ITS OVER

ITS OVER

RADIOHEAD IS FINISHED

>now magazine

lol

NOW That's What I Call Music more like it lol

>now magazine

lol

This is not a rock album

more like NOW MAGAZINE IS FINISHED

They're 100% right though none of the performers have any energy or power any more. The album is literally weak.

Why do people still expect Radiohead to bust out a guitar solo or something? They haven't done that in decades.

>Praises the album for its attention to detail
>"but it isn't enjoyable, 6/10"
Why are these morons allowed to write reviews?

They're literally dumbing down the quality standards.

I can't believe all these major publications are already reviewing it - I say that even in reference to the positive reviews. I guess that's just the nature of music journalism nowadays. Way too reactionary for my tastes.

People are basically complaining about there not being enough pop hooks from what I've seen.

who gives a shit

also this, "rock-oriented band?" fucking idiots, literally no member of the band have made rock music in almost a decade.

What a crock of shit. Someone fire these hacks.

Identikit is catchy as fuck.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>the """""""""masterpiece""""""""" that is Lemonade
>implying

>muh pop hooks
>muh melody

>Where is this album's "Creep"? I want something I can sing along to! It's still the early 90's right? I give it a 2/10.

holy shit music reviewers are complete shit

How about you all explain why they're wrong?

Oh wait, you can't because you're all crossboarding, newfag teenagers.

Now Magazine is a normie/pleb oriented publication.

Literally not worth paying attention to.

literally who?

Explain to me how Radiohead have to be confined to being a "rock" band, and now you've realized I'm correct, why does it matter if they make energetic music as opposed to something structured, subtle and detailed.

>complains about crossboarding like that even means anything
>posts Sup Forums reaction images

How is AMSP more structured and detailed, its literally just a bunch of midtempo jams save like two exceptions.

Radiohead hasn't been doing pop hooks in over a decade

They are literally panning the album because there arent enough hooks, which is ridiculous

>A bunch of midtempo jams
So when are you going to listen to the album then?

I have no idea what this first review is even trying to say. At first I thought it was saying this album is shuffled and disjointed, which wouldn't be a bad way of describing AMSP even if you liked it, but the review says this in reference to the Radiohead discography as a whole which makes no sense.

watch the producers

it's all about the bottom line, not the quality

Burn the Witch
Decks Dark
Deser Island Disk
Identikit
Present Tense
Tinker Tailor
True Love Waits

Somehow AMSP existing is going to shuffle and disjoint the collections of Radiohead fans?

Radiohead are a rock band pretending not to be a rock band by making pretentious drivel.

There's little variation or creativity at work either. The resulting music is insipid, predictable, navel gazing garbage.

Is he comparing this album to fucking Beyonce?

They're panning it because there's no energy. This is by far Thom's worst album vocally.

>Radiohead are a rock band
[Citation needed]

>Jams
I don't think this word means what you think it means
>Radiohead are pretending
stopped reading there. They can literally do what they want. It's obvious you want them to make two-dimensional geetar music so why continue this conversation even further

>people's only complaint is that the tempi of the songs are the same

What the fuck is NOW magazine?

>I don't think this word means what you think it means
Do you know what midtempo means? Did you listwn to how none of those tracks have a meaningful development throughout?

Sup Forums BTFO

>I'm not reading the thread I'm in

Idiot

>Do you know what midtempo means?
Just because they're midtempo does not mean they are "jams" you fucking moron, in case you didn't know that means that they are playing without predefined arrangements or preparation you oaf
>Did you listwn to how none of those tracks have a meaningful development throughout?
Your (incorrect) opinion

you are a moron

So that's it? You can't prove me wrong so you'll just say "idiot?" God, stay in high school kids...

see
i.e. the larger post literally in response to you although put it quite well

You have to make an actual point before we can prove you wrong, fucking dolt.

Name a comment that can't be reduced to that. All the complaints about how there's "no energy," "no variety," and "no creativity" are saying the exact same thing, and that isn't even a proper criticism.

None of that explains how there is substantive development for the tracks listed earlier.
Can you explain that?

Thom Yorke's vocals are the worst in his career.

It is objectively the case that every track on the album develops over the course of its runtime, whether you find it meaningful or not is subjective.
but they are still good

You never explained how there wasn't, dumb kid. The burden of proof falls on the acuser, git.

They have no presence when they clearly should, and he misses notes in thefucking album.
Explain how there is not a bagpipe on Burn the Witch.
You can't explain a lack of something you fucking idiot, you have to prove it's there.

That shit peaked at In Rainbows but now you can definately tell there is either no enthusiasm or he just doesn't/can't sing in his higher range as well

>They have no presence when they clearly should, and he misses notes in thefucking album.
fucking where

Wow. Did you drop out in middle school you retarded fuck?

Chorus of Burn the Witch.
There were one or two other spots too.

>rock-oriented band

have they listened to a single release since the bends/okc

So you're saying BTW has no progression? The fuck?

This is true

It doesn't, until the final few seconds.
I listed like seven tracks by the way.

No he fucking doesn't. Even if he did, that's one minute fucking detail which nobody noticed, on the entire album.

Keep reaching.

ok cool

i still don't care though

They've still busted out some rockers since like I Might Be Wrong, Go To Sleep, and Bodysnatchers. It's hasn't been the band's MO after OKC for sure, though.

>Burn the Witch
The section from about 1:00 - 1:30 grows and overtakes the song during the latter half, which substantially alters the feel of it.
>Decks Dark
The song is basically in ternary form with a coda, and the mid-section is much higher-energy than the outer two. The outro is also totally different, more of a lower-energy groove that subverts the listener's expectations coming off the end of the outer-section.
>Desert Island Disk
Not any development here, but it puts you in a place and keeps you there, which I enjoy.
>Identikit
If you can't hear a significant development from the opening to "broken hearts make it rain" there's no saving you.
>Present Tense
The first three minutes build to the last two.
>Tinker Tailor
The song evolves from sort of cracked electronics to being overgrown with strings. Not my favorite, though.
>True Love Waits
The initially organic-sounding piano is overlaid with electronics that make it sound increasingly mechanical.

Great argument!

You may want to relisten to BTW's second verse and outro, then. There's indicators of progression, though like most of the album it's pretty subtle.

Obviously they've released a few, but keyword here is rock-oriented, which hasn't been true in 16 years.

>This is by far Thom's worst album vocally.

Most of your explanations are "yeah but there's a little bit though"
Come on man, you're proving NOW right.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying "prove to me the sky is blue and has clouds in it!" every song has progression. There's no use in arguing with someone as stupid as you.

He's not saying there's a little bit, he's saying the changes are fucking subtle you retard.

>rock-oriented band
kek

>it's bad to make subtle, detailed music now

holy shit, kill me senpai

It's not a negative review. Also, >print media

It's almost as if these people haven't listened to a single entire Radiohead album before their employer slapped the review task on their desk.

>now magazine

In 4/7 of those songs, there is significant development. In the other 3 it doesn't matter, but there still is some. Also I find it interesting that you neglected to mention The Numbers, which has the least development of any song on the album (it works though)

>Oh that "Creep" band?
>they are definitely rock-oriented

Not a radiohead fan myself.. but does Sup Forums seriously get their music recommendations from NOW magazine?

Maybe I was wrong about this board.

if you thought Sup Forums was a good board, you were wrong, but it's not because we read NOW

Yeah it was my bad for not mentioning The Numbers too. Forgettable even visually.
Overall its just not a convincingly arranged or performed album. Feels hashed together and lacking in energy and determination.

the writer was probably trying to please to the normie readers who had only ever heard creep once

I would say that it sounds like it is actually one of their most meticulously arranged and structurally planned albums to date, and that you are full of shit.

>Overall its just not a convincingly arranged or performed album
You don't think they arranged or performed on it? Are they lying to us?
>Feels hashed together
It took them 5 years to make the album, financed themselves, with no due date.
>lacking in determination
How is this measured? How do you know how determined they are?

lol feel the burn faggot

>It took them 5 years to make the album
See now I know you're an idiotic crossboarding newfag, because you should fucking know that they were all doing their own things from 2012-2014. Thom went solo/AFP, Jonny composed, Phil went solo...you don't know shit kid. Have a good day.

This. These arrangements are basically IR on LSD with even more organic orchestral accompaniment.

It isn't their best clearly, but I think you are wrong and that actually it is good.

You mean The King of Limbs right?

These two records aren't in the same league and you know it

>crossboarding
What post makes you say that?
>because you should fucking know that they were all doing their own things from 2012-2014
Like... writing songs for this album? Demoing them?

>rock oriented band

You just been tricked

Not even a huge fan of The Numbers but it's pretty hard to miss the explosive string accompaniment in the second half.

Correct, TKOL is far more inspired and creative than AMSP.
Read an entire post before shitposting.

>Rock oriented
Thom would have a fit reading that.

Anyway, who exactly are NOW magazine?

>TKOL is far more inspired and creative than AMSP
keep thinking that, meanwhile AMSP gets all the credit and TKOL is forever known as the second dent in Radiohead's gleaming career

... a forgotten album

>Read an entire post before shitposting.
I dismiss irrelevant text.

Now answer my questions.

...

Not him but I disagree with that. TKOL is a good album but it sounds like a relative footnote, the band experimenting with loops and rhythms in typical Krautrock jam session form. If anything, I think they wear their love for that genre a little too far out on their sleeves on that record to say it's "more inspired and creative" than most of their albums - they've never been shy about dickriding Can but TKOL rides it more emphatically than the others. AMSP, on the other hand, strikes me as a very natural progression from IR with its dreamier, more densely layered arrangements.

...

>normie publications reviewing non-normie music
This is just like non-black women reviewing Lemonade. These people need to check their neurotypical privilege. THIS ALBUM WAS NOT MADE FOR YOU.