about contributors submissions book series advertising contests tour dates Mixed Media PopMatters Picks
|
|
Music > Reviews > Kings of Leon  Kings of LeonOnly by the Night(RCA) US release date: 23 September 2008 UK release date: 22 September 2008 By Alan RantaDon't Let Your Children Grow Up to Be Kings
The music business is a land of phonies and charlatans. No one in or around it has any illusions to the contrary. These fakes come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and intensities. The brothers and cousin Followill are now in the bottom rung of the pecking order, no different from all the other Limp Bizkit and Avril Lavigne commodities that attempt to pass off the most expensive gear and shallow, materialistic existences as creative substance, except for the fact the Kings of Leon sincerely believe they are real artists. They exist on and believe in their own hype, an intangible juggernaut stunningly and consistently supported by the UK and Australian media while soundly denounced by the North American bastion of indie taste Pitchfork, now for the fourth time in as many full-lengths with their lowest ever rating. Yet the many devoted street teams and pocketed critics always seem to drown out the few authorities willing to put the effort in to point out how average they truly are. Lucky for us, Only by the Night is the CD that will turn the tide on that cesspool. With the highly anticipated fourth Kings of Leon album, this quartet of Tennessee good old boys have finally created the album they were always destined to make. Youth and Young Manhood (2003) launched their major label buzz factory with a posture heavy mix of the Strokes and stolen Southern rock aesthetics. Shortly thereafter, three of the four Followill boys lost their virginity. However, despite earning the manly man merit badges they started making music for in the first place on the back of so many generous comparisons, they never truly embraced the Southern Strokes tag that hounded their early work. Over the next two albums, they did their best to get away from it by stretching their meager talents and pussy driven ambitions over sounds borrowed from U2, with whom they had also toured. With Only by the Night and whisperings of “the night time is the right time” dancing in their heads, the Kings of Leon have finally wholeheartedly embraced their inner Strokes and outer U2 (minus the relevant politics) and channeled the ensuing derivative drivel directly through the most radio friendly Nickelback form. Now, they have only ever had three songs on every album. They write self-aggrandizing ditties about encounters with groupies, boastful yarns about how real they are, and vaguely worded nonsensical ramblings punctuated by choruses picked out of a rhyming dictionary. The lead single was originally supposed to be “Crawl”. That track falls squarely in the latter category since some of the words have mildly political connotations bordering on Toby Keith style über patriotism, but they stop a few blocks short of actually saying anything due to their jumbled execution. Perhaps sensing the half-baked nature of the meaningless tune, they decided the nod would instead go to the deeply emotional “Sex on Fire”, a predictable tale of tail conquered. From the band that brought you the repetitious penis ode “Pistol of Fire” in 2004 comes the equally obvious panty tosser “Sex on Fire”. The track begins on an alternating two-note rhythm guitar riff that never ventures out of its safety zone. It’s given the illusion of substance by a few infrequent bars of the very same staccato stabs re-popularized by the Strokes at the turn of the millennium and traced back to the likes of Television. The lyrics (which include the limerick like chorus “You, your sex is on fire / And so were the words to transpire”) are consistently juvenile, insincere, plain, and occasionally imbecilic. Caleb explained the chorus of the newest “Fire” song in a promotional YouTube home video where he said, “you know, the lyric can be taken any way and there’ll be people that say it’s corny or whatever, but, you know, if you’ve ever had really good sex, I don’t think it’s corny.” Maybe not corny, per say, but it is undeniably trite, petty, cliché, and counterintuitive to their image as serious musicians. What’s more, there are only two ways it can be taken and one of them is the clap. They’d have you believe they’re the next U2 poised to change the world with the power of their craft, but they’re really more like the Darkness moved to Tennessee and started letting their label cut their hair and dress them. Cock rock is still cock rock no matter how many hipsters are in the crowd. The formula “Sex on Fire” employs is ripped straight out of the Nickelback dime a dozen hit playbook, running the textbook pattern verse-half chorus-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus straight to number one in the UK charts. There’s no intro or outro to speak of and the band’s chemistry devoid playing stays at the same monotonous level throughout the entirety of its three-and-a-half-minute length, except for a slight upsurge and lame wad synth chime addition for the chorus. Every verse ends with Caleb repeating the last word for dramatic effect, but there’s nothing remotely poignant about “watching”, “talking”, “driving”, “dying”, “taste it”, and “greatest” in this context. The last two words don’t even rhyme and the first four were all the same and by the numbers, obvious enough to cats and select monkeys as inferior poetry even in contrast to the Kings’ more honest colleagues KISS and Mötley Crüe. At least those guys came out and said they just want chicks. The video for “Sex on Fire” doesn’t even have a girl in it. It’s got a dude eating chicken then ripping pages out of the Bible, another taking a shower in a warehouse, a bunch of winter gloves on sticks, and three guys touching Caleb until he pukes black dust in between shots of the band lip-synching. It’s as pointless as it is hollow. Speaking of unoriginal song writing, “Use Somebody” is another run-of-the-mill mainstream indie amalgam that subtly rips off a “Where the Streets Have No Name” lick for its supporting guitar line while Caleb squeaks about wanting to bone a random face in the crowd. The song is arranged almost identically to “Sex on Fire” except there is more layering and effort instrumentally, meaning they may have spent more than an afternoon writing this one, plus there’s a little extremely tame soloing around the end. It will probably be the next single. Further down the tracklisting, “I Want You” says the exact same thing over a never-ending post-grunge bassline rewritten from Because of the Times throwaway “On Call” and spiced with a lazy cowbell. Ho, hum, another day at the office. Caleb’s hackneyed song writing talents further expose themselves in “Be Somebody” as he rattles off some drivel about loosening a tie and gyrating in your general direction over a textbook tribal drum track copied out of a catalogue and another Edge riff. Like “Sex on Fire”, this song repeats the last line twice in the first verse, and then (this being where Caleb gets crazy experimental) he repeats the exact same line in the second verse twice again. No matter how many times you say, “I shake your way,” it’s still a ridiculous image. The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch immediately springs to mind. Throughout the record, the lyrics drift from brainless to worthless, and often in the same verse. “Snow is crackling cold / She took my heart, I think she took my soul / With the moon I run / Far from the carnage of the fiery sun” from “Closer” will not grant them the immortality their videos assume. The motivation here is they want to get laid, and that shines through their every move. They think the best chance they have to continue getting laid is to pretend they have half of the vision and integrity of U2 while still appealing to the indie crowd, since they dig the younger, trendier chicks. Hence, “17” is about trying to impregnate a 17-year-old girl, and since the Republican overlords wholly endorse abstinence-only sex “education” across America, it’s an achievable goal. I mean, if an ultraconservative governor of Alaska and vice-presidential nominee can’t teach her underage daughter to avoid the baby bullet with the help of abstinence-only programs, what chance does anyone else in the world have against a touring rock band? Now, even though Caleb is one of the worst singers and lyricists this side of Paris Hilton and Ashlee Simpson, it’s not that the Kings of Leon are completely untalented musicians. Their live-off-the-floor studio recordings have always brought to the table something intangibly vibrant (or throbbing, if you will) over their first three albums, despite Caleb’s voice constantly defaulting to piercing shrieks as on the singles “Charmer” and “Trani” as his only means of conveying “real” human emotion. They can play as good as Fall Out Boy or Nickelback. However, compared only to their own catalogue, the instrumentals on this album sound hollow and feebly constructed like a house of pornographic playing cards, typical for any carbon copy Chad Krueger project. Caleb mostly manages to keep his obtuse shrilling in check, instead using a falsetto lilt to highlight random words and the chorus in every single song. With Ethan Johns out of the picture, the production is thin at best, using the same reverb on the vocals as everything else all the time while the drums sound plastic. Where surprises could be found with each previous release to give even casual fans something to appreciate, Only by the Night delivers an even serving of Ritalin coma stadium rock destined to raise their prime age demographic. I can’t see this getting them invited to a UN meeting any time soon, but the Hard Rock Café will surely save them a table.
— 23 September 2008Kings of Leon - Only by the Night Home Movie 
 Related ArticlesKings of Leon + We Are Scientists + The WhigsBy Andrew Martin11.Dec.08 Kings of Leon’s southern-influenced garage rock has morphed into an arena-sized sound that translates into one hell of a performance. Kings of LeonBy Tony Sclafani31.Oct.07 Kings of Leon is no longer an upstart band with a quirky past. These days, they’re seasoned pros, dutifully punching the clock. The question is, can they still clock in with conviction? |
Now on PopMatters
Features
:. Re-Meet the Beatles: PopMatters Salutes the Still Fab Four :. Hitting ‘The Road’ with Director John Hillcoat
Columns
Negritude 2.0: The Death and Rebirth of Black Glossies The Rockist: We All Know the Way to Sesame Street
Blogs
Sound Affects: Gem Found: Dave Fischoff Short Ends and Leader: Poitier Portraying Another Magic Negro: She’s Blind, So Race Don’t Matter
Music
:. Lady Gaga: The Fame Monster :. Felt: Felt 3: A Tribute to Rosie Perez :. Mark Eitzel: Klamath :. Michael Hurley: Ida Con Snock :. Brock Van Wey: White Clouds Drift on and On :. The Paper Chase: Someday This Could All Be Yours, Vol. 1 :. The Melloncollies: Goodbye Cruel World
DVDs
:. Virtual JFK: Vietnam If Kennedy Had Lived :. Easy Rider 40th Anniversary :. Eminem: Live from New York City
News
:. ‘Modern Warfare 2’ video game scores record sales in launch :. INTERVIEW:Tom Arnold is a lovable loser , and open about it :. Jazz pianist reflects on his influences in his first piano concerto :. INTERVIEW:Wes Anderson meets Roald Dahl in ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ :. INTERVIEW:It’s ‘Tuesday Night’ again for Sheryl Crow :. Libraries turning a page with cafes, chat rooms and flat screens
|
Comments
Wow, this critic sounds like a miserable human being. Anyone who’s actually LISTENED to Kings of Leon would drop the overly-touted comparisions to U2 and realize that KOL have their own unique sound. And ...Nickelback? Are you serious? This is such a laughable comparison that I’m embarrassed to have even considered this review worthy of a read.
Comment by Nicole from California — September 23, 2008 @ 1:45 am
Nicole I have to agree. When Filmore gets done pulling his head out of his ass then maybe he can actually listen to it again and get a clue. In the mean time Pop Matters has lost my trust in what is worth listening to. I give your review a zero.
Comment by susan — September 23, 2008 @ 1:56 am
I also agree. This critic does indeed sound miserable. The review was hollow and out of touch. It lacks any real substance or understanding of what goes into making music- the comparisons sounded like they came from someones aging elderly grandparents - nickelback????....I have no idea what Filmore was listening to but it could not have been this KOL album.These guys are young, experiencing life and using their talents they way they should - I would have to say the Caleb Followill can write songs better than you can write reviews. So go back to your amateur poetry class and leave us all to enjoy KOL!!
Your review sucks…..it gets zero.
Comment by jacqui from Melbourne, Australia — September 23, 2008 @ 2:36 am
Duuude, this album is awesome.
Nickelback comparison is poor.
The whole review reads like your just trying to go against it for the sake of it.
Even if you don’t like KOL personally, the review is poorly justified and one sided it makes you look like a complete douche.
Shit, shit review.
Comment by Crosby from Canberra, Australia — September 23, 2008 @ 7:06 am
I think it was clear after seeing “Filmore Mescalito Holmes” as the reviewer, it was clear this was going to suck. Stop banging the douches over at Pitchfork and learn to recognize brilliant music. Caleb’s voice is nothing short of spectacular on this epic album. You are garbage Filmore Mescalito Holmes III.
Comment by Gavin from Rochester, NY — September 23, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Small correction: Your improvised nickname for Sarah Palin should read “lipstick on a pitbull” as opposed to “bulldog.”
Comment by Donny from Virginia Beach, VA — September 23, 2008 @ 10:52 am
I’d say the only one who is listening to too much Nickelback is “Fillmore,” not KOL. You’ve got them on the brain, Fillmore. And since when did songs about fucking and hot girls go out of style? That’s rock and roll, Fillmore. But how would you know that, since it sounds like you’ve spent way too much time listening to Nickelback. And yeah, maybe the KOL are copping some of U2’s bits, but so what? Four guys from Tennesee taking a cue from U2? That sounds interesting to me. However, I think who KOL should be compared to right now is Zeppelin, and not because their music is similar, but because the divide between how the critics feel and how the audience feel is so wide. I’ve been to two KOL shows here in Los Angeles, and they rocked the shit out of what is usually a pretty tame and complacent group of people. Guys like KOL because they play like demons and girls like them because they want to fuck them. Sounds like a rock and roll band to me, Fillmore.
Comment by Chris — September 23, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
You’re trying a little too hard there, “Lester” I think someone is a little jealous…
Comment by ryan from atlanta — September 23, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
Right on, Chris. Although you underestimate some girls’ taste in music - I loved their sound before I ever laid eyes on them. Can’t wait for Oct 15!
Comment by Nicole — September 23, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
I would just like to agree that I too think this is a terrible review. I am not one for bias and can call out my favorite band’s mistakes along with anyone, but this just nitpicks to no end. I don’t hear any licks borrowed from either U2 or earlier Kings material. It’s a style of playing. Just because someone uses a delay pedal that proves their ripping off the edge? This is one of those reviews that just goes contrary, hoping the consensus of a band will go negative in the future so the reviewer can say, “I told you so.” Spin does it the opposite way by giving almost everything 3 stars. This record is great.
Comment by Chase — September 23, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
This is not KOL’s best work, by far. That being said, this review is indeed pure shite. And get your meds straight, because “Ritalin” and “coma” belong in the same sentence only if you’ve overdosed on it.
Comment by Liz from Philly — September 23, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
obviously whoever reviewed this album has never had really good sex. sorry buddy, but don’t take it out on the kings.
Comment by Bill Blafshkey from Texas — September 23, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Allow me to clear up a few points for y’all…
Jacqui: “the comparisons sounded like they came from someones aging elderly grandparents”
The editor of Rolling Stone is 62 and father of six. Robert Christgau is 68 and is currently the co-chief critic for Blender (Maxim’s music mag). So what? The ageism of today’s youth is on par with, if not worse than, its homophobia and sexism. That’s terribly sad and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking this way. Despite your narrow opinion, the elderly are, in fact, a valuable and irreplaceable cultural resource.
—————————————
Chris: “I think who KOL should be compared to right now is Zeppelin, and not because their music is similar, but because the divide between how the critics feel and how the audience feel is so wide.” You could say the exact same thing about Nickelback. Critics hate them and their fans adore them with the exact same exaggerated worship as we’ve seen here. Thanks for proving my point.
—————————————
Gavin: “Caleb’s voice is nothing short of spectacular on this epic album.” As spectacular a voice as Muhammad Ali after retirement and as epic as anything by Theory Of A Deadman? You betcha. No argument there.
—————————————
Crosby: “Duuude, this album is awesome.” Good point. I’d never thought to consider how awesome it was before. You changed my mind with your impenetrable fortress of reason. Screw integrity, meaning, and originality. All critics should only judge music by how awesome it is from now on. Sorry, I’m as sarcastic as I am cynical.
—————————————
Chase: “This is one of those reviews that just goes contrary, hoping the consensus of a band will go negative in the future so the reviewer can say, “I told you so.””
Pitchfork has rated all of their albums between 5.4 and 3.8. I don’t think they’re just being contrary. They’re onto something. I, as well, would never have given any of their albums higher than a 5. We both honestly and independently believe they’re overrated wank. Consensus, conshmensus.
“I am not one for bias and can call out my favorite band’s mistakes along with anyone, but this just nitpicks to no end.” I wouldn’t be throwing stones if I were you, Chase. You spend more time in your review talking about how stupid Democrats are who don’t get the King’s awesomeness than you do actually dissecting or even mildly engaging KOL’s inane brand of banal cock rock. “In conclusion, love the music you love. But you need to love Only By The Night. If you don’t, I’ll grab a chorus and punch you in the gut.” You didn’t say a single bad or even questioning word about this record in your entire blog (except that one track isn’t an “instant winner” but would be great to drink lemonade to… hard hitting stuff right there). In fact, you are more biased in the band’s favor than I could ever be the opposite. That makes you a hypocrite.
—————————————
I would like to thank all of the people here for writing in. This is pretty much the response I was anticipating going in. By your often juvenile and sexually lewd remarks, you have confirmed that I hit the nerve I was aiming for. Since this has received more comments than anything I’ve ever written before, I now know it was essential for me to write this. Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. You made the torture of having to listening to this album over and over again all worth while.
Comment by Alan Ranta from Vancouver, BC — September 23, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
I shall preface this by saying I love KOL’s first two albums and I used to consider them one of my favourite bands. The third album, for me, was a disappointment except for ‘Charmer’, ‘My Party’ and ‘Camaro’ but I can understand why some found it enjoyable. In this case, while I don’t agree with some of the reviewer’s assertions, the 2/10 score is wholly justified. Frankly I’m not really looking for anything deep from KOL lyrics-wise, I get my fill of that sort of music elsewhere; I listen to KOL to ‘rock-out’ but this album doesn’t deliver on any front. Musically it isn’t similar to Nickelback, but I accept the comparison on the basis of the formulaic rock sound they have acquired, typified in “Sex On Fire”, which is just awful. Having listened to the album a few times now, I’m still yet to find anything that really excites me, and like the reviewer says, the only feeling it inspires is insouciance. The best compliment I could give it is that the drumming in some parts is fresh.
Comment by Coj from Cumbria — September 23, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
eh…i only heard and watched the new music video from KOL, which is “sex on fire”, and i must admit that they looked like the Killers but 1000 times more douchebag. The killers are a bit pretentious but we like them like that. Kings of Leon just looks stupid. They are totally playing the game. But i don’t despise their music as much as Filmore. “sex on fire” is stupid, the guys look stupid, but imo the song is mediocre, not awful or terrible.
BTW I liked the comparaison with Sarah Palin
...and kids stop listening KOL and eat some eggs while listening A Ghost is Born :P
Comment by eggtweedyegg from Canada — September 23, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Filmore - Im not an ageist…in fact my husband is 53! Not exactly a spring chicken - and neither am I!! When I said someone’s aging elderly grandparents, I was picturing our little old grandad who is 97 and just loves banging his prosthetic leg to Nickelback. It says alot about your ego when you put the editor of rolling stones name on the same page as your amateur review comments. The thing is, they may be in their 60’s, but they don’t write reviews or post material that strike people as mothballed!
“By your often juvenile and sexually lewd remarks”...you have mentioned ‘cock rock’ a few times now…what is mature and unsexual about that?
Your little rebuttle is embarrasing. Whatever age you are - lighten up.
Comment by Jacqui from Melbourne, Australia — September 23, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
Yeah, the fact that you felt the need to come back and try to burn all of us is a little ridiculous. And you talking like you had some divine destiny to proclaim the atrociousness of KOL is absurd. Oh, and you fell into the trap of reading my blog. You made the torture of having to read your review over and over again all worthwhile.
Comment by Chase — September 23, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Did you really read the reviews of your review and rebuttle? That’s pathetic. You write a review for a shitty little website and you compare yourself to RollingStone and Blender? Those people are above you, and they certainly don’t waste their time preparing comebacks to fans who disagree. This entire review is nothing but a self-righteous pat on the back. Get over yourself.
Comment by Brian — September 23, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
“Im not an ageist…in fact my husband is 53! Not exactly a spring chicken - and neither am I!! When I said someone’s aging elderly grandparents, I was picturing our little old grandad who is 97 and just loves banging his prosthetic leg to Nickelback.”
So if you know a black, Jewish person, it’s okay for you to make racist and antisemitic comments as long as you think of that person when you say them? Sorry, Jacqui. It doesn’t work like that. You can’t justify your ageist comment this way. Hate-speech is hate-speech no matter who you know.
“It says alot about your ego when you put the editor of rolling stones name on the same page as your amateur review comments.” Actually, no, it doesn’t. For one, I never said his name (Jann Wenner), but more importantly, he’s a (future) grandfather and you said “the comparisons sounded like they came from someones aging elderly grandparents”. I wasn’t comparing myself to him in any way. I merely highlighted the sheer ignorance of your bigoted ageist remark by pointing out two elderly men who still have a deep impact on modern music criticism. Whatever age you are - grow up.
Comment by Alan Ranta from Vancouver, BC — September 23, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Point proven. This guy is an absolute moron. Two rebuttles? You go from talking about KOL to ageism? Let it go. No one cares how old you are. You’re a douchebag nonetheless.
Comment by Brian — September 23, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Wow…worst review I’ve ever read. I don’t even like the Kings of Leon but this review makes me want to like them just because the reviewer is such an arrogant jerk. And the Republican sex reference….pitiful writing. Popmatters and Pitchfork don’t matter. It’s just a bunch of guys who are “too cool” for anything.
Comment by Gus from Virginia — September 23, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
The only point I’ve proven, Holmes, is that you have a pathological hatred of middlebrow lily white corporate rock, yet you find yourself having to write about it for pretty much nothing, which is obviously made you very upset.
I understand.
Sometimes i hate my job too, but I don’t throw a temper tantrum.
It’s just rock and roll, Holmes.
Next time smoke a joint.
It might not make you want to like whatever it is you’re listening too, but at least it will allow you to relax and help you think of something interesting to say, instead of comparing them to some other band you must’ve really liked at some point, because you are now obsessed with how you got duped into digging the old band’s shittiness.
I know, Holmes.
I understand. you’re not falling for that shit anymore.
Comment by Chris — September 23, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
“Pitchfork has rated all of their albums between 5.4 and 3.8.”
you sound like a mindless hipster following whats cool yourself. i regularly read pitchfork, but usually take their reviews with a grain of salt. theyre only trying to keep up their image by always producing pretentious crap. i dont like this album, but i dont like conceited, wannabe cool, indie, hate anything semi-popular chic.
ive heard u2, the stones, dylan and others are all fans, so ill give the kings some respect. doesnt mean i love them, but i dont vent my insecurities on other peoples favorite music just so i can make them feel bad and get a rise out of them to improve my self esteem.
Comment by cm from new orleans — September 23, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
i could care less that you gave a band a bad review, its just the manner in which you did it. im getting sick of this kinda stuff. people need to learn how to write critical reviews without making it personal. just simply state what didnt really work and what was okay about it. dont be a dick.
Comment by cm — September 23, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
radiohead are fans too… like the drummer of kol alot
Comment by eh — September 23, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
‘You go from talking about KOL to ageism’...you can add racism and anti-semetism to that list. That is low…very low.
It is only now though that I realise I was being far too generous in my comments - if I had only known then really how unprofessional you are, I would never have insulted all the 97 year olds out there by saying your review sounded like something written by someone around their age…. your review is worse and continuing along that path the more you try to pass yourself off as a legitimate reviewer.
I also think that you are giving these guys in their 60’s a hard time by refering to them as two elderly men - I dont think that is elderly at all these days.
And it doesnt surprise me that an egotist would disagree with the fact that he is an egotist.
I agree with brian” Did you really read the reviews of your review and rebuttle? That’s pathetic. You write a review for a shitty little website and you compare yourself to RollingStone and Blender? Those people are above you, and they certainly don’t waste their time preparing comebacks to fans who disagree. This entire review is nothing but a self-righteous pat on the back. Get over yourself.”
Your desperate rebuttles just confirm to us all that you suck as a reviewer.
Comment by jacqui from Melbourne, Australia — September 23, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
heres a lyric from the album i think youd enjoy:
‘a choke and a gag, (he) spit up and came back for more’
sound like your relationship with pitchfork?
Comment by eh — September 23, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
I read your review and then looked at your photo. After 20 mins of laughing hysterically at your ineptude as a reviewer and then your physical appearence I decided against leaving a comment similar to all the ones above, you’ve had enough go wrong in your life buddy, you diserve a break.
But I will say that you’re a dick because OBTN is another solid and highly enjoyable rock album from the awesome KOL that you can’t seem to get your ridiculous mind around.
(Insert your smart arse “i’m better than you because I have my own website blah blah blah” rebuttal comment here)
Comment by Jackson from Newcastle, Australia — September 23, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
The reviewer hit it spot on.
Juvenile, uninspired, repetitive cock rock.
Wither the music “sounds” like Nickelback
isn’t the point.
Having heard enough of Nickelback myself to last many lifetimes,
it’s readily apparent to me that Kings of Leon read the
same playbook at the very least.
Sonically the do “try” (and fail) to pull the occasional U2
reference.
They’re woefully lacking in even the most minimum set of
skills (musically) to pull this off.
A critiques’ job is to umm be critical.
If you’re putting your music, ideas/philosophy out into the
world, prepare for someone to write/respond.
If you’re incapable of accepting criticism (harsh or otherwise)
DON’T be a musician/writer/ANYTHING creative.
You’re in the wrong fucking business.
Regarding the idiot who wrote “I’d say the only one who is listening to too much Nickelback is “Fillmore,” not KO”
NickelBack (like soooo much music) is EVERYWHERE!!
In shopping malls, grocery stores, elevators, car radios etc.
Were inundated with it 24-7.
Never mind that ANY reviewer worth a damn needs to listen
to all kinds of music to actually have an informed opinion
to write reviews.
I’ve read far harsher reviews then this in my time.
It seems the fans of this band who are posting these snippy
juvenile little responses need to “get over it” not the reviewer.
Tomorrow and a year from now you’re likely still going
to be fans regardless of what any one says.
right?
Comment by Stephen Falk from Vancouver — September 24, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Thanks Bob
You’ve just proven my point.
Pretty courageous ,intelligent response.
Comment by Stephen Falk from Vancouver — September 24, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
(Pardon the following spelling and grammar errors)
Ahh the faceless agression of message boards, is there anything more fulfilling? Yes, reading a FMH review. Through the many critics I read and reviews I peruse FMH is by for one of the more consistent critics publishing. A bastion of conscience and taste. I would gladly take advice from someone who recommends Pepe Deluxe, Cadence Weapon and Baroness over someone touting King of Leon or U2. As always FMH’s critique is personal and passionate. His reviews are informative and exciting which transfers to the reader. Here his frustration translated out to the audience and was promptly directed back at him, illustrating this point. His lively hood is music, of course he’s going to be upset when he hears such hugely popluar shit outselling quality music. The innate frustration with the mainstream music industry is healthy if not required to survive in todays critical climate. This is well reflected in the review. If I see or hear something shit I call it shit, so does he. There’s some music that even weed can’t save Chris. RE:Jacqui. Just bacuse someone write for a print published magazine doesn’t mean their work or ideas are any more valid tham FMH’s it just means they know the right people.
Keep up the good work FMH, thanks.
Comment by Travis from Canada — September 24, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
ahahah
id rather let my children grow up to be kings than a bullshit reviewer like you
your review made me laugh you should go into comedy kid.
Comment by Ian from ENGLAND — September 24, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
POPMATTERS ?it really fucking dosnt, get a real job you fuckin douche.
Comment by jake from Melbourne — September 24, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
You certainly shouldn’t go into writing
Comment by Stephen Falk from Vancouver — September 24, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
POPMATTERS ?it really fucking dosnt, get a real job you fuckin douche.
..and the hits keep on coming
Comment by Stephen Falk from Vancouver — September 24, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
man you cant review for love nor money.
too many avril and knickleshat references
obviously shows your limited musical knowledge for anything outside the mainstream.
Comment by Scott from Inverness, Scotland — September 24, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
ure review suxed ballzzz
Comment by Craig from texas — September 24, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
i cant even read but i could smell the bullshit through my speakers from this review
Comment by adam from SE, England — September 24, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
right, ive just read your bio and seen your picture
your mum fed you on a diet of too many pies boy.
also.
2 out of 10
what the fuck how can you justify that.
this might not be the greatest album of all time
but its definitely not a 2 out of 10.
your review is un-inspiring idiotic piece of shit.
you no its a good album and you new it would get good reviews
you gave it 2/10 to be different, to show your not a sheep
when it just revealed you to be a complete and utter ballbag.
Comment by Matt from Camden — September 24, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Most of the animosity seems to be coming from Australia and the UK, the only two places on the planet who fell for this shit. How apt. It’s so telling of the quality of KOL’s fans in how the only way they can deal with a differing opinion is to attack the speaker with sexual degradation and “douche”, which is so ten years ago. If I’d never heard of this band, I wouldn’t bother listening to them simply to avoid associating myself with these uneducated sexists.
Personally, this review captures everything I feel about this stupid band and their worst album yet. I’m glad to see at least some reviewers still have taste not dictated to them by major labels. Now, back to your Creed albums. Away with you.
Comment by Allen from Las Vegas — September 24, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
Hey, I see popmatters are looking for ‘critics’
i might tell my dog, ive seen him shit better reviews than this.
x
Comment by Brian from Devon — September 24, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
How petty this review was. Self-aggrandizing or not, they do live up to their hype. PS Sex on Fire needn’t be ripped apart to the extent you thought necessary. Can nobody write a simple song anymore?
The Beatles wrote a whole bunch of them!
Comment by Maya Tusence from UK — September 24, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
ha. speaking of douches, you all are. the die hard fans and the snide critics alike. this is mediocre music. bringing up creed is just as stupid. please, stop masturbating your egos. on both sides.
can’t get over the creed and nickelback taunts. that’s cliche and just as generic and un thought provoking as the subject of this debate.
Comment by __ — September 24, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
scathing reviews are fun to write arent they??
Comment by Maya Tusence from UK — September 24, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
I had sex with Stephen Falk and it was the gayest sex I’ve ever had.
Comment by clay aiken — September 24, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
I had sex with Stephen Falk and it was the gayest sex I’ve ever had.
Comment by clay aiken — September 24, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Awww..that’s sweet..have you been following me around again?
OR are you asking me out..
Yep..when you have nothing intelligent to say..
What a brave person you are
Comment by Stephen Falk from Vancouver — September 24, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
I’m just as critical as anyone when it comes to music. I am by no means a huge fan of KOL or this record. With that being said, I also think that this review is awful, and not worth the time of effort behind any of these comments. Let’s just be grateful that his opinion is restricted to a website that no one really sees. There is not a single point in the review that doesn’t fall victim to a grotesque “maintstream” generalization. Obviously he is shorthanded when it comes to musical background and knowledge. Any real reviewer from a real source would spend less time barking idiocy and more time actually analyzing the record.
Comment by Alex from Arizona — September 24, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
“Let’s just be grateful that his opinion is restricted to a website that no one really sees.”
And yet, you saw it, didn’t you, Alex? The other 40 cock worshiping morons who commented also saw it. Weird. It’s as if many people, in fact, see this website. That sure tanks your opinion. You may be just as critical as anyone, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The only thing worse than mainstream sheep are armchair experts on criticism. It’s a review. Some you agree with, some you don’t. The fact this critic a fat, sexless bastard has nothing to do with the points he makes, and his knowledge base is just fine. Deal with it.
Comment by Allen from Las Vegas — September 24, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
I’ve made sure no one will see this by vowing to remove it from the wiki page. FOR. EV. ER.
Comment by Dickipedia — September 24, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
Wow! I completely disagree with everything in this review. Based on what I read I will profile the reviewer as someone who has expanded his mind to take interest only in top 40 songs.
Comment by Keelan O'Hara from Dublin — September 25, 2008 @ 9:55 am
I am pretty sure that if you read the article over again, you can picture a super right-wing soccer mom with to much to do. If you are offended by boys talking about getting tail, you are listening to the wrong type of music. This guy clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about when he compared KOL to shitty Nickelback
Comment by Dan from Minnesota — September 25, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
By the way, I do not think the album is their best work, but to give it such a scathing review was stupid. KOL is not critically hated. In fact, most critics have liked it. Check out METACRITIC if you don’t believe me. Although KOL latest is good, you should really be listening to is Dear Science by TV on the Radio. That album is AWESOME!
Comment by Dan from Minnesota — September 25, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Aha. So everyone that likes KOL are from either the UK or Australia?
Bunch of lads here from Denmark, we’ve all bought the album, and we’re all huge fans of it already. The only thing this album shows, is that they’ve actually grown and evolved. Not saying i disliked their former albums, on the contrary, i loved them, and i have all of them. But OBTN is amazing.
Oh and by the way, the guy/girl who said that this site actually WAS being seen by loads made me giggle. Out of the millions of people surfing the internet, how many have commented? The review blew, i can’t believe anyone could actually be this self-centered. It has nothing to do with how the music works, only that our dear Holmes here is either impotent or plain stupid. Apologise for the harsh language, but having read the review AND all the comments, i just can’t help but thinking how much i dislike Holmes.
Please, don’t write any more reviews about music that matters, write more reviews for musicians like Nickelback, as you apparently know nothing but mainstream music.
Comment by Mathias from Denmark — September 25, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Word Mathias!
That was a terrible review dude, an unbelievably pathetic analysis, and I rly dont get the comparisons to Nickelback, U2 and the strokes. Seems like you’re just shooting in the dark, to get KoL. Are u saying they’re not unique? Well what does it take for a band to be unique in your book? I’d say they have they’re own sound. Ofc they’re inspired by other bands as every musician is, but the moment you said they were stealing from U2 and Nickelback I knew you were a talentless ignorant nobody with unimportant oppinions. Or actually, I knew that after the first few lines.
What I dont get, though, is how you cant love KoL/OBTN. Just listen to the music, man.
I actually feel sorry for you. Why so grumpy? If u cant love KoL, my first explanation would be: U dont like that type of music. But I dont think thats your case. Nothings good enough for you, eh?
And so what if it doesnt rhyme? I dont even care if its grammatically correct or even in a language I understand. Just listen to the music. If you did, u might actually like it.
I hope u learn how to enjoy music and loosen up, if you aren’t too stubborn already. If not, I really hope you go to heaven, cause me and Mathias will have an awesome time in hell with all the cool ppl. Thats where the party is.
Btw: KoL rock live!
Comment by Kasper from Denmark — September 25, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
“Please, don’t write any more reviews about music that matters, write more reviews for musicians like Nickelback, as you apparently know nothing but mainstream music.”
“Based on what I read I will profile the reviewer as someone who has expanded his mind to take interest only in top 40 songs.”
How retarded are you KOL fans? Look at everything else Holmes has ever reviewed. If you bothered to stop laughing and look past his picture, you’d notice there’s he hardly ever reviews anything mainstream. He just gave the new Venetian Snares a totally justified 8/10. I’d tell you to go bitch about that, but I know you’ve never heard of him. Try taking your dick out of KOL’s bank account and get a grip on reality. You’ve only proved all of his points about how stupid this music is and how ignorant you have to be to think this “rocks” any differently than Nickelback.
Comment by Allen from Las Vegas — September 25, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
Allen dear, get your penis out of Holmes’ mouth long enough to actually TRY and understand what we’re saying. He is calling KoL mainsteam, which it OBVIOUSLY isn’t, and you’d know that if you just tried listening to it, not just be sat saying to yourself “More people are actually starting to like them! They must be mainstream!! SHUN THEM! SHUUUUUUUN!!”
And yeah i know the Venetian Snares, and they’re cool, no doubt. But seeing as he can write a review of an album, like he just did with this, he is obviously just taking the piss.
Anyways, cba arguing about this anymore - impressed you’ve checked these comments so much Allen…
Comment by Mathias from Denmark — September 26, 2008 @ 5:04 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
No, they are mainstream and they always have been. Every album they’ve released has been on a major label and has gone number one in the UK and Australia. You can’t get any more mainstream than that. What Holmes is saying is the new album blows goats and sounds like a watered down Nickelback/U2, which it does whether it’s popular or not.
Then again, Venetian Snares is one guy, not a “they”, so you don’t know what you’re talking about anyway.
Comment by Allen from Las Vegas — September 26, 2008 @ 8:38 am
I LOVE mainstream music!!!
Comment by Allen from Las Vegas — September 26, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Yea, shut the fuck up Allen!
Mainstream is not the same as being popular as you indicate.
Nickel back is nothing but a sugar plum of pop with a slighty hard surface of rock. U say KoL are corny? Not half as corny as Nickelback any day. Listen to the brakes, solos, guitar… basically evrything, actually. If theres a written book how to make a Poprock song, Nickelback follws that book everytime. Unlike Nickelback, KoL are rockstars.
As for U2: I have no idea where u get it from. Did u throw a die? Try listenig to each instrument separately in both U2 and KoL. I dont even want to waste my time on someone who actually makes such an ignorant comparison.
Im growing tired of arguing with you. You dont like the album? Fine, less joy for you.
Comment by Kasper from Denmark — September 27, 2008 @ 7:39 am
WORD KASPER!
Less joy for you, more for us. And if you hate Kings of Leon so much, why are you even in here reading a review of one of their cd’s? Makes no sense to me.
Comment by Mathias from Denmark — September 27, 2008 @ 7:44 am
hey boys in D/Mark You totally rock. the more i listen to KOL the more I realise they are destined for the big time….. C’MON!!
Comment by Jaqs from Heaven — September 27, 2008 @ 9:47 am
“if you hate Kings of Leon so much, why are you even in here reading a review of one of their cd’s?
Because he gave it a 2/10 and I couldn’t agree more. If you like these pop Nickelhacks so much, why are you hear reading their most negative review? Shouldn’t you be at a bar somewhere being trendy and hitting on 17 years olds, telling them how deep “Sex On Fire” is and how it rocks so differently than Nickelback? Gawd, you Dendorks are thick.
Comment by Allen from Las Vegas — September 27, 2008 @ 10:42 am
Wow i wonder who shoved a pole up this guys nether regions the day he wrote this. Just because they toured with U2 doesn’t mean they sound like them, they do both contain a bassist a guitarist and a drummer though so maybe that’s why he compared them so often, but oh no wait most bands contain those vital elements. U2 are irish. Kings Of Leon are southern American, i don’t think you could get much different if you searched the whole world.
Nickelback? How in any way do they sound like them? And Why are Nickelback so good? Their albums are 2 star albums, not Kings Of Leon’s.
I really don’t understand why most of you Americans don’t like Kings Of Leon, you say they may just be like every other american band but crap but why does the rest of the world like KOL but not the the ‘good’ american bands. Just a thought.
Also “choruses picked out of a rhyming dictionary.”
Yes i think we all agree that we hear fire and transpire way too much in songs nowadays don’t we?
As for Caleb not being a good singer, i’m not even going to say anything but it just shows that you really didn’t actually listen to this CD.
I just hope that Filmore will find out where this hatred and anger comes from (probably a suppressed childhood memory of being bullied at school by a fello named Randy)and will seek therapy to rid him of his inner demons. But for the time being we shall just have to acknowledge this pain he suffers and forgive him of it.
Good Luck Filmore.
Comment by I stereotypically drink Tea because i am english from England — September 28, 2008 @ 9:56 am
I stereotypicall love people that drink tea because they’re english.
Especially you <3
Comment by Mathias from Denmark — September 28, 2008 @ 10:05 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
Props to Mr. Holmes. Thank god someone gets it. If you actually think Caleb has a good voice, it just shows that you probably went to a special school. That southern retard sings like he got dropped on his head as a baby, just like you must’ve been if you think “Sex On Fire” isn’t one of the most pathetic and obvious piece of pop shit ever recorded. The reviewer was spot on, and it shows just how far the standards have dropped that every other critic can’t see what a unoriginal and uninspired crapstick this album is. Nickelback sucks, and so does KOL. Peace.
Comment by Meegs from Kelowna — September 28, 2008 @ 10:46 am
You guys do remember Caleb pulled a preemptive strike back on “Aha” with this right?
“Girls are gonna love the way I toss my hair, boys are gonna hate the way I sing.”
So my question is Holmes, why don’t you like the way he tosses his hair?
Comment by Remember — September 28, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
Filmore, all I can say is, get off your high horse. Your all high and mighty and know all, its sickening.
What makes you think that you have the right to downtalk absolutely anyone or anything? Noone has that right. Musicians, and other people, should be respected.
Hell, I even have to respect your right to write a review on this album. But what you have chosen to write is a personal attack on the Followill clan. Have they ever done something to anger you?
Everyone else on here that has angrily compared Filmore to dog droppings (or other similar things), dont lower yourself by making those crude statements. Just leave this guy to wallow in his own anger. He has the right to run his website, but we have the right to never read his articles again.
This is the first time i have read a review on this site. I wont be coming back again.
Meanwhile, many others will enjoy going to KOL gigs, and supporting those lucky enough to make it in the music world.
I find critics incredibly hard to trust with their opinion (and very rarely will I actively listen to something even a friend has recommended to me), so the only thing I can say is, if you like it, listen to it, and dont feel the need to explain yourself to anyone. I dont like all of KOL songs, so I listen to the ones I do like, and skip the ones I dont.
Filmore, I dont feel the need to say much more, hope your pleased with your angry comments and so called justifications. Your review is a terrible outburst.
Good day everyone.
Comment by Rhys Fitzgerald from Adelaide, Australia — September 28, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
Meegs from Kelowna, yeah so Caleb doesnt have a technically perfect voice like an Opera singer, and I agree with your point. He sounds a bit like a cat screeching (listen to ‘Charmer’ for example), but it is all part of who KOL are. Some people like that, and Im pretty sure they dont need special school.
Also, dont refer people on here to people who are mentally retarded like its a degrading statement. People with afflictions like autism or Down’s Syndrome often have special gifts and talents, that far surpass normal humans.
Personally Id rather listen to a gravelly rocker than a technically amazing Josh Groban or Daniel Negro, but Im not knocking other people who listen to those people.
Comment by Fitzy from Adelaide, Australia — September 28, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
I do apologize, Fitzy. I didn’t know Caleb had Downs-Syndrome. I thought he was just a moron. It won’t happen again.
Comment by Meegs from Kelowna — September 29, 2008 @ 7:58 am
“What makes you think that you have the right to downtalk absolutely anyone or anything? Noone has that right. Musicians, and other people, should be respected.”
Yeah, right. What exactly is there to respect about “Sex On Fire”? Another band trying to get laid through music is nothing worthy of respect. If anything, it’s worthy of pity. And I’m not seeing you out there defending Britney Spears and Amy Winehouse from the media. They have paparazzi outside their front door all year ‘round. Have you ever read NME? They respect you before your first album drops, and dedicate ten years to trashing you afterwards. This isn’t 1892 and these aren’t composers, and they had critics who were just as vicious back then too. You’re out of touch.
Comment by Allen from Las Vegas — September 29, 2008 @ 8:13 am
They’re already getting laid, Allen. Did you even listen to the song?
Comment by Duh — September 29, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
Comment by Allen from Las Vegas — September 29, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
Nickelback rules! They have sex!
Comment by Duh — September 29, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Allen: “No, they are mainstream and they always have been. Every album they’ve released has been on a major label and has gone number one in the UK and Australia.”
pfft, trust someone from America not to know shit about Australia. OBTN is their first #1 down under, before that BOTT hit #4 and i don’t know if the first two ever made the top 30!
i think this review is just pathetic. all that Holmes is doing is looking for attention, so he attacked one of the best bands going around these days. the Kings aren’t perfect, but they are still a hell of a lot better than most music around these days! I’d rather Caleb’s screeches than another goddamn Fergie song, thats for sure!
Comment by Rowan from Maffra, Australia — September 30, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Wow. Interesting, um, discourse going on here. All I know is this. I completely and unreservedly love this album. I’ve listened to it at least 30 times in the last 2 weeks; I think it’s a great listen and I’ve already turned quite a few people onto it. That said, I could give a flying fuck what this Holmes guy thinks. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion - but mine is that he’s very, very wrong. And that’s okay. His writing a lengthy piece trying to tear these dudes down doesn’t make me enjoy it any less. It DOES make me realize that he’ll never say anything about music that I’ll have the slightest interest in reading. He can have his pretensions, I’ll take KOL and this phenomenal CD. Which sounds more than fair, if you ask me.
Comment by AJ MacReady from Modesto, CA — October 6, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
wat the fuk! this guy filmore got some serious jealous issues. KOL have unbelivable talent and too refer them to Nickelback is an insult!
Comment by chris from adelaide — October 10, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
Fillmore, you’re friggin awesome. Way to smash this pile of crap to peices! Everyone these days is listening to the same stuff as everyone else. Stoked to see your going against the grain just for the hell of it.
Comment by Tyrone from Los Angeles — October 13, 2008 @ 2:41 am
The reviewed sucked along with everyone else that thinks this album and KOL suck. Don’t read about them or listen to the music if you’re that ignorant. Good Album, I’d like to see them go back to their roots a bit on a new album, but all and all as artists they’re all top notch.
Comment by Nick Griffin from US — October 15, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
This review has been reviewed:
<object classid=“clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000” width=“400” height=“400”><param name=“movie” value=“http://current.com/e/89413664/en_US”></param><param name=“wmode” value=“transparent”></param><param name=“allowfullscreen” value=“true”></param><param name=“allowscriptaccess” value=“always”></param><embed type=“application/x-shockwave-flash” src=“http://current.com/e/89413664/en_US” width=“400” height=“400” wmode=“transparent” allowfullscreen=“true” allowscriptaccess=“always” ></embed></object>
Comment by Andy Fillmore — October 16, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Whoops, here’s a link:
http://current.com/items/89413664_canadian_critic_sucks
Comment by Andy Fillmore — October 16, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
I can’t believe they went to so much effort. That was awesome. Do it again!
Comment by Alan Ranta from Vancouver, BC — October 16, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
“you have confirmed that I hit the nerve I was aiming for. Since this has received more comments than anything I’ve ever written before, I now know it was essential for me to write this.”
Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. You actually give all reviewers a bad name. You’re meant to impartially review music, not be a douche.
First and last time I’ll ever read popmatters.
Comment by Al from London — October 20, 2008 @ 7:38 am
Reviewers had a good name?
I read Vice all the time and all of their reviews are written by partial douchebags. That’s why I read it.
Comment by Brock Samson from The Venture Brothers — October 20, 2008 @ 8:59 am
Agree with just about everyone. This guy is a douche with nothing to cleanse.
Comment by Pendel Haight — October 20, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Filmore Mescalito Holmes,
i am demanding the return of the several minutes of my life you have wasted. Utter nonsense…don’t quit your day job….
Comment by Dan Diggit from Boston — October 23, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Dan Diggit,
I am not going to return your minutes. I’m afraid you’d just waste them again by actually listening to this terribly average pop cock-rock travesty. They are my minutes now. Besides, if you didn’t want to waste time, you would not be reading music reviews. Thanks for stopping by.
Comment by Alan Ranta from Vancouver, BC — October 23, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Riiight…. So to clarify….. those from Europe and Australia who seem to be LOVING this new KOL album (as well as all previous KOL albums) will soon have their ignorance exposed when/if the far superior US market rejects this album?! Is it obvious to anyone else just how unspeakably ridiculous that sounds?
What is great is that in one breath, Filmore (annd seriously… is that an ACTUAL name?.... surprising that someone named ‘Filmore’ didn’t dig a KOL album….sorry…. no need to make it personal).......as I was saying, in one breath Filmore indicates that their soon-to-come death will be delivered by a disinterested US market. He then likens Only By The Night to Nickelback-like-drivel. Well, not that Iam a Nickelback fan, but maybe Filmore didn’t notice the fact that the last Nickelback album was on the Billboard top 40 chart for over 100 weeks…..
So, please clarify….just how refined is the US market? Tell me again how superior their tastes are to that of the European fans?... You know…. the US market that spend most of 2006 and 2007 sucking back as much Nickelback as they could get?
Comment by Gerrit Hoekstra from Ontario Canada — October 31, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Anyone (like Al above) who thinks that writers are supposed to “impartially review music” or who feels that the quality of music writing is directly related to whether or not you agree with it has bigger problems than being a Kings of Leon fan.
Comment by Ian Mathers from Ontario, Canada — November 14, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
hey filmore, shut the fuck up. kings of leon wouldnt piss on you if you were on fire. you know nothing lol.
Comment by donnymotherfucker from you know it baby — November 21, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Works for me. I don’t want the Kings Of Leon to piss on me, even if I was on fire. I’m sure they’d piss on you, though, their devoted fanboy. I’ve heard they get down like R. Kelly. Have fun with that.
Comment by Alan Ranta from Vancouver, BC — November 21, 2008 @ 10:16 am
I probably agree with the general gist of this review, i.e. that the album isn’t very good. KoL makes some dumb songs. But my questions for the reviewer are:
a) Are you angling for a gig at Pitchfork?
b) Do you see the completely irrelevant art of writing record reviews to be some sort of noble cause?
Your review read like the desperate writings of someone begging to get noticed. It’s fine if you are; we’re all trying to advance somewhere in life, but this was ridiculous. It was petty and full of unfounded personal attacks.
Obviously reviewing music is something you’re passionate about, or you wouldn’t craft reviews with lots of color and flourish. But I’m going to go ahead and give you a healthy dose of reality: your medium is completely worthless. It’s next to “socialite” on the professions that matter. And I’m only telling you this because you appear to be a talented writer caught up in the idea that whatever this is that you do is somehow meaningful. You could probably do some good things with your abilities, but you must drop the ego first. Most of it anyway.
I’m going to be checking in regularly to see some improvement. Make me proud.
Comment by Tito from MO — November 28, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Very poor review. I am a KOL fan and throughly disappointed by Only by the Night, but the album is certainly not as bad as you claim. Give the band props for not being scared to experiment, even if you hate Caleb and his voice. “Closer” and “Cold Desert” are dreamy shoegaze pieces that the band surprisingly pulls off very well. I will admit “Use Somebody” is rehased U2 garbage and “Crawl” does not work well, but “Sex on Fire” has actually grown on me. It’s a retarded song, the band knows that, but in that sense it’s genius - one of the best and most successful singles of the year and it is real rock ‘n’ roll. Don’t hate the band cause they are trying to broaden their audience and embrace the mainstream. While critic darling bands like the Strokes & White Stripes have become virtually irrelevant, the Kings continue to grow and get better and prove morons like you wrong again and again. Disappointed with this album, but they still put on a hell of a live show and I actually LOVED Because of the Times. I haven’t given up on these guys yet. Go get a life. I give the album a 7/10.
Comment by Al from Michigan — December 8, 2008 @ 1:22 am
Goin 2 c thm on Tuesday, that man is wrong, and that is why there’s no picture of him.
Comment by Jas from England — December 9, 2008 @ 8:03 am
Oh fillmore.
You don’t have to like it. You don’t even have to listen to it.
But a 2?
I’m just amazed that you could possible hate them so much.
a 2, really?
wow.
Comment by Jolson — December 9, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Yes, a 2. For any album that has “Sex On Fire” not only on it, but as its lead single, a 2 is generous. It’s the least relevant song recorded since W.A.S.P. formed. The record as a whole is as experimental as torn Levis and a flannel shirt. It’s old hat.
Comment by Alan Ranta from Vancouver, BC — December 9, 2008 @ 9:42 am
hmmm… hopefully you have no aspirations of writing for Rolling Stone….
They placed this album at #20 on their list of Top 50 albums of 2008. So, either 2008 was an EXTREMELY weak year and a 2/10 is the best they could find for #20 orrrrrr you’re a fucking idiot.
I’m gonna go with B.
Comment by Gerrit from Ontario — December 29, 2008 @ 11:24 am
— PopMatters sponsor —
When I first read this, I thought it was a parody of a bad review. To my shock, this was actually supposed to be taken seriously.
I love KOL, but I have no problem with a bad review. However, this was so personal and overboard, it was obvious that there was an agenda or two going on. Why the hell bring up Sarah Palin in a KOL review? I’m willing to bet the fact that the band hails from the south had a lot to do with it. The funny thing is none of the songs this clown claimed to be patriotic actually are! As I was reading through this garbage, I kept wondering what the hell this reviewer was talking about. “Crawl,” talks about the crucified USA. It is about America’s international image and people hating on us, much like the reviewer probably does. Even if a song was patriotic, so what? Does every American artist, ala Green Day, have to shit on America to get world wide approval from idiots like Filmore?
As for all the sex mentioned in the songs, what musical act doesn’t talk about that? Not everyone wants to be beaten over the head with an artist’s political or social views.
This “reviewer” is a complete joke and will go down as the worst I have ever read. Anyone defending this “review” is missing the point and is as big of a tool as Filmore. Stay in Canada, bozo.
PS. The Daily News named OBTN as the #1 album of 2008!
Comment by RH from NYC — January 4, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Ha! Too personal, not personal enough, I could care less. This review nailed it. The Kings Of Leon are an immature teenager band and “Sex On Fire” is one of the all-time dumbest songs. Thank god someone said it. It’s aggrivating watching so many seemingly intelligent people and critics who should know better praise such a stupidly simple, idiotic boy band like KoL.
Sounds like RH has been listening to too much Kiss lately to get any perspective on it. This garbage will rot your brain. Anyone defending this “album” is missing something very important about music and is as big of a tool as RH. Stay in denial, bozos.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that Rolling Stone ranked a 2/10 album at #20 on their top 50. They’re really that far out of touch. Rolling Stone was bought and sold years ago. Pitchfork gave the album a 3.8 as well, so this review is not an anomaly. And the Daily News? Are you sh*tting me? I mean, if the National Enquirer names OBTN the greatest album of all time, it must be. They really know music. Good call.
Comment by Conner from Alberta — January 5, 2009 @ 9:55 am
We’re not alone, Connor. The Kings Of Leon revolt is stronger than you know.
——————————————————
“I’m willing to bet the fact that the band hails from the south had a lot to do with it.”
Sorry, RH. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Bill Hicks is my idol, and he’s from Austin. I’m also quite partial to the 13th Floor Elevators, Ghostland Observatory, Explosions In The Sky, The Black Angels, Ozark Mountain Daredevils, Black Oak Arkansas, Johnny Cash, Iron & Wine, and The Octopus Project, among many others from the south. Conversely, the Kings Of Nickeleon could be from Mars and they’d still blow goats.
————————————————
“hopefully you have no aspirations of writing for Rolling Stone…. They placed this album at #20 on their list of Top 50 albums of 2008. So, either 2008 was an EXTREMELY weak year and a 2/10 is the best they could find for #20 orrrrrr you’re a fucking idiot.”
Now that you mention it, I don’t think I do want to write for Rolling Stone, Gerrit. That would mean I’d have to shop for music at Walmart, and I’m never going to do that.
Aside from my 2/10, Pitchfork gave OBTN a 3.8/10, and the Austin Chronicle gave it a 1.5/5, saying “Kings of Leon here depend on a major label production budget rather than hooks. Caleb Followill’s nasal yelp remains totally disarming, but the stupidity of ‘Sex on Fire’ douses all credibility.” The album also received the band’s lowest ever rating on Metacritic, a 63/100. It’s true, Rolling Stone is really that far out of touch.
Comment by Alan Ranta from Vancouver, BC — January 5, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
terrible review…i just listened to OBtN and overall think its a great album…I dont know why u hate KoL so much but it is obvious u have a problem with them…its amazing to me that u couldnt find one positive thing to say…u sound like a snobby elitist dick head.
Comment by brett murphy from atlanta, ga — February 9, 2009 @ 2:57 am