Site Feed
 Podcast: raw feed
 Podcast: iTunes shortcut

Levels

Categories

Track Reviews (all)

Subcategories:
:: MP3 Download + Stream
:: Stream/Video

Blog (all)

Subcategories:
:: Snarking Lot
:: Technoporn
:: Band Name Anagrams

Video Ops (all)

Admin (all)

Subcategories:
:: Announcements
:: Contests

Track Review ⊙ Daily Ops Home

Thom Yorke :: "Atoms For Peace"
From The Eraser (XL; 2006)

The Eraser is half of a decent acoustic blues record given questionable sheen by an unquestionable producer. Especially "Harrowdown Hill" which, despite its good/x-filey intentions, sounds like an outtake from Michael Jackson's History (specifically a cross between "Stranger in Moscow" and "They Don't Really Care About Us") with its skittish robotic ant colony picking the bones of a should-have-been chunky guitar riff (which closes the song in ten brief seconds, pleasure delayers get your grind on). Don't ask me how I know about the Jackson comparison, I just do.

"Harrowdown Hill" is an example of The Eraser's overpopulation of minimalist measures, but the record should get over anyway, if not because Thom Yorke Is Important, then because Thom Yorke Is A Brilliant Singer. Evidence (aside from everything Radiohead has done, of course, but especially how he turns a lot of Hail To the Thief's atunality into actual decent, if crappily-tracklisted, songs): "Atoms for Peace." This is the opposite of "Harrowdown Hill." There's no immediate subject matter, no direct political point of reference, and it's the longest, most loose, sparse, wandering, noodling, clumsily-arranged track on the record: every instrumental element does its best to ignore all of the others, as if Godrich didn't realize his blips were autistic. Yorke therefore doesn't sound like his words are being viced out of him (or that he's singing from the garbage dump on the Death Star), and his up-front range-scaling verses contain gorgeous, simple vocal flourishes that reflect this. This sounds much more like a comedown from "Kid A" than the sound of suffocation. Robots don't need to breathe, and, without the proper programming, won't sympathize with those that do.

Aaron Newell :: 8 July 2006 |                

:: See all Track Review posts, or head back to the Daily Ops index.
0people have commented.

⊙ :: Comments are turned off for this article.