Best album of the year: While that might once have read as a rare bold declaration of classic status for an album, these days the title is thrown around all too often.

Now, I already know what’s coming. “Don’t you gush and moan like a 13-year-old girl over records all the time?” Well, yes. So even I can’t leave myself out of the guilty party on this one. But leading up to the release of their highly anticipated first album in four years, “In Rainbows,” something just felt different.

I’m sorry to say, though, this is not going to be the album of the year. Like many of the longtime Radiohead fans, I awaited the day they would finally announce an album title and release date. Hell, I practically foamed at the mouth with excitement when I found out with the rest of the world that the record would be “free” on the Internet.

But as much as I wanted to sit down and spit out five paragraphs praising the absolute genius of singer-songwriter Thom Yorke and guitarist Johhny Greenwood’s latest opus, it just isn’t possible.

Granted, this isn’t to say “In Rainbows” is the worst release out there. While this might be the weakest addition to Radiohead’s extensive and epic catalog, by and large it isn’t their worst.

Songs like dementedly catchy and distorted “Bodysnatchers” and the plaintively weird “Jigsaw Falling Into Place” are perfect additions to the band’s arsenal. The only problem, though, is after a few listens, you might catch yourself wondering if you’ve heard these songs somewhere else. And guess what: you have.

That little nagging voice in your head that’s telling you there’s something all too familiar about “In Rainbows” is a little smarter than you may think. That’s because the main inspiration for the sounds on this album seem to be drawn from the band’s past albums. Throughout the disc, every song seems to contain some sort of subtle call back to earlier material.

Riffs that are initially engaging eventually transform into something of a disappointment. Instead of stretching out into foreign territory, Radiohead just mimics themselves as the feedback-laden riffs on “Hail to the Thief” and the electronic-spacey sounds of “Amnesiac”, which sound more like covers than actual constructions of intriguing songwriting.

It isn’t all an uneven mess, though. “In Rainbows” actually flows remarkably well. But once again, this is almost more of a problem than a strong point. While the ability of a record to flow seamlessly from track to track is usually of dire importance, here it feels like the album’s homogeneity makes the tunes increasingly hard to distinguish between.

Gone are the massively stacked arrangements built around 12 instruments most people would have trouble pronouncing, let alone recognizing. This is Radiohead’s attempt at a bare bones, stripped-down album. This serenely individualizes “In Rainbows” from past efforts but slightly hinders it from being as compelling.

It’s really a shame, though. While there may only be about five songs from the album worth even mentioning, they are without a doubt still worth your time.

Tunes like the incredible showstopper “Nude” build off a simple and muted bass riff, and let Yorke’s fragile falsetto cascade around Radiohead trademarks, like electronic resonance and soft guitar picking, like some sort of falling angel.

But where was this during the rest of “In Rainbows?” Is this really what we want from Radiohead?

I’ve made up my mind. Next time Thom and the gang decide to release an album, I won’t count on finding gold at the end of it.