I’d like to be sympathetic, but if everyone wasn’t pissing all over themselves to get a review of In Rainbows to press in a hurry, you wouldn’t be getting dreck like this, the lead on Rolling Stone’s "review":
These wily boys may have a secret album-title exchange program with Kelly Clarkson, but everything else about In Rainbows is typically hard-rocking Radiohead. Like every other Radiohead album except Kid A — still their most famous album, but they only made it once — In Rainbows has uptempo guitar songs and moody acoustic ballads, full of headphone-tweaking sound effects.
What reader is this nonsense aimed at, exactly? Was it so important to have RS weigh in so soon (quick! before an online upstart trumps us! we’re Rolling Stone, damn it) that this was given the go ahead?
Here’s your link, but allow me to sum up: "It’s the best ever, name drop, name drop, how much the reviewer paid, name drop, sweeping generalization, name drop, it’s the best ever!!!"
This sort of bending to "the way things are now" (get the review out there fast, keep it brief for the online/short attention span crowd, keep it bland and by-the-numbers) instead of giving the album a considered review benefits nobody.