The Cavern
Rock & Words
HAIL TO THE THIEF (Radiohead, 2003)
Artist: Radiohead (B)
Recording Dates: Sep ’02 – Feb ‘03
Release Dates: June 9th, 2003. UK
Record Label: Parlophone
Producer: Radiohead & Nigel Godrich
Rating: 8.5
Era: (Post)-alternative III: The Dispersion (2000-???)
Subgenre: Alternative
Best Song: There There or 2+2=5
Tracklist: 1) 2+2=5; 2) Sit Down Stand Up; 3) Sail to the Moon; 4) Backdrifts; 5) Go To Sleep; 6) Where I End and You Begin; 7) We suck Young Blood; 8) The Gloaming; 9) There, There; 10) I Will; 11) A Punchup at a Wedding; 12) Myxomatosis; 13) Scatterbrain; 14) A Wolf At The Door.
Hail to the Thief is a very strange case. Somehow, it's always struck me as a nebulous album, lacking a strong identity… and apart from “There There,” by far the best song on the album, there isn't a single track that sticks in my memory after a while. Doesn't that happen to you? If Amnesiac should have been called Kid B, this album would have been better suited to the title Amnesiac. A few days ago, I was prepared to give it a lower rating. But listening to it now, I find that, while the album doesn't work well as a whole, unlike the band's previous work, it's a collection of excellent songs that stand on their own.
In the case of established bands, there's always the question of which direction to take on the next album. By this point, Radiohead had already tried almost everything, and they'd already stressed themselves out reinventing themselves and creating a new sound for each album, so Hail to the Thief is a kind of musical conglomeration of the styles they had already explored. It retains many of the electronic elements of its two predecessors, but it's also a return to the guitar-heavy sound the band had in the 90s. Suffice it to say that the ending of "2+2=5" must be the most powerful thing the group has done since '97. It's therefore their most accessible album since OK, although they still experiment and incorporate unusual things like analog systems, Ondes Martenot, toy pianos, xylophones, samples…
Radiohead had been touring Europe in the summer of 2002, already showcasing some new songs. They suddenly realized they had enough material to go back into the studio, so they traveled to Los Angeles, where they recorded part of the album in just two weeks, under the production of Nigel Godrich. They would later finish recording in England at the end of the year and the beginning of 2003. The recording sessions were supposedly much more relaxed than those of their previous two albums. Several songs again used the standard rock lineup, and several were even recorded in a "live in studio" format. With no central theme, the band focused on each song separately, letting the recordings flow naturally, without forcing them in any specific direction.
I think that's why this album is such a contrast. The previous albums, at least since The Bends, maintained a certain musical unity, a distinct style and identity. And from OK onward, while they aren't concept albums per se, they share a lyrical direction focused on alienation, consumerism, and so on, which gives them a certain unity, a unique character that makes those albums work even better as complete pieces. Not here. Hail to the Thief maintains that desolate and claustrophobic feeling, but it no longer has that sense of apocalyptic urgency from the earlier albums. You don't know what to expect from song to song, which creates confusion. After a very rock-oriented opening (“2+2”=5”) that's somewhat reminiscent of The Bends' sound, we move on to another electronically based and very repetitive track (“Sit Down”), followed by a beautiful lullaby-like ballad (“Sail”), then another abstract track (“Backdrifts”) that sounds like an outtake from Amnesiac, unnecessary at this point, and then a song with acoustic guitar (“Go To Sleep”), which, without so much production, could even have fit on Pablo Honey, and so on, going all the way to “There There”, which could easily have fit into the mood of OK Computer… In other words, you have absolutely no idea where the album is going; they seem to be veering wildly off course with each song. But I suppose that was the intention.
The album thus loses its identity as a whole, and for that reason, I think it's not very memorable. Which doesn't mean it's bad, simply that it didn't create the same shock among critics and fans as their previous work. Radiohead couldn't revolutionize anything further; they had nothing left to prove. Their last innovation was with the twins, Kid A - Amnesiac, but in a way, it was what everyone expected: a new change in sound, a new smash hit for the new millennium, or at least, some were still hoping for a return to OK. It was none of that, but rather a mix of songs with diverse styles explored throughout their career, and that's why I think it's such an underrated album and why it disappointed so many people.
On the other hand, I don't think it's a crowd-pleaser. That is, I don't think the band tried to please either of their two audiences: the '90s generation who had been waiting six years for a return to OK!, or those who had embraced the new electronic sound as pure genius and were expecting a Kid C (if you know what I mean). The band simply did what they do best: whatever they wanted, without trying to please anyone but themselves. In that sense, the album works song by song. There are weak tracks, obviously, unnecessary in my opinion, and the album is slightly long. But there are also some very good tracks, and I think we won't all agree on the ones highlighted in red, since there are other very strong songs that might be your favorites, but we can all agree that there are a few gems that have been greatly underrated in the quintet's discography.
Lyrically, Hail to the Thief becomes even more abstract. In some songs, the political charge (“2+2=5”) with its Orwellian undertones is more evident and sharp, and in others, Yorke's lyrical maturity shines through despite the minimalism. But in others, Thom is truly disconcerting, with almost Dadaist lyrics that only amplify the atmosphere of confusion surrounding the album. As for the title, Yorke denied that it was dedicated to George Bush for his “victory without a majority” in the 2000 elections, in a country that prides itself on being an “example of democracy.” But I think it's too obvious, hahaha!
The album kicks off with “2+2=5”. With that title, one might expect a highly abstract song that sounds like binary code, but to everyone's surprise, Radiohead delivers a track where the guitars ultimately take center stage again, creating a climactic and explosive coda! It does indeed begin with choppy, computer-generated sounds, but only for a few seconds, before giving way to an arpeggio that conveys a sense of urgency, bearing all the hallmarks of Jonny Greenwood's signature style (didn't you miss him?). Thom sings a haunting, yet melodic, vocal line that contrasts sharply with the incisive arpeggio. At 1:20, the guitar shifts to a mandolin riff, and Thom begins to ramp up the intensity with the line "It's the devil's way now, there is no way out," building towards the explosion that finally arrives around the 2-minute mark. This third section is characterized by the instruments at full blast, with Selway delivering an impeccable performance on drums and Yorke repeating, almost frantically, "Payin' attention, payin' attention…". Around 2:30, we have a rocking instrumental bridge, featuring two guitars, changing the song's tone, and a pseudo-guitar solo from Jonny, before immediately launching into the coda. Here, Yorke sings with a devilish phrasing: "I try to sing along, but the music's all wrong, 'cause I'm not," and the band adds various arrangements for a blistering finale. Although the song isn't without electronic effects, the guitars once again take center stage, delivering some truly incendiary moments. It's a complex song, with a surprising number of key and tempo changes for its mere three minutes. In this respect, it vaguely recalls the complexity of "Paranoid Android." The lyrics are based on Orwell's 1984, depicting a supreme political power that controls everything and even dictates how people should think, despite logic dictating otherwise. In my opinion, it was a very pleasant surprise. Although it's not a new sound for the band, something with this more rock-oriented style was missed.
Next up is “Sit Down Stand Up”, a track I know might be controversial. The song opens with innocently tapping xylophone notes, a subtle synthesized beat, and a deep piano in the background, repeating a sequence of notes. There's something sinister about the atmosphere. Thom repeats the title with a contradictory command, with a complete lack of emotion, and inserts lines like “Walk into the jaws of hell.” The reason it's contradictory is that for many, the tremendous crescendo they unleash for almost three minutes will be fascinating. They brutally control the song, pushing it to its limits, until it finally explodes at the three-minute mark with a frenetic electronic beat, and Thom goes wild, repeating “The Raindrops” ad nauseam. The crescendo is magnificent, but the second part doesn't convince me, nor do I find much sense in it; it seems very repetitive. Some find it incredibly boring and consider it a weak point of the album. Others find the way they build tension to be a work of art and consider it one of the film's highlights. I have mixed feelings; the second part seems unnecessary to me. Therefore, I prefer to leave it at a neutral level.
Then we have “Sail To The Moon”, a gorgeous ballad that I think is a very underrated piece in Radiohead's discography. The slow piano notes combine with a lovely clean guitar arrangement, creating a warm, hypnotic, dreamlike atmosphere, not without a certain strange twist. Then the synthesizers (or is it the Ondes Martenot?) enter with a blanket of echo and tremolo, enhancing the nocturnal feel. Thom delivers a charming, delicate melody, this time very emotive, drawing out the last syllables. The keyboards gradually release drops of psychedelic notes that linger like flashes of light, and then fade away to allow that beautiful dialogue between piano and guitar to return. The lyrics are outstanding. Thom wrote them for his son. And well, in the first part he doesn't forget to remind himself that he's a failure, but hopes his son will do better, not without a certain dose of irony: “Maybe you'll be president, But know right from wrong, Or in the flood, You'll build an Ark.” The lyrics work in a literal sense, but knowing Yorke, they could also be a jab at the high expectations parents place on their children. Either way, it's a beautiful song, somewhat reminiscent of the vibe of "No Surprises."
“Backdrifts” is a much more abstract track. I was going to say it creates a desert-like feeling, but the term doesn't quite work for me. That processed beat has nothing natural about it. I'd call it suffocating. The band combines that disjointed rhythm with the dark, aquatic sound of (finally) the Ondes Martenot in the background, creating a sinister yet subtle backdrop. Thom sings again in that impersonal, nerve-wracking tone, delivering pessimistic lyrics that could depress even Barney the Dinosaur. This isn't inherently bad. Kid A and Amnesiac have more abstract and suffocating songs. The problem is that it feels unnecessary after those albums. Well, the first three minutes might be passable. But after that, all that's left is the beat and occasional arrangements that lead nowhere in the second half, or repetitions of the "chorus" that drag the song out far too long. By this point, the constant changes in direction are confusing. I have nothing against the first part, but the second half seems excessive to me, even by Radiohead's standards.
“Go To Sleep” is a significant improvement, returning to their guitar-driven sound and featuring a tremendous bass line from Colin. In fact, it strongly reminds me of The Bends' style, albeit more produced. But I love the combination of guitars, one acoustic and the other crunchy. The band recaptures that old energy, overflowing from the combination of instruments where everything works perfectly: the two guitars, the tremendous, simpler, and more direct vocal line, the bass line with its intricately crafted scales, and Phil's masterful timing, knowing exactly when to push the song forward with cymbal crashes and when to pull it back with toms. There are intricate rhythm changes, and at 2:30, Jonny even intercuts a sort of solo with some of Yorke's lines, before launching into a truly radioactive solo (processed by a computer system, almost randomly) until the song fades out. It definitely has that live energy, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the live recordings they made.
Then comes “Where I End and You Begin”, with the opening Maternot Waves creating that creepy effect. After a few moments, the rhythm section kicks in with a simple yet powerful bass line and a complex drum pattern, which this time sounds less processed. Thom delivers a vocal line that summarizes almost all the others on the album. It's not bad; for now, it sounds good and fits the song, marking the intensity with changes in tone, but there are no hooks, no memorable melodies, and they fade away almost immediately after the song ends. I know Radiohead rejects commercial sounds, but I think that particularly on this album, Yorke neglects memorability. There aren't many changes either. It's the same circle repeating itself, again playing with crescendos and instrumental flourishes, and at the end, he once again overuses lyrical repetition: “There'll be no more lies, I will eat you alive.”
Next up is “We Suck Young Blood”. This is a funereal, almost spectral song, one that could drive even Mickey Mouse to suicide. An overly solemn piano playing descending scales, minimalist cymbal work from Phil, and spaced-out claps that intensify the desolate feeling. Very slow. Too slow. The only thing that breaks the monotony is the short instrumental bridge at the 3-minute mark, which lasts only about 15 seconds, but then they return to the pattern. The lyrics are confusing again. Yorke is never direct, but “Are you hungry? Are you sick? Are you begging for a break? Are you sweet? Are you fresh?” There’s no intention here at all. Or if the title vaguely refers to a political critique, well, this time he’s been a bit too subtle… It’s not a bad song, but halfway through the album there’s a noticeable creative lull, and again, the song drags on at the 5-minute mark.
“The Gloaming”, it seems to me, demonstrates even more of the band's laziness. The most experimental track on Hail to the Thiefs, it features virtually all the sounds (except for Thom's strangely clear vocals) that are computer-processed. It sounds unnecessary, being very similar to Backdrifts and adding nothing to the experimentation they had already explored on the previous two albums. Perhaps it would have fit better on The Eraser, but here it sounds weak and out of place.
Fortunately, "There There" comes along to rescue the other half of the album, perhaps being their most spectacular and majestic song since the OK Computer era. We're drawn in by that hypnotic beat, with Phil's remote, tribal undertones. It might not be the most complex of his career, but I think it's the most memorable, the most representative of Selway. And then the pair of guitars intertwine with the strumming and arpeggios, creating a feeling that's both hazy and elegant. It had been a long time since Jonny and Ed O'Brien had combined like this, crafting riffs, scales, embellishments, licks, and more throughout the song. I particularly love that moment at 3:15 when the band returns and one of the guitars sounds much clearer, giving it a very OK Computer-esque touch. Colin also does a great job with his elastic and creative bass playing, although it's somewhat overshadowed by the performance of the rest of the band. At the 4-minute mark, the song explodes with a firmer beat and a kind of short, two- or three-note guitar solo that sounds magnificent. The song continues in a spectacular crescendo, with Thom raising the pitch, until the guitar screeches, all the instruments fall silent, and only Selway's dark and archaic rhythm remains until he finishes it with a couple of flourishes around the 5:30 mark. Lyrically, it's ambiguous, with Yorke becoming increasingly abstract (a distant reference to Homer's Odyssey?), but delivering great lines like "Just 'cos you feel it doesn't mean it's there," which he sings like a mantra, or "We are accidents waiting, waiting to happen," which is one of my favorite verses in the entire discography. The melodies are catchy, there are hooks, and overall, it's a tremendous team effort, recapturing the majestic, somber, and rock 'n' roll spirit of the old days, which can only result in genius. It's no wonder it was the most played and representative track on the album, released as a single and even nominated for a Grammy. "There, There" is a gem that has to be among my top 10 favorites from the band.
Then comes “I Will”, which, needless to say, has nothing to do with the Beatles' song. Nothing. It's an almost macabre track. It's said that Thom himself cried the first time he heard the finished version. Musically, it's the most minimalist song on the album, with just a clean guitar playing slow, dramatic chords. Thom uses overdubs to layer several voices in mid-range and an octave higher, giving it an almost ecclesiastical, almost funereal tone. The lyrics are very strange; I don't know if he dedicated them to his son, but they're very good, portraying that Yorkeian paranoia from beginning to end: “I will, lay me down in a bunker underground, I won't let this happen to my children, meet the real world coming out of your shell.” In fact, that's almost the entire song, haha. The real value lies in the overwhelming atmosphere they create with so little, and in the tremendous, almost chilling lyrics. Although the song is not very memorable and you'll hardly be able to hum it after the next track, it's a sample of Thom's lyrical progress.
Next up is “A Punchup At A Wedding”, with a very lounge-like feel and a great bass line from Colin that steals the show and instantly makes you forget the previous track. Then comes a playful piano, and Thom's ethereal voice with a heavenly chorus of overdubs in the background, which, after the initial burst, create a cacophony leading into a dark twist. Then the vocal line enters, more solid than the album average. Little by little, they build more tension; the piano becomes more complex, the vocals more challenging, the guitar starts playing licks, the drums more fills... But Colin maintains that hypnotic groove, carrying the song with his four strings. It's another slow crescendo, but this time it works better than “Sit Down. Stand Up,” perhaps because of the bass that maintains an exquisite tension, or the electronic additions at the end, I don't know. It doesn't feel that long even though it clocks in at 5 minutes. The lyrics are said to be another allegory for Bush, with his habit of being drunk, boasting, and making a fool of himself at American socialite events.
Just as you're starting to relax, "Myxomatosis" comes on, which Jonny calls "the weird one." Again, his brother Colin builds the track with distorted bass, creating a complex, suffocating effect. They layer several drum Martenots in the background. Thom sings in an utterly abstract tone, and the drums have a processed, dry sound. The lyrics are more varied and narrative, but this time they leave me completely puzzled. Maybe it's about mind control and an attack on the media... I don't know. The point is, I generally don't like this song, but I don't know if the band made it specifically to, I mean, create jarring sounds.
"Scatterbrain" is a lovely song, a sort of ballad, with Phil gently playing the drums, the guitar soaring almost like a lullaby, and Thom's voice phrasing freely. The lyrics are strange and bittersweet, contrasting with the gentle music: "Any fool can easy pick a hole / I only wish I could fall in / A moving target in a firing range." In the middle section, the guitars create dissonances, and then keyboards and a second guitar are added. The song is nice, but it lacks hooks, and the fact that the melody is so varied makes it rather forgettable, far from the magnificent aura of "No Surprises."
The album closes with “A Wolf At The Door”, featuring a playful, almost carousel-like keyboard with slow, swaying rhythms. Yorke's voice is quite unusual, in an unusually low tone, and with phrasing that sounds more like rap (as if the album wasn't confusing enough already). The song gradually builds, with Yorke adding anguish and speed to the vocal line, and rising an octave in what would be the chorus. The instrumentation also swells at times, without ever reaching explosive heights, but with a standout Selway, leading to a delicate and tranquil conclusion. The lyrics are also strange, perhaps satirical: “Snakes and ladders flip the lid, out pops the cracker smacks you in the head, knives you in the neck, kicks you in the teeth.” The world is a metaphor for the wolf, who wants to devour the innocence of children. The song contrasts one of Thom's strangest vocal lines with excellent instrumentation. There are days when I'd highlight it in red…
Hail to the Thief is a good album. I think it was unfairly ignored at the time. Well, almost all Radiohead albums take a while to be appreciated and processed. Hail even received nominations and awards that previous albums didn't, but in reality, I think it had a lukewarm effect on fans and critics alike, and unlike their earlier work, its appreciation didn't grow over time. Perhaps this wasn't without reason. Hail to the Thief shows an advance in the lyrical aspect, but little to no musical progress. It's not Radiohead's fault, though; we can't expect them to dazzle us with every release. I think that by this point the band had already passed its peak, so all they could do was offer a good retrospective of various styles. The songs here lack unity, a consistent direction. They could easily be scattered across each of their previous albums. But that's not what detracts from the album; it doesn't need to be a concept album to earn a 10 (there's The Bends). It's just that the musical quality is highly variable; some tracks are weak, repetitive, or far too long. Others have sounds that are simply too jarring or abstract. But there are also several very good ones, unfairly forgotten, and at least one that would make my top ten list. I don't expect us to agree on everything, since I almost marked some of the blank tracks red or blue; the similarity between songs also varies depending on mood. Even so, overall, it's not the band's best album, but it's still a solid release, one that stood out in that barren year of 2003 and marked the beginning of Radiohead's more ambiguous and scattered phase.
By Corvan
Dec/26/2012
