Ex-Boyfriends: Dear John

More fun than substance from these new-wave power-poppers, but they do look cute in ties...


Dear John

Label: Absolutely Kosher
US Release Date: 2006-02-21
UK Release Date: Available as import
iTunes affiliate
Amazon affiliate
Insound affiliate

Listening to the Ex-Boyfriends is like reading a great line in a book, only to come across a footnote at the end. And when you track the source down, it's another citation. In other words, this is the sound of an entire set of oft-appropriated 1980s bands (the usual suspects: the Cure, the Smiths, a legion of new-wave one-hit wonders, etc.), refracted through another set of second-generation imitators ranging from the Smoking Popes to the Killers. As such, it's a catchy sound, and one the band delivers with consummate craftsmanship, but ultimately Dear John proves hollow: all flashy veneer, no substance.

To be sure, these Ex-Boyfriends are fastidious chaps mindful of their p's and q's. On the former front, we get power-pop and pop-punk, the tropes of which the band has clearly mastered. Thus songs are jam-packed with steadily-rising vocal melodies complete with "wah-ooh" backing harmonies, simple but sharply defined guitar lines, and percussion more conducive to the clap than all the band's exes' exes combined. Meanwhile, the q's: the band's publicity material makes it very clear that this polysexual trio brings the queerness. Unlike, say, Pansy Division (for whom they've opened), the Ex-Boyfriends avoid explicit "ring of joy" lyrics, but presumably they claim some social capital for their orientations in a music scene full of metrosexual posing. And why not: "Willingly" sounds like Franz Ferdinand's "Michael" with a bassline adopted from Berlin's "The Metro," but where the "fauxmosexuals" in FF merely flirt with Michael, at least two-thirds of the Ex-Boyfriends are ready to ravage him. Depending on one's mood and vantage point, the song is either trite and derivative, or it's three minutes of soaring pop pleasure. The band probably deserves credit and demerits on both fronts.

Some catchy three-minute ditties and a refreshingly casual queer identity: is it enough? Sometimes. On opening track "Him For Me" singer Colin Daly busts out a Robert Smith wail and bemoans his replacement in a relationship: "He's nothing but a stupid tramp/ Can't keep his dick inside his pants". The sugary-sweet melody contrasts with the spiteful lyrics, giving the song the kind of internal tension that marks the best pop music. "Relationship" keeps the pace, with its stuttered "We're in a relationship-ship-ship-ship" sounding like a glorious outtake from a compilation of New Wave hits from 1983.

By the fifth track, though, Dear John begins to settle into familiarity. The addiction ballad "Well, William" tracks a character who might well have crawled straight out of a Smiths song. But as the Moz said, it's really nothing, falling short of the emotional pull its refrain seems to be striving for. "Stop, Drop, Rock 'N Rock" is one of those ideas whose self-evident lousiness should have been recognized before it was forced into song form, and the album concludes with four consecutive filler tracks, leaving a bland aftertaste.

Still, even as Dear John begins its descent into dullness it manages to offer the power-pop bliss of "P.S.", wisely saved for track seven to prevent the album from winding up entirely front-loaded. And a ratio of four (maybe five) would-be hit singles to four filler tracks, with a few more sitting on the fence between the categories, isn't bad at all for a pop album.

Everything on Dear John has been done before, though the Ex-Boyfriends generally do it well. As background music -- something to dance to, or blast while you wash the dishes -- this can be pretty stellar stuff. When it comes to sitting down and engaging with it critically, the album offers far less. You can see how they earned their status: they're fun to have around, good for some laughs and bit of pleasure, but when it comes to committing to a relationship with them, well… Dear John, indeed.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.