My girlfriend picked up a copy of the new issue while she was in Austin this past weekend. Yeah, this guy missed the point ENTIRELY. I'm guessing he was half listening to the album in the background while surfing the internet for ascots or something pretentious like that. He reviewed two other records in the review section and he was equally dismissive of those as well. It sounds like this reviewer was either having a bad day, or he's one of those music critics that saw that the album was self-released and automatically assumed that it was of inferior quality--one of those "negative for the sake of being negative" assholes you picture when you think of over-privileged white kids who work at music magazines doing music reviews. Additionally, he got one of the facts wrong which demonstrates that there are serious flaws in this analysis. Below, I have reproduced the review along with the score that he gave. From reading, you'll probably find the error in the review, but I'll go ahead and point it out:
"The blues-infused indie rock sported by Nashville's The Features has gotten on well across the pond--that much is known. The question remains: Why has the foursome not received an equally warm embrace in its native land? If Some Kind of Salvation is the case in point, then a possible answer is that their musical output has not exactly found a home, either. The Features have formerly shared the stage with fellow Tennesseans Kings of Leon (albeit at U.K. festivals)..."
There--right there. Mackinnel is working under the assumption that the only time that The Features played with KOL was in the U.K. This may not seem like a significant error, but it is. The "theme" of the review seems to support two points: 1.) The Features are only popular in the U.K. and 2.) They "borrow" their sound from KOL.
It gets worse:
"...on the bluesy side of things, it is the Kings' footsteps they seem to be tracing. This works for the better on the stomping "Lions" and for the worse on "Foundation's Cracked," in which the effects feel much tacked on. On the subtler end of the spectrum, "Baby's Hammer" achieves a peaceful resonance. And most of Salvation's remainder is somewhere between these poles, ranging from the pleasantly engaging, to some kind of milquetoast. To pull from McCartney, "No one was saved." -Kyle MacKinnel
MILQUETOAST? Are you kidding me?
I'll give you some background which might better explain my rage concerning this review. I first heard Exhibit A in 2005. I was floored and I knew I had to see the band live. I was lucky enough to live in Austin at the time which happened to be a tour stop for The Features when they were playing a series of dates in the U.S. with, guess who? THE KINGS OF LEON. In fact, Austin was one of many places here in the U.S. that The Features opened up for KOL.
Here's something to think about (and I mean no offense to fans of KOL), prior to this tour, KOL had released two albums: Youth and Young Manhood and Aha Shake Heartbeat. These are both fine records, but both were also eclipsed by KOL's third offering Because of the Times which was a radically different shift in songwriting, recording, and production. Listen and compare any song from the first two records (e.g. "Red Morning Light") with any song from KOL's last two albums (e.g. "On Call") and my point is illustrated nicely.
So the question is, who influenced whom? When I saw KOL play after The Features, KOL was still on the old catalogue. And, amazingly enough, a couple of years after that tour in 2005 they released Because of the Times to huge critical acclaim. KOL is a great band and Times and Only By the Night are great records, but I think it's inaccurate to claim that Some Kind of Salvation, which features songs that The Features having been playing for YEARS before they met or even heard of Kings of Leon, is somehow influenced by KOL.
So that's that. Thanks Filter and Kyle MacKinnel for the outstanding research and thought you put into this review.
Alright, Features fans: any thoughts?
