
Yesterday, Radiohead gave an interview to Steve Lamacq of BBC Radio 6, during which the band briefly discussed two Internet-bred conspiracy theories concerning their new album, In Rainbows. First there’s the “Binary Code/Tens Theory,” which suggests that Radiohead were obsessed with the number ten on In Rainbows. Here’s the evidence: The album was released on October 10th, or 10/10; In Rainbows is ten letters long and has ten tracks; and just before the album’s release date, posts on Radiohead’s Web site featured phrases like “March Wa X” and “Xendless Xurbia,” spotlighting the roman numeral X. While the band didn’t specifically refute this theory, Thom Yorke did refer to “all these mad theories on the Net.”
Another of those “mad” theories is the Golden Section theory. “If you’re really, really, really, really stuck for something to do, you could always read up about that [theory],” Yorke said. Rather than read up, we’ll try to explain (with an assist by Wikipedia): The theory centers around a work of ancient mathematics called the Golden Ratio. During the Renaissance, architects and artists used the ratio — which is an actual number, or 1.618 to 1 — to proportion objects in buildings and paintings and thus make the work aesthetically pleasing. What does this have to do with In Rainbows? Well, 61.8 percent way through the album — or 1/1.618 — the strings kick in and the album title’s name is sung in the background vocals. Just a coincidence? Or is Radiohead channeling Da Vinci? You decide. Also during the interview, we learned that Yorke, like most people, paid nothing to download the album (”I thought it would be silly to pay any money. I’d swap it from one pocket to the other.”), and the band confirmed earlier reports that they would embark on a U.S. tour in May.
Radiohead Conspiracy Theories: Totally Nuts, or Just a Little Nuts?
11/20/07, 12:59 pm EST
Comments
Michael | 3/13/2008, 6:16 pm EST
Pyramid Song from there 2001 album Amnesiac is also 4 minutes and 50 seconds just like Reckoner and also at the exact same time (2 minutes 49 seconds) Strings come in.
chris | 11/28/2007, 10:40 am EST
All artists have personal processes they use to generate or explore ideas. Often, the method is not as important or interesting to most people as the final product. Some people get into the process. Some people like to try to reverse-engineer the process from the product using any available clues. It’s all good.
butane bob | 11/23/2007, 8:26 pm EST
Tool have been doing this sort of shit in their music for the past decade, If you don’t appreciate it just don’t worry about it and enjoy their music. For those that want to know a little more about the bands creative process then these sort of gimmicks are interesting and entertaining to read about, they also educate you a little bit!
what the fuck? | 11/22/2007, 9:48 am EST
why can’t they just make a fuckin’ record and be done with it?
all this intellectual pissing won’t make one note on the album sound one speck better!
Paula | 11/22/2007, 5:17 am EST
So basically we learned nothing about whether or not these theories are correct.
microchp | 11/22/2007, 3:42 am EST
It is also very close to a ratio found in the fibonacci sequence.
Philbin | 11/22/2007, 2:51 am EST
A song is a song. Either you dig it or you don’t! When describing music starts to sound like you’re talking about the periodic table of elements or the seizemograph, you might as well flush it down the toilet.
And that’s not good, because Radiohead is incredible. Whatever happened to the suspension of disbelief or not knowing how the magician does his tricks?
I slept through 4 years science in high school; don’t bring this intellectional wanking into the musical realm. it’s not fun, nor necessary. Just me writing about intellectual wanking is starting to make me sound like an intellectual wanker! just close your eyes and listen to the damn music.
Supersonic | 11/21/2007, 11:49 pm EST
most people are guilty of pifering a song here and there. but for a “fan” to steal from radiohead right to their face is pretty classless, and makes me wonder how they can call themselves fans.
Ezra | 11/21/2007, 5:48 pm EST
The golden ratio is not uncommon. Good artists have been sequencing their music so the climax of the song would happen at the golden ratio. Not that they do it consciously but good artists seem to have a sense for it.
meh | 11/21/2007, 4:38 pm EST
Croke snack.
jamEs - modsuperstar.ca | 11/21/2007, 2:12 pm EST
A lot, a damn lot.
claude | 11/21/2007, 12:38 pm EST
sounds like a marketing ploy to me
Tom waits | 11/21/2007, 11:50 am EST
jamEs - supermodstar.ca. . . exactly how much weed DO you smoke every day?
BS | 11/21/2007, 11:37 am EST
@jamEs
That’s a load of bollocks. I’ve tried it, as well as many others when that theory got Dugg, and it’s a lot more wishful thinking than a perfect mesh (not to mention OK Computer has 12 tracks, not 10).
andy | 11/21/2007, 11:22 am EST
JamEs: no, they don’t.
Iscariot | 11/21/2007, 10:13 am EST
how about my theory?
http://www.mortigitem po.com/too_bored/showthread.ph p?t=68025
ROCKSTAR ROB V III | 11/21/2007, 9:58 am EST
i dont wanna be your friend.. i just wanna be your lover!
Marty | 11/21/2007, 9:57 am EST
Very cool James! I can’t wait to try it.
As for Alan…”cut your hair and get a job”? Check your head.
boohoo | 11/21/2007, 9:36 am EST
people are overanalyzing the album.
the more hype and bullshit you put to an album is a desperate attempt to make the album good.
the music should be enjoyed and not overanalyzed.
radiohead is OVERRATED. They are beginning to retread shit they did on OK computer.
Alan Riaso | 11/21/2007, 9:27 am EST
If you play In Rainbows backwards and stand on your head it sounds like “cut your hair and get a job”.
jamEs - modsuperstar.ca | 11/21/2007, 8:59 am EST
They didn’t mention the whole interplay with OK Computer, that was part of the binary theory. If you play OK Computer and In Rainbows tracks in a certain alternating order with crossfade they both mesh together as if they were one album. It’s pretty cool.

Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!


- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2008 All Media Guide, LLC.