Radiohead, Limbs, and Mind

One of my deluded daydreams revolves around me, in the near future, being commissioned to write articles, essays, or stories for actual payment. I suppose that, to make such a fantasy a reality, I need to be more assertive and resourceful in my queries and research, as well as continuing to better myself as a writer. However, this latest post is, in a roundabout way, being done as a request. My best friend Edward is arguably the biggest Radiohead fan that I know, and with the recent digital release of their eighth album The King Of Limbs, he found himself torn, at least initially, between varying opinions. He enjoyed the album on his first listens, grew to appreciate the song distinctions with even more time, and likened said feelings to his initial response to their previous album, In Rainbows. After the novelty of Radiohead releasing In Rainbows as a "pay what you want" deal wore off, fans and critics heaped immediate praise, but even then, it was an album that took a little getting used to, and while the payment option highlighted how most record companies simply charged too much for most albums, I couldn't help but think that most people praised the album merely because of the release method. The King Of Limbs was released via the band's website with virtually no announcement, and Edward asked me to review the album as a way to see a second opinion. He's long expressed admiration for my opinion-based writings and reviews, and while my self-deprecating side resists praise, I respect his views on everything else, and I looked at writing about The King Of Limbs as a challenge.

The album is less than forty minutes long, making it Radiohead's shortest album to date. Therefore, I was curious to see how much Thom Yorke and company could work an actual album into such a condensed space, especially given that their lyrics and musical textures almost demand longer running times. The opening track, "Bloom," is not bad by any stretch, but doesn't immediately hook the listener, either. The words "electronic" and "experimental" are too easy and too vague to work as labels, especially for such a talented group, but they can often be used as quick standbys. These designations immediately popped into my head upon hearing "Bloom," but with repeated plays, the song proves to be neither. The lyrics are bare, and the beats are repetitive, with the only decipherable instrumentation coming from Phil Selway's scattered drumbeats. The opening tracks of 2003's Hail To the Thief contained the same thematic foundation, but quickly meshed with some incredible lyrics, thereby making the repetition work as a balance to the words. Even "15 Step," the opening to In Rainbows, worked better as a Radiohead imagining of funk.

However, by the second track, there's a definite sense of something building. "Morning Mr. Magpie" ups the tempo, maintains the repetition, but is immediately catching. The lyrics aren't anymore advanced than the beginning, but are intangibly more effective.

You've got some nerve coming here....
You stole it all, give it back
You stole it all, give it back



By the time "Lotus Flower" rolls around, my aforementioned remarks can happily be tossed aside. It's arguably the best track of the lot, and feels more like a "Radiohead song." There's a much stronger melody and cohesive structure, yet doesn't feel restricted at all; it's a combination of great songwriting, with discernible contributions from Colin and Jonny Greenwood, and Yorke's voice seamlessly glides between low and high ranges. The band puts in a little bit of everything, and the mix of sounds that open the album are now used as nearly flawless background sounds. Returning to Edward's thoughts, he initially wondered if one of the lyrics in "Separator," the album's final song--"if you think this is over, you're wrong..."--was a possible hint to more to come, even a newer release with more cohesion. For the time being, this album stands on its own. But does it? A lot of comparisons are being made to their previous effort, Kid A, an album that was either loved or hated upon release. I've listened to Kid A the fewest times of any Radiohead release, yet another non-musical idea follows the comparison between that album and The King Of Limbs: Kid A was the follow-up to OK Computer, Radiohead's best album; The King Of Limbs is the follow-up to In Rainbows, which was well-received as well as revolutionary for its optional payment plan.

This may end up being a ridiculous stretch, but I couldn't help but wonder if essayist Curtis White's thoughts on Kid A would be applicable to The King Of Limbs, since both are musically similar and coming on the heels of drastic expectations. In his excellent 2003 book The Middle Mind (which I've cited in a much different fashion before), White took exception to novelist Nick Hornby's critiques of Kid A, specifically Hornby's claims that all art needs a message, and that, as a band, Radiohead is a commodity. In the eight years that have passed between the publication of White's book and Radiohead's penchant for releasing albums on their own, the questions that were originally posed now have possible answers.

"And Radiohead asks, What does it mean to be artists opposed to technical rationality when we are obliged not only to create our art through computers, in highly technical and utterly engineered recording studios, but also in cooperation with international mega-corporations (White 58)?"

Obviously, the technological effects are still present in The King Of Limbs, but the beauty is that the band has now moved beyond being reliant on a label to promote and release their music. They can do it on their own (even if the albums are eventually released in CD format). As far as a message goes, I couldn't immediate place one in the new album, but perhaps its best to let the songs stand alone, even if a few of them aren't as strong as the band is capable of producing. In various interviews, the band members have tried to distance themselves from explicit themes or messages in their work, and The King Of Limbs doesn't offer any answers, even if fans and critics will attempt to find the questions. It isn't their best album, but for such a short work, it still demands attention, even if it's not as immediate as their previous works. Radiohead is not a band that deals in novelties or gimmicks, but a small batch of songs that are this thought-provoking, even if done based on their musical history, is something to be applauded.

I was worried that citing Curtis White would be veering into Pitchfork territory (that is, wildly speculative and unnecessary comparisons that tend to get away from the actual album). I never read other music reviews before writing my own, but for some odd reason, I happened to glance at Pitchfork's take on The King Of Limbs, and found this curious passage:

"A trawl through message boards and social networks leaves the impression that many disappointed fans are still struggling to make sense of the gap between the greatness of the thing they got and the genius of the thing they thought they might get. It's in that gap, when assessing the album overall, that it's easy to get tangled up. This is well-worn terrain for Radiohead, and while it continues to yield rewarding results, the band's signature game-changing ambition is missed."

Could this be the point? Could this be what the band was actually aiming for?

Work Cited:
White, Curtis. The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think For Themselves. Copyright 2003 by Curtis White.

The Heart Of the Matters

The current economic and ecological crises are, to put it mildly (not that one should), problematic in more ways than one. These issues are visible in a few ways, one of which is the understanding that everyone, qualified or otherwise, has his or her own solutions, opinions, and occasional agendas. The rise of political divisions in the United States, coupled with the Information Age, has made analyses, critiques, and news almost literally dizzying. I've never been a fan of soundbites,especially ones that are intended to be substitutes for actual learning. However, more in regard to the economic/banking collapses, I've found myself relying on the most basic definitions and summaries. Despite having read numerous articles (thank you, James Surowiecki--I follow you as best as I can), I'd probably fail a simple economic vocabulary test. These admissions aside, I was excited to read Curtis White's The Barbaric Heart, an almost too-brief, stern look at our current mindsets on these issues, written by a self-admitted non-scientist/economist.

The staggering number of books on these problems would probably make even the most dedicated reader wary of a new publication, even one penned by an expert. However, as indicated by his 2003 masterpiece The Middle Mind, White is an intellectual force who, sometimes by sheer will alone, makes hypotheses that are stunning and accurate. He leans to the left, yet is one of those rare voices unafraid (or, more accurately, insistent upon) of lambasting people on either side of the political spectrum. In The Middle Mind, he states that a lack of true thought and ingenuity is dangerously killing the American imagination; in The Barbaric Heart, extensions of these mind faults could end up literally killing us.

To highlight this, he uses a metaphor that may seem obvious at first glance, yet reveals a lot more with a little definition:
"The rhetoric task that confronts the Barbaric Heart is to persuade us that there are times when crime becomes a necessity. This is usually the job of politicians, the perennial flaks for barbaric purpose. The 'virtue of necessity' is also the argument of Cold Warriors, who discover that in order to confront evil (fascism, communism, Baathism, the villany du jour) they must become a little like it (White xviii)."

This notion of a barbarian goes beyond the violent acts of plundering and pillaging; it highlights the scary realization that despite the grave error of those ways in modern understandings, the participants feel that they are doing good when in fact they are doing the most evil and damage, whether this be to civilians or to the actual environment. Applying the metaphor to today's climate, this mentality doesn't mean the destruction of villages, but the utter decimation of our economy and surroundings. White asserts that it's easy to criticize corporations and the almost mythical idea of greed, but he stresses that they are not fully to blame. Everyone, from corporations to individuals, needs to completely overhaul their lifestyles and understand that much more is needed than good intentions and a coat of green paint.

"Corporations are mostly powerless to be anything other than what they are. I suspect that far from being perverse merchants of greed hell-bent on destruction, these corporate entities are as bewildered as the rest of us...[they] simply have other priorities that are to them not only duties but virtues. They are the ancient tragic virtues of the Barbaric Heart (White 42-43)."

Another stunning theory by White is the revelation that even the most dutiful environmentalists and recyclers are fighting a losing cause, since to truly see any changes in the destruction of the planet, the corporations would have to completely and systematically change how they go about their business. But, as he implies, even the most ardent supporters of a green economy have a lot of soul-searching left to do.
"Environmentalism in the United States has the habit of looking outward to the corporate and political culprits it wishes to defeat, as well as to places it wishes to preserve, and the institutions and organizations it hopes will help it. But it too rarely looks inward to the fact that what precedes environmental degradation is the debasement of the human world (White 55)."

To highlight his opinions, White follows the same route that he did in 2003, citing an excellent range of historical and literary texts, from Edward Gibbon to Walt Whitman. To escape this human suicide, he urges people to go back to the basics, to embrace ideals that come from sources that may not be obvious sources of environmental solutions: philosophy, the arts, and religion. Thankfully, he doesn't support or name any specific religious philosophy, but mentions it as a whole as a way to shake people out of their complacency, understanding that religion has such a hold on a lot of people. In order to get more people thinking about solutions, even a religious twist would be beneficial.

"What we need is to begin working toward an alternative to capitalism that, as many have argued, functions as a no-growth or steady-state economy. And in very limited ways the new emphasis many communities are placing on 'local' economies and on walkable cities is already doing this. But I don't believe that we can get to this non-capitalist place without also providing for a mode of thinking and being in the world that is, I don't have a better word for it, spiritual but spiritual with no illusions (White 157-158)."

As was the case with The Middle Mind, White's arguments and critiques are effective because, despite his goal of being somewhat insulting, they are done with the intention of igniting debates and thought, rather than the usual political oratories of shouting and intelligence insults. He wants people to be more intelligent, and metaphorical slaps in the head are needed sometimes. His writing style is a sly combination of humor, dutiful reporting, and academic flourishes, all in the name of optimism. His obvious understanding is that not everyone will agree with him, but with any call to action with environmentalism, something needs to be done, and quickly at that. Sadly, we may not be ready to change our ways of life, or may do so when it's too late. This closing citation may be depressing, but hopefully writings like these will shake us out of our hand-wringing and lead to positive changes in the world. I also find it to be equally defining of both sides of the environmental issue, both the people who feel that they're doing what they can to combat it, and the people who claim that it's a myth and mere scare-mongering.

"The Barbaric Heart is a pure emptiness, an emptiness that doesn't know itself as empty. It is an emptiness that has turned upon itself. It is a moral black hole. It is a mouth that chews. It eats what comes before it. It is a self-destroying hunger. It is a permanent state of war against all others but also, most profoundly, against itself. One part violence, one part plunder, and eventual anguish and regret (White 15)."

Work Cited:
White, Curtis. The Barbaric Heart. Copyright 2009 by Curtis White.

I. Before E.

A few years ago, I remember taking a class on Shakespeare, specifically remembering the time we spent studying Henry IV, Part One. One of my more intelligent classmates (I will give him that compliment) opened a discussion on Falstaff, a boorish, comic relief providing character. The classmate mentioned how Falstaff reminded him of Ignatius J. Reilly, the anti-hero of John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces. His next action after making this comparison is the sole reason I remember that day. Instead of explaining that Ignatius was also boorish and provided comic relief, he glanced around the classroom with a smug, satisfied smile. He started off with a great literary comparison that was relevant to the subject, and ended it with an atmosphere of "Yes, I'm extremely well-read. If you have not read A Confederacy of Dunces, I'm not going to explain myself. Shame on you."


This anecdote is a great representation of misplaced intelligence. Instead of using his knowledge for good, my classmate used it to elevate himself over other people, merely to look smart. Intelligence (and elitism, to an extent), have been on my mind a lot lately. A few weeks ago, The Daily Show ran a few clips of conservative pundits bashing Sen. Barack Obama for being a supposed elitist. I don't know Mr. Obama personally, but he's obviously educated, and I would imagine he's well-read (I would vote for a candidate based on this, instead of issues of whether or not he or she wears a flag pin). The image tossed about was that Obama is a "tofu-eating, latte-drinking elitist."



I find this shocking, since the message seems to convey that a Presidential candidate can be intelligent, but cannot use it to alienate voters. One would think that candidates (based on image alone) would or should be better off exuding intelligence. However, the pundits seem to think that conservative voters are threatened by that. (I will return to this, since the source of the elitist claims stems not from intelligence, but from comments made about certain groups of citizens). These thoughts alone made me go out and buy a book that I should have purchased long ago--Curtis White's The Middle Mind. This was my third reading of the book, and White does a stunning job of explaining the lack of serious thought and imagination prevalent in modern American culture.



"In this country, conservatives have no particular need for the Middle Mind since they have been quite content to have demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Chris Mathews, and Bill Reilly do their nasty thinking for them for many years...the Middle Mind is in the business of producing 'content' while seeming to provide an authentic culture (White iv)."



This might seem like an easy jab at conservatives (but liberals are just as much to blame, if not more, according to White). That is part of this books' brilliance. Instead of hitting easy targets, White spreads the blame evenly. In short, conservatives don't think nearly enough, and liberals think too much, in the sense that what appears to be deep thought ends up being transparent or insulting to someone's intelligence. This is what I mean when I mention the former classmate. Instead of explaining himself, he gave an example that would mean nothing to someone who didn't understand his reference. In virtually all of my own readings and essays for Chicago Ex-Patriate, I love making comparisons and contrasts, especially in literature. However, my goal is to make a point and to link that point to similar texts. I like to think that I'm intelligent and well-read, but I know there is a lot of information and literature that I'm not familiar with, and I would be the first one to acknowledge that fact. People who know more about given subjects than I do are fascinating to me. However, people who impart knowledge can be in a tricky position, and that is a part of White's argument. People are either talked down to ("The Middle Mind assumes that the people it takes as its audience don't know anything; it assumes that most people are benevolently stupid [31]") or given empty fillers that pass for culture and intelligence ("The Middle Mind's motto could be Promise him culture but give him TV [33]").



The roots of the elitist claims about Obama did not come about because he mentioned Thomas Pynchon in a speech; he made remarks about residents of small towns in Pennsylvania that many (conservative) people felt made him sound "above" the small town citizens. He referred to them as "bitter," clinging to "guns and religion" because of insecurities about employment and the economy. Once he said this (his intentions aside), people were quick to draw their elitist epees. I could go into the irony of conservatives defending religion and the right to bear arms, and then turning around to bash someone for a statement like that. Perhaps a replacement of the word "clinging" (maybe "focusing?") would have eased the sting.

Interestingly enough, in my research, I found an excellent blog posting by Carl Golden, a Republican (think of this as blog partisanship). He believes that Obama was being honest in a political arena where honesty can be taboo. Again, it wasn't what Obama said, it was how he said it. Like I mentioned above, the elitist claims did not come to light because of intelligence specifically, but the idea of elitism is rooted in that. An elitist (one can be found in any field of study and any political party) believes that he or she is above others, presumably because he or she is more intelligent and understanding on a given issue. I wish I had a specific quote, but I recall someone mentioning that all Presidential candidates are elitist, because they believe they are the best ones suited to run the country.

In conclusion, there should be more focus on intelligence, whether political or otherwise. "One of the great tragedies in public discourse in the United States is that what we need most (powerful intelligence) we forbid (White 59)." It's all fine and good for candidates to appeal themselves to everyone, but intelligence should be celebrated, not alienating.

Work Cited:
White, Curtis. The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think For Themselves. Copyright 2003 by Curtis White.