it deep....call it intimate. Why? How? If I hold a my ipod up in NYC and record for 5 minutes, does that mean its "deep"? Does it have a hidden meaning?

Now, Radiohead's musicality can still be seen, such as on the lead single. Throughout the album, sprinklings of musical genius are abundant. The drum beats are definitely a highlight; they showcase the willingness of Radiohead to try to blend genres. Also, the piano riffs on Codex are pretty great. Easily the best song on the album. Bloom is alright, it has a pretty intriguing drum riff, but then starts getting a little strange because of the noncoherent lyrics and synth that doesn't quite fit in. Feral sounds a little like Ok Computer (Not that im comparing only to that album) and the drums are something to envy. Once again, however, stupid, noncoherent, awful vocals kick in. Thank god lotus flower breaks up the album, its a great track. In this album, when radiohead shines, they shine big. They still can create beautiful music. But in most cases on the album, I am not really questioning the music here, I am questioning the LACK of music here. Sure, plenty of random melodys, crazy cool sounds, and deep hooks are found, but the album just seems so...ignorant. They basically just decided to make a sequel to Kid A, which unfortunately results in an album consisting of not-quite-musical sounds, instrumentals, and shallow lyrics. Why? Because they know that however weird they get, people will still love them. Now, I like weird music. I DONT like music that is weird for no point. The album deserves it's 2.5 because a few of the tracks could fit on an album like OK Computer. By few I mean 1, maybe 2.

It's just kind of a sad story that when people make albums consisting of the worst possible music, some people praise it. I wouldn't be surprised if one reader took the 4th letter of each sentence and formed some strange incoherent note that meant something about changing the world and revolutions or some ***. Because if all of these reviewers can call these albums a meaning of something greater, why can't we all? Arcade Fire won a Grammy not because their music stood for some strange metaphor, it's because their music doesn't suck. That is what Radiohead needs to learn.

Radiohead is a great band, and some greatness can be found on the album, but pick up their older stuff instead.



Recent reviews by this author
PSY PSY's Best Sixth Part 1Justin Bieber Believe
Jethro Tull Songs from the WoodThe Beatles Abbey Road
Wavves WavvesMac Miller Blue Slide Park
user ratings (2497)
Chart.
3.5
great
other reviews of this album
1 of

Comments:Add a Comment 
theacademy
February 21st 2011



28260 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

terrible review

pos

Tyrael
February 21st 2011



20740 Comments


By releasing this review you're supporting the hype you moron.

Avirov
February 21st 2011



1206 Comments


They basically just listened to Kid A, and then decided to make an album consisting of not-
quite-musical sounds, instrumentals, and shallow lyrics. Why? Because they know that however weird
they get, people will still love them.


So let me get this straight.. Radiohead have diligently been making innovative music for 16 years,
including two critically acclaimed multi platinum albums, but you're going to assume that their
follow-up to their most famous work since Kid A was created with little thought or effort?

Really?

alachlahol
February 21st 2011



7477 Comments


people do over analyze this band to an obscene amount. everything they do is seen as some cryptic doctrine on the modern state of society or how subliminal hints can be found within each track they've created

DrEpic4181
February 21st 2011



145 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

No. They were making innovative music, now they are trying to make music that sounds like innovative music.

alachlahol
February 21st 2011



7477 Comments


radiohead and defeater should do a collaboration album it would be the most hyped album of all time

Tyrael
February 21st 2011



20740 Comments


people do over analyze this band to an obscene amount. everything they do is seen as some cryptic doctrine on the modern state of society or how subliminal hints can be found within each track they've created

^this


Avirov
February 21st 2011



1206 Comments


No. They were making innovative music, now they are trying to make music that sounds like
innovative music.


Nice job missing my point entirely. You aren't in a position to assume the band didn't put effort into
this music. That is a thoughtless, arrogant insult to a group of intelligent music industry veterans.
Focus less on mindlessly attacking the artists, which does nothing for your argument, and focus more
on explaining why you think the music isn't good, which you barely do in this quasi-review.

Negged because you only actually talk about the album for a fucking paragraph.

alachlahol
February 21st 2011



7477 Comments


avirov, at no point did the reviewer say radiohead put no effort into this album

Avirov
February 21st 2011



1206 Comments


They basically just listened to Kid A, and then decided to make an album consisting of not-quite-musical sounds, instrumentals, and shallow lyrics


Then I don't know what you call that, alachlahol.

SoapySoap
February 21st 2011



865 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

I can't help but feel like your pulling my chain on this review. You're not really giving a convincing argument, not to mention you begin to start spouting off things that honestly make me think you don't know as much as you think you do.

alachlahol
February 21st 2011



7477 Comments


Then I don't know what you call that, alachlahol.


you think the mentioning of shallow lyrics indicates lack of effort? have you ever heard an early Beatles album?

Nikola1994
February 21st 2011



2 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

"Arcade Fire won a Grammy not because their music stood for some strange metaphor, it's because their music doesn't suck"

Grammys?? Really??

kanecooper
February 21st 2011



630 Comments


it never seems right (or particularly feasible), to me when people say 'you just don't get it' as a defence for someone not liking an album that they do ...but it seems quite obvious that you don't get anything that wanders too far (which, for you, perhaps isn't that far at all), into the realms of experimental

Avirov
February 21st 2011



1206 Comments


you think the mentioning of shallow lyrics indicates lack of effort? have you ever heard an
early Beatles album?


A band does not sit down to make an album "consisting of not-quite musical sounds" and
"instrumentals". That sounds like describing a little kid with a keyboard. For fuck's sake, he
compares the music to a tape recording of traffic.

alachlahol
February 21st 2011



7477 Comments


the use of "not-quite-musical sounds" and "instrumentals" can be found in albums all over the place (ie. ambient, post-rock) but neither of those should point to lack of effort.

the review wasn't well thought out but i can understand his argument. you seem to be interpreting it how you think it should be rather than how it is

iluvtweepop
February 21st 2011



463 Comments

Album Rating: 1.5

i hate this album but i still don't like your review very much

alachlahol
February 21st 2011



7477 Comments


For fuck's sake, he compares the music to a tape recording of traffic.


no he doesn't compare it to a tape recording traffic, he is questioning the profundity that people swear is found in every corner of radiohead's music

theacademy
February 21st 2011



28260 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

dark is a place, lets keep it a secret; light is the way, now chop off your penis

Avirov
February 21st 2011



1206 Comments


Well he's questioning that profundity in an awful manner that has nothing to do with the quality of music in question, instead blindly throwing attacks at the musicians and insulting the music without honestly having a good reason why. It's a shitty review.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2013 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy