June 13, 2003
"...two and two always makes a five..."
Those of you who keep up with new albums might recognize the title as a line from "2 + 2 = 5". As I write this I'm in the process of absorbing Radiohead's new album, Hail to the Thief, on which "2 + 2 = 5" is the first track. I am already of two minds about the album. Aesthetically, I like this album a lot more than I ever liked Kid A or Amnesiac, two albums I found to be brilliant but a bit inaccessible for me. Hail to the Thief sounds, at first hearing anyway, to be a lot more listenable over a long period of time than either of them. Musically, it seems to be a move back to the more standard rock sounds of OK Computer, which is my favorite.
Still, it is obvious that both Kid A and Amnesiac came between OK Computer and Hail to the Thief, because certain electronic, etherial sound devices persist from the intermediaries. This album is far more melodic and singable than either of the previous two. Thus far, I really like it.
Yet I am bothered by the fact that this is, as far as I can tell, Radiohead's most overtly political album. Written and produced at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, the whole album conveys a looming sense that something terrible is about to happen. From Yorke's perspective, this is the case, as in spring 2003 the US and her allies, including Britain, invaded and conquered Iraq, a course of action to which Yorke was unsurprisingly opposed. The album title itself is apparently a reference to the events surrounding George W. Bush's election in 2000, recalling a slogan used by Democratic protestors during and immediately after the election. This sounds a bit too Michael Moore for my tastes.
Part of what has previously attracted me to the music of Radiohead has been their cynical yet apathetic treatment of politics in their music. They haven't seemed particularly happy with the political state of affairs, and from what I've heard of Yorke's speech at live shows, I've always known that at least Yorke falls into the stereotypical liberal celebrity category, though he does have the advantage of being British. Yet in this latest offering, politics seems to be definitely present if not outright prominent. That's disappointing.
Perhaps this is simply Radiohead getting older. It's been, what, 6 or so years since OK Computer, and Yorke is now pushing 33. It's said that as people grow older they become more concerned with the political process: seniors are the demographic group with the highest voting percentage, and under-30s the lowest. Or maybe Radiohead is just becoming as pretentious as the Barbera Streisands and Susan Sarandons of Hollywood, people who think that because they are famous that they must have something of value to say (They're wrong).
For my part, it's a bit too early to tell. I'll have to listen to Hail a few more times before I come to any conclusions. Perhaps Radiohead can recover from this worrisome direction in future albums. Perhaps not. Only time will tell.
"Or maybe Radiohead is just becoming as pretentious as the Barbera Streisands and Susan Sarandons of Hollywood, people who think that because they are famous that they must have something of value to say (They're wrong)."
You're wrong. Thom Yorke is in a vastly different position than other "stereotypical liberal" celebrities. He is using his art to comment on the world he lives in. When "Ok Computer" was made, his world wasn't focused on the tyranny of the United States. If Susan Serandon made a movie commenting on world politics, it would be completely acceptable. He is not stepping outside of his artform to comment; his art IS his comment.
Besides, the songs, if you take the time to critically interpret them, and not just superimpose current world politics on the album, have a much broader application than the current situation. Lyrics are a form of narrative, and narrative is much larger than any specific situation. Poets comment on their world and interpret it in ways that make complicated issues visible and understable in new light. Thom Yorke as a lyricist is very much a poet, and doing his job admirably well.
Posted by: Paul at December 11, 2005 08:59 AMHmm. I'd be interested in hearing just *why* any of your assertions are true. Whether or not Yorke is a poet seems to have little to do with whether or not he's a wanker, and your use of poet as an honorific doesn't give Yorke permission to do anything he didn't already have permission to do. If he - or anyone - wasn't previously qualified to speak about world politics, the act of writing poetry does not grant any additional qualifications, and ignorance disguised as poetry is still ignorance.
Posted by: ryan at December 11, 2005 09:09 AM