Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes: PopMatters review I don't think so anyway, and pitchfork agrees with a 3.8.
You really enjoy starting threads bashing these guys, don't you? This is your second one in less than a week. I also see you now consider them "rock", rather than "alternative". I suppose you just want multiple threads bashing them spread all over the site.
So you bad mouth p4k left and right but use their opinion to back up yours? Seems a little bogus.
Posts: 215 | Location: St Louis | Registered: 24 July 2008
I say my dear Holmes, that's quite the amusing review, and KOL deserve every mashing they get; pity there are a few grammatical errors. Sack yr editor.
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
Posts: 2759 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
Originally posted by IsaacAshe: Did any of you like Because Of The Times though?
I thought that album had a lot more going for it. Caleb's voice was a lot squonkier and squeel-like-a-piggy throughout, but the instrumentals were more complex and the production a lot richer. Losing Ethan Johns really showed the lack of vision these guys have. Every song on the new album has the same crappy guitar sounds and recycled pop-rock structure. That makes overlooking the lyrics to "Sex On Fire" next to impossible.
I'd say the Kings are fairly consistent, actually. While I haven't heard the new one, I have listened to their first three a lot, and find them to be about equal in quality. I'll probably get the new one because of that, but I'm not expecting to be blown away. Just satisfied.
___________________________
Butterby, it's no good!!!
Posts: 499 | Location: Tucson | Registered: 10 December 2007
Originally posted by ProfAmaretto: I'd say the Kings are fairly consistent, actually. While I haven't heard the new one, I have listened to their first three a lot, and find them to be about equal in quality. I'll probably get the new one because of that, but I'm not expecting to be blown away. Just satisfied.
Exactly.
Posts: 215 | Location: St Louis | Registered: 24 July 2008
Originally posted by ProfAmaretto: I'd say the Kings are fairly consistent, actually. While I haven't heard the new one, I have listened to their first three a lot, and find them to be about equal in quality. I'll probably get the new one because of that, but I'm not expecting to be blown away. Just satisfied.
Exactly.
Yes, that's exactly what Nickelback delivers to their fans, recycled ideas and trite lyrics. Enjoy being merely satiated by millionaire pop stars.
I can't believe "the Kings" are anywhere near "millionaires". I liked their first album, and my best bud likes all of 'em (unlike me), but I fail to accept that he's "bought and sold in the market place". Whaddya wanna do, hal, grease Fillmore?
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12945 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Yes, that's exactly what Nickelback delivers to their fans, recycled ideas and trite lyrics. Enjoy being merely satiated by millionaire pop stars.
Hmm... I'm not exactly sure why you have such beef with them. You compare them to Nickelback, yet if they were a band akin to Nickelback, wouldn't they be played on the radio non-stop? Nickelback sold six million copies of their last album in the U.S.. Kings of Leon sold a little less than 200,000. Nickelback tours with Hinder, 3 Doors Down, repeat ad nauseum. Kings of Leon have toured with Bob Dylan, U2, and other huge well-respected names.
I understand if you don't like them, Filmore. But to compare them to Nickelback? That's just silly. For crying out loud, that comment brought mark f out of retirement!
___________________________
Butterby, it's no good!!!
Posts: 499 | Location: Tucson | Registered: 10 December 2007
Yes, that's exactly what Nickelback delivers to their fans, recycled ideas and trite lyrics. Enjoy being merely satiated by millionaire pop stars.
Hmm... I'm not exactly sure why you have such beef with them. You compare them to Nickelback, yet if they were a band akin to Nickelback, wouldn't they be played on the radio non-stop? Nickelback sold six million copies of their last album in the U.S.. Kings of Leon sold a little less than 200,000. Nickelback tours with Hinder, 3 Doors Down, repeat ad nauseum. Kings of Leon have toured with Bob Dylan, U2, and other huge well-respected names.
I understand if you don't like them, Filmore. But to compare them to Nickelback? That's just silly. For crying out loud, that comment brought mark f out of retirement!
Great points... filmore just looks like a grumpy little man who needs to spend less time bashing "...these damn kids and their damn music...GETM OFF MY LAWN!!"
Filmore, I don't give a shit if you do review music for websites... I'll trust Bob Dylan's opinion over yours any day.
Why do you such a beef with them? (Aside from them being Nickleback for hipsters, which is a bullshit statement anyway). What, did the over-sexed members of the band sleep with you mom or girlfriend or something? That would explain your problem I guess.
Posts: 215 | Location: St Louis | Registered: 24 July 2008
Originally posted by harrisonOWNSmccartney: ^Agreed, I think TV on the Radio may be the most overrated band of all time, next to Radiohead.
Well now I wouldnt go THAT far. Radiohead is a pretty darn great rock n' roll/jazz/experimental/indie/whatever band ha
yeah well, some people just always have to hate on everything as soon as it gets too big. it's the same thing pitchfork does, and yet people on here do it all the time. They love something until too many other people like it, at which point they have to find something new to rave about.
Posts: 215 | Location: St Louis | Registered: 24 July 2008
I think you have no music sense. It is one of the better albums that I've heard this year. The lyrics are wonderful and the musical composition is HOT!
