I can remember when Cold War Kids put out "Robbers and Cowards." There was a great amount of hype in the music-critic world about the fact that the Kids were self-proclaimed "Christians" (notice I didn't say they were a "Christian Band"). It seemed to me that those critics almost felt like they needed to point out the aforementioned fact as if to say that they couldn't explain why music made my Jesus-followers was still so good. Call it God, Sunday School, or growing up in Orange County (cynical? yes, very), but CWK put out some damn good stuff and I really do think I would have said the same thing even if I didn't know I grew up going to church with them.

Fine, what was said was said, and honestly pitchforkmedia.com obviously speaks for an overly-critical minority (CWK has sold over 160k "Robbers and Cowards" and counting). I say, let the numbers speak for what people actually think.

But why, after PROBABLY only listening to "Loyalty to Loyalty" once, do critics still feel they must write CWK off? This review basically says the same thing that pitchfork's first review said of CWK. Essentially, they are too cliche, too in love with their own hype, and (regarding the story-telling behind certain songs--namely, "Every man I fall for") "as fantasy," their music is, "old hat and as reality, it just doesn't wash." 

Seriously?  It is my biased opinion (because I do feel slightly compelled to stick up for the guys, first because I LOVE their work, and second (maybe) because I am a Christian).  It is simply my assumption (and yes, I am passing a little judgment, but more toward a collection of critics in general and not toward an individual) that because the Kids were apparently "insult[ing]" the "intelligence" of a few overly-sensitive (to story-lyrics possibly about redemption?) critics, they felt they needed to automatically be critical of CWK again. 

I think that every album purchased deserves AT LEAST a second listen.  All kinds of distractions (lack of sleep, lack of food, lack of girlfriend, etc.) can play a part in how you might hear a certain album.  I know that if it wasn't for a second or third listen to Kings of Leon (i hated them at first), Pearl Jam, and Radiohead, I would have forever condemned them to the archives of dislike.  Admittedly, I did not like Loyalty to Loyalty a whole lot after my first sampling.  My thought is that over-worked, overly-feels-like-he-automatically-must-find-something-wrong-with-everything, critic guy working for pitchforkmedia probably did not give the album enough time to actually sink in and have impact (he wrote his article the day the album came out).

(obviously my views are almost fully charged with speculation, but this is a blog, and that's what blogs are for!)