A new song called ‘All I Need’ by Radiohead emerged last week from their Chicago gig. The following Youtube clip is from the second performance of the song, at Berkeley, only because the sound and visuals are better. I am getting very excited about the new album, this song sounds incredible. A strong Springsteen vibe to it, quite different from what I think of as a ‘Radiohead’ track. The song is made all the more powerful by the lyrics, which I have pieced together below (see comments for interpretations).
Here are the unofficial lyrics for this song, part my own, part ones I have read elsewhere:
I’m the next step
Waiting in the wings
I’m a flash flood
Running through your ground floor
I am all the things that you choose to ignore
You’re all I need
You’re all I need
I’m in the middle of the picture
I am in the news
I’m a moth
Who justs wants to share your light
I’m just an insect
Who wants to get out of the night
You only stick with me because there are no others
You’re all I need
You’re all I need
I’m in the middle of the picture
lying in the breeze
It’s all wrong
It’s all right
It’s all wrong
It’s all right
It’s all wrong
It’s all right
14 Comments
If you will permit, a dissent. (And perhaps a cranky one.)
I didn’t hear the whole track, as my computer won’t let me play beyond the 2:34 mark. The drum pattern is definitely in the vein of Springsteen’s “Streets of Philadelphia.” They work with the simple piano/keyboard natch of melody and the accompanying noirish guitar effects to lay out an ominous mood, setting the stage for….nothing. I didn’t hear the end of the song, so maybe all hell breaks loose, but I’m guessing the song continues its established pattern and Thom Yorke merely amps up his wailing.
This is exactly where Radiohead lost me in the past, back during the Kid A/Amnesiac period, and this song in particular echoes the dreadful “You and Whose Army”, perhaps the worst song in their catalogue. In their attempt to break free from conventional song structures Radiohead fall prey to a minimalist-chic that is frankly very dull. (I hesitate to attribute this direction to the group, since everything I’ve read gives the impression Thom Yorke rules this group with a manipulative fist.) This song needs to go somewhere, to do something the tension it builds.
Then there is the problem with Thom Yorke’s vocals. He’s reverted to what some British critic once referred to as his “boy denied dessert after supper” mode (or something like that, can’t fully remember), something in between a whine and a moan. I’ll leave the lyrics alone for now, but in general they convey Yorke’s usual sense of oblique discomfort and alienation without saying much that is memorable.
(Okay, I just heard the end after I found the Chicago version. The song does offer some kind of crescendo, but not in a way I find satisfying. And it does involve Yorke expressing his eternal existential anguish in a succession of howls.)
dissent is welcome.
Not all songs need to crescendo, nor build to something… I think this songs works in its hypnotic drone, much the way that ‘Streets of Philadelphia’ did without overdoing it. It gets better ever time I listen to it (which is seven times now). I think if I have the lyrics right, there is something in the obliqueness of the lyrics to be worthy of mention. I listened to the song the first two times thinking what a lovely song about pining for someone in the vein of Willie Nelson or Roy Orbison with some added noirish effects, and it works that way, but when you listen to the lyrics it seems to be more about ideas than individuals… I mean we may differ on this, but the lyric: “I’m a flash flood
Running through your ground floor
I am all the things that you choose to ignore” very effectively taps our association of Katrina and Indonesia and uses that imagery to be more than a historical reference… I mean if it is only a reference to global warming, some black and white rally cry song, than what does the chorus mean? There is effective ambiguity there, that holds my attention, and the right tone for the ambiguity is this eerie drone, not smash bam boom.
I think I was too flippant with my first interpretation of the song… I think there may be a sort of ying yang thing going on in here… such as the notion that both creation and destruction rely on one another for meaning. It is not a narrative about a third world group longing to be first world, but a sort of general musing on co-dependent relationships, with creation/destruction used allegorically.
as for Thom’s vocals reverting back… I am not so sure Thom has ever had much range with his vocals…
Also, considering my interpretation is right, there is an intriguing tinge of sarcasm to the singing of the chorus that is further enhanced by the light twangy keyboard sound, and the overall similarity of the lyric to Willie Nelson’s. I mean to follow up the lyric: you only stick with me because there are no others… with… you are all I need… I find that quite sad, and than offsetting because of the twangy undercurrent of the song.
Christ. I’m finding that to be phenomenal. Darkly palatable. Kid A with discernible shapes…
Here is an interesting link where guitarist Ed O’Brien discusses the set list from a New York show:
http://nymag.com/arts/all/process/17306/index.html
In my view, O’Brien’s comment about how the Japanese and European audiences are more respectful during the quiet songs reflects the formal, artist-on-the-throne approach of these countries towards artists, something which extends to art other than music also. (Europeans are much more willing to tolerate absurdly juvenile or puerile art that is funded by their tax money.) American audiences for the most part are more interactive, a trait that reflects less a certain rudeness than the huge African-American impact on music in America. I remember watching Show Time at the Apollo and they would boo the performers off-stage, but if a performer stuck with it the crowd would often be won over. The respect of the audience isn’t a right- it is a privilege that must be earned.
But the real reason I cite the above link is because the following quote stood out:
“One of the things that marks our band—that Thom and Jonny used to drive home all the time—is sounding different. You can do it through stuff like using unusual intervals on harmonies [in songs like “2 + 2 = 5”]. The trouble with a lot of rock music is that people are still doing their Beatles and their Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young harmonies. You can’t just keep making replications of those things.”
This notion strikes me absurd in its narrowness of vision. If sounding different is your goal, why not ditch the drums, bass, guitars, and keyboards, instruments used by every rock band on the planet? Obviously he means for Radiohead to sound different within certain confines, to retain certain tropes and archtypes in rock music while discarding others. But nowhere is it written that changing the time or harmonic intervals is a litmus test for sounding original. Using different rhythm structures is not more admirable in principle than exchanging guitars for spoons. I personally prefer my musicians to pursue a vision for its pure artistic merit, not for its ability to be set apart from its peers.
At this point I realize my view of Radiohead is jaundiced to the point that I can’t see them without a cynical bias, but O’Brien’s comments in general are couched in an elitist, anti-populist, art-school pretension, and I find this very unappealing. Though he does stand up for Creep, a popular song I’ve never liked.
2+2=5 is I think my least favorite Radiohead song, and Hail to the Thief my least favorite album of theirs.
And like you, I hate pretention. This is especially true in cinema where the Godards, Tarchovsky’s, Bergmans, really irritate me with their explicit intentions to make cinema about cinema, rather than about a narrative. Similarly, I do not want my music to be about music, I see little value in being clever.
I still think Radiohead are the best at creating new sounds from things that should be familiar. Like ‘All I need’, it has elements of Willie Nelson and Springsteen but the ambiguity of the song, the overlay of sounds gives a uniquely new sound. And there is no other song that sounds like ‘Paranoid Android’ or ‘Idioteque’ that I am aware of. However they may want to internalize the process I leave to them… it is the end product that matters to me… and I think they have more hits than misses, and with the exception of hail to the thief, they have been reliable.
Also that O’brien comment sounds reminiscent of Billy Corgan’s fatigue of Smashing Pumpkins, the limits of what can be achieved with a traditional guitar, bass and drum set.
I found this looking for lyrics to this song and I want to repeat (sorry) what Mike said about this song in that it gets better with each listen. The very first time I heard the song I thought it was okay and even though it doesn’t build up this ever so grand finale, it does build up in its hypnotic stage in the beginning. This may seem like a small word but if I could describe the music in one word, it’d be “pretty.” It sounds so simple, but the song is simple and I love it for its simplicity. A lot of simple things in life are very important and enjoyable so a pretty and wonderfully written song like this can be as close to my heart as a simple kiss (no tongue) from my boyfriend before work. It’s simple and it takes a second to do but I’m much happier with it and it still took a lot of effort to get to such a point where such a thing is simple. The song is simple. The song is perfect, but probably still in the works. The song is like a quick kiss before work
Lyrics though. Hehe, lyrics. The first time I heard this song it was of crappy quality. So, I could only pretty much hear the music, which sounds very sweet and much like a music box. The lyrics though, are very contradicting, maybe sarcastic, as was stated above. “It’s all wrong/It’s all right” show being torn but I did not notice that perhaps there was some reference to Katrina, etc. You could be right. Then the “You’re all I need” chorus. Who’s needing who/what? It’s driving me crazy. Maybe amongst all the—well, I guess one can call it shit—going on concerning ciolence, fear mongering, war maybe it’s just one simple thing that makes him, or someone, happy. Maybe fmaily? Maybe family is what is needed to forget everything else negative? He’s got a growing family.
I love the “I’m everything you choose to ignore” for the funniest reason, I can just see myself telling my own bf that in jest. When, in fact that’s not true—on most days
“You only stick with me because there are no others” is another line I love for the same reason. I’m trying to figure out if it’s sarcasm or not.
I listened to it a few more times and the more I listen, the more I find it political.
“I’m in the middle of the picture
I am in the news”
But, still the “You’re all I need”
Treefingers: I know what you mean about living with a song in order to appreciate what it does give, rather than expecting to conform to what you want it to give. Some songs that I love don’t build up into cresendos, but occupy a certain mood, and even this mood may not be profound, but it strikes a chord with me for whatever odd reason. I guess I expect massively great things from Radiohead, which is my problem, not theirs.
Nate,
I can kinda see what you mean with great expectations with Radiohead I notice a huge difference between OK Computer and Kid A and an even bigger difference between Pablo Honey and Hail to the Thief. I personally loved Hail to the Thief and Kid A But wasn’t as fond of Amnesiac, though I love that album too.
I was in seventh grade when I first started listening to them. I listened to OK Computer first and that was a few years after it was recorded. So, their music changed as I went through middle school, through high school, and right now college. All their music focuses on the now so it all changes because times change and I’m still going through many different phases of life. After college I gotta move so I’m expecting some new music then. I’m gonna move out with my bf actually. Although I say I never will, if I do choose to get married one day I will expect a new music from them. If I choose to get married, or somehow get tricked into marriage
and I have kids… I might not get new music for all of this, but you get what I’m saying? He went from Thom Yorke with a girl to Thom Yorke with a family.
I won’t be surprised if he won’t be more into current events (as if he wasn’t already, hehe). A lot of people are worried for their kdis right now so I’m expecting to see more and more songs about such things.
But, it’s all personal taste. I like to see them change even if it seems they go backwards while a lot of people actually miss the OK Computer days. It’s all just personal opinion and preference.
I do see what you’re meaning though.
Radiohead still has meaning to me, but I have not put a lot of thought recently into what that meaning is… this has more to do with my hectic schedule lately then I think with some defect in their art. It is a trend having to do with my relation to all music, I feel more and more distant, perhaps the older I get, but more likely, the less time is available for me to wade into it.
On faith I feel if I went back and listened to OK Computer the feelings would flood back, but not as acutely as they had. Hail to the Thief was a low point, and I stand by Yorke’s Eraser, I think at the very least it is one of those albums I can listen to the entire way through and there is something cohesive and identifiable to it. If it was hero worship only I would not feel drawn to it, I would put it aside as I had with Hail to the Thief which I have not listened to for what seems like forever.
But there are also different things to be got from music, not all of it profound, and while I found profound sentiment in older Radiohead music, it is not so bad that some of the more recent music has affected me in other ways, pure enjoyment of ‘All I need’ being one example.
Thanks for the descriptions treefingers, always interested in other people’s take on things. I want this place to be like a show and tell of art-experiences, an art confessional.
are you guys serious?
Maybe it’s just me, but I interpret this song as the Id singing to the Ego. If Thom wasn’t so clever, the song would be called “All I Need is Myself”. The narrator of the song is his subconsciouses, and when he says you, he is referring to his Ego.
the lyrics on this page are wrong.
Post a Comment