Talk:The King of Limbs/Archive 1

'Universal Sigh' Thom Yorke photo
Noticed someone removed this (and other stuff), but I stuck it back in... is there a reason we can't have it? When undoing a huge change to the page it's nice to state a reason beyond "reverting to last good version". Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So Snoop God undid reverted the page again, but judging from the given reason in the edit history, was only looking to edit the infobox - is this correct? No reason is given for removing the Thom Yorke photo or other edits. I have no opinion on the infobox so have left it at Snoop God's revision. Snoop, want to weigh in? Popcornduff (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Newspaper album"
okay... WHAT IN FUCK IS A NEWSPAPER ALBUM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.138.97 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WIRED says it possible refers to the large amount of artwork, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-02/14/radiohead-king-of-limbs --194.36.2.230 (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it is a reference to newsprint paper and its recycle-friendliness. Perhaps the artwork will be lignin and turn yellow in the sunlight. StevePrutz (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It refers to the layout of the physical album. Imagine a gatefold album -- two cardboard sleeves, opening at a fold -- but taller, with pages of artwork affixed to the inside, so that it seems like a newspaper or a magazine. 203.219.29.254 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's what radiohead calls their special edition, so i'm down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.214.22 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think more information will become available once the physical release date approaches. A credible source will probably do a report on it, and then we can add clarification. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"The phrase 'the king of limbs' also appears in the 23rd chapter of the Qur'an."
The only citation for this interesting factoid is to an NME.com article. Can't we get a citation to the supposed Qur'an passage itself? For the life of me I can't find it anywhere. For instance the phrase "king of limbs" does not seem to appear anywhere on this seemingly authoritative page. If no one can verify that the phrase actually appears there and provide a good link proving it, I think this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.0.234 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, it appears to reference the advice of a Qur'an commentator named Ibn Kathir, who seems to have used the phrase in reference to the proper mindset one should take while praying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.0.234 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO it seems extremely likely the band took the name from the tree and it had nothing to do with the Qu'ran. Would prefer to have some concrete indication of the link before it's included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.105 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a disclaimer along the lines that nobody knows whether the band had this in mind; it seems premature to judge conclusively one way or another that the title has "nothing to do with the Qur'an." At this extremely early stage I think it's a given that any information about the source of the album's title is necessarily speculative.  The truth is that we don't know; they may well have intended both references, or neither of them.  There seem to be only two places where this phrase was found before the album's release was announced, so it seems relevant to the inevitable discussion as to the title's meaning.  The article had inaccurately referenced the Qur'an itself; I changed that to an accurate, yet qualified reference to the commentary where the phrase was actually found.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.0.234 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you ask me, the fact that you have to mention that 'it is unknown whether or to what extent Radiohead had such ideas in mind when they came up with the title of their album' makes its inclusion questionable. We have good reason to suspect the tree is relevant to the title but so far no reason to suspect the Qur'an has anything to do with it at all. IMO things are irrelevant until proven relevant (beyond reasonable doubt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.105 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The only reason we have to suspect that the tree has anything to do with it is that it is apparently a few miles away from where a previous album was recorded. That's fairly speculative--it could be entirely coincidental.  A reference to Muslim spirituality is, IMO, not any more speculative, especially considering that previous Radiohead releases have demonstrated that they have an interest in both controversial geopolitical matters (see Hail to the Thief) and transcendent spirituality (see In Rainbows).  But for now, again I think the fact that the phrase in question was found somewhere--anywhere--is worthy of inclusion, because that's really all we have to go on.  Also, NME brought it up with their mis-citation, so it would be nice to be able to put the lie to their assertion that the phrase is found anywhere in the Qur'an, and show how they might have come to that incorrect conclusion.  71.165.0.234 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that all the album and website art released so far features densely knotted trees (see also the "These Are My Twisted Woods" artwork with These Are My Twisted Words) suggests a strong link to the 'king of limbs' oak tree. Perhaps if it was full of Islamic art instead you might have a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.105 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Such reasoning is speculation. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So maybe the solution is to delete the entire section? I don't see a principled reason to delete the Qur'an theory, and not the tree theory as well.  They're both from the same source (NME), and the band hasn't verified either.  I still think it's worth mentioning both as viable theories, as long as they're properly qualified (i.e. as being merely theories so far, just like the number of tracks on the release, or what a "newspaper album" is, or almost anything else about this release save for its title and price).  Surely there are other speculative but justifiable theories about art on Wikipedia. 71.165.0.234 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that all speculation about the album title is just that at the moment: speculation. But I maintain that as speculation goes the tree theory is plausible and the Qu'ran theory is weak. Either way, I'd be happy to see the entire section go, myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.105 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We can't posit theories ourselves on Wikipedia. Stick to the quoted sources as quickly as possible without trying to craft interpretations. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted it. Specifically, I deleted the Qu'ran discussion; NME sounds confident about the tree being the namesake, and tacks on the Qu'ran bit in what seems seems to be erroneous speculation following a Google search. If there's anything to the Qu'ran element, we'll hear more about it very soon. WWB (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you here. We've seen this type of speculation with past Radiohead albums.  I honestly can't imagine it has anything to do with the Qu'ran.  While Thom Yorke has known to be politically active, his politics concern Global Warming, green energy, etc.  --TravisBernard (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Eight Tracks?
The article says that the Japanese website for the album states there are eight tracks. I checked the source - the line on the site is that, if you take the download-only option, you get "8 tracks from the album 'The King Of Limbs'". This is clearly a different statement to the one made in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcd199 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the website lists "8 Tracks from the new album「THE KING OF LIMBS」" for the download and "CD(8Tracks)" for the newspaper edition. From this I believe it is safe to assume that the album will have 8 tracks. I have already made this change before and explained it in the revision but I guess I'll make it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.105 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Any changes you make need to be backed up with sources. At this point, it hasn't been officially announced, so there isn't much reliable sourcing out there. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Then let's at least mention it says CD, too, not just download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.105 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This japanese album website is wrong. go to the link and press the help button, and etc. it's a fake. plus, 2 10" records for 8 songs? please! even $14 for 8 songs sounds stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.214.22 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I went to the help site and asked a live operator if the site was legit and was told it was the correct website. S/he asked me where I'd read it was fake, said it would be "looked into". No idea if that counts for anything on Wiki since I can't prove any of this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.105 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They're not saying. Nor do they have to.  We will all find out on Saturday, as Radiohead intends.  We should make no mention of a hypothetical track listing (including a hypothetical count) until the release, when sources will provide the track listing. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine with me - but for the record the site is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.105 (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get why so many people seem to think that the vinyls will have more songs. If they are 10", at 45 rpm, there's no room for much more. Remember that the special edition of In Rainbows had too vinyls containing only CD 1.--Mjloca (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre
think somebody needs to ammend the genre. everybody knows that king of limbs (their final album) was going to be a hip hop album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.78 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say you need to provide a source, but you're not serious. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre?
The genre of The King of Limbs is not yet known, but based on Radiohead's previous albums, wouldn't it make sense to label it alternative rock instead of dubstep or other genres? I don't want to keep reverting peoples' edits if it turns out to actually be a dubstep album, of course. But I'm pretty sure it won't be "krautrock/rhythm and blues"! wia (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof falls on those who add genres, so I'd think alternative rock would suffice, at least for now. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Page is now protected. I don't know what was behind that incredible run of vandalism. I'm not even mad, I'm just impressed. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * People be crazy. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now that it's been released, this is easily their least rock album yet. I'm not even sure if this should be "alternative rock". At the very least I'm going to add electronic and experimental rock to the genre list. bob rulz (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The album has a very UK 2-step garage feel... producers like Burial and Kode9 have a huge influence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodvicok (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Having any kind of rock genre listed is so out of place. Other genres are heard far more clearly, why not have them listed instead? Why do people automatically reach for rock? It's the same with The Eraser album, alt and indie rock were listed at one point! People need to move on, god knows Thom and Radiohead have. InHaze (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without sources nothing should be listed. This isn't a Burial album anyways. I'm clearing genre for now until discussions that involve sources can be discussed on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/arts/music/19radiohead.html?src=twrhp NYT speculates "a galloping rhythm and a throbbing low bass line akin to the British dance music called dubstep." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.4.243 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not bad, but that's only describing one song. Not the whole album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest "adult electronica" (like adult contemporary)&mdash;bland, harmless, meaningless electronic music that says nothing about anything and is intended for middle-aged, mild-mannered hipsters.—indopug (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well surely electronic music would be acceptable until other genres can be added as it is clearly electronic with all the synth sounds,loops and electronic drums not to mention all the electronic textures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.246.222 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

EDGY

CONTROVERSIAL

Kobb (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Most critical reviews are listing the album as electronica and indie rock. Sbrianhicks (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I think listing the Dubstep influences is essential, but probably just in a special "genre" section. For the album's chart, we should just list three :"Alternative, Experimental AND Electronica". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.84.42 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

American CD release
Hi all! The article in it's current form (as of 2/16/11) lists a UK CD release date, but has there been any word on a U.S. and Canada release date? 68.80.174.152 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was in the article before. In North America (or maybe just the U.S.), the CD comes out the day after the UK/Europe release.  I can't find the source now and don't have the time to look. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

4 days before release? No.
This album may have leaked, but is only available for pre-order. I'm 99% certain we need to revert to the 5 day thing. 173.57.39.117 (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * MP3/WAV version is out today, pre-order from the band's website is for the Newspaper Album. – Cbing01 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey all. I made that original edit. Perhaps it'd be better as "five days before scheduled release". (bold for the purposes of this discussion only). Thoughts? wia (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well FWIW I was just confusing how the site said preorder after the album hit, but I guess it was just the newspaper edition. 173.57.39.117 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre/Classification
Two points, first of all I'm not entirely sure how this can be called an album as it would fit the definition of an EP much better than that of an album. Second, this album's genre is most definitely dubstep/2-step garage along with rock/alternative. 94.209.235.75 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlock the article please
Unlock the article, please. I want to edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.57.254 (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Register an account and get confirmed and you'll be able to edit. IP vandalism necessitated this page being protected. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reception
We need to start putting the album rankings in the critical reception section. for example, The Vancouver Sun gives it 5 stars out of 5 http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Multi+faceted+King+Limbs+worth+embracing/4314750/story.html. etc ...

i just put the reviews into alphabetical order and added a new one, but two have dropped off the end, and i can't for the life of me see why that should happen! Can anyone help?
 * Yes, I fixed it by reverting your two edits. Thanks for going to the trouble but it is not necessary to alphabetically order reviews. I also reverted the blog review you added. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistake
worth embracing," but "ultimately ends up feeling a bit week." Can anyone changed that obvious spelling mistake from week to weak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.252.134 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Error: "Singles from In Rainbows"
The righthand box mistakenly says "Singles from In Rainbows". That should be the name of the new album, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.173.171 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ultimately ends up feeling a bit weak"
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Multi+faceted+King+Limbs+worth+embracing/4314750/story.html That line describes just the closing song Separator in its original context, but the Wikipedia article gives the impression that it was used to describe the whole album, which actually got 5/5 from that review. I'll re-wording the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.104.56 (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Telegraph calls the album a "a sonic adventure that is both weird and accessible." On the avant-garde sound of it, the reviewer says :"If this is what the future sounds like, it is nothing to be afraid of." I think it's worth mentionning in the Reception section. Here's a link : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/cdreviews/8334723/Radiohead-The-King-Of-Limbs-review.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.84.42 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fmarchand, 20 February 2011
I am the author of the Vancouver Sun review of The King of Limbs and I'm afraid I have been misquoted. The line: The Vancouver Sun claimed the album is "worth embracing," but "ultimately ends up feeling a bit weak." The "weak" comment referred to the last song (Separator) only, not the entire album. I would appreciate if the line was changed to: Francois Marchand of The Vancouver Sun claimed the album is the one "that bridges Radiohead’s many different styles, mainly streamlining its three most experimental recordings: Kid A, Amnesiac and In Rainbows." Also, the reference should be linked to http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Album+review+Radiohead+King+Limbs+steps+forward+step+back/4312060/story.html, which gives the proper rating of 4/5 rather than the incorrect 5/5 that appeared in a later version. Thank you, Francois Marchand

Fmarchand (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I changed the quote, but kept the link to the later version of the story, as that version maintained the "worth embracing" quote, and, in general, later editions are preferable to earlier ones. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I think that the comparisons to Amnesiac are really legit, and should be cited in this articl. As a source, I suggest the NME blog about The King of Limbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TchockyPuritan (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Aristonamp, 21 February 2011
Note: a fan has verified that there is a King of Limbs tree in Savernake, signposted with that name, on the side of Savernake close to Tottenham House. Please edit in as appropriate. Link: http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/articles/blogs/finding-radioheads-king-of-limbs

Aristonamp (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Blogs do not constitute reliable sources per WP policy. If this appears in a reliable source, please make a new edit request with that information. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Popmatters is a serious magazine, they give the album 9 stars out of ten, I think it is worth mentionning and we should start a shart with all the reviews verdicts, but only with serious music magasines. http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/137332-radiohead-the-king-of-limbs/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.232.103 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Reception
PLEASE, I think the chart with the reception details should be added, only valuable Music magasines or websites shall be cited (aka NME, Pitchfork, Popmatters ...) Popmatters gave the album 9 out of 10 for a start : http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/137332-radiohead-the-king-of-limbs/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.232.103 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Error: "Nothern European"
First sentence of Artwork, miss one R — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredGignac (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Reception
Something to take into consideration: The review by Sputnikmusic right now up for view was written just hours after release and is 3.5 stars out of 5. The other staff review written days after is a 4.5 out of 5. This album is meant to let sink in and I believe the later review reflects this. Therefore I belive it should be used. http://sputnikmusic.com/review/41873/Radiohead-The-King-of-Limbs/ 97.157.75.4 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rumors of a second disc are at this point unsubstantiated
Any sections about a rumored second disc, similar to In Rainbows, based on a few signs that indicate there might be a second disc, violate WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL and will be removed on sight. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Pitchfork Review
"He also summed up the album by criticizing its "divisive" style. "This is well-worn terrain for Radiohead, and while it continues to yield rewarding results, the band's signature game-changing ambition is missed."

The quote: "This is well worn terrain..." has nothing to do with what Mark Pytlik said about it being divisive. Furthermore, he didn't criticise it being either diverse (as had originally been written), or divisive - and certainly not in summary. I think whoever wrote this section needs to re-write or at least review it.

UPDATE: Alright, I edited it. Guess nobody else was going to. By " I ", I mean the same person from two different IP addresses. One was my work compu.. yeah ok nobody cares. Oh well. kthxbye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.113.2 (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Release section
Why are all the prices quoted in US$?  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The sputnikmusic review ...
Can anyone please delete that part about the Sputnikmusic review giving the album 3.5, because it was an early review, and not by a guy from the office of the website, here's the later, and official review : http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/41873/Radiohead-The-King-of-Limbs/. It's a staff review, that came out a day later, and when you look for a review of The King of Limbs on Sputnikmusic's website, they give you this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TchockyPuritan (talk • contribs) 08:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Credits?
Should we say something about the credits? The retail version has some credits, though it doesn't say which member did what, it does mention the guest musicians. --Merijn2 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Music" Section
Shouldn't this be renamed to composition? It is also very awkwardly written, does it require a rewrite? I don't know how to edit wiki properly, but I thought I'd just open up some ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.74.193 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles, other issues related to recording
As most people editing this page will know, the band members have done exactly zero proper interviews since releasing The King of Limbs, nor did they use their blog or twitter to keep people informed in any detail during the recording process. What information we do have about its recording- including some of the sounds on the album, who created them, and using what instrument or technology- is highly speculative, and all contributors of this page should remember that a review or article suggesting an album was recorded in a certain place, a sound originated from a certain source, or the album sounds a certain way, unless the claim is exceedingly obvious (i.e. there is what sounds like piano in the song "Codex") must be worded to reflect the source it is coming from, rather than pretending to be an undisputed fact.

There is an important factual problem with this article right now, concerning its contention, seemingly backed up by several sources, but in fact backed up by none definitively, that this album was- not "probably", not "partly", just was- recorded in LA. I recently made an edit to the "Recording" section to add some of the small amount of information we do have about the band's recording process, from interviews that took place during that process. Most of this information was kept, and some was not. Overall, the section was improved by the later editor, but one thing that was deleted was a more specific reference to the only basis on which people ever made the claim the album was recorded in LA, and specifically at Drew Barrymore's house, namely, a 2010 post (which, itself, has since been deleted, but was referenced in numerous other blogs and non-Internet publications of that time) on a personal blog of Jia-Rui Cook, a writer for the LA Times. That post is quoted in the Guardian article we do cite, and in the Stereogum article whose citation I added.

Jia-Rui Cook's blog consisted of brief "postcards" from various places she had been in the days she posted them. Her entry in early February 2010 said that Bryan Cook (seemingly her spouse or relative), a sound engineer, had worked to set up a house in the Hollywood Hills so Radiohead could record there, which they had been doing for the past three weeks, and had just wrapped, at a party attended by a number of other musicians and actors. The deletion of the post several days after it appeared may point to Radiohead having asked her to remove it, or to an excessive number of hits to her blog. Although the writer's status as journalist for a noted publication like the LA Times lent credence to the story (both at the time, and in 2011 when it was put together with the thanks to Barrymore to speculate that the album was recorded at her house) the band never confirmed or denied that those recordings ended up on the album, or even took place at all. They never specifically made clear the album was recorded in LA, on their blog, in an interview or anywhere else.

The album's liner notes, as the cited Guardian article notes, say nothing about where the album was recorded. They thank Drew Barrymore, among other people. But they don't say why. They don't mention Drew Barrymore's house, or Los Angeles, or even the USA. Besides Jia-Rui Cook, there is only one source suggesting the band were recording in LA, a much less specific post by Phil Selway on the band's official blog, Dead Air Space, announcing their Haiti concert on January 24, 2010. In keeping with the January recording schedule announced in December 2009 on the same blog by Ed O'Brien, it says "We're in the middle of recording at the moment, so you'll [those attending the impromptu concert] be catching us on the fly." Phil, however, like Ed the previous month, doesn't specify where this recording is taking place. He doesn't actually say the band are in LA, just that they will be performing at a theatre there for a Haiti benefit in a couple of days.

Although it seems unlikely a band concerned about carbon emissions would fly out to LA on two days notice even to organize an earthquake benefit concert, Thom Yorke has been known to fly around the world seemingly just to play a DJ set in that same city, and if one wanted to raise a lot of money fast for Haiti (as the band stated was their main intention with the concert, whose tickets were auctioned off) LA would be the most logical city in the world to play in, especially for this band, who have a long history of support in that area. The concert, as expected, attracted many of their celebrity fans, such as Justin Timberlake. Although the band's post may suggest they were recording, not merely playing live, in LA, it's equally possible from reading it that they were not, and made a quick trip there for the special concert. Having watched the concert online, I don't remember any specific references the band made to recording in LA (they don't talk much during concerts). They did explain how they had no lighting and were missing much of their usual gear, due to having been in the midst of recording rather than touring. I could see this situation having arisen even if the band had made a quick trip over from England, since they might not have been able to arrange transportation for as much gear as they usually toured with.

Now, in all likelihood, the band were in LA, recording The King of Limbs there at that time. Due to the signs already pointing in that direction, I was inclined, as most fans and journalists were, to believe Cook's blog post when it appeared a few weeks after the concert. It fit all the circumstantial evidence. Thom Yorke later that spring was even working with Atoms for Peace- several of whose members are based in California. However, as the past few months have shown, Thom Yorke is in California a lot, whether or not he's recording there. Neither I nor anyone else apparently can vouch for the accuracy of the Cook post itself, which is the entire problem. The post has been scrubbed from the Internet, and our most notable sources reference it, without actually confirming its accuracy.

Meanwhile we have this claim, presented without qualification, that Limbs was recorded in LA, which is only partly correct at best, and flat out wrong at worst. I like the city of Los Angeles, and I have no problem with albums being recorded there, but I believe some better citations are needed, particularly if we are going to imply the main recording of the album took place in Los Angeles, when the LA recording (if it ever occurred) apparently wrapped in three weeks in January 2010, and the band were still recording the album until at least the summer of 2010, and probably afterward, judging by the Ed and Phil interviews of later in 2010 (reference to Ed's interview of June 2010 was deleted when I added it to the article, but that was the one where he said- presumably long since departed from the unnamed house we shall assume without evidence belongs to Drew Barrymore- that they were "in the heart of recording right now").

If the later 2010 sessions aren't enough to show LA wasn't the exclusive site of recording, how about the 2009 sessions? According to Ed in December 2009, their 2010 work was a continuation from what they'd "started last summer" (seemingly, the May 2009 sessions, from which Harry Patch and Twisted Words originated, and maybe also material that made the album- maybe the orchestral material, Bloom or Codex, given that at the time Harry Patch had recently been released, Thom Yorke in an interview said they were considering releasing an EP of orchestral Radiohead music- this is my speculation, tying two things together, not something that belongs in Wikipedia, but the point is, it seems quite possible that something for King of Limbs was from those sessions, since Ed stated quite clearly that the recording sessions for the album had begun in May 2009- and there is absolutely no reason to think those 2009 sessions occurred in Los Angeles, more likely they occurred in the band's Oxford studio, although we can't know).

Does no one realize that even if we lacked the evidence for the other locations in which this album was recorded, it's very unlikely an album as texturally complex and seemingly sample-based as this one was recorded in one place in just three weeks, even if a "wrap party" was held there, and even if the band could be proven to have thanked the owner of the house in their liner notes? Hail to the Thief, the band's simplest recording session since Pablo Honey, was initially recorded in LA in two weeks in September and October 2002 (as well documented as this latest LA recording has been poorly proven), then dragged into the next year as the band worked on it in their Oxford studio. OK Computer's recording was begun in an apple shed in Didcot, Oxfordshire (four songs completed there in early summer 1996) and then famously finished in Jane Seymour's house in Bath in late 1996 and 1997. Even The Bends was recorded in a number of different sessions stretching throughout the year 1994, with various tours of Asia and Mexico and work on the My Iron Lung EP in between. The years 2009 and 2010 also saw a number of Radiohead and Atoms for Peace and Phil Selway tour stints and Thom Yorke, Selway and Jonny Greenwood recording sessions, in between which, according to interviews at the time, which are all we have, Limbs was recorded. Only one of those many periods of recording has even been suggested to have been in Los Angeles.

Radiohead have a history of recording sessions lasting much longer than three weeks whose material is largely (Kid A first work in Copenhagen 1999) or entirely scrapped later (In Rainbows first work with producer Mark Stent, Oxford, 2005-2006), and even if the band came out and said back in January 2010, "we are now recording in Los Angeles in Drew Barrymore's house" it would still not mean all, most, or even any of the material on the finished album had necessarily come from there, given the lack of comment since about having recorded the album in LA, indeed, given the number of other Radiohead recording sessions which did not occur in LA and were also documented from 2009 to 2010. As far as I'm concerned, if someone says we can't mention The Present Tense having possibly been worked on during the King of Limbs sessions because that's pure speculation (when that song was once named by Yorke as a future Radiohead song, and an orchestral version of it was created sometime during this period by Jonny Greenwood, which later ended up in the film Norwegian Wood) it's equally speculation to say this album was recorded in LA. The claim isn't backed up by any specifics that are currently in this article. If the specifics given by Jia-Rui Cook do not seem credible enough to treat as fact, then the claim about Barrymore certainly isn't relevant, nor is there any certainty about the album having been recorded even partially in LA, as any such speculation rested mostly on fans' memory of that earlier story. 70.108.122.160 (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it's a sticky issue. Yes, it's obvious that TKOL was recorded over many separate sessions over several months/years in different places – just like Radiohead always work, as you've mentioned. But, again, you're right in that the band has been unusually mysterious about their exact processes and motivations in making the album. (I attempted to sew some of their accounts into a more cohesive narrative in my last edit, but it still isn't much to go on beyond O'Brien's usual vague assessments of band mood.) It's one of those frustrating Wiki things in that anyone who has an interest in the band and has followed the TKOL stuff [i]knows[/i] it was at least partly recorded in Barrymore's house and that they worked on it in LA and that they almost certainly worked on it in the UK and maybe other places too, but maybe the sources just aren't concrete enough to state anything at all and we should strip it out entirely. TBH I'd rather that than go back to the endless vague "probablies" and "maybes" of the earlier version. It's all well and good trying to cover your bases, but not without sources. Popcornduff (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre
Radiohead has obviously changed quite a bit from the early 90s and as such, there are several genres associated with the band. But given this record is very far removed from albums like Pablo Honey, or The Bends, genres that might be more appropriate descriptors for those albums (such as alternative) need to have citations if applied to an album that came out in 2011. Removing a reliable third party source describing this record as art rock and simply listing the album as alternative without any citation is vandalism. If a user wants alternative listed, either find a third party source describing it as such, or at the very least, just add it without deleting a third party source that you disagree with.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're citing an album review that gives passing mention to the band as "art rock", and it's not even one of the more noteworthy review sites. A better source would be an in-depth piece dissecting the music (instrument/music production publications like Guitar World and Modern Drummer are very good sources for this sort of thing, unlike reviews, which are essentially opinion pieces and should be only cited for their critiques rather than for any factual information). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The publication the review appeared in is considered a reliable third party source by Wikipedia standards, and removing it just because you personally disagree with it is considered vandalism. You're not even replacing it with a source describing the record as alternative. If you want to leave the alternative tag on the article, that's fine, but you can't keep deleting something that meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm trying to resolve this without reporting you for vandalism, but continued removal of a reliable source will eventually be reported.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Also, bear in mind that you are the currently the only one pushing for this source. As I said, it's one review out of dozens that describes the band, not the record, as "art rock". That's pretty tenuous. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, you're removing a reliable third party source you disagree with and replacing with something that has no citation or reference at all. Radiohead has been called art rock in a host of publications over the past decade and you can see that in the citations for their other records since Kid A. Even though I think calling Radiohead or anything they've released in the past decade as 'alternative rock' is pretty tenuous, I'm fine leaving that description on the page even though absolutely no citation whatsoever has ever been posted referring to this album as such.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really not that insistent on alt-rock being here. I'm pointing out the issue is your source; not all sources are equal. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You not liking the source doesn't mean it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Reviews written by music critics that appear in major newspapers and magazines like the one cited are all over music pages on Wikipedia. If you're that insistent on removing it, you at least need to replace it with some sort of citation.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone is intent on deleting the art rock reference that is backed up by a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards at the expense of the alternative rock reference, it needs to be cited in some matter or another. Please...ANY review from a music critic at all that refers to this album as alternative rock will end this.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Radiohead is an alternative rock band. There are tons and tons of reliable sources, including several on their page, saying so. Music created by an alternative rock band is going to be alternative rock. Like it or not, that's the way it is. City O f Silver 18:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

But yet none calling this record alternative rock and no sources calling them alternative rock at all in a decade. It's not 1995 anymore.Mlillybaltimore (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You say that they're alternative, but according to who and when? While I understand the logic of leaving it on the main band page, it makes no sense for this album in particular. 1995 Radiohed...alternative for sure. 2011 Radiohead? Not by a long shot and you don't have the sources to back up your argument regarding this album. All I'm asking for is a reliable third-party source calling this album alternative rock. If you can produce that, I'll leave well enough alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlillybaltimore (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Staircase, the Daily Mail and other songs
People keep adding the fact that two new songs, Staircase and the Daily Mail, were performed by Radiohead after TKOL's release (at Glastonbury and the From the Basement session) and speculating that they may have been part of the TKOL sessions. While it seems likely they were, it seems to me that adding this without a source is speculation. There's nothing to tie them to the TKOL sessions beyond the fact that they were played on live TKOL performances. But I could be wrong - opinions? Popcornduff (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not worth noting unless they were recorded/written for the album and rejected. The band playing them during promotion for the album has little to no relevance. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Remixes and Universal Sigh subheadings
Someone keeps removing the Remixes and Universal Sigh subheadings, calling them unnecessary. I think they help organise the page better - they both seem to deserve their own sections to me. But I won't put them back without some discussion first. Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's very little information on the remixes, so these subheaders are unnecessary. Subheaders are best for multi-paragraph sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

interview Ed
Ed has given an interview in which he says something about the making of the record. The relevant part is as follows: ''But you still bring a lot of input into the songs. E- Yeah, for example, for the last record, he didn’t know how it was gonna be, so we made the songs jamming together, and he would bring lyrics or melodies. Everybody is allowed lots of creative freedom. S- Do you have a recurrent pattern to make the songs? Like first the music then the lyrics? E- In the last record, music came first, then the lyrics, and the melody came after. So we had blocks of music and then Thom would write a lead vocal line melody and lyrics to it. But you know, on OK Computer, the lyrics, they’d be basic’ with the songs being strummed on acoustic with the basis of the lyrics, then we’d go to the rehearsal and the arrangements would change, and the lyrics evolved as the music evolved.'' I want to put this information in the article but I am not sure how.--Merijn2 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, the interview is here: http://alltuntun.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/“uno-tiene-que-encontrar-su-voz”/#more-849 --Merijn2 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Genre?
This album's genre has stumped everybody. Here I suggest some potential ones that have at least limited references to back them up, and some pros and cons of each as regards this particular Radiohead album.

*Alternative rock

Pro- Radiohead came up in the era when alternative rock was going mainstream and were firmly identified with it, sonically and philosophically. Even today the band's official YouTube channel gives their genre (though not for this specific album- and note they began the channel in the In Rainbows era) as "Alternative." Limbs continues and if anything intensifies the eclectic approach to "rock" music associated with alt rock. A number of alternative rock musicians in the 1980s- from Byrne/Eno to the Cure- followed many of the approaches Radiohead take on this album, from sampling, to rhythm-centered music, to use of guitar for texturing.

Con- Few reviews used the words "alternative rock" in reference to this album. It's so far afield from "rock" as we define it today that calling it alternative seems a stretch, particularly because "alternative rock" in common usage since 1991, in terms of the charts and in terms of Radiohead's older releases, tends to suggest a form of anthemic, guitar-centred rock. Indeed, Wikipedia's Alternative rock article focuses mainly on that side of the music. Radiohead's self-designation as "alternative" does not necessarily mean they still identify with the same conception as the "alternative rock" in our (highly flawed) Wikipedia article. There are only electric guitars on half the album's songs, and they are only prominent on three- Magpie, Little by Little, and Separator. None of these three songs uses heavy guitar distortion, which was present at least briefly on every past Radiohead album. Even Kid A and Amnesiac had songs which were perfectly at home on alternative rock radio, and In Rainbows, despite its generally somber approach which was arguably closer to both classic rock and non-rock music such as dub and electronic genres, still featured many songs that did well on that chart. That is not the case here, making the genre arguable.

Conclusion: Alternative rock should be included in the genres only along with other genres which make clear the album's more specific sound and its deviation from the sounds of the band's previous work. I am neither opposed nor in favor of using this genre. However, the idea that simply because Radiohead are, overall, considered an alternative rock band, every album they make is alternative rock, is ludicrous.

'''*Experimental rock ''' Pro- Again, the band overall are often referred to as an experimental rock band, and this album if anything further justifies the use of "experimental." It arguably sits with Amnesiac as the most experimental work in their catalog, in its final result, and in its process, it is even further afield, using DJ vinyl emulation sampling techniques rather than the now-standard-across-all-genres ProTools (which they used for Kid A and Amnesiac) to generate the music. This approach again compares with the efforts of many experimental rock acts who used sampling.

Con- Again, the same issue. Experimental rock, even more than alternative rock, tends to have a basis in, if not the standard guitar riffs and screaming, then at least some very abrasive sounds originating in punk and underground genres such as no wave. Other than the Afrobeat-ish Magpie and muddy Little by Little, this album has little in the way of that kind of subversive edge, at least on its placid surface, nor does it have the kind of extended instrumental passages associated with experimental rock artists. Its most sonically abrasive and instrumentally adventurous track, Feral, is nowhere near rock at all, being an experimental dance fragment influenced by dubstep. One would almost want to use a genre like no wave for this album before trying to call it experimental rock.

Conclusion: Although the album is experimental in its techniques, its lack of sonic qualities associated with experimental rock argues against using that genre for it. Then again, this same argument could be made for most of the band's work, perhaps even all their studio albums, given the generally slick production of Nigel Godrich, which privileges ambient texture over visceral qualities, rhythm or angular riffs. Then again, being that it is an album made with rock instruments, which lies at the outer edges of rock due to the experimental techniques used to construct it, "experimental rock" almost seems a no-brainer. Inconclusive if we should use this genre. If we do, it will need strong sourcing.

'''*Art rock ''' Pro- Radiohead are sometimes identified as an "art rock" band overall, about as much as any other band are identified as "art rock," although that being said, this is relatively infrequent, since the term is not that common these days. In any case, by the Wikipedia article's definition of art rock, King of Limbs certainly fits to some extent, especially given that art rock is a form of rock explicitly not driven by loud guitars at the expense of other instruments. It is textured music, often with abstract lyrics. This fits King of Limbs. In addition, art rock bands were interested in complex production techniques and made use of electronics, another link with this album.

Con- Art rock is said to be driven primarily by keyboards, but this album actually features fewer synths than most of Radiohead's past work, including such albums as The Bends and OK Computer. Codex has an (acoustic) piano, as does the first few seconds of Bloom. Otherwise, significant amounts of keyboard or synthesizer are only present in one song, Lotus Flower, and perhaps in Feral. This makes no more of the album reliant on keyboards than on guitars- in each case merely half. Nevertheless, the frequent use of orchestral instruments and lush production techniques that distance the sound from raw rock n roll, could be described as "art rock," even if I'm not sure they actually have been in reviews. This points up a problem. "Art rock" as a term is so vague as to be problematic, as our own, inconclusive Wikipedia article on the subject makes clear. Other terms like alt rock would also have this issue of extreme vagueness, except that they have been applied more consistently within a particular context- embraced by both commercial entities and by musicians themselves as genre descriptions- and are therefore commonly understood to have a specific meaning in that context. Art rock, by contrast, tends not to be applied by musicians to themselves, or by commercial entities as a classification. It could be argued to fit basically anything one wanted it to, if one wanted to find "arty" elements in it- for instance, it is not even clear that art rock and progressive rock refer to different things. Different journalists tend to apply it in different ways- certain ones call Radiohead art rock, certain never use the term. Due to Radiohead's explicit non-identification with progressive rock, and the lack of a clear distinction between art rock and progressive rock for many people, using "art rock" to refer to Radiohead will always be problematic. Like Radiohead's past work, this album, though "arty," is far from being progressive rock, with its lack of complex instrumental passages and extended solos or jams.

Conclusion: "Art rock" should not be used until at the very least our own art rock article provides a clearer definition for that term. Even then, it will be a contentious term and will require very good sourcing. I and most Radiohead fans would probably prefer the term not be used, due to the band's dislike of being called that, and fans of progressive rock music may also prefer the term not be used, as they feel Radiohead do not adequately fulfill the requirements of being a true example of "art rock." That said, these concerns would have no legitimacy, if the term were clearly defined and in wide use for this particular album. However, it isn't. So, I suggest not using this term.

'''*Electronica ''' Pro- This originated as a marketing term in the '90s and it has always been a contentious term among listeners of the music in question- not controversial as applied to Radiohead, but in general. Few people who know about the music called "electronica" will actually call it that. That being said, Allmusic (which is just one source, and not necessarily a particularly noted one on this particular genre) has taken to treating it seriously as a genre name, applying it to a wide range of electronic-based music. Wikipedia tends to follow that practice sometimes, whether this is justified or not. On the plus side, one of the widest uses of "electronica" since the '90s has been to apply to music that had some elements of rock or pop music and some elements of electronic music- essentially a crossover. If King of Limbs doesn't fit that use, I'm not sure what does. Not surprisingly, the word "electronica" has been used all over with reference to this album- though more often in amateur reviews and blogs by rock listeners unsure how to describe electronic music, than in top professional critics' writing.

Con- "Electronica," in addition to being rejected by many of the musicians to whom it has been most frequently applied (Radiohead among them- the band have never referred to themselves as such, or referred to any of the huge amount of so-called "electronica" they listen to, as "electronica") remains a poorly defined term as well. In this case, the problem is not confined to Wikipedia, it is a genre that is difficult to write an appropriate article about because there is no clear definition of what the term means, whether it is simply a synonym of "electronic music" or whether it denotes a specific type of electronic music. In current use, it can denote a broad swath of music that sounds "electronic" according to the hugely differing sensibilities of the writer or listener. Most often, if a writer uses the non-specialist word "electronica," they are a listener of non-electronic genres primarily, unable to differentiate between different types of beats, and they judge any music that doesn't sound familiar to rockist ears in its production, as "electronica," no matter the huge differences between types of "electronic" sounding music. Essentially, it is as if one invented a snazzy word like "guitariana," and called Taylor Swift, Metallica and Django Reinhardt all examples of it, lumping them into one genre.

In the case of King of Limbs, parts of the album, like "Lotus Flower" and "Feral," fit easily into any definition of "electronica" one could offer- the songs are reliant on electronic instruments, and the songs are also reliant on sampling and electronic manipulation. "Bloom" uses mostly acoustic instruments, but also some subtle digital beats, and it is also obviously constructed through sampling, and resembles a lot of music that is often called "electronica." Yet, the rest of the album is a different case. Most of the songs make limited if any use of digital beats or synth lines, and are based on organic, "real" instrumentation. This instrumentation has been looped and manipulated, yes, especially the percussion, but these effects are rarely done in an obviously distorting way that would connect them clearly with particular genres of experimental electronic-based music as in "Feral" (or previous work like "Everything In Its Right Place") which means that the sound of the album retains a sense of sounding natural, depending on one's general musical worldview, or perhaps, when one was born and what kind of music one grew up with.

For kids like me, born in the '80s, we grew up with hip hop and synth pop, and we came of age with electronic-addled rock bands. We are certainly able to distinguish- and often appreciate more- earlier forms of music which do not make use of these sampling methods. However, we do not view sampling in itself as a cause for designating music "electronic," nor do we view a modest use of synthesizer and even digital beats as grounds for calling an entire album electronic, if its overall aesthetic remains at least as close to some kind of roots in rock music as it is to anything else. The King of Limbs may or may not sound good to a given listener, but it will only sound notably "electronic" to someone whose norm for music is raw rock music of the type that used to be made- to a rockist. It's essentially no more electronic than the average music in the pop charts- it is actually much less- in fact, it is no more electronic in its mode of production than most rock music today, which has been run through ProTools, even if the artists aren't open about it. Yet somehow we call that music "rock" just like we call things "hip hop" or "R&B" despite them being today, in instrumentation and its mode of production, closer to ambient music or '80s synth pop.

Conclusion: You can tell where I stand. I dislike the lack of specificity and legitimacy of the term "electronica," and even if the term was not an issue, I think referring to an album based mostly on real, not-manipulated-to-the-point-of-sounding-alien textures as "electronica" would at the very least require a lot of sources. Which are probably available in this case, but due to the problem of the word "electronica," I suggest we not use that particular term, and instead consider...

'''*Electronic music ''' Pro- The King of Limbs is undoubtedly music created using electronic means, as noted. It was apparent from first listening that the album was composed of some degree of looping and sampling, and its de facto single, Lotus Flower, is driven by a synthesizer/bass as its main instrument. Feral has electronic manipulations of voice. The number of reviews and sources which could be cited to specify that King of Limbs is, in some sense, electronic music, probably outweighs that of all the other potential genres combined.

Con- "Electronic music" is a problematic genre, given that it isn't, actually, a genre at all, but rather an electronic form of instrumentation, and one which the band are employing less frequently on The King of Limbs than they have before. Originally, the term was employed in Radiohead articles in order to keep from having to use "electronica," due to the aforementioned issues with that specific term. Many Radiohead fans wanted to use the term "electronica," but "electronic music" was judged a more neutral and indisputable term as far as describing the band's aesthetic and their embrace of digital sound sources, without particularly lumping them in with a movement it was contentious to lump them with, since the movement in itself was so ill-defined by the word "electronica." So far, so good- apart from the potentially major issue that if something was truly pure "electronic music," it wouldn't have any kind of vocals in it- and Radiohead did. Yet, up till now, when Radiohead have made music that verged on "electronica," usually it was through the use of digital sound sources and electronic instruments (synths, drum machines, computers) which would also clearly mark the result as "electronic music" in all senses- both instrumentation and production. But even before the interviews revealed this album was generated in a different way- by physically manipulating vinyl, albeit mediated through a computer- it was apparent to close listeners of The King of Limbs that it relied more heavily on acoustic, rather than electronic, sound sources. The electronic sounds are there, but they are not prominent, for the most part. There are more digital beats and drum machines in Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows than in King of Limbs. There are possibly more synthesizers in The Bends and OK Computer.

So what, someone says- isn't this album blatantly electronic music in the way it uses loops and samples? But here we run into an issue- if using loops and samples makes something "electronic music," then isn't hip hop also "electronic music" by definition? Isn't pop music itself now "electronic music," by definition, whether it calls itself "rock" or "R&B" or whatever? The mode of production of everything made in recent years is equally electronic as King of Limbs- almost everything within sight of the charts, and we can stretch back to disco- more than the entire lifetime of me and many of Radiohead's twentysomething or thirtysomething fans- and call virtually every genre of music that has come and gone in that time, most of which have involved some degree of looping and sampling (even alternative rock in the '80s did) "electronic music." And it is indeed correct to say all these things- and The King of Limbs- are electronic music, but not as a GENRE of music, simply as a mode of production. Which finally reminds us, we had only pretended "electronic music" was a genre, on those earlier albums, when both the mode of production and the instrumentation fit- both were electronic. Now that one is no longer as electronic (the instrumentation) and one is more electronic than ever (the mode of production) we run into confusion. It is unclear by the use of "electronic music" whether one refers to electronic sound sources or electronic means- but whichever one, one has to confront the fact that practically all music of any genre is, technically speaking, electronic music. In the past, when Radiohead albums have been designated "electronic music," maybe it has clearly distinguished them from what was, at the time, still a slightly smaller tendency than today. But there is no more pretending- just listen to the average "indie rock" Pitchfork reviews favorably, or listen to the "pop" on the radio for a few seconds- you'll hear looping and sampling. It may still be accurate but it is now utterly meaningless to designate a Radiohead album as "electronic music," in terms of clearly distinguishing its sound from any other music, which is the only purpose of genres at all.

Furthermore, using "electronic music" tends to imply that the band's main source of influence continues to be the same as it was in the early 2000s when "intelligent dance music" and ambient techno- music that was largely electronic in both its sound sources and means of production- was their main influence, as on Kid A and Amnesiac's electronic tracks. But this is no longer the case at all. Radiohead today are more inspired by the organic, post-hip hop, psychedelic, sample-based forms of music which are equally difficult to simply designate "electronic" as are most Radiohead tracks. Along with all that sample-based music which has come from the UK and US dance undergrounds in the past decade, hip hop and related genres itself makes up a significant percentage of the "office charts" posted by Thom Yorke, and the number of times band members have played hip hop songs or talked about influence from the genre actually exceeds anything they have said about any form of IDM or techno since around 2003. Yorke has even collaborated with rapper Doom, and the band's debt to '90s trip hop music (a genre based primarily on sampling, more than the use of electronic instruments) has only increased.

As far as the band's so-called "electronic" influences today, Four Tet, Flying Lotus and Caribou are exemplars of the kind of acoustic-based, more hip hop-influenced sound that defies such characterization, and Radiohead's relationship with the former two is about as close as the band get to any other musicians- they have toured together and collaborated on remixes, with Four Tet being a personal friend of Colin and Flying Lotus of Thom Yorke- while Caribou was the first artist they featured on their remix album, and he has been named as a favorite even by Ed O'Brien, no fan of techno, and not generally considered the most avant garde member of the band. O'Brien had never been a fan of Aphex Twin, but along with organic forms of dance music, trip hop and hip hop music has inspired him, as with the other band members. Just yesterday, he played an old school hip hop track on a radio show, and later in the program (not making the connection himself) talked about the way the band had embraced "DJ" techniques to make this particular album. If we want to reduce these sounds to "electronic music," we must be pretty ignorant of music in general.

Conclusion: Although "electronic music" is in some ways the best of a bunch of bad choices we have for genre, it is not a genre at all. We constantly come back to the issue that if Radiohead are "electronic music," is not practically everything today apart from hardcore punk and purist folk music and albums produced by Jack White? And if King of Limbs is electronic music, then what is that other music called? I don't see "electronic music" listed in its genres in Wikipedia. I think it would be preferable to find a more specific name- an actual genre- than to continue relying on this idea of "electronic music," which as with "electronica," tends to reflect a rockist, dated conception of music, and not to give any clear idea of what the album sounds like to people who were born since the '80s and expect all music to sound electronic.

'''*Trip hop ''' Pros- In pretty much every sense, from my point of view, Radiohead have now become a trip hop band. Well, they don't feature rapping- but neither did Portishead- and ever since Blue Lines, rapping had been an ever smaller part of the trip hop scene, even in flagship groups such as Massive Attack. Tricky himself was more often an unconventional singer than an outright rapper. By the mid '90s, there were a wide variety of trip hop bands (who all mostly sounded the same and ripped off Portishead) who had no rapping at all, or scratching for that matter. Otherwise, The King of Limbs shares the sample-based aesthetic- done using actual turntables no less- and the jazzy vibe, it shares the dark, psychedelic atmosphere, and the emotional yet abstract lyrics. As if to finalize it, when Radiohead began to try to develop live versions out of this sample-based album, they called up Clive Deamer, a touring member of Portishead, and though he didn't play on the album, he has now joined the band on a temporary (or perhaps semi-permanent) basis. The number of times Radiohead have cited debts from Massive Attack or Portishead ever since the mid '90s is high, but the debts have never coalesced into actual trip hop music until The King of Limbs. I mean, the album is a lot closer to trip hop than Portishead's latest Third was (although that was probably a better album).

Cons- Well, most journalists are ignorant, which means this is essentially close to original research. Few mainstream journalists have even mentioned trip hop bands in reviewing this album, though the genre, along with hip hop, was an obvious influence on the band. Probably that's because trip hop never went very far in the US apart from a couple of Massive Attack tracks that gained familiarity- but not outright recognition- through films. Given that trip hop is the necessary missing link between Radiohead and hip hop- a form of music which shares Radiohead's abstract, psychedelic, introspective quality while retaining the beat-making complexity of hip hop production- it is no surprise that without understanding that link, US journalists in particular have rarely even bothered to remark on Radiohead's hip hop influences, seeing Radiohead as too alien in spirit from most hip hop, and preferring to concentrate on this idea of "electronic music." (i.e. the influence of DJ Shadow on Radiohead was until recently, noted in our Wikipedia article on the band as an early example of their "electronic" influences, when DJ Shadow is nothing of the kind- he is a hip hop-inspired sampling artist who used non-digital sounds and actual turntables). However, this lack of sources is not the only issue with "trip hop." The term itself is a problem- another genre whose own artists have always rejected it. As such, "trip hop" is meaningless except to describe a particular generation of divergent acts who were widely tagged with that term by journalists in the mid '90s. Radiohead's album, even if to my ears it would've fit perfectly, is 15 years too late to be part of that scene.

Conclusion: I would very much recommend using "trip hop" if we can find a reputable source for it. However, I doubt this is likely. One complicating factor is that at the time the original dozens of reviews of this album were written, very little information was known about the process by which it was made, because the band gave no interviews. It was only in September, eight months after its release, that they first revealed it had been created using turntables, rather than, as most critics and fans had guessed, by repeating their more "electronic" process from Kid A and Amnesiac, wherein ProTools and Cubase were used with digital samplers. As such, the original reviews assume it was created on computers, much like Radiohead's earlier "electronic" work. If the information about turntables had been widely known back in February, I'm sure we would have seen more references to trip hop bands such as Portishead, and even perhaps to hip hop, in those original reviews. But unless we see reviews that say "trip hop," it's original research.

'''*Psychedelic rock and/or pop ''' Pro- Now this is a genre that hasn't yet been applied to this album by anyone on Wikipedia, yet one which, oddly enough, should be quite easy to source. I can recall a number of reviews which noted the "psychedelic" style of the album, and along with the inclusion of a certain number of "pieces of artwork" in the newspaper album, this has been fodder for a certain amount of commentary in the press. I'm not sure what the standard procedure is on Wikipedia for the use of psychedelic rock as a genre. For instance, it is quite undeniable that OK Computer for instance is an example of psychedelic rock as well, as are probably The Bends, Kid A, Amnesiac, and In Rainbows for that matter- in fact, every Radiohead album, even Pablo Honey, would qualify as "psychedelic," and has been referred to as such in quite a few reviews. Yet I don't know if the genre has been included on those albums here in Wikipedia. I tend to remember seeing it more on very derivative kinds of music, like Kula Shaker or Ocean Colour Scene or Brian Jonestown Massacre or Oasis, which are essentially tribute bands to the psychedelic rock era, or at least on bands like Flaming Lips and Spiritualized which really play up their drugginess, rather than on music which does newer things but is also psychedelic. However, it is quite possible to view King of Limbs- as with OK Computer's Floyd, Beatles and Spector references- as being specifically backward looking to psychedelic era music. In the case of King of Limbs, '60s and '70s jazz fusion, experimental Motown, and surreal folk rock like Neil Young, are the link. More than the band's previous work, King of Limbs fits in with the '60s and '70s era of psychedelic music in terms of its basic composition, which is R&B-inflected, as rock music was then. "Bloom" also fits in its Arab vocal inflection and its use of huge orchestral sounds. "Little by Little" specifically sounds like '60s psychedelia. Frankly, I could just go on and on listing how psychedelic this album is.

Con- As noted, the convention of when to use "psychedelic rock" as an actual genre in Wikipedia may be not to employ it for bands like Radiohead, or any bands since the '70s other than those who explicitly identify themselves as paying tribute to the psychedelic era. This is simply because such a huge amount of rock music is to all intents and purposes "psychedelic," and influenced by that era of rock music- considering that the most popular rock group of all time were "psychedelic"- that the use of the term as a genre in itself no longer has any meaning, even for records like King of Limbs which stretch whatever psychedelic elements Radiohead previously had even further.

Conclusion: If we can find sources, which shouldn't be hard, I would support this among several other genres that would together give a clearer picture of this album's sound. Although again, we're going to run into the issue of whether this is actually "rock" at all, psychedelic or not.

'''*Post-dubstep ''' Pro- Well, it literally is post-dubstep, in that it's unlikely the album would exist exactly as it does if not for the love of Thom Yorke for dubstep and other forms of music related to it. A number of reviews of the album have mentioned dubstep as a likely influence on it. Although descriptions of the actual album's sound as dubstep are hard to come by from respectable critics, the use of "post-dubstep" should mitigate that concern. Feral, at the very least, is a post-dubstep song.

Con- Much of the album bears no particular resemblance to dubstep rhythms and as often noted, the way bass is employed on this album by Colin Greenwood is quite unlike the stereotype of how it is employed in dubstep music. Although it may be accurate to say parts of the album have a strong connection to dubstep, other parts, probably most of it, do not. The range of music that inspires Thom Yorke has often been ridiculously reduced to simply dubstep. If one is going to call King of Limbs post-dubstep, there are all kinds of other "posts" one should fairly apply as well, beginning with "post-trip hop." But that's not even an article. Nor will post-dubstep likely stay one for very long. In any case, there are not really any sources out there that use the exact words "post-dubstep" to characterize The King of Limbs.

Conclusion: Fine with me, although I'd prefer post-trip hop, but until we find sources for either, this seems unlikely.

'''*Indie rock or indie ''' Pro- Radiohead left their major label before 2007 and since then have self-released albums online, later releasing them in retail editions with one-off deals with the notable indie label XL, in the UK. In a technical sense, Radiohead are an independent band, or indie band, and have been for several years now. The King of Limbs is in fact the first album they've begun recording knowing for sure that they would not release it for a major label (the band considered re-signing with EMI after completing In Rainbows). Musically, definitions of indie vary. But in the US at least, indie is commonly seen not as purely a heavy, guitar-based music, which has become the caricature of "alternative rock," but as a more sensitive form of music with a wider sonic range, often employing strings and even electronics, both of which are used by Arcade Fire, the most successful indie band in North America, among others. Whereas "alternative" remains mostly remembered for suggesting a raucous (Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers) or at least, solid and firmly rock-oriented style of music (R.E.M.), no longer suggesting the wide range of sounds the term used to connote in the '80s and early '90s, indie on the other hand has taken on the popular meaning "alternative" used to, in that it can suggest both a specific, often stripped down or raw, style of guitar music, and more often today, an independent way of making music which encompasses everything from genre-bending and eclectic sounds (Dirty Projectors, Destroyer) to electronic dance-inflected folk (Animal Collective, Panda Bear) to some very slick, acoustic and somewhat traditional (much more so than Radiohead- i.e. Bon Iver, Fleet Foxes) epic pop sounds. As such, The King of Limbs fits well into "indie" both musically and in terms of the economics of its release. Many reviewers have referred to Radiohead since 2007 as an indie band.

Con- Like "alternative" indie essentially has no specific meaning anymore, as far as suggesting a particular sound. As such, people may feel there is no point in applying it to an album as a genre unless it is already the most commonly applied genre to that album, which isn't true in this case. Also, the fact that Radiohead's first six albums were released via EMI means that there is resistance to viewing the band as "indie" even now that they no longer record for that label. Finally, in the UK, at least in the past, "indie" had taken on a somewhat confusing and different meaning in the popular press and music press. Because of the fact that a healthy scene of indie record labels was, at least in the past, much less prominent in the UK than in the US, "indie" came to have nothing to do with the label one recorded on, and came to connote a particular musical style of traditional, emotional guitar rock which was influenced by the Smiths and other '80s, actual indie bands, even though the bands now referred to as "indie" tend to be, like Travis, hugely mainstream successes. This is not wholly removed from the common US perception of indie today- since the Internet-aided indie mainstream breakthrough around 2002-2007- yet it is far more limiting, probably because the "indie" bands that achieved popular acknowledgement in the US at least differ significantly from the style of mainstream hard guitar rock- i.e. they are generally more sensitive, thoughtful and arty, often with non-traditional approaches to rock music, or interest in past sounds like folk- whereas in the UK, the "indie bands" who have achieved popularity tend to be anthemic, heavily produced and musically very traditionalist- i.e. in the UK, the word "indie" suggests Kings of Leon more than it does King of Limbs. For instance, a band like Snow Patrol, who sound like a mix of U2 and R.E.M. at their most commercial and have recorded for most of their career for a major label, have been a prototypical "indie" group in the UK. Coldplay is also a very typical "indie" sounding band, at least on their first two albums. No one in the US would refer to those groups as being "indie"- they might call them alternative at most, but probably just rock or pop. As such, it would be slightly confusing to call King of Limbs, a British album that has little traditionalism in its approach, an indie record, when in fact it is the earlier, mainstream rock albums like Pablo and The Bends which are already considered examples of "indie" in the UK. Ironically, to many UK listeners, Radiohead have ceased to be an "indie" band just about when they started recording for an indie record label.

Conclusion: I would really support using "indie" or "indie rock" for this, and sources can certainly be found, if our UK brethren could assure us the totally confusing use of the term there has now fallen by the wayside and the US and UK use is now more similar. Then again, calling it indie won't really resolve the problem of which particular genre it falls into.

Is it The Guardian or the Guardian?
The Guardian's own style guide says it's the Guardian (small t): "the Guardian, the Observer, the New York Times, etc". See http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/n (under 'newspaper titles').

I happen to agree with them, but does Wikipedia have its own style guide we ought to stick to? I can only find this on the subject, and it doesn't cover this area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitalization_of_.22The.22

Wikipedia's own Guardian article has it has The (capital T), but I can't find any reason why that should be correct, and I've raised the issue on that talk page too.

Popcornduff (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On this basis I've changed the link from "the Guardian" to "the Guardian" - only linking the word 'Guardian' - since 'the' is technically not part of the newspaper's title. This is identical to writing, for example, "the NME". (Of course, this is hardly a major detail...) Popcornduff (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm prepared to budge on this one. Wikipedia - as far as I can tell - doesn't seem to have a definitive style guide on this one. The NME article is called "NME", not "The NME", but the Guardian and the New York Times articles are called The Guardian and The New York Times. If someone wants to come along and explain to me why that is, or counter-argue the whole Guardian issue, I'm all ears. But it'd be great if we could just avoid editing it back and forth and cite some reasons/sources/arguments.Popcornduff (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The King of Limbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110412104050/http://thekingoflimbs.com:80/DIGBP.htm to http://www.thekingoflimbs.com/DIGBP.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207045235/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2011/05_may/radiohead.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2011/05_may/radiohead.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The King of Limbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110505074659/http://www.pitchfork.com:80/news/42377-take-cover-radiohead-ithe-king-of-limbsi/ to http://pitchfork.com/news/42377-take-cover-radiohead-ithe-king-of-limbsi
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110223165146/http://www.vancouversun.com:80/entertainment/Multi+faceted+King+Limbs+worth+embracing/4314750/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Multi+faceted+King+Limbs+worth+embracing/4314750/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The King of Limbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010004818/http://tvider.com/view/66328 to http://tvider.com/view/66328
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63bRXv6ZA?url=http://www.grammy.com/nominees to http://www.grammy.com/nominees
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110062918/https://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/111109/Radiohead-From-the-Basement-on-DVD-and-BluRay to http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/111109/Radiohead-From-the-Basement-on-DVD-and-BluRay
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109035703/http://radiohead.com/deadairspace/111107/touring-2012 to http://radiohead.com/deadairspace/111107/Touring-2012
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Multi%2Bfaceted%2BKing%2BLimbs%2Bworth%2Bembracing/4314750/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)