To Brian. KUDOS!!Thom Yorke said in an interview that the band looks towards the The Church for ideas. I was a Church fan back in the day, kind of lost interest in them around “Sometime, Anywhere”, but heard Box of Birds and thought, my God, after 25 years, these guys are just beginning to show their chops. I’m right with you with your recommendations, “After Everything, Now This” was brilliant. Fans of RH need to check this band out, strongly influenced ok computer, kid a!

I miss the Radiohead that wrote OK Computer and the Bends.. I just bought the new record for 5 bucks. I’m thinking.. that was a fair deal. This record is good but the band has become so “artistic” that i can’t tell if it was really hard or really easy to write these songs. Know what i’m saying? Still can’t wait to see them live again. And some dude on here said Pablo honey was his favorite.. dude, thats awesome.

wow… rooster i think rooster is right radiohead should be paying more attention to there music than the impressions there albums make. instead of three years making this album they should of put more time in like ten or even 13 years like gnr or other greats. you know make a real classic……rooster you are a royal idiot for making that comment.

The Church an overlooked Australian band needs to be discovered by Radiohead fans. The Church’s sound is dreamy, mesmerizing, haunting, otherworldly and celestial. Their vocalist Steve Kilbey is on a par with Thom Yorke. Must buy Church Cd’s are “After Everything Now This”, “Forget Yourself”, “Uninvited Like The Clouds” and “Priest=Aura.” Shimmering guitars accompany Kilbey’s wonderful singing.

Can’t see anything special with this release. Many people rushed and called the album a ‘classic’ and ‘masterpiece’ within the first day.. geez i hate all the Radiohead hype.. i just wish Radiohead payed more attention to their music than the impression their albums make

The gentleman speaking in the video is inaccurate especially while delivering his words in a condescending tone. When he mentions this record is better than the previous record, his reasoning is that Radiohead first performed the songs live on a tour last summer. They did the same exact thing before Hail to to the Thief was released, and the tour was the same length - one summer. Furthermore he claims in a snarky tone that the songs on the recording sound as they did live. I’m sorry, but I’ve heard several live versions of “reckoner” and “videotape” and they bear zero resemblance to the studio tracks. This last sentence is not a matter of opinion to anyone who took the time to listen to both the live and studio versions, regardless of one’s musical taste or aptitude. What we have here is lazy reporting/reviewing and this man and the publication he works for should be ashamed.

Rolling Stone is all about profit and image. They will get on their knees for any baby boomer icon..ie they will give Bruce, McCartney, Dyaln five stars to please their target market (baby boomers and their brainwashed children Gen Y). I mean that last Dylan album was awful, but they gave him five stars. He then gave them a cover interview. They sold lots of copies etc etc. John Lennon could release a collection of farts from the grave and rolling stone would give it five stars. It’s pathetic pandering at it’s worst. If they give 5 stars to all of those dying, irrelevant baby boomers, then In Rainbows deserves ten stars. Why can’ the the boomers just admit their day in the sun has long passed. They should all move to retirement homes, where they could sip orange juice, and listen to Dylan’s Modern Times sentimental drivel for the rest of their meaningless lives.

160 kbps is almost cd quality.
Don’t tell me you hear the difference between 160 and 192.

They recorded this album for almost 3 years… I think they wanted us to hear their work in good quality.

I think RS’s critiques have the same problem that spin and sometimes pitchfork have: an abundance of pretension. Only Fricke seems to really know what he’s talking about; the other critics just want to seem obscure to drum up “artificial” scenester taste.

In Rainbows is definately in my top 3 albums by radiohead category already. RS should give it 5 stars. It sounds like a classic to me and it was released in a way that merits the classic label.

To tell the truth, I’m starting to get sick of Radiheads mindless tribble. It was good up until the last record (Hail….) But now it just sounds like they are putting no effort into the heart of the music. It should be noted that I only heard one track off the new record, but my point is that they seem to be more concerned with the way people are listening to their music instead the music it self.

plus, the other tracks are on the DISC BOX, like they said on their website…gosh, start getting ur info straight, rather than hearing misinterpreted statements by websites…who want to start a controversy.

hmmm..if u would read jonny greenwoods interview, he said they has NO intent on changing the record industry, they just wanted to get the album out and, in another interview, he said they wanted to this to help them have time to find a record company that would change to HELP them, not take their money, or not get the music out to people who would in other ways not get the album..radiohead aren’t GOLD DIGGERS, they are just trying to get the album out to people…stop hating..start loving true artists.

Did anyone see the comments from Radiohead’s manager: this was just a promotion for the CD release. We got duped with poor sound quality and only 10 of the 18 tracks. I never thought the day would come when I called Radiohead Gold Diggers, but the cat is out of the bag.

Rolling Stone magazine doesn’t usually write very good album reviews, sometimes they do.

I was expecting an in depth review. I was sorely disappointed.

I see no problem with an official review on this album, in particular, due to the nature and frenzy of its release. Because it was released simulataneously to critics and fans (most of us anyway)alike, we are all processing it simultaneously. It would be interesting to read another review by Rob review after he has given it a few more spins. If we can blog about it, he can certainly write a review of it.

There’s no point in critiquing this album.

That’s like analyzing an orgasm.

P.S. If you don’t have the code yet. Check your spam folder.

i dont like this review very much…and Yes, they gave Bruce`s album waaay too many stars.

God…the review is fine…just because it’s Radiohead, doesn’t mean you need a 12-page report on psychology and the human soul.

And I agree that the Boss’s new album does not garner a five…maybe a 3 1/2 at the most…

This review is shit. I mean, yay I like the album too, but seriously, an 8 year old could write this. It has no MEANING, no personality, no deep face melting insights. RS needs better writers.

my GODDAMNED comment was just cut off again! It happens when I have an arrow symbol that is facing left. Everything After that arrow will dissapear. Try it.

Rollingstone, your comment thing has a problem. The arrows >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

IT HAPPENED AGAIN! my last comment had the arrow things but they dissapear. Lets see id they dissapear: >>>>>>>>>>

DAMMIT! FUUUKKK
I cant write it. I think that In rainbows is better than Pablo Honey, Worse Than The Bends, Worse than Ok Computer, The same as Kid A, Better than Amnesiac, And the same as Hail To The thief. I kep writing it with , or = signs but they get cut off and half my comment dissapears…weird.

My Last comment was Cut off. THIS is what I think about in Rainbows:

In Rainbows > Pablo Honey
In Rainbows Amnesiac
In Rainbows = Hail To Thief

” And why should one have to wait 24 hours to write a review? Why not wait 25? or 26? When does it become ok to have an opinion on a piece of music. After how long is your opinion validated?” –

Radiohead fan | 10/11/2007, 3:19 pm EST

Its not that, its that One shoud wait longer than a day to write A profesional review on an album ,as its not giving you enough time to truely absorb the album or the hear it many times.This is what I think about In Rainbows:

In Rainbows > Pablo Honey
In Rainbows amnesiac
In Rainbows = Hail To The Thief.

Also, im not a huge radiohead fan so please dont assum that I am. If you think that im waay off on something, fine, say it but I dont want to be bombarded by comments THAT ASK hoe i could be a “really Big” Radiohead Fan is I think that ________ is better/worse than __________

the feel with these boss, dylan, radiohead, stones, etc, etc, reviews is that they’re just so contrieved and obvious. Outside of sticking the names of the songs in, they feel like they were written a month b4 the shit was even released. I mean i like bruce springsteen a ton but c’mon SIX classic (5 star) albums from the rolling stoned…SIX?!! I mean its as if they are infallable. its hard to think of another genre were EVERY effort an artist makes is heralded as CLASSIC or near classic.? The term has become so polluted nowadays, it really means nothing. According to rolling stone, this makes the 5th or 6th CLASSIC album in less than a month. Give me a fu*cking break. With this logic, I guess Scorsese has about a dozen oscars owed to him. ridiculous.

THis is a classic. Not as good as OK computer and probably not as good as Kid A, but its up there. Nude is one of their best songs ever. Theres a few other gems throughout (Jigsaw falling into place). And why should one have to wait 24 hours to write a review? Why not wait 25? or 26? When does it become ok to have an opinion on a piece of music. After how long is your opinion validated?

I’ve never seen RS give so many high-star reviews in such a small span of time before. Isn’t it only once every year or two that they give anything more then 4stars?

MIA, Springsteen, Mick Jagger, now Radiohead.

did anyone honestly expect anything short of delirium with this new album? rolling stone drifts further and further from relevancy with these canned, ridiculous, “critiques”.
Radiohead drones want their cake and eat it too…its BOTH progressive art-rock that takes introspective and extended listening and instantneously a “classic recording”. A classic after 8 hours? absurd. Its too bad artists can’t effectively submit their recordings under stealth- maybe then bands like oasis and foo fighters would garner the respect they deserve and not be left holding the bagful of typical mainstream “critical” monikers. good album, certainly not great 3 1/2 stars.

Ya, a review immediately after does feel rushed, but when is a good time to review an album?
I think we need a review now and one a month later.

Green Day sucks david.

@No Surprises: Chill out dude! My problem with blogs is that they’ve lead to a critical culture that is concerned more with being first than taking the time to get a solid grip on something for passing judgement on it.

@Bill: That’s a matter of opinion. “Masterpiece” is a term that is thrown around far too often. Do you really think this album is as good OK Computer or Kid A. As I said above, maybe you should let it sink in a little more before you form your opinions. And Bruce’s album is fantastic.

RS is too funny. They give Bruce 5 stars on an average rock album and 4.5 to another Radiohead masterpiece.

Maybe RS is just a left wing political rag that used to be a music mag.

I kinda A gree. but only cuz its Rdiohead. IF it were any other fanastic band like Green Day, Smashing a Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails, M.I.A., Eminem, Sonic Youth, ct. It would be fine. The fact of that radiohead`s album seems to defy graviilty…Im not saying its the best album of the year, or of all time, or even of Radiohead, im just saying its alot to take in…Its complicated. its Like writing a Review for the movie The Godfather after oly seeing The first half of the movie. It is…Incomplete untill you spin it many times.

I agree. It takes quite a few listens to get a handle on an album, especially something complex like Radiohead.
Not to mention Rob Sheffield? Listen for yourself. I’m going to try to have the new Radiohead by the end of the week.

What’s your beef with blogs, you pretentious twat?

Congrats on completely sinking to the level of amateur blogs. An official review less than 24 hours after your first listen? Ridiculous.