Everything in its Right Place: Analyzing Radiohead

by Brad Osborn

More than any rock artist since The Beatles, Radiohead's music inhabits the sweet spot between two on the one hand, music that is wholly conventional and conforms to all expectations of established rock styles, and, on the other hand, music so radically experimental that it thwarts any learned notions. While averting mainstream trends but still achieving a significant level of success in both US and UK charts, Radiohead's music includes many surprises and subverted expectations, yet remains accessible within a framework of music traditions. In Everything in its Right Analyzing Radiohead , Brad Osborn reveals the functioning of this reconciliation of extremes in various aspects of Radiohead's music, analyzing the unexpected shifts in song structure, the deformation of standard 4/4 backbeats, the digital manipulation of familiar rock 'n' roll instrumentation, and the expected resolutions of traditional cadence structures.

Expanding on recent work in musical perception, focusing particularly on form, rhythm and meter, timbre, and harmony, Everything in its Right Place treats Radiohead's recordings as rich sonic ecosystems in which a listener participates in an individual search for meaning, bringing along expectations learned from popular music, classical music, or even Radiohead's own compositional idiolect. Radiohead's violations of these subjective expectation-realization chains prompt the listener to search more deeply for meaning within corresponding lyrics, biographical details of the band, or intertextual relationships with music, literature, or film.

Synthesizing insights from a range of new methodologies in the theory of pop and rock, and specifically designed for integration into music theory courses for upper level undergraduates, Everything in its Right Place is sure to find wide readership among scholars and students, as well as avid listeners who seek a deeper understanding of Radiohead's distinctive juxtapositional style.

Genres: Music, Nonfiction

248 pages, Paperback

Published November 1, 2016

Reviews

[Brian M · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a musical analysis of Radiohead's discography up to "In Rainbows." I have an associate's degree in Music (meaning I have a working knowledge of the fundamentals of theory and most of the terms, but I don't have a good understanding of much of the more advanced concepts regarding cadences, history and context of western music, modes, rhythm, and harmony), and I struggled to read large passages of this book. I cannot read music well, and much of the notation was lost on me. I was able to discern most of what the author was arguing, but felt lost when they began to discuss the more intricate details.

That said, despite a good portion of this book being nearly incomprehensible, I found that I took a lot away from this book, and it highly colored my appreciation of many tracks from the band's catalog. As a touring musician myself, I learned a lot of lessons from this book about technique, composition, and song structure that feels applicable to my own music. One of my favorite takeaways from the book was Radiohead's ability to have their music sit in the "Goldilocks Zone" of pop music, which allows them to have tracks that are both accessible to most listeners, and have enough depth that keeps more advanced listeners interested. When the band experiments with timbre or harmony, they pull back to more simplistic and easily discernible song structures. This allows them to appeal to a larger mainstream audience, as well as more critical listeners.

I think anyone who likes Radiohead can take something away from this book. Many of the concepts of form, song background, and timbre seem pretty applicable to the casual listener, but you will be completely lost by the end of some chapters if you are not really well versed in music theory. You should also be pretty familiar with Radiohead's history and catalog, or at least willing to listen to each track while reading the author's analysis of it to keep you engaged.

Brad Osborn's interview on the Ok Podcast: The Radiohead Podcast was really enjoyable, and I highly recommend anyone interested in this book to take a listen.

[Riley Greenwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was clearly (as the author indicated) an academic book that had me wading into waters of music theory that were way over my head. Though I was lost at times in the weeds of vocabulary and notation, this book is a testament to the absolute brilliance of Radiohead, and deepened my admiration for who was already what I consider to be the greatest band of all time. Would love a slightly more accessible version, but appreciated the detailed analysis. 7/10

[Stephen King · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. I've read/watched countless commentaries that dissect the music and approach of Radiohead's music but nothing comes close to the scope and depth. A real eye opener. I should add that I am not a classically trained musician and so some sections were a little difficult to follow, however those parts only provided me with more avenues of understanding to explore later. Great job.

[Casey Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look at Radiohead (my favorite band) from a music major perspective. It’s a real think piece taking me back to my music reading days - check it out!

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Osborn gives readers some great tools for analysing music. When I hear a song that moves or intrigues me, I'll now be ready to ask questions like, "What is it about this song? Is it the form, the rhythm and metre, the harmony and voice leading, the timbre?" I'm glad to have some new or strengthened ways of thinking about the music that I listen to.

I'll also enjoy taking the time to deeply listen to the Radiohead songs with the book in front of me!

There were a number of sections of this book that were a bit beyond me, particularly in the harmony and voice-leading chapter. I'm glad I already understand the concepts like functional tonal and modal systems; for the others I'll have to look to another source for further explanation.

Much confusion in the book could perhaps have been avoided if Osborn regularly preferences clarity over technicality in his writing. There were some sentences that I had to laugh at because they seemed to be written in the least clear and most technical way possible. If I re-read any I'll make a note of them here in the future.

One thing that I found musically unhelpful was the use of use of modular arithmetic (e.g. tables 3.3 and 6.6) starting at zero, when normal musical counting convention starts at 1. This could be easily fixed for clarity.

Overall, I enjoyed the book, and it's given me a nice taste for musical analysis in an alternative rock and electro-acoustic context.

[Kevin Krein · Rating 3 out of 5]

so, first and foremost, i am not smart enough to have read this book. i purchased it not realizing that when dude talks about 'analyzing radiohead,' he didn't mean the band's lyrical content; he meant, like, music theory, et. al. stuff i know nothing about. so for roughly 200 pages, i tried to follow along, slackjawed and confused, as words like 'timbre' were used.

for what it's worth, there were some bits that i could actually understand: there was a small section dedicated to what effects pedals are used on specific radiohead songs, which was interesting to read; johnny greenwood's fondness of the ondes martenot was also covered; and the final chapter of the book is solely dedicated to 'pyramid song.' sure, i couldn't really follow along with the diagrams, but the analysis of the song's themes, as well as the possible meaning of the music video, was easier for someone like me to understand.

brad osborn is an academic. the book is published via oxford press, and there are a number of instances where the text is very stiff and formal- e.g: 'in this section i will be discussing, etc.' if you read music, and play music, and like radiohead, hey, this book is for you. if you just like radiohead (like me) but cannot read music or play an instrument, then please save yourself the embarrassment and just throw on OK Computer or something.

[Em · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was the most fun/interactive reading experience I've had in a LONG time! Before 2020, I wasn't familiar with music theory and was only a casual (though longtime) Radiohead fan, but used some of my pandemic free time to delve into both. Therefore, my interest was piqued when I came across a recommendation of this book (probably via an algorithm given my various search histories), and I gotta hand it to our tech overlords because few book pages have represented my priorities quite like Osborn referencing "Twin Peaks" and Thom Yorke's anti-war/-Bush politics in the context of "Like Spinning Plates."

More broadly, it was a blast/effortless to follow along with the book while listening to relevant songs, the tables/figures were super helpful, I learned a ton, I loved how the book was organized and formatted, and I understood more than I expected based on my limited/recent familiarity with music theory. Further, the few concepts I struggled with were a Youtube-click away from becoming less opaque. All in all, a fairly accessible, instructive, and rewarding book!

[Karl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, a thoroughly interesting book that definitely enlightened me towards compositional elements of Radiohead's music; pushing somewhat past just simply appreciating it (writing this as a long-term fan).

Many reviews have written about how academic the language is, and, whilst this is true I found most of it accessible with a background of a decent-ish A Level in Music (albeit from ~20 years ago). That said, it's not infallable; I found some of the analysis of rhythm/meter to be inconsistent and I found parts of the voice-leading/harmony section to be incomprehensive (whilst this section simultaneously had some fascinating insights). I really feel it would have benefitted from an appendix to better explain the voice-leading notation, chord voicings and the shorthand notation this book.

However, these are relatively minor quibbles, as I found this to be a fascinating labour of love, written by someone who very clearly has balanced their dual passions of being a Radiohead fan themselves together with a music theory approach.

I'd definitely recommend for any Radiohead fan who has some background/interest in music theory.

[Andrew Adams]

The extent to which much of this was over my head surprised me. In one instance, the author went into detailing explaining how the guitar fretboard worked but elsewhere neglected to define basically a single musical term, so I probably wasn’t exactly the target audience. I appreciated the academic and thoroughly methodical approach to understanding songs. It also unlocked a deeper hearing of certain songs (Idioteque in particular) and more broadly encouraged me to listen to Radiohead, and music in general, more actively.

[Andrew Corsini · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author at the start of this book outlines that their ideal audience is someone who can read music. Unfortunately I can't read music so I couldn't understand vast chunks of this book. Nevertheless, even I could appreciate what an impressive book Osborn has crafted. His analysis of Radiohead's music is thorough and exact.

[Jake Rowley · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent read for any big Radiohead geek. Some of Osborn's interpretations are a bit far-reaching (the thematic comparison between "2+2=5" and Handel's "Messiah" is particularly sketchy), and sometimes the onslaught of music theory can get a bit exhausting, but overall it's definitely worth a read. His analysis of "Idioteque" is particularly insightful.

[Len · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you ever wanted an in-depth analysis of Radiohead's music . . .

[Jim Purbrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat dense and dry prose, but full of illuminating and fascinating analysis.

[Shay Emmons · Rating 5 out of 5]

Any of the lower star reviews on this book seem to be from people with a beginner's grasp of music theory picking up a PhD level book and being upset that it's not written for beginners. I wouldn't pick up a calculus book as an algebra student and then criticize the book for being beyond an algebra student. So yes, this book is written at a very advanced level of music theory; as such, it's the most thorough and thoughtful analysis of Radiohead's catalog that you can find. I haven't finished the book yet--and it is a pretty dense read even for somebody with a higher education in music theory--but I felt it deserved some credit for the book that it is, not the book people mistake it to be.

[N · Rating 3 out of 5]

In broad strokes, the book is very good. I agree with the salience claims and the general methodology (disregarding some qualms).

However, there are just too many minor internal contradictions, mathematical errors, and rushed explanations. Most of these are superficial things that merely perturbed the flow of reading (such as rhetorically setting up for two points but then only giving one). Even the mathematical errors weren’t huge; They were mainly just not (but were couched as) generalizable. One example (from pg. 76):

“And because five is co-prime relative to the eight-unit modulus, this means that a cycle of five will generate every member in the set of eight before repeating any (e.g., the ordered set <04512673>).”

He is right about the co-prime cycle generating the aggregate, but he has not written a 5-cycle (which would have been <05274163>). His cycle alternates 4 and 1 which accurately reflects the hand claps from “Lotus Flower.” In fact, this ordering is the only division of five into two beats that will create an aggregate thusly. Comparing the two cycles shows that his string actually takes the last four numbers of the actual 5-cycle and inserts them after each of the first four (with the bracketed notes being the inserted entries: <0[4]5[1]2[6]7[3]>). Part of the problem stems from whether the two hand claps are understood as a gestalt (and only their onset rhythm is tracked, which would take twice as long), or as individual elements (which creates the 4/1 cycle).

Perhaps I approached the book the wrong way. By which I mean that I may have read it more as a theory text than as an analysis. I may have gotten too caught up in the scalability of the theories instead of enjoying how they worked with Radiohead’s work. Osborn clearly has an immense understand of this music, and this was clearly a labor of love.

[Mr Shahabi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a musical/composer approach towards Radiohead FORM of music, for a dedicated musical professional one would LOVE and appreciate this reference, it's not a Biography-Oriented kind of books, it has a very minimal behind-the-album sort of stories but nothing more. I liked that they dedicated a full chapter for one of my all time favorites songs (Pyramid Song) that song is just beautifully melancholic in every sense of the word..
Here are some of the lyrics:

"I jumped in the river, what did I see?
Black-eyed angels swam with me
A moon full of stars and astral cars
And all the figures I used to see..

All my lovers were there with me
All my past and futures
And we all went to heaven in a little row boat
There was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt.. "


Fucking a beautiful...
Drink tea while listening to this

[Mike Ivanov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ok this is not for a general audience, but if you're either a huge fan of Radiohead, a music theory nerd, or both, there is a ton of Radiohead depth and musical/historical breadth here.