Kid A

[Thanin]

I go to allmusic.com quite a bit. Mainly just to look up how many albums a group has or when I don't know what band does a particular song. I also sometimes read what they say about music. After reading Jeff's last post in the 'Developing Aesthetic..' thread I began to wonder how seriously I should take their analysis of music. So as a test I looked up what I thought was generally considered one of the greatest modern music albums of all time, Kid A by Radiohead. I was surprised to see them rate it with only 4 out of 5 stars (a rating they also give three of the backstreet boys CDs). Now they do give OK Computer 5 stars and deliver amply on the props for that album, but I really thought Kid A was as strong a CD as OK Computer.

So I was wondering what you music people thought of their review of Kid A. Do they do the CD its proper justice, or are they a bunch of nobodies with English degrees talking crap? Here is the review in question:



Instead of simply adding club beats or sonic collage techniques, Radiohead strive to incorporate the unsettling "intelligent techno" sound of Autechre and Aphex Twin, characterized by its skittering beats and stylishly dark sonic surfaces, for Kid A. To their immense credit, Radiohead don't sound like carpetbaggers, because they share the same post-postmodern vantage point as their inspirations. As a result, Kid A is easily the most successful electronica album from a rock band — it doesn't even sound like a rock band, even if it does sound like Radiohead. So, Kid A is an unqualified success? Well, not quite. Despite its admirable ambition, Kid A is never as visionary or stunning as OK Computer, nor does it really repay the time it demands. OK Computer required many plays before revealing the intricacies of its densely layered mix; here, multiple plays are necessary to discern the music's form, to get a handle on quiet, drifting, minimally arranged songs with no hooks. Of course, the natural reaction of any serious record geek is that if the music demands so much work, it must be worth it — and at times, that supposition is true. But Kid A's challenge doesn't always live up to its end of the bargain. It's self-consciously alienating and difficult, and while that can be intriguing, it seems deeper than it actually is. Repeated plays dissipate the mystique and reveal a number of rather drab songs (primarily during the second half), where there isn't enough under the surface to make Radiohead's relentless experimentation satisfying. But mixed results are still results, and about half of the songs positively shimmer with genius.

[ryan]

Interesting that you would mention that review. I also looked-up that review recently, probably for about the same reason you did.

I personally feel that they gave "Kid A" a very fair shake, but I don't agree with everything the review says about the album. And see, here's the thing: I read a lot of reviews and think about reviews and write reviews, and honestly think a lot about the "art" of writing a good review, and what a review is, or should, be. I've decided that a review should be a literate, knowledgable assessment of a work; it should tell you a bit about the work's aesthetics, and it should comment on how well the reviewer thinks this work achieves whatever it was trying to achieve.

With that in mind, I think the allmusic review was well-written, and well-stated. But it was just one reviewer's viewpoint, as are all reviews, and I don't entirely agree with it. I agree with the writer's notion that "Kid A" doesn't repay successive listens in quite the same way that OK Computer did. But I don't agree with his round dismissal of the album's entire second half. I think "Idioteque" and "Morning Bell," both featured during the second half, are two of the best songs on the album.

I do agree, however, that the second half is weaker than the first half. "Treefingers" strikes me as a useless, formless, boring experiment. The only time I've ever actually chosen to listen to this song was once, when I put it on infinite-repeat in an effort to generate some soothing background noise to help me sleep. It didn't work. The song became annoying before I fell asleep.

"In Limbo" is almost as dull; this song does nothing for me whatsoever; I count the number of beats per measure and think, "Wow, how talented they are to be able to pull-off this time signature," and then I think, "Too bad this song sucks."

Then, there's "Motion Picture Soundtrack," which I believe is a song Radiohead intentionally ruined as a way of spitting on their fans. I've heard a version of this song that was done live, with an acoustic guitar and a synth appregio, and it was 100% better than the crappy "death by harp" version included on Kid A. I really resent what they did to this song. I think the first half is fine; I can dig the pipe-organ approach. It's just the ridiculous, over-the-top, "hey look at me I'm mocking myself" orchestration of the second half that I hate. In fact, it's the harps, in particular, that I hate.

Well, and then I have one other point of contention with the album: I've never really been sure what to think about the production aesthetic behind "How to Disappear Completely." The acoustic guitar sounds like it's being played in a vaccuum, which certainly fits the song in an intellectual way -- but it doesn't sound good to my ears. And then, there's this dissonant note, played by a keyboard or violin, that's held throughout the first movement of the song, and I find it very distracting. Again, I can see how this idea fits the intellectual "theme" of the song, but I don't like the way it sounds. But then, on some days, this song works for me precisely because of these elements -- so I really can't fault this song or consider it to be one of the "weak ones."

As far as the star-rating goes, I agree that Kid A isn't quite as strong an album as OK Computer. OK Computer has kind of become the standard against which most people judge Radiohead's albums. Therefore, it's the difinitive album by an important band. It gets 5 stars. Since Kid A isn't quite as good, it gets 4 to 4-1/2.

I don't know much about the Backstreet Boys, but whether you like it or not, they're an important band for a different reason: They sold a whole bunch of albums, therefore a bunch of people dig their music, and therefore there is a validity to what they do.

I would agree with you about the Backstreet Boys and other like bands. They do nothing for me. But if you're going to run a website that reviews "all music," then you have to review each band on their own terms.

Since the Backstreet Boys are (were?) a very popular act, we listen to their CD's, find the most definitive example of their work, and give it 5 stars. Any of their albums that come close to achieving the same standard, we give 4 out of 5 stars.

That is to say, a 5-star Backstreet Boys CD is not the same thing as a 5-star Radiohead CD.

This is the methodology practiced by most reviewers who are forced to award stars. Those who show favor for one particular kind of music over another show an open bias, and are not judging each band on its own merits. For an example of this, check out the reviews on www.pitchforkmedia.com. I frequent this website because I like indie music, and that's all they review -- but I get sick of their "indier than thou" attitude. I think they often dismiss bands outright, simply because they don't like their scene.

Roger Ebert has commented about the star-rating system on many an occasion, and has stated openly that he despises it, because many people just glance at the stars and don't read the review. It's very easy to misunderstand what a star-rating means, and people are prone to just glimpse at the star-rating, and not read the review itself. Of course, once you've opted to use such a system, you're kind of locked-into it, because your readership expects it.

[jtmx1]

Let me start by saying that I love Ryan David Dannar. Truly and forever. I loved him as he grew up, and I’ve never stopped admiring him and his way. I never will. But I do disagree with a few of the things he said.

I agree with both Ryan and David when they state their admiration of the second half of Kid A. I, too, admire it greatly. Where I depart from Ryan is in my admiration of Motion Picture Soundtrack. I love it. But my reasons may be purely idiosyncratic. I heard this song as I was trying to make sense of the suicide death of one of my closest friends, Rob Willard. I am drunk now, as I often am these days, but I miss him so much. He was the brave one, the one who would follow his dream. If anyone would do it he would have.

I can see him on the stoop with the gun in his mouth. In fact, I dream of him so, so much, as if it is me in the rain with the shotgun. I say to myself, “cheap sex and sad films.” And I tell myself: “I think you’re crazy.” When the harp (which Ryan despises) begins, the bullet passes through my head. And I will see you in the next life—even though Rob suffered two hours on the table.

It is like the film “The Green Mile,” a hopeless lob into centerfield: It either makes sense to you or it doesn’t. (I mean nothing derogatory by that. I respect every element of Ryan’s experience, and anyone else’s who feels nothing when they hear this song.) But I almost always cry. Purely idiosyncratic, but this band found me with this song.

Right now, I play that old organ: I wrote so many songs for him. And I opened my door as he faded out, ashamed to talk to me. Objectkor! Stop sending letters… But I never did.

This is how I think Rock Snobs get it wrong: We need documentarians of emotions, of moments. They are maudlin and stupid, but we feel them. I know that my rock acumen or my emotional depth may take a hit, but so fucking what!?!


“Morning Bell” is one of the best pop songs in the last 20 years. It’s not just about divorce or separation. It’s about awakening in all its forms. It hurts. It usually means a break. It usually means hurting people. We care so much, yet we sacrifice them. Or we don’t. Stumbling into the lawn furniture, half drunk, we decide. And this is momentous. Discordant and proud.

It’s not that repeated listening does not offer rewards, it’s that we are wimps who cannot stare at modern suffering (and a poor substitute for real suffering that is) in the face.

Disagree with me. Call me shallow and insincere. Kid A stands up to OK Computer. It is different. But it is still the best CD of the oughts. Radiohead has dominated the last two decades of pop music, like a pimp on a playground.

Jeff

[ryan]

Jeff,

I find no offense at your heartfelt reply, and I thank you for it. And I agree with all the principals of your argument. I, too, feel that we need documentations of emotions and moments, and that, by their very nature, these documentations can seem garish, melodramatic, maudlin, stupid.

And I, also, am moved by Motion Picture Soundtrack. I admire the song itself, and am moved by its lyrics and melody. But unfortunately, I'm also deeply annoyed by the way in which the band employs harps during the final section. It's a stupid, trivial thing to get hung-up on, but all these things all boil down to a matter of personal experience and individual taste. For whatever reason, I've always been deeply suspicious of the harp, and harp-glissandos have the mysterious ability to make me laugh. So, when I hear the final section of that song, with the gushing glissandos, my mind goes, "Gaah!", and I can't balance the silliness of the harp with the sincerity of the song. Which is, in all possibility, to my own misfortune.

[Tyler]

Jeff, stop drinking. It's not helping anything and it's hurting a lot.

[jtmx1]

What's it hurting?

[Thanin]

Us.

[rickus]

Kinda harsh guys.

[Thanin]

It's not harsh to let someone else know you care about them.

[chris]

Love hurts. It wounds.

[Tyler]

There's really only one question.
Had there been no alcohol in your life and the lives of your family, would the previous year had gone as it has?
Don't you think it may have at least contributed to the recent problems?

[jtmx1]

Absolutely not. EtOH played no role in my family's problems. There was a time, in 2003, when I thought that it had been a contributing factor to a problem between Jenn and I, but I was even wrong about that.

Sometimes people who have problems drink without having a drinking problem. Sometimes happy people drink without effect; that has been my situation most of my life.

For a few people EtOH is the problem. But for most of us, that isn't the case.

Jeff

[Tyler]

That's settled.

Kid-A took me a while to get into. I had to put it in rotation in my frequent play list so that I heard the songs a couple of times before they hooked me.

As for allmusic.com, they're in the uncomfortable position of having to rate really crappy music based on it's appeal to really crappy people using the same rating system they use for really good music. I still look at them several times a week to find info on bands and connections between the bands.

[Tammy]

To think that alcohol is so benign in your life and in our society is a dangerous idea to me. But I respect your opinion. Alcohol was not my problem, it was my solution. My solution to my mind, my thinking, my actions. Just because I quit drinking didn't mean that my problems were solved but being sober has allowed me to look at myself and my action honestly. I don't believe in a lot things but I do believe that a life without alcohol can only be a better life.

[Tammy B]

To think that alcohol is so benign in your life and in our society is a dangerous idea to me. But I respect your opinion. Alcohol was not my problem, it was my solution. My solution to my mind, my thinking, my actions. Just because I quit drinking didn't mean that my problems were solved but being sober has allowed me to look at myself and my action honestly. I don't believe in a lot things but I do believe that a life without alcohol can only be a better life.

[jtmx1]

Tammy,

I respect the fact that you found the kind of relationship to EtOH that works best for you. Your life is better without EtOH. Mine wouldn't be.

This is not meant to sound harsh, but it seems wrong to think that your solutions to what are nonproblems to most people are normative. Most people drink. Most people do not have serious problems because of it. For those who do, there are programs that can help them. But not everyone is an alcoholic or a junkie, and we shouldn't pretend that they are. Doesn't that sound right to you?

Jeff

[Tammy B]

I agreed with you Jeff, not everyone is an alcoholic of a junkie. A lot of people are, but alcoholism he many different faces. I was not a low bottom drunk. I didn't really drink that much. I never lost a job because of alcohol. My drinking was only a symptom of my problems. I only know that AA has helped me be a better person. We strive for humility, honesty, selflessness and to be useful to those around us, just to mention a few.

Be a harsh as you want with me, I respect the honesty from you and having a conversation with you that I can understand.

[jtmx1]

I guess I would say two things:

1. There are many paths up the mountain. I admire all those virtues that you listed: humility, honesty, selflessness. I strive for them, too. For you, the pursuit of them is part of your AA work. For me, it isn’t. I think of Aristotle and Aquinas, and the living examples that I have of these.

2. Consuming EtOH is fully compatible with the pursuit of these virtues. I like Paulaner Salvator, which is a double-bock beer originally brewed by monks for consumption during periods of fasting. In fact, drugs and self-development/religious consciousness have a longstanding connection, and not just in Christianity. Think of the peyote cult or soma consumption among the ancient Indians. There is nothing morally wrong with seeking alternative forms of consciousness. It is how one seeks, particularly the obsession with seeking that is morally wrong.

But it looks like we agree about all this. If so then the issue moves to whether or not I personally am harming others through my use of EtOH. I don’t think that is the case, but I am willing to listen.

Jeff

PS I can predict where this conversation will go. And let me just state my principle for you now: All things in moderation...including moderation.

[Tammy B]

I know that you of all people strive to be a better person. Just because of the self analyzing person you are an inventory of self is something you do frequently. Questioning yourself, your motives and actions seems to come more easily for you. Not so for me. This would be why I would think that your drinking is not harmful. I see you as a pretty responsible drinker. I was definitely more creative in my thinking and my behavior when I was drinking but my bad actions outweighed the good. Sometimes I wish I could drink.

It's hard to watch friends go through pain. Physical and/or mental.

I think what I'm trying to convey is don't underestimate the power of alcohol or the power of your actions on your children. I know you don't take your drinking lightly, you don't take life lightly. But as I see it you are the person more able to impact your children in a positive way.

I'm a very poor arguer.

The bottom line is that your friends are worried about you. You will get all sorts of advise from people on what you should or shouldn't do just because we/they want to ease you pain. Wouldn't it be great if all our problems could be solved by just changing one thing in our lives. I like the philosophy of AA ego deflating and self forgetting.

[ryan]

Yikes! What a touchy subject this thread has happened upon. I suggest we rename the thread "Kid AA." But caustic humor aside, I think the entire argument here can be summed up as such:

1) We all love and care about Jeff.

2) Some of us are uncomfortable with the thought of Jeff drinking too much, because we care about him, and we don't want him damaging himself or those around him.

My stance on this is impartial, Jeff. Yes, I love and care about you, but I don't know if your drinking habits are destructive or not. Self-medication is underrated and feared by those who have given control of their lives to a higher power (i.e. God or Popular Opinion). I enjoy smoking pot alone from time to time, as I find it brings into focus those things which drive my emotions yet usually remain invisible to me, those proverbial elephants in the room. I am not condoning drug or alcohol use, but I do believe that all things can be good in moderation. By all means, be careful, and know that we all care about you.