quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:

quote:

Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:

quote:

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.

while i definitely agree that this happens, i don't think that pitchfork is exactly like that. they are often unfair to certain bands with mainstream success/popularity in my opinion, but i don't think it's as clear cut as to say they love bands then discard them if they get famous. they hardly rejected radiohead or the hold steady etc when they became pretty big. they even give pretty hefty accolades to guys like justin timberlake from time to time, and seem to have some weird love for dodgy (imo) commercial hip hop. anyway, kings of leon have done some decent songs, but as soon as i hear the lyrics for what they are i just can't enjoy a lot of them. because of the times had some decent tracks. haven't heard all of the new one, but haven't been impressed so far. sex on fire is just really boring, and does have the worst lyrics i've heard this year.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by His Dudeness:

quote:
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:

quote:
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.

it really bothers me when people say pitchfork starts hating whenever an indie band gets big. just look at their love of bands & artists like Radiohead, Kanye, & Beck to name three. those artists have sold thousands more records than Kings of Leon. i'm not saying they don't participate in the hype game - just look at the coverage of Black Kids pre-Partie Traumatic - but it's a lot more complex then "they hate any band that gets big"

I was just reading the comments to Filmore's review on PopMatters. After over a dozen posts blasting his biased, anything-but-objective review, I came across this little nugget, from Filmore himself:

"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 looking 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 Filmore Mescalito Holmes from Vansterdam, BC — September 23, 2008 @ 7:05 pm"

So basically, Filmore admits his review was as much based on a loathing for the band and his longing to piss off their fans than for any actual review on the music itself. This is the type of sorry excuse for "journalism" that creates the pretentious, cynical stereotypes often associated with music reviews. The fact that you use your position to rant, rather than showing the objective position demanded in journalism, shows where your priorities are. Maybe you need some further education.

Filmore, you may be entitled to your opinion, but in mine you're nothing but a talentless hack. The fact that popmatters chooses you (among others) to review music makes me never want to visit that poorly laid out, graphic design lacking, sorry excuse for a website ever again.

Sit on your high horse all you want and criticize bands and their fans from some shitty website... I'm sure that will get you really far in life. You obviously think your opinion matters more than anyone else; I've learned that much since posting on metacritic.

Have fun with your high school degree and continuous uneducated ranting... you obviously lead a very fulfilling life.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: His Dudeness,

I have a small amount of time before my girlfriend gets done selling beer and I head out to the fastest growing Octoberfest in the country. In the meantime, here are some selected rebuttals to Filmore's egotistical rants:

"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 @ 8:25 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 @ 8:31 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 @ 9:01 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 @ 9:32 pm"

"radiohead are fans too… like the drummer of kol alot
Comment by eh — September 23, 2008 @ 9:42 pm"

"Filmore has a tiny penis. He also frames his reviews and masturbates while reading them. Judging by Stephen’s post, it may be a circle jerk.
Comment by Bob — September 24, 2008 @ 2:27 pm"

"POPMATTERS ?it really fucking dosnt, get a real job you fuckin douche.
Comment by jake from Melbourne — September 24, 2008 @ 4:56 pm"

"You certainly shouldn’t go into writing
Comment by Stephen Falk from Vancouver — September 24, 2008 @ 4:57 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 @ 5:05 pm"

"ure review suxed ballzzz
Comment by Craig from texas — September 24, 2008 @ 5:02 pm"

"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 @ 5:13 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 @ 9:13 pm"

"Shut the fuck up Allen. That goes for all of you. I know more about music than any of you pathetic pussies ever will. I am the greatest.
Comment by Filmore Mescalito Holmes from Vansterdam, BC — September 24, 2008 @ 11:27 pm"

Alright, there's plenty more bashing his horrid excuse for a review, but German beer beckons...

Whoa, I don't know whether I should delete all of this or if I should just leave it. I'm leaning towards the former, unless someone can tell me how this is all constructive, good discussion.

Concerning the album, I really like it. Then again, I like all four—yes, all four—of Kings of Leon's albums. I feel they make great rocking music and they certainly don't take themselves seriously; another great album by them.

Oh Fraggie, don't delete this stuff. In fact, His Dudeness is actually helping to create one of the more fascinating threads now on m/c.

What could be more meta, than a reviewer posting a link on m/c, to his review on another website to further more responses than probably given in the first place; to then be trashed by others who bring in comments from readers of the original review??

This is the sleek and humming sound of the future.

Plus I'm on Filmore's side.
Writer gets fired up. Writer writes, expecting backlash. That's the dance.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
Whoa, I don't know whether I should delete all of this or if I should just leave it. I'm leaning towards the former, unless someone can tell me how this is all constructive, good discussion.

Concerning the album, I really like it. Then again, I like all four—yes, all four—of Kings of Leon's albums. I feel they make great rocking music and they certainly don't take themselves seriously; another great album by them.

I may have gone a bit overboard, but I think all these people's opinions are just as valuable as Filmore's; especially when considering the last comment listed (you know, the one in bold by Sir Filmore himself). I think it's extremely constructive to have his review (including his opinions on the review and the people that read it) be exposed for what it is.

Plus censorship is wrong.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: His Dudeness,

In defence of Filmore.

Clive James writing about the great Viennese theatre critic, Alfred Polgar:
"...the only critical attacks that really count are written in defence of a value. It was because of his admiration for competent practitioners that Polgar assaulted the incompetent." Cultural Amnesia pg. 567

I would say that Filmore is a spiritual descendant of the old Austrian.

quote:

Originally posted by Kulturtrager:
In defence of Filmore.

Clive James writing about the great Viennese theatre critic, Alfred Polgar:
"...the only critical attacks that really count are written in defence of a value. It was because of his admiration for competent practitioners that Polgar assaulted the incompetent." Cultural Amnesia pg. 567

I would say that Filmore is a spiritual descendant of the old Austrian.

If your explanation held true in this particular case, then it its truth is predicated on Filmore writing an intellectual review of the work in question, and actively (or even passively) defending a given value. His weak and unfounded (or at the very least unarticulated) comparisons to Nickleback just don't count as he never even attempts to back them up with tangible musical references, or any proof short of his personal perception. Therefore, I think you're giving Filmore a little too much credit.

The reason I had such a problem with Filmore's review in the first place lies in the very quote you're using to defend him:

"It was because of his admiration for competent practitioners that Polgar assaulted the incompetent."

Let's be clear here: I agree that this album is disappointing; that's not the reason for me bitching. Nothing about Filmore's review screams "competency". As the quote you brought up points out, I had a problem not with the resulting score given, but rather with the amateurish manner of the review proper, and his even more amateurish, repeated criticism of his readers.

I think this commenter said it most pointedly: " Did you really read the reviews of your review and rebuttal? That’s pathetic." To me, Filmore bashing the people bashing his work is anything but professional would be akin to the Kings of Leon commenting on his review.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, what matters is the context in which that opinion was given. For an example on how a competent review ought to criticize an album, Filmore needs to look no further than the very source he backed up his opinion with: pitchfork. Their review (while giving a comparably low score for very similar reasons) looked at the album from an objective perspective, never taking personal issue with the music, and dispensing critical analysis in a intelligent, articulate manner.

In summary: Pitchfork's review reads as someone trained in journalism, while Filmore's reads as someone fresh out of high school with an ax to burn, eagerly awaiting criticism so he can (re)burn those who disagree. One is professional, one is not. And more importantly, one is competently defending a value, while the other is merely ranting and complaining.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: His Dudeness,

Posted by His Dudeness

quote:

One is professional, one is not.

Professional merely means that one is getting paid for their work, as opposed to an amateur who isn't being paid.

What you're objecting to, it seems, is Filmore's subjectivity.

The history of reviewing is subjective.
Filmore's style has a long history, hundreds of precedents in all forms of art criticism.

All that matters in the end is whether the article was well written.

This:

quote:

what matters is the context in which that opinion was given.

and this:

quote:

never taking personal issue with the music,

matter hardly at all, and are historically aberrant.

Filmore is defending the value of musicians who give a damn about constructing a personal vision.
Is it well written? Yes, mostly.
Therefore all ideological concerns about 'objectivity' can fly off into the aether.

quote:

Originally posted by Kulturtrager:

The history of reviewing is subjective.
Filmore's style has a long history, hundreds of precedents in all forms of art criticism.

All that matters in the end is whether the article was well written.

You're right that subjectivity is an inherent element of reviewing... how could it not be?

And you're right, all that really matters is whether the article was well written. We obviously have different views on the quality of the written work. That's fine.

All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, it was one of the most poorly executed pieces of gonzo journalism I've ever read. And I'm a fan of gonzo journalism. To quote a phrase...Hunter S Thompson would "roll over in his muthurfucking grave" if he read that drivel.

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
"Shut the fuck up Allen. That goes for all of you. I know more about music than any of you pathetic pussies ever will. I am the greatest.
Comment by Filmore Mescalito Holmes from Vansterdam, BC — September 24, 2008 @ 11:27 pm"

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
I may have gone a bit overboard, but I think all these people's opinions are just as valuable as Filmore's; especially when considering the last comment listed (you know, the one in bold by Sir Filmore himself). I think it's extremely constructive to have his review (including his opinions on the review and the people that read it) be exposed for what it is.

Actually, I didn't write that. If you investigated further than merely justifying your opinion of me, you'd notice that comment doesn't link to my profile, like the earlier comments I actually made do. Some other jackass wrote that and put my name on it, hence it doesn't link to my profile. Conversely, I agree with everything Allen said and I don't know anyone dumb enough to say "I am the greatest". Only Muhammad Ali can say that seriously. So please, know what you're talking about before you spread such bold lies about a person. Likewise, the Stephen Falk quote you chose prolly wasn't written by him, since the three previous comments he wrote highly praised the review. What's more, most of the comments you chose only prove that the average KOL fan uses poor grammar and childish, sexual insults instead of rational, intelligent thought. Texas Craig's "ure review suxed ballzzz" quote did little to prove your case. In fact, it proves mine. Cheers for that.
----------------------------
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 @ 2:06 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 @ 2:45 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 @ 5:11 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 @ 6:04 pm

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 @ 11:46 am

quote:

Originally posted by Kulturtrager:
In defence of Filmore.

Clive James writing about the great Viennese theatre critic, Alfred Polgar:
"...the only critical attacks that really count are written in defence of a value. It was because of his admiration for competent practitioners that Polgar assaulted the incompetent." Cultural Amnesia pg. 567

I would say that Filmore is a spiritual descendant of the old Austrian.

Cheers. Thanks for taking the review for what it is. I sincerely doubt HST is rolling in his grave over this one. Aside from the fact he'd prolly enjoy the unapologetic brashness of the piece, his ashes were shot out of a cannon anyway. He's got nothing to roll.

quote:

Did you really read the reviews of your review and rebuttal? That’s pathetic.

So someone used your name and I didn't check to see that it linked to your profile... big deal. Your repeated quotes say essentially the same thing.

And of course HST can't roll over in his grave... dude, it's a phrase. A quote from a movie. I certainly didn't mean it literally.

Again: "Did you really read the reviews of your review and rebuttal? That’s pathetic."

I wish I didn't have so much time to spend on this website, going back and forth on this topic and getting nowhere. Unfortunately, the economy is worse than awful and at the moment I can't find a job with my freshly earned Master's of Architecture degree. Hopefully when I do I don't have time to waste on this pointless charade. In the mean time, I have no problem entertaining myself with your sorry excuse for journalism and even more pathetic attempts to rebuttal.

One more time: "Did you really read the reviews of your review and rebuttal? That’s pathetic."

You repeatedly say that those commenters use "childish, sexual insults instead of rational, intelligent thought." Well, your review uses very little but "childish, sexual insults instead of rational, intelligent thought." I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that argument.

Filmore:
You aren't more intelligent than everyone.
You aren't more knowledgeable.
You don't have more insight.
You certainly have a high regard for yourself though...I'm just not sure where the arrogance comes from.

Remember, you have a fucking high school degree and write for a couple shitty websites. Get over yourself. I know you think what you do is important and somehow quite an achievement, but it's not... not in the overall context of society anyway. You represent a small voice shouting at the top of your lungs from the back of the room. You have no excuse to be so arrogant.

Lastly: "Did you really read the reviews of your review and rebuttal? That’s pathetic."

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
So someone used your name and I didn't check to see that it linked to your profile... big deal. Your repeated quotes say essentially the same thing.

When you turn around and use the words of someone else that used my name as evidence that I'm an asshole, it's a pretty big deal. It couldn't be a bigger deal in the context of your argument. It proves your opinions on the matter are poorly researched and everything you say is suspect. So yeah, it's a big deal.

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
And of course HST can't roll over in his grave... dude, it's a phrase. A quote from a movie. I certainly didn't mean it literally

Oh, is it a phrase? Gosh, I haven't heard that one before, be it a quote from some movie you just saw or a figure of speech since the dawn of the English language. But the point is, if you actually knew anything about HST, you wouldn't have bothered writing such an obvious cliche. It's just more proof your opinions are poorly researched if entirely unfounded.

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
I wish I didn't have so much time to spend on this website, going back and forth on this topic and getting nowhere. Unfortunately, the economy is worse than awful and at the moment I can't find a job with my freshly earned Master's of Architecture degree. Hopefully when I do I don't have time to waste on this pointless charade. In the mean time, I have no problem entertaining myself with your sorry excuse for journalism and even more pathetic attempts to rebuttal.

What a pointless, self-aggrandizing personal attack that was. You're really making yourself appear as a compelling, reasonable human being here. Nice work. I'm sure the moderators will be pleased as punch to know what a pointless charade this whole thing is, and will be more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in the future. Oh look, the Master Of Architecture is taking time out of his busy schedule to bitch on an internet forum. Let us bask in his glory. That couldn't have been more arrogant of you.

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
Filmore:
You aren't more intelligent than everyone.
You aren't more knowledgeable.
You don't have more insight.
You certainly have a high regard for yourself though...I'm just not sure where the arrogance comes from.

Neither do I. I never said I was more intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful than everyone. I can't even begin to tell you how stupid such a statement would be for anyone on the planet to make (unless you're Stephen Hawkins or Ben Stein, and even then). Of course, I do think I'm more intelligent than people who would write the sentence, "ure review suxed ballzzz". Seriously, you don't think you're more intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful than that guy? Give me a f*cking break. You use punctuation and real words. You can't tell me you honestly think that guy is our intellectual equal.

But let's take a step back for a second. I think the KOL's new album is a terribly average, overinflated piece of pop wank. Coincidently, I've been writing reviews for over five years now. Does that mean I think I'm more intelligent than everyone who listens to KOL? Hell, no. Some of those people are my closest friends, and a few of them are quite intelligent. My Geohazards prof is a huge fan and he's got his doctorate (and a job). However, in my capacity as an established music critic who has reviewed over a thousand albums of all shapes and sizes to date, I can comfortably say on the back of my historical knowledge and insight that comes to anyone who listens intensely to music all day every day for years on end - and with the help of years of writing experience and half of a BA English major - that the new KOL is a turd. That's my job. It's what all critics do, for better or worse. I also thought the new Venetian Snares was an 8/10. How is saying Venetian Snares is great not just as arrogant as saying the new KOL is crap? Answer: it's not arrogance. It's what all reviewers do. They rate things and give their well researched opinion, regardless of wether the general public agrees with it (as the 1 million copies of the last Nickelback album attests).

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
Remember, you have a fucking high school degree and write for a couple shitty websites. Get over yourself. I know you think what you do is important and somehow quite an achievement, but it's not... not in the overall context of society anyway. You represent a small voice shouting at the top of your lungs from the back of the room. You have no excuse to be so arrogant.

Another nice arrogant personal attack there (extremely arrogant in light of the fact many Metacritic regulars are still in high school yet also have great taste and solid opinions), but you're yelling from the hallway behind the idiot with the high school degree. You have no weight in proclaiming arrogance in others from that vantage point. Plus, you just said you're an MA who's wasting time on this pointless charade, and now you're insinuating the opinions of people with a high school degree or less have nothing to offer. That's about as arrogant as you can get. Don't throw stones in the glass house you built, Duderino.

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
"Did you really read the reviews of your review and rebuttal? That’s pathetic."

I disagree with that statement no matter how many times you quote it. You don't think Rolling Stone writers read the letters that come in complaining about their reviews? Seriously? Have you ever read Vice before? They rip into every letter they get. Again, you don't know what you're talking about and your opinions are a half-assed collection of miscellaneous quotes from random people and movies. If your knowledge of architecture is built on the same foundation as your opinions about music criticism, I don't think it's the economy keeping you unemployed. You won't get far misquoting random blueprints.

"You have confirmed that I hit the nerve I was looking 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."
- Filmore Mescalito Holmes

It was you who said this but I think they were the exact words I was looking for. Thanks for the random quote.

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
I wish I didn't have so much time to spend on this website, going back and forth on this topic and getting nowhere. Unfortunately, the economy is worse than awful and at the moment I can't find a job with my freshly earned Master's of Architecture degree. Hopefully when I do I don't have time to waste on this pointless charade.

Pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
yeah well, some people just always have to hate on everything as soon as it gets too big.

No, I've always hated them: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/Kings-Of-Leon
I hated them since they were first overrated and I hate them now that they've watered down their derivative sound to appear to the mainstream. Just more proof you haven't researched your opinions and you don't know what you're talking about. Now, go get a doctorate and leave us high schoolers be.

quote:

Originally posted by ProfAmaretto:
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. I understand if you don't like them, Filmore. But to compare them to Nickelback? That's just silly.

It's the number 5 album in the US charts today, right behind the Pussycat Dolls. I think that justifies the Nickelback comparison, aside from the fact the formulaic songwriting on Only By The Night is parallel.

quote:

Originally posted by Kulturtrager:
I would say that Filmore is a spiritual descendant of the old Austrian.

You're really stretching man and that's a gross overstatement. You stating that "Filmore is defending the value of musicians who give a damn about constructing a personal vision" is really giving him far too much credit. Kings of Leon don't parade themselves as the end all be all of music and they also don't try to write genuinely serious music.

Also, Filmore, you state that the quote against you "only prove that the average KOL fan uses poor grammar and childish, sexual insults instead of rational, intelligent thought." Don't you think that is a bit harsh? You come off as someone who hate Kings of Leon because they slashed your tires or did something hurtful, personally, towards you. I understand you not liking the music but do you really need to hate it so much?

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
Also, Filmore, you state that the quote against you "only prove that the average KOL fan uses poor grammar and childish, sexual insults instead of rational, intelligent thought." Don't you think that is a bit harsh?

No, I don't. Did you read these?

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
"Filmore has a tiny penis. He also frames his reviews and masturbates while reading them. Judging by Stephen’s post, it may be a circle jerk.
Comment by Bob — September 24, 2008 @ 2:27 pm"

"POPMATTERS ?it really fucking dosnt, get a real job you fuckin douche.
Comment by jake from Melbourne — September 24, 2008 @ 4:56 pm"

"ure review suxed ballzzz
Comment by Craig from texas — September 24, 2008 @ 5:02 pm"

"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 @ 5:13 pm"

Lest we forget these winners.

quote:

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 @ 5:26 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.
Comment by Jackson from Newcastle, Australia — September 24, 2008 @ 12:35 am

right, ive just read your bio and seen your picture
your mum fed you on a diet of too many pies boy.
Comment by Matt from Camden — September 24, 2008 @ 5:09 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

---------------------
That said, this music is really just terribly banal, by-the-numbers crap. It's completely pedestrian, uninspired, and predictable. Is it worthy of complete hatred? Maybe not, if considered only by its own worth. It's truly average work, not particularly bad, and I'll admit the 2/10 rating is a tad drastic (I really don't care much about ratings anyway, though). But I think my reaction is equal to if not more conservative than the Observer giving this album a 5/5, and necessary in light of the record's overinflated sales. I gave it a 1/5, which is actually a more neutral reaction than them giving an average album a 5/5.

Filmore: I really can't believe how hypocritical you are.

So you say that HST would "prolly enjoy the unapologetic brashness of the piece" (your piece), yet you have an issue with people commenting on your piece in an unapologetic brash manner? There seems to be a pretty big disconnect to your logic.

So let me get this straight...
You can say whatever the fuck you want in your review, be as crude and unapologetically brash as you feel like and it's a good thing in your mind. Yet, at the same time, the people that read your self-proclaimed brash review have zero right to be brash when they react to it?

Umm...I can't think of a better example of hypocrisy.

quote:

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
So let me get this straight...
You can say whatever the fuck you want in your review, be as crude and unapologetically brash as you feel like and it's a good thing in your mind. Yet, at the same time, the people that read your self-proclaimed brash review have zero right to be brash when they react to it?

I was never crude in my "OBTN" review. I didn't call them fat and gay. I merely outlined exactly why they were banal in blunt, plain language. There's no hypocrisy there. Think of a better example.

However, in my review of "Aha Shake Heartbreak" for tinymixtapes a few years previous, I did make a couple slurs against the South, which I deeply regret now. If I wrote that review today, it would be much different. I've come to realize just how awesome the South is and how pointless and counterproductive such cultural slurs are.