1. The band would appear to have little control over anything nowdays. Given free reign and no constraints I would bet a.mile their music would not be what it is now, they wouldn't look like they do and it wouldn't be so expensive to see them. They are being ridden all the way to the bank.
  2. i suppose you're right it's not all their fault, but you'd think they'd have at least some input into the financial side of things.

    they're such a different band now though, barely recognisable if it wasn't for caleb's voice.
  3. I think they're making the music that they want to make, and I think that part of the reason they're making it the way they are now is because it makes them money. That doesn't make them "sell-outs", that makes them smart. This is their career. I enjoy the music, and I immensely enjoy the older stuff as well. They don't go out and play Use Somebody 21 times in a row at their concerts; they're still playing Taper Jean Girl, Pistol of Fire, Velvet Snow, Molly's Chambers, Knocked Up, On Call, closing shows with Black Thumbnail instead of a typical Sex on Fire....I still have respect for what they're doing.

    If you don't like the new music I've got nothing against you, I respect opinion to the highest degree, but it's also my personal opinion that they're not being forced to record music that doesn't sound like their older stuff- it'd be like criticizing U2 for making HTDAAB after ATYCLB did so well. Why didn't they make another Achtung Baby?
  4. Well said. I'm not a hard-die fan of this guys, I don't even know the name of all their albums, etc. But I think and understand that bands have to evolve (sadly, that usually implies an evolution to worse ). U2 haven't been playing Stay for 18 years, Coldplay didn't get stuck at Yellow, Muse evolved after Showbiz, Arctic Monkeys haven't been playing When The Sun Goes Down in repeat-mode since 2004 and lots of more examples. Bands and bands' sound&attitude change, evolve through the years. If you can keep up with the changes, well done. If not, it's alright anyway, stop following them. Easy
  5. I wouldn't directly criticize the Kings. All bands evolve the same way. Normally the chase of sales results in a drop in quality. It's a universal thing. Same with U2. The difference between the two is that U2 took a lot longer before their first commercial chase (Leave Behind). The bigger back catalogue means I can gloss over a whole decade. The Kings just have the 2 albums too keep me interested which invariably means I visit them very rarely.
  6. Originally posted by germcevoy:I wouldn't directly criticize the Kings. All bands evolve the same way. Normally the chase of sales results in a drop in quality. It's a universal thing. Same with U2. The difference between the two is that U2 took a lot longer before their first commercial chase (Leave Behind). The bigger back catalogue means I can gloss over a whole decade. The Kings just have the 2 albums too keep me interested which invariably means I visit them very rarely.


    You can't even get into Because of the Times?

    I feel bad for ya, great cuts on that one.


  7. HOW DID THIS NOT MAKE IT ONTO "ONLY BY THE NIGHT"?
  8. I liked it, Matt! What's that, a B-side or whatever?
  9. What is so good about Kings Of Leon? I'm serious.


  10. It was on the vinyl release of Only by the Night, as well as the iTunes "Deluxe Edition" download. I freaking love it.

  11. went to see KOL at slane castle last night . sad to say it was absolutely stinking . support acts were terrible . sound was worse . band was dead which meant crowd was ah bad . i seen them indoors at Christmas and they were awesome but sad to say yesterday was a massive let down . gutted :-(