I'm all for having your own opinion, but....

[captainsplashy]

www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19174-aha-shake-heartbreak

"On the other hand, maybe it's just the way Caleb sings that and every other line on Aha Shake Heartbreak. He is a terrible singer, like a drunken Randy Newman with Tourette's-- which would be a compliment if it didn't make you expect more intelligent lyrics. On just about every song here he lets loose a flurry of words in some bizarre approximation of backwater sass, but it just sounds willful and grating. On "Day Old Blues", he turns some lyrics into almost scat-like utterances while painfully overenunciating others. He's shooting for some sort of Southern-slash-Appalachian accent, but ultimately he defies geography and just sounds unnatural."

Too mean

I know the boys can shoot themselves in the foot with the whole cockiness schtick, but is this level of callousness really necessary?

Maybe I'm incredibly biased and hence, overly defensive. Maybe not. It just seems a little harsh to me. Actually, all the Pitchfork reviews tend to be quite anti-Followill. I find it perplexing. Bamboozling, even.

Thoughts, opinions?

[groupielove]

Oh bitch please c'mon!!

it was caleb's weird singing style which caught my attention in the first place - if anything, because of it, u really actually love the MUSIC part of it all.... i think caleb has a sexy voice and im actually quite sad it only lasted for the two records - i would prefer to not understand what he was singing on BOTT... LOL i joke i joke... great album, regardless

but yesm, the journalist or who ever wrote that has no idea... whatever though. he/she is entitled to their opinion... but i really love and miss that good ol' uniqueness.... haha i remember me and brother had to use the album booklet to sing along to ASH.. memories..

[cheesecake134]

he lets loose a flurry of words in some bizarre approximation of backwater sass

And that's why we love him.

I know his voice is weird. Hell, I can't think of one single person to compare it to. And believe me, I've tried........for years. But it makes the songs even better then they already are. I'd rather hear a wholly imperfect, but incredibly expressive singing voice than a techincally perfect "good" voice any day. Boy sings with soul and passion, which I think most music from the past few years is really lacking.

So yeah, ditto to the "bitch please!".

[kmoore24]

i think it's a bit harsh but i mean if it was about my chemical romance or someone like that i would say its not harsh enough.. so yeah.... i am biased.

[izzy]

Do you think tha the rating is out of 5 or 10? I'm going to assume that it's 5 - cos i am also biased and i couldn't bring myself to read much after "overexpressive vocals to their terrible album titles"

get a grip!!!

[chichi]

I read all 3 reviews of their albums, and all I thought to myself was, "what great songs have you guys every written?" I hate music critics. Actually, I hate all critics. Critics are people who can't do anything creative, so they sit there and criticize everyone else's efforts.

I disagree with them on most of what they wrote, especially the part about their music appealing to only "hipsters and critics". I'm neither, and I love this band!

He also feels their popularity is based on their "image". Personally, I didn't know what these guys looked like until after I fell in love with their music.

PITCHFORKMEDIA.COM SUCKS!!!

[mrsjjfollowill]

captainsplashy said:

He is a terrible singer, like a drunken Randy Newman with Tourette's-- which would be a compliment if it didn't make you expect more intelligent lyrics.

that journalist went too far i'd say...i mean it's one thing to have an opinion but to make fun of people with tourette's is way harsh

however if that person doesn't like Calebs voice they can go and tell someone else who gives a crap!

[japanesescream]

chichi said:

PITCHFORKMEDIA.COM SUCKS!!!

word.

and some of my friend consider it the bible and it really is quite annoying. form your own opinions about what music to like instead of what a website tells you!!

[suneyedgirl]

Pitchfork are fags. It's true, all of their reviews are bullshit

[lauralimonada]

I read this review on Rolling Stone.com a while back. It's for Youth and Young Manhood. This is someone who appreciates the originality of Caleb's voice:


Leadman Caleb Followill doesn't sing so much as slouch into his narratives of waywardness. On "Trani," he sounds so busted up he can barely hold a conversation, and it only magnifies the sense of dissolution. Most of the time, every slur and mumble sounds as if he's either just had sex or is dreaming about it, never more so than on "Molly's Chambers." Mannish boys, they do grow up fast.

for the whole review:
www.rollingstone.com/artists/kingsofleon/albums/album/292729/review/5946411/youth_and_young_manhood

[moonagedaydream]

cheesecake134 said:

he lets loose a flurry of words in some bizarre approximation of backwater sass

And that's why we love him.

I know his voice is weird. Hell, I can't think of one single person to compare it to. And believe me, I've tried........for years. But it makes the songs even better then they already are. I'd rather hear a wholly imperfect, but incredibly expressive singing voice than a techincally perfect "good" voice any day. Boy sings with soul and passion, which I think most music from the past few years is really lacking.

So yeah, ditto to the "bitch please!".

Exactly! And I really hate it when some people complain about a singer being "too expressive". What the heck is that supposed to mean?!? Like how dare anyone try to express something in their art-ahaha.

Thanks for the Rolling Stone review, Laura. I'll admit that I get really happy when KOL get a good review just because I like to see that someone else appreciates their music, but if I read a bad review, mehh, not everyone can love the good stuff.

[antroolez]

some people ay?

arseholes.

[Neon]

Pay no heed - these kind of critics are only after the attention this kind of heavy criticism draws, so don't give her what she wants.

Alos anything unique and different they lampoon it (just look at the reviews given to The Pixies and Nirvana by the Rolling Stone,when Nevermind came out they said 'Nirvana arent on to anything particularly new here' - so these people don't know as much as they think they do)

[chichi]

I thought this was kind of funny from their review of BOTT:

"A cynical, acoustic sing-along, "Fans" slyly presents narcissism as gratitude. (Remember the two themes.) You know the routine: the band tours, generously measures its own importance, then transcribes journal entries about the cosmic emptiness of fame. With two stanzas ending with "Make a sound for me" and "The king they want to see," the song forms a heartfelt tribute to their real No. 1 fans: Kings of Leon."

[benief]

Pitchfork hate K.O.L for some ungodly reason.

but..

their reviews on Jet's two albums are classic.

[sofarfromhome]

seems a tad voer the top. not really critical is it cuz it doesnt discuss good points as well as bad? its just kinda a rant

[SozzellLovesKOL]

I think whoever wrote that little article clearly just doesnt like the kings, which is fair enough. But thats way over the top. Just because she/he doesnt like KOL doesnt give them the right to tare them apart in a review...thats really annoyed me now!

[lauralimonada]

at one point, i was a music critic myself and i gotta tell you, we kinda suck sometimes. pay no attention, people we know what KOL is really about.

[sovietkitsch]

You've got to remember reviews are mainly the opinion of only 1 person. And yeah, sometimes that one person likes to piss on other people's efforts. The main thing that bothers me is that the reviewer subtly crawls kinda back at the end of the review (They're tighter, more dynamic, and much more confident, With its hand-claps and staccato guitars, "Taper Jean Girl" struts such undeniable bad-ass energy...) I mean, why even bother breaking them down to the ground if you're going to compliment them after wards? There's just no balance in there. And that's what makes it a lame review in my book.

[captainsplashy]

First of all; woohoo!! People replied to my thread!

Second; yeah, it's the total lack of balance that got me. As a fledgling music journo myself, I don't hate critics, I hate bad critics - the ones who lack the intelligence and skills to remove specific emotional biases towards the artist/band/actor/whatever, and write thoughtfully about their work. You can not like something and be respectful about it, you know? I know, I know....reviews are supposed to be the writer's opinion, blah, blah, blah, but there's a line that too many critics cross, just because they don't have the talent to NOT cross it.

A lot of pitchfork's reviews (esp. of KOL material) are just too personal and completely lack any sort of balance. And the ASH review doesn't even get to the rest of the band until the end, as sovietkitsch referred to. Most of the vitriol seems to be aimed squarely at Caleb, which is ludicrous (ha. I can never use that word again. Ludacris has ruined it for me).

All the criticisms just seem spiteful, and to be honest, kind of easy. I mean, who can't look at KOL and say that they're arrogant, and that Caleb's voice is 'weird', and that he writes abstract lyrics.....it's pointing out the bloody obvious, and just taking the easy way out. It's a cheap, gutless to review. So there's my rant...shutting up now