I don't really know what to thinik of the Rebels... I mean, I'm happy for them now that they've gotten back on the horse after basically losing everything after Hate to be Loved came out. But to me, Hate to be Loved just sounded like a bunch of dudes play as of yet unreleased New York Dolls songs. It's one of the least original albums I've ever heard. The songs weren't so bad, just PAINFULLY unoriginal.

I mean, back in 2000/2001, they'd come play church and vfw halls in my town all the time, and then, like 2 years ago, I was seeing them opening for the Street Dogs and Big D and the Kids Table (who I didn't know was playing, if I had, I might not have gone...) at the Avalon in Boston. They sounded like a completely different band, and I didn't really know what to make of them. Now, they're going on tour again, once again a completely different band.

I guess it can be cool to change from album to album, but it makes it harder for me to believe anything they say. And while change can be good, I think there's such a thing as too much change, and I think the Rebels are a prefect example of a band that changes too much. It just seems cheap, like they don't have the balls to see something through to the end, and don't have any conviction to speak of. I feel like if you're gonna completely change the lineup AND sound of a band with every album, then you should just break up and start a new fucking band that sounds like you want it to sound. The River City Rebels are ABSOLUTELY not the same band that they were when they put out Racism, Religion and War or Playing to Live, Living to Play. Not even close. So I have no idea why they're still running around calling themselves the River City Rebels.

I have to be honest, I can't stand Icons and Rosaries, I think it's a terrible song. I mean, I plan on giving the album a chance, because I've been listening to the Rebels on and off for about seven years now. But I guess I'm just not expecting much...