Skip to main content

Time Out's Oliver Keens called out for his awful album review

Last week, I posted a blog where I criticized Timeout.com's Oliver Keens for a review he wrote for British prog rock group Muse's latest album, Drones. I use the term review loosely because Keens didn't spend any time reviewing the actual music on the album. No, he decided to go on a rant about what he perceived the concept of the album to be, being mistaken on that front, and leaving many to wonder if he listened to the album at all. Unsurprisingly, I wasn't the only one who disapproved of this piece of writing, and felt the need to share people's criticism of this review's criticism. First off, here again is Oliver Keens' review of Drones, where he gave the album one out of a possible five stars:  

"It's a shame that Matt Bellamy (the band's singer and song writer) has never been to North Waziristan. If he had, he'd know first-hand how this area of Pakistan is to drones what lamps are to moths. He'd have seen how the notion of a 'surgical strike' is basically untrue, that ordinary civilians die in this part of the world. Up to 1,000 non-combatants are estimated to have died since 2004, including up to 200 children.

You can tell Matt Bellamy has never been to North Waziristan, because not a slither of this information makes it into Muse's seventh album - a record about the oh-so-trendy-and-zeitgeisty subject of drones.

'Drones' is meant to be a concept album, a story about how 'the system' and 'dark forces' indoctrinate someone into remote killing. It's a disappointing record on every level. For devoted fans, the uncomfortable truth is that they're stuck in a glam-rock rut, which - sorry Musers - Royal Blood now do with twice the urgency and zero guff. Yes, the grandiose opera meets-dubstep ambition of last LP 'The 2nd Law' has been reined in, but we're a long way from the slash-and-burn riffery of 'Plug in Baby'.

But the greatest sin of this record is that it's tactless and crass. Bellamy's supposed narrative is as dull as dog food - told with the wishy-washy flim-flam of a frothing conspiracy theorist. It lacks any insight or perspective, rather, it just seems like a cheap attempt to remake Pink Floyd's 'The Wall'. There's also something a bit masturbatory about mixing war imagery with hard-riffing rock. In the same way London has seen an explosion of bankers clutching copies of 'The Wolf of Wall Street', you can sadly picture a gun nut or Andy McNab reader totally getting off to this.

Most worrying is that it does the discussion around drones a disservice. Remote killing isn't new - it's happened since armies stopped fighting with swords. What is remarkable is the total lack of accountability over their use. Yet Muse are so out of their box, they throw a sample of JFK rather than the actual, living president who has sanctioned more drones than anyone: Barack Obama. We used to moan that musicians didn't write about politics anymore. Based on this effort, maybe that's for the best."

Now here are some of the people's comments following the review: 

- "Dear Timeout,

Your guys have with all the respect the worst taste in music! You should fire all you review guys because they are useless and they do not have any idea what they are writing!!! This album deserves at least 3.5 or 4 out of 5. So i don't know if you are paid to give drones so bad reviews but i am sure that you are ridiculous!" - Alex Y

- "Any chance of reviewing the, you know, music?" - George J

- "Time out, what a appalling review . A few songs on their are not the best but 1 out of 5 is insane. Hope you didn't pay this guy good money . It's not muses job to write policy but any album that has the Handler , Reapers and the Defector on is worth at least 3 from a music point of view ." - Anthony T

- "And not much of a word about the actual music of it...I'm a bit disappointed in the review as well. I'm not greatly impressed with the lyrical weight of this album in comparison with his other albums, but the sound is great. They continue to bring that - at least offer that up." - themightymissm

- "This review actually sucks. Not one mention of the music, and a poor criticism of the key themes. Just came across as some personal agenda with the band." - Emily H

- "Wow. You have no idea. Not only haven't you reviewed the music on the album, you also have no idea how Matt Bellamy thinks and what he was thinking when he wrote this concept album. Maybe listen to a few interviews he's done where he talks about it, and you will see the error of your ways. Until then, don't bother reviewing Muse anymore..." - Catherine M

- "Remember that time Oliver Keens reviewed an album and forgot to mention any tracks or musical features whatsoever?? The attempt to discredit the message of this album, or somehow claim that it isn't apt, is embarrassingly juvenile and as uninformed as you claim Matt Bellamy to be. JFK's speech, for example, though being aged, still being hauntingly relevant and, in my opinion, the greatest stroke of the record for that very reason. 

This review reeks of Murdoch and Co. paying some desperate journalist with no integrity to discredit a message and, ironically, only supports the actual message of the album further.

Next time, mention the music." - Graham C

- "Get to the point - do you like it or not?" - S E

- Nice trolling..." - Mark B

- "This review is bad and the writer should feel bad. Completely missing the point by taking the word drones literally and actually letting this misconception be the lead subject in the entire article. It's pretty blatant what Matt is singing about and I think they did it on purpose for anyone who hasn't gotten the message yet.

Either way, it's stated before, this article reeks of handlers. Worrisome - to add some 'wishy-washy flim-flam of a conspiracy theorist' - is that it's actually the first search entry that popped up on google. 

This review gets 0/5 stars, for not even taking the chance to listen to the album." - Defiant D

- "What kind of album review doesn't mention the music? I respect opinions but this imbecile clearly hasn't even listened to it. Amateur and bitter. Poor." - Tom B

- "'it just seems like a cheap attempt to remake Pink Floyd's'the Wall' says Oliver Keens who complains that Matt Bellamy has never been to North Waziristan. Does anyine actually care? Olver does, but that's irrelevant, he has clearly not listened to this album. You can tell because he hasn't bothered to mention the music, the tracks,, the lyrics at all....and he's been paid to do so. What a c**t." - Dan s

- "PS- after listening to the album, I fully do not accept that this guy has listened to it. There is zero possibility that anyone could review that album and not mention the final track- good or bad, it simply cannot be ignored! Fire this 'writer'." - Graham C

- "Hahaha. Who in the world is this guy? This is one of the most ignorant album reviews I have ever read in my life. Makes me sick that someone like this can even review the likes of muse. This is on a whole other level to their last album. They are back to what they are doing best, heavy motherf*cking riffs. I did not like the 2nd law, but they are back to their best here. Granted, not every song is mind blowing, but 1 star? Get a grip. How time out has let this guy review music, beyond me. Comparing muse with royal blood?!?!? HAHAHA. Jesus. the mind boggles. I love royal blood, but they are in a completely different ball park to muse. Come back when royal blood have released 8 albums and are selling out stadiums around the world. You, Oliver Keens are pathetic. Get another profession." - Sam T

- "rubbish" - Mark B

- "It's a shame that Oliver Keens hasn't listened to this album. If he had, he'd know what the concept of this album is actually about, and not just read 'Drones' on the front cover and decided what it's about. He'd have seen how his 'take' on the album is basically untrue, that a music album is ordinarily about the music in it as much as the concept.

You can tell Oliver Keens has not listened to 'Drones', because not a slither of this information makes it into his review - a review about the oh-so trendy subject of making irrelevant links to support a weak point." - xamxamxam

- "This review is a joke. There is little here about the actual music, styles and performance. The reviewer has simply taken the album's title and overall concept to lecture about the troubles of the world that we all know about anyhow. Most outlets have given the album average to good ratings, a one star review in this context suggests a dislike for the band from the outset with no intention of writing a fair review." - Mark B

- "Rubbish review, talk about the music instead of babbling about your crap. Do you get paid to write this? What a joke." - Dean D

- "This review is absolute rubbish. The songwriting, the musicianship, the creativity, the arts......... Well done Muse! This album is amazing." - Damian T

- "This is someone with there face far up their arse, nothing relevant at all." - Robert O

- "Oliver Keens - Muse - 'Drones' album review.
0/5

I enjoy when the reviewer doesn't review the album and reviews the concept instead. In turn failing to understand what the concept of said album is.

It would've been nice to hear about the album, maybe what some of the songs were about. Maybe even a critique of what the album sounded like. Unfortunately, this reviewer is terrible.

I hope no one is wasting a wage on this character." - Frazer B

- "The first two paragraphs of this review are evidence that the writer definitely hasn't listened to the album. The whole lp is about the morbid injustices involved in the kind of psychotic mentality that uses autonomous killing machines and the effects on it's victims. The song Reapers is a direct reference to instances like the killing of innocents in North Waziristan by drone warfare.

I don't think you understood the message of the album i.e. It's anti-drones. Why would gun nuts like it? It's incredibly liberal in it's message." - David R

- "The concept of Drones isn't just about the drones themselves: It refers to the people behind them as well, who can also be classed as drones. Psychopaths who enable psychopathic behaviour, through the use of unmanned drones which allow them to wash their hands of the consequences (a key trait of psychopathy).

Not a single mention of the riffs (which are some of Bellamy's best), the juxtaposition between songs like Dead Inside, Mercy, The Globalist and Reapers, not a mention of the fact that none of the songs blur together, that they all sound pretty unique (at least in the album), the guitar work in general, the very cool drumming throughout, or anything music related beyond the lyrics.

Basically, this isn't a review of the music. This is a review of the concept, and one that's missed the point at that." - Lee R

- "You are obviously an idiot and have no idea what you are taklking about, you may as well quit your career because your that shambolic at what you do, how dare you give muse 1/5 that is the most ridiculous review I have ever heard, they deserve 4/5 at least . You disgraceful ignorant human being." - Samuel W

http://www.timeout.com/london/music/muse-drones-album-review

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"