Amidst the maelstrom of mixed reviews of the first solo Thom Yorke album, I decided to go ahead and purchase it today. On the extreme left, we have Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone was smitten with the project, but for the wrong reasons. That's not too terribly shocking for Rolling Stone, a publication that prides (sic) itself on the spin that it puts on everything. Their sickly-sweet review made The Eraser out to be something akin to a Jesus Christ (yes, that Jesus) solo effort.
On the extreme right, we have the misanthropic Pitchfork Media, who years back gave a perfect 10 to Radiohead's Kid A and something close to it on two of their other projects. All other artists would from then on be compared to Radiohead and none would live up to the scattershot standards of the Pitchfork reviewers. Not to be pigeonholed, Pitchfork tossed Yorke's effort a paltry 6.6. Not long ago Pitchfork doled out a 6.4 to Nelly Furtado. Call me crazy, but any day of the week that Thom and Nelly are in the same point spread, the reviewers are on crack. And as we all know, crack is whack.
I'd like to, at this point, refer to Something Awful's guide on "How to Fake It: Part II" (April, 2006), specifically this section, which claims that making grand declarations is just part of faking knowledge of music:
Wrong: “Matchbox 20 was better than the Beatles.”
While it may be tempting to make grandiose claims just to court controversy, you’d only be shooting yourself in the foot. A declaration like this just invites questions like “by what standard?” and “are you an idiot?” Remember that controversy isn’t the goal. The goal is simply to impress upon those around you that you are a person with Big Ideas.
Right: “At his best, Robyn Hitchcock was every bit as good as Bob Dylan.”
While not as risky or controversial as the previous one, a declaration like this is plenty bold. You are basically saying “yes, I am in the position to include or exclude artists from the critical canon at my whim.” Canonizing random artists is a perfect way to establish authority, even if the person to whom you’re talking has never even heard of the artist in question.
Ok, so maybe Pitchfork's declaration isn't as explicit, but it says something to give Nelly Furtado and Thom Yorke similar ratings. That's all I'm trying to say.
By now you're probably wondering what I think of the album. Or maybe you're not. Who cares? It's my blog, so you can suffer through my opinion. I personally think it's a great collection of songs. I would call it 'awesome,' although 'excellent' would be stretching it. The opening, titular track is striking. Lyrically, this song, much like the rest of the album, is strong. There are remnants of Radiohead projects past, however. Black Swan, for instance, could not be any closer to I Might Be Wrong if it tried. It's a good track, but we've already been here, Thom. Conversely, Atoms For Peace is reminiscent of the Deftones' Teenager, one of the lesser known tracks from White Pony.
In any case, The Eraser is a solid effort bolstered by Nigel Godrich, who produced everything from the Bends forward, and Johnny Greenwood. I'd probably give it an 8.0 out of 10 if I had a ten point rating scale, which apparently, I do.