Great video. I was similarly confused by Vox’s video when it came out. I can see why Radiohead might perceive this song as starting on the 4& but to me it starts on the 1 and at no point does it stop sounding that way. Like you were saying, if this syncopation is hidden throughout the entire song, then it’s not really there at all.
Hi David ! Does the singing part not give any clue to choose between straight or syncopated notation ? It seems to me that to understand the way Thom Yorke is singing that song, we need to have the syncopated rythm in mind but i'm not a specialist at all ! Besides, on the studio recording, we can hear his feet moving on 8th notes on the pedal piano, just as he does on the solo version of The basement.
Thom Yorke did an interview with David Byrne in 2007 in which Thom states "The piano is ahead - it’s an eighth ahead of where the one is." (The interview is on YT.)
Warren does say that you can hear it either way, just that the syncopated piano is the way the band hears it. The listener can choose either one or something completely different . The band's intentions are important to him, but others are free to take a "death of the author" approach like you do.
This is amazing. I'd argue that there is a difference. When I hear this song nowadays, I wiggle to the higher BPM, with the (non audible) syncopated piano. And that make it sounds totaly different to me while I'm wiggling around. People who don't know about this wiggle differently, they hear it differently. Let's ignore "better" or "worse". These are just "different" versions IMO. But there is a difference in perceiving the sound when you know about this hidden rhythm. But whether or not you'll feel this rhythm just by looking at a different transcription of the piece is a different matter. I certainly wouldn't.
@@Labyrinth1010 Right, usually a normal place for either element to fall, but in this case both are syncopated together thus changing the rhythm when hearing it on the downbeat. The piano and vocal both fall along the “a” of 1-e-&-a
@@puls3illegalmusic that’s a good point. I never considered Thom syncopated his vocals, too. Interesting. I’m copying a reply here from another comment on this thread, I’m curious what your thoughts are: “No, I don’t think so. He’s right. Context is everything. Everything that made the piano the syncopated part was stripped away. The piano is the heartbeat of the song. The pulse. The percussion parts that come in alter are just spice. There’s no reason to notate it at 140bpm and overly complicate things. And funny enough, I just checked my sheet music and that’s how it’s notated. There’d be no reason to do it any other way.” Know what I mean? If the main thing that made it syncopated is gone, then is it still syncopated? An interesting thought experiment, I think.
@@Labyrinth1010 But here’s the thing, the thing the makes something syncopated is however the creator hears it in their head, if it’s syncopated to them, then that’s how it’s meant to be heard. This is demonstrated in a Vox video on this very song when Thom is trying to get his other band members to come in on the right beat, yet he hasn’t explained to them that it’s syncopated, so they perceive it to be on the downbeat like the rest of the world does without the context.
@@Labyrinth1010 I’ve had several interesting experiences with syncopation, hearing a song (or more commonly an intro to a song) one way and then eventually hearing it the correct way it’s meant to be heard. Six Shooter by Queens of the Stone Age is a song I heard “incorrect” for like the first 12 years I heard that song, until one day my ears and brain heard it how it was intended. Music and perception is wild as hell
I just saw the Vox video, then the Warren video. Imediately I was wondering if I was missing something for thinking exactly what you just explained. Thanks for making this video so I don't have to go mad wondering if I was just objectively wrong
One thing I've never seen (though I've not researched it widely) is mention that the snare/tom hits are layered, with the different layers played at just slightly different speeds, so you get a Steve Reich-type effect of percussion moving out of phase. So at the very least, it's not so simple as figuring out what is syncopated and what is not. By the later parts of the song, you get some snare hits that are way off-beat of what the piano is framing, no matter if the piano is officially on-beat or not. Maybe it's just my familiarity, but when I imagine the song in my head, the piano chords are always off the beat, even in the sections without percussion.
we all bring our own personal filters into every piece of art. It makes each experience unique. Instead of just a handful of versions of Videotape, there are millions. great vid!
Interesting response, especially for someone like me who doesn't really know music theory. One issue though: isn't a key ingredient here the vocals? Surely they should settle how you're supposed to feel the beat in the track. And, if I'm not mistaken, the piano chords in the Bonnaroo version fall just after the notes in the vocal melody, whereas on the album Thom seems to be singing the notes directly in step with the piano.
Sincope. One of the hardest song to play live, there is another complex song from Radiohead called Idioteque that requieres a lot effort to play it right.
Even having listened to the live version first, it is still difficult to hear the melody offbeat in the studio version. But it's worth it and it totally changes the feeling. ua-cam.com/video/eAihk6H6oHY/v-deo.htmlsi=zLRDK75GknoUpC7U
No, I don’t think so. He’s right. Context is everything. Everything that made the piano the syncopated part was stripped away. The piano is the heartbeat of the song. The pulse. The percussion parts that come in alter are just spice. There’s no reason to notate it at 140bpm and overly complicate things. And funny enough, I just checked my sheet music and that’s how it’s notated. There’d be no reason to do it any other way.
If the song “hides” it then is it even there? I agree with what the guy in this video is saying… if we can’t feel it, it’s not there, and I for one can’t feel it. To me this song is simply built from quarter notes falling on the beat.
The snare that begins the song is the offbeat (last offbeat of an imaginary preceding measure before the first real measure starts). Nod along to the guitar and you should be fine.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to convey. Sure, people will interpret the song as they want, however, that does not stop Radiohead showing the world how they interpret the song themselves. So once we know their interpretation its up to us to choose weather we "listen" to the syncopation or no. But still there's an interpretation with syncopation === the song is syncopated.
Uh. There is literally no difference between the live version you show and the album version, except on the live version you show you can hear the syncopation. Same with the solo Thom in the basement version. Don’t believe me? A guy did a UA-cam video with the Idioteque 4/4 beat tracked with the studio version. Guess what? That’s right. Matches up on a dime. It’s just harder to hear the syncopation on the album cut, but if you listen with the drum beat under it, all the obtuse percussion Phil is doing suddenly makes sense.
Hello everyone, Is there any chances I can get the full band score notations for this song? I'm doing a research for this song and I kinda need the full score :/ please do help!
1) Bonnaroo 2006 where the band unveiled In Rainbows songs a whole year before the album release, against Nigel's wishes 2) The foot tapping during Tom's solo performance on From The Basement 3) The foot tapping in the background of the studio version Those are the evidence, the strongest of which you devoted a whole section of your video to and were 100% convinced by, before choosing to completely disregard it because you prefer a simpler notation (?). They all present the intended version of the song, which is ALL THAT MATTERS. For years, i had a wrong mp3 rip of Thom's The Eraser solo album. I first noticed when the movie The Prestige had Analyze "actually start", while the version i was listening to started with the first second completely cropped. But then i never thought about the problem bleeding into other songs of the album, mainly Black Swan (also in A Scanner Darkly i believe, great year for a Radiohead fan). Same issue, except this time, it affected the whole beat of the song. This time, i noticed because of how Thom played it live. To me, he was playing it "wrong" and "different", when in fact i had the defective mp3 stuck in my head. I probably still keep it somewhere as a novelty and reminder of it. A listener not getting a tempo or a time signature has no say in what a song ultimately is, or what a musician should or shouldn't be doing. A lot of people think Pink Floyd's Time slows down on the chorus. A lot of people have trouble clapping along to the intro of Biffy Clyro's Living Is A Problem. A lot of people have no idea what's going on in Metallica's Blackened. The only exception of this is that a lot of people prefer the From The Basement version of The King Of Limbs, because it streamlines the songs for white listeners, while my Moroccan ears have no trouble grooving to the Gnawa/Afrobeat-inspired rhythms. The live performances of Bloom in particular are CRIMINALLY bad. Nigel and Colin probably had a lot to do with the studio version of that first half of the album, i would still really want to hear from the band about it. Anyway. What i'm saying is, a lot of people will probably go through most of their lives without ever picking up on a whole other layer of complexity and emotion conveyed by their favorite bands' drummers. Or, in general, when the music loses all commercial mainstream tropes (4/4) and goes odd, or prog, or indie. Granted, the James Bond theme song is extremely popular, but as soon as you ask someone to play it on a piano or a guitar, or just to keep a beat to it, i bet you it's gonna be the first time they even notice it's in 5. "Odd", "prog", "indie", "not commercial", "not mainstream". That's the lens that we should be looking through when discussing anything Radiohead. In that regard, Videotape, The Butcher and Identikit are syncopated puzzles, and that's that. Pyramid Song solves itself when the drums come in, sure, but that doesn't mean that just because the others don't that they're simply not that complex. Sure, a listener can be lazy, but that's where the subjectivity ends: the objectivity is that the song isn't as lazy. Hearing and/or enjoying it wrong, the philosophy of how we consume music, the importance of music notation in the 21st century... That is all very much irrelevant to the conversation. And what Steely Dan are talking about relates more to what the song makes someone feel, or what the words can mean to different people, but it's got nothing to do with the actual piece of music. Misheard lyrics don't make them right, and the same goes for misplayed music or misunderstood rhythm.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Radiohead. The rhythm is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Moroccan afrobeats most of the beats will go over a typical listener's head. There's also Yorke's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of this music, to realise that they're not just fun- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Radiohead truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the genius in Yorke's syncopation , which itself is a cryptic reference to Morrocan afrobeat music. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Yorke's genius rhythm unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Radiohead tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
Good video. Clear, well reasoned, impressively lacking in hype. The Vox video is poorly presented and basically devolves into ridiculous pseudoscience, it drives me insane. I have a few thoughts about this, though I don’t know how many of them are news to you: - It seems Jonny Greenwood disagrees that the chords should not be written as syncopated, as he issued a correction when Videotape was transcribed for a songbook. See: www.reddit.com/r/radiohead/comments/fwiken/trust_radiohead_to_be_that_complicated_15478bpm/ - The cross stick rhythm that enters in the outro is basically the rock backbeat pattern that Phil played in the 2006 version, but the context makes it feel way less emphatic. - Minor correction: the early Videotape performance you use in this video is not from “about four months before the song was released”. The final version of Videotape was released in October 2007. They hadn’t played a show since 2006 at that point. - You say that music notation is a “way to communicate ideas to other musicians”. You then argue that the song is easier to communicate with the chords written straight. It sure is easier to communicate when you simplify it, but IMO you’re not communicating one of the most interesting musical ideas of the song that way. While I agree with your conclusion that the band’s interpretation isn’t gospel, I personally find the song infinitely more interesting when I interpret the chords as syncopated, so I’d want to stress that interpretation.
"Pseudoscience" is the perfect way to explain some of those Vox videos. That's totally my bad on the '4 months' thing. I think a YEAR and 4 months is what I should have said. I absolutely agree that the song is more interesting with the syncopation. I honestly don't care much for the version on In Rainbows and it's probably my least favorite tune on the album, but I'm in love with that live recording.
Sorry, I'm not seeing anything on the reddit post that suggests Jonny disagrees with how the song is transcribed in that particular songbook. Josh Cohen's comment seems to suggest that Jonny actually agrees with the transcription and that the songbook is accurate.
@@echohasbinokiller4 This video makes the case for writing the chords as straight (non-syncopated). Jonny Greenwood specified that they should be written as syncopated in a songbook transcription. That's what I'm saying Jonny "disagrees" with. Of course that doesn't mean the debate is settled, just throwing that in as an interesting point of data.
Great video. I was similarly confused by Vox’s video when it came out. I can see why Radiohead might perceive this song as starting on the 4& but to me it starts on the 1 and at no point does it stop sounding that way.
Like you were saying, if this syncopation is hidden throughout the entire song, then it’s not really there at all.
Hi David ! Does the singing part not give any clue to choose between straight or syncopated notation ? It seems to me that to understand the way Thom Yorke is singing that song, we need to have the syncopated rythm in mind but i'm not a specialist at all ! Besides, on the studio recording, we can hear his feet moving on 8th notes on the pedal piano, just as he does on the solo version of The basement.
I LOVE YOU DAVEY
Didn't think I'd see you here on such a small video but I guess it makes sense considering the topic lol
Thom Yorke did an interview with David Byrne in 2007 in which Thom states "The piano is ahead - it’s an eighth ahead of where the one is." (The interview is on YT.)
Warren does say that you can hear it either way, just that the syncopated piano is the way the band hears it. The listener can choose either one or something completely different . The band's intentions are important to him, but others are free to take a "death of the author" approach like you do.
This is amazing. I'd argue that there is a difference. When I hear this song nowadays, I wiggle to the higher BPM, with the (non audible) syncopated piano. And that make it sounds totaly different to me while I'm wiggling around. People who don't know about this wiggle differently, they hear it differently. Let's ignore "better" or "worse". These are just "different" versions IMO. But there is a difference in perceiving the sound when you know about this hidden rhythm.
But whether or not you'll feel this rhythm just by looking at a different transcription of the piece is a different matter. I certainly wouldn't.
Wow I can't believe steely Dan is actually made out of flesh and not iron alloy
Hearing or conveying that the piano falls on the downbeat changes the rhythm of the vocals completely
I hear you, but at the same time, the vocal starts on the downbeat (when thinking of piano on the downbeat).
Pretty standard spot for a vocal melody.
@@Labyrinth1010 Right, usually a normal place for either element to fall, but in this case both are syncopated together thus changing the rhythm when hearing it on the downbeat. The piano and vocal both fall along the “a” of 1-e-&-a
@@puls3illegalmusic that’s a good point. I never considered Thom syncopated his vocals, too. Interesting.
I’m copying a reply here from another comment on this thread, I’m curious what your thoughts are:
“No, I don’t think so. He’s right. Context is everything.
Everything that made the piano the syncopated part was stripped away.
The piano is the heartbeat of the song. The pulse.
The percussion parts that come in alter are just spice.
There’s no reason to notate it at 140bpm and overly complicate things.
And funny enough, I just checked my sheet music and that’s how it’s notated.
There’d be no reason to do it any other way.”
Know what I mean? If the main thing that made it syncopated is gone, then is it still syncopated?
An interesting thought experiment, I think.
@@Labyrinth1010 But here’s the thing, the thing the makes something syncopated is however the creator hears it in their head, if it’s syncopated to them, then that’s how it’s meant to be heard. This is demonstrated in a Vox video on this very song when Thom is trying to get his other band members to come in on the right beat, yet he hasn’t explained to them that it’s syncopated, so they perceive it to be on the downbeat like the rest of the world does without the context.
@@Labyrinth1010 I’ve had several interesting experiences with syncopation, hearing a song (or more commonly an intro to a song) one way and then eventually hearing it the correct way it’s meant to be heard. Six Shooter by Queens of the Stone Age is a song I heard “incorrect” for like the first 12 years I heard that song, until one day my ears and brain heard it how it was intended. Music and perception is wild as hell
I just saw the Vox video, then the Warren video. Imediately I was wondering if I was missing something for thinking exactly what you just explained. Thanks for making this video so I don't have to go mad wondering if I was just objectively wrong
absolute favourite album and such a memorable track. thanks for clarifying!
One thing I've never seen (though I've not researched it widely) is mention that the snare/tom hits are layered, with the different layers played at just slightly different speeds, so you get a Steve Reich-type effect of percussion moving out of phase. So at the very least, it's not so simple as figuring out what is syncopated and what is not. By the later parts of the song, you get some snare hits that are way off-beat of what the piano is framing, no matter if the piano is officially on-beat or not.
Maybe it's just my familiarity, but when I imagine the song in my head, the piano chords are always off the beat, even in the sections without percussion.
we all bring our own personal filters into every piece of art. It makes each experience unique. Instead of just a handful of versions of Videotape, there are millions. great vid!
Your video is very smooth
Interesting response, especially for someone like me who doesn't really know music theory.
One issue though: isn't a key ingredient here the vocals? Surely they should settle how you're supposed to feel the beat in the track. And, if I'm not mistaken, the piano chords in the Bonnaroo version fall just after the notes in the vocal melody, whereas on the album Thom seems to be singing the notes directly in step with the piano.
Sincope. One of the hardest song to play live, there is another complex song from Radiohead called Idioteque that requieres a lot effort to play it right.
Really good points. Well said.
Really enjoy your videos! Cool analysis
Even having listened to the live version first, it is still difficult to hear the melody offbeat in the studio version. But it's worth it and it totally changes the feeling. ua-cam.com/video/eAihk6H6oHY/v-deo.htmlsi=zLRDK75GknoUpC7U
The piano is syncopated. The studio version hides it. End of story.
No, I don’t think so. He’s right. Context is everything.
Everything that made the piano the syncopated part was stripped away.
The piano is the heartbeat of the song. The pulse.
The percussion parts that come in alter are just spice.
There’s no reason to notate it at 140bpm and overly complicate things.
And funny enough, I just checked my sheet music and that’s how it’s notated.
There’d be no reason to do it any other way.
If the song “hides” it then is it even there? I agree with what the guy in this video is saying… if we can’t feel it, it’s not there, and I for one can’t feel it. To me this song is simply built from quarter notes falling on the beat.
@@DavidBennettPianoholy crap David Bennett piano
@@DavidBennettPiano I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING WHEN I WATCHED THE VOX VIDEO
@@DavidBennettPiano and even if you could feel it, as all Radiohead fans know:
Just cause you feel it, doesn’t mean it’s there
I loved your video! thanks!
very nice video drakeob l love tom york and the radioheads n you gave a really neat perspective. two thumb up from me babyyyyy
Never mind Videotape, where the hell is the first beat of the bar in 'Little By Little'?
The snare that begins the song is the offbeat (last offbeat of an imaginary preceding measure before the first real measure starts). Nod along to the guitar and you should be fine.
Great video dude!
Thanks drake nice vid
I don't quite understand what you are trying to convey. Sure, people will interpret the song as they want, however, that does not stop Radiohead showing the world how they interpret the song themselves. So once we know their interpretation its up to us to choose weather we "listen" to the syncopation or no. But still there's an interpretation with syncopation === the song is syncopated.
I think videotape and nude are linked somehow
Uh. There is literally no difference between the live version you show and the album version, except on the live version you show you can hear the syncopation. Same with the solo Thom in the basement version.
Don’t believe me? A guy did a UA-cam video with the Idioteque 4/4 beat tracked with the studio version.
Guess what? That’s right. Matches up on a dime.
It’s just harder to hear the syncopation on the album cut, but if you listen with the drum beat under it, all the obtuse percussion Phil is doing suddenly makes sense.
epic
but what about the offbeat dance they do
Hello everyone, Is there any chances I can get the full band score notations for this song? I'm doing a research for this song and I kinda need the full score :/ please do help!
1) Bonnaroo 2006 where the band unveiled In Rainbows songs a whole year before the album release, against Nigel's wishes
2) The foot tapping during Tom's solo performance on From The Basement
3) The foot tapping in the background of the studio version
Those are the evidence, the strongest of which you devoted a whole section of your video to and were 100% convinced by, before choosing to completely disregard it because you prefer a simpler notation (?). They all present the intended version of the song, which is ALL THAT MATTERS.
For years, i had a wrong mp3 rip of Thom's The Eraser solo album. I first noticed when the movie The Prestige had Analyze "actually start", while the version i was listening to started with the first second completely cropped. But then i never thought about the problem bleeding into other songs of the album, mainly Black Swan (also in A Scanner Darkly i believe, great year for a Radiohead fan). Same issue, except this time, it affected the whole beat of the song. This time, i noticed because of how Thom played it live. To me, he was playing it "wrong" and "different", when in fact i had the defective mp3 stuck in my head. I probably still keep it somewhere as a novelty and reminder of it.
A listener not getting a tempo or a time signature has no say in what a song ultimately is, or what a musician should or shouldn't be doing. A lot of people think Pink Floyd's Time slows down on the chorus. A lot of people have trouble clapping along to the intro of Biffy Clyro's Living Is A Problem. A lot of people have no idea what's going on in Metallica's Blackened.
The only exception of this is that a lot of people prefer the From The Basement version of The King Of Limbs, because it streamlines the songs for white listeners, while my Moroccan ears have no trouble grooving to the Gnawa/Afrobeat-inspired rhythms. The live performances of Bloom in particular are CRIMINALLY bad. Nigel and Colin probably had a lot to do with the studio version of that first half of the album, i would still really want to hear from the band about it.
Anyway. What i'm saying is, a lot of people will probably go through most of their lives without ever picking up on a whole other layer of complexity and emotion conveyed by their favorite bands' drummers. Or, in general, when the music loses all commercial mainstream tropes (4/4) and goes odd, or prog, or indie. Granted, the James Bond theme song is extremely popular, but as soon as you ask someone to play it on a piano or a guitar, or just to keep a beat to it, i bet you it's gonna be the first time they even notice it's in 5.
"Odd", "prog", "indie", "not commercial", "not mainstream". That's the lens that we should be looking through when discussing anything Radiohead. In that regard, Videotape, The Butcher and Identikit are syncopated puzzles, and that's that. Pyramid Song solves itself when the drums come in, sure, but that doesn't mean that just because the others don't that they're simply not that complex. Sure, a listener can be lazy, but that's where the subjectivity ends: the objectivity is that the song isn't as lazy. Hearing and/or enjoying it wrong, the philosophy of how we consume music, the importance of music notation in the 21st century... That is all very much irrelevant to the conversation. And what Steely Dan are talking about relates more to what the song makes someone feel, or what the words can mean to different people, but it's got nothing to do with the actual piece of music. Misheard lyrics don't make them right, and the same goes for misplayed music or misunderstood rhythm.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Radiohead. The rhythm is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of Moroccan afrobeats most of the beats will go over a typical listener's head. There's also Yorke's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of this music, to realise that they're not just fun- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Radiohead truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the genius in Yorke's syncopation , which itself is a cryptic reference to Morrocan afrobeat music. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Yorke's genius rhythm unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Radiohead tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
interesting
do'nt have much to say
just leaving a comment basically ;)
how would you transcribe J Dilla's Donuts ? pls, make a video about it :D
Good video. Clear, well reasoned, impressively lacking in hype. The Vox video is poorly presented and basically devolves into ridiculous pseudoscience, it drives me insane.
I have a few thoughts about this, though I don’t know how many of them are news to you:
- It seems Jonny Greenwood disagrees that the chords should not be written as syncopated, as he issued a correction when Videotape was transcribed for a songbook. See: www.reddit.com/r/radiohead/comments/fwiken/trust_radiohead_to_be_that_complicated_15478bpm/
- The cross stick rhythm that enters in the outro is basically the rock backbeat pattern that Phil played in the 2006 version, but the context makes it feel way less emphatic.
- Minor correction: the early Videotape performance you use in this video is not from “about four months before the song was released”. The final version of Videotape was released in October 2007. They hadn’t played a show since 2006 at that point.
- You say that music notation is a “way to communicate ideas to other musicians”. You then argue that the song is easier to communicate with the chords written straight. It sure is easier to communicate when you simplify it, but IMO you’re not communicating one of the most interesting musical ideas of the song that way. While I agree with your conclusion that the band’s interpretation isn’t gospel, I personally find the song infinitely more interesting when I interpret the chords as syncopated, so I’d want to stress that interpretation.
"Pseudoscience" is the perfect way to explain some of those Vox videos.
That's totally my bad on the '4 months' thing. I think a YEAR and 4 months is what I should have said.
I absolutely agree that the song is more interesting with the syncopation. I honestly don't care much for the version on In Rainbows and it's probably my least favorite tune on the album, but I'm in love with that live recording.
Sorry, I'm not seeing anything on the reddit post that suggests Jonny disagrees with how the song is transcribed in that particular songbook. Josh Cohen's comment seems to suggest that Jonny actually agrees with the transcription and that the songbook is accurate.
@@echohasbinokiller4 This video makes the case for writing the chords as straight (non-syncopated). Jonny Greenwood specified that they should be written as syncopated in a songbook transcription. That's what I'm saying Jonny "disagrees" with.
Of course that doesn't mean the debate is settled, just throwing that in as an interesting point of data.