So how are we going to make sense of this, the second album in less than 12 months from Radiohead? Is it, as some have already called it, 'Kid B', a companion piece to last year's dazed release, or the 'proper' album to follow the less accessible, more experimental drive of the previous record? Outtakes the band wished to release, even though they didn't quite hit the mark required to make it on to the big comeback?
When members of Radiohead first referred to what has now been released as 'Amnesiac', it seemed quite a minor project, a 'Kid A' offshoot for songs the band were fond of but which didn't fit the album. A couple of EPs - or possibly an Internet only release - were considered. This last month, however, Thom Yorke has suggested in interview that perhaps 'Kid A' is the oddity, and 'Amnesiac' should be considered the real deal, a view of the record supported by the band's willingness, this time, to promote the thing with videos and TV appearances.
The strange thing is, there's very little clear blue water between the two records. It simply seems that Radiohead's couple of years in the studio produced a couple of hours of music, and the decision as to which tracks would be placed on which album was rather arbitrary; the band themselves have included almost as many tracks from 'Amnesiac' in their live setlists this past year as from 'Kid A'. There's no noticeable divide.
So, there's the same new-found interest in rhythms - and the battering soundscapes Warp are famous for - in tracks like 'Packt Like Sardines...' and 'Hunting Bears'. There are perfectly straightforward songs with a couple of wibbly noises added so they blend in ('Knives Out', 'I Might Be Wrong') and sullen but haunting ballads, like 'Pyramid Song' and 'You And Whose Army'. The lyrics maintain Thom's obtuse blend of personal and socio-political observation. And one of the tracks, 'Amnesiac/Morning Bell', is merely an alternate (and possibly better) mix of a track from 'Kid A'.
The band are urging people to treat 'Amnesiac' as an entirely different entity to 'Kid A' - perhaps fearful that people will dismiss it as an addendum - but it's impossible to avoid the intricate ties that bind the album to its predecessor. However, it's clearly no subset or mop-up, but a record just as carefully planned and just as fine - the second half of the whole. Yes, and it's just as frustrating, too, and fiddly and awkward and self-conscious and self-important and neurotic and panicky, and as often ugly as it is beautiful, and as often pompous or irrelevant as it is profound.
Just as you've come to expect.
