Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 12:42 AM (EST)
My Score:

hell, even the cover, the booklet, artword, all point to purposeful simplicity. I think the band did what they wanted to do, and it worked.

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 at 12:38 AM (EST)
My Score:

There must be something wrong with me. I love this record, even though I've agreed with a lot of this same reviewers past reviews. I just can't get enough of this release- I'd even go so far as to say it's one of my favorites so far this year. The swagger, the simple, awesome stripped down sound, the purposefully pointless lyrics. I just get the impression that these guys wanted to make a stripped down record- not because they lack talent, but because they wanted to do something simple and straight forward. It comes across to me as a visionary recording because of that. It is simple. The baselines do always follow the guitars, the guitar riffs are all very similar, but purposefully so. As a stripped down and simple record, it sounds...right.

But I dunno. It's dissapointing that you hated this record so much. But regardless, even after reading your review...I still love this recording.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 4:39 PM (EST)
My Score:

"Every guitar riff has the same rhythm, every bass riff follows the guitars. Samesamesame, boringboringboring."

Technicalities, technicalities, technicalities. You can't give a record a low score based on something as simple as that.
The goal of this recording was to sound as stripped down, simple, and bluesy as possible. SF59 is known for very thick, incredibly layered rock music- but for this disc, they just wanted to rock out. And that's exactly what they did. If it sounds simple and stripped down, then good- the band accomplished their goal.

As far as "offering something new"- originality is not everything. In fact, it's a rather poor standard to judge music by, because it's only a technicality- you can have a good, original sounding record just as you can have a good, familiar sounding one.

Despite that, this is probably the worst introduction of Starlfyer you can have for the very critical minded. If you disliked this one, you should definetely not write off the band, for this really is the only sf59 record that sounds as stripped down as this. Even Americana- the 1997 recording that Blues is supposed to be the "hidden sequel" of- doesn't sound all that similar to Blues, really.

Track eight, "Destiny", is one of the best rock songs I've heard this year though. Martin plays likes he driving that melody straight into the ground. Great song.

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, October 29, 2004 at 4:24 PM (EDT)
My Score:

anyone who thinks this bands sucks needs to go listen to house wife love song. the reviewer obviously hasn't.

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 29, 2004 at 5:14 PM (EDT)
My Score:

This is sf59's worst release, no doubt about it. But it is far from sucking. I recommend listeneing to their past material, especially their 2003 record, "Old". It is fantastic- an exact opposite of this one, in fact.

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 22, 2004 at 12:12 PM (EST)
My Score:

ha ha ha. ZING.

Posted by Jesse on 2004-03-22 01:42:44
My Score:

Wait, wait....what's that? The sound of victory bells? Yes. Simple. I win. You wanna know why? Because even you admited that this CD sucks. Ding Ding! Hear the bells? Ding Ding!

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, March 21, 2004 at 3:37 PM (EST)
My Score:

this review is a good example of how the reviewer has never heard starflyer 59 before. scott, next time give albums to reviewers that are familiar with the bands.

since i have been listening to starflyer for years, i will offer my own (probably biased) opinion, in light of the other albums they have put out.

this album, as mentioned earlier, is a collection of songs written by starflyer right after their album "americana" released in 1997. these songs were not recorded as the band shifted gears in 1998 with their album "the fashion focus" and went with a more experimental sound. this album reflects the band's sound circa 1997: straight up rock and roll. in my opinion, this album is mediocre. americana is the better of their two hard rock albums. this album is quick, and pretty straightforward, and i am disappointed in the production. being a devout starflyer fan, i was excited for this album, but can honestly say it is quite disappointing, knowing beforehand that this album was going to be a throwback to their older sound.

regarding the cover art, for those not familiar with starflyer 59, their first release is referred to as "silver" and has is self titled and has an all silver color. their second release, aptly tilted "gold" similarly is self titled and has an all gold cover. they continued this trend with their third full length, "americana", which has an all red cover. after americana, they stopped with the single color album covers. thus, one who is familiar with starflyer can see why their for "i am the portuguese blues" is an all blue cover.

concerning the band's style, starflyer 59 started out as a grunge band with lots of feedback, progressed to a hard rock sound, and then totally shifted gears to become a shoegaze inspired indie rock/pop band. their best work to date includes the recently released "old", their 2001 albums "leave here a stranger." I suggest listening to either of the two aforementioned albums to get a real taste for some of the best indie rock/pop you'll ever hear.

yes, they are on tooth and nail, but they are not anything close to christian emo/punk, so please don't ever label them as such. yes, all the band members are christians, and they even admit to being a "christian band". regardless, they are one of my favorite bands ever, even though "i am the portuguese blues" sucks.

Posted by Jesse on 2004-03-21 14:39:53
My Score:

I don't care how this band has been around. Scott sent me a CD to review, so I did. And the CD sucks. End of story.

Even if they have an excellent recording career, that doesn't mean that they can't put out a shitty record, like this one. The dumbest thing is reviews made based on the band instead of the current music selection. I don't care if they're a great band; it's a shitty CD. Deal with it.

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 19, 2004 at 7:54 PM (EST)
My Score:

Hi Jesse-- these guys were around before your balls dropped. You probably shop at Wal-Mart. Maybe you should work there instead.

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 19, 2004 at 7:19 PM (EST)
My Score:

Wow, it's amazing how little you know about music and this band (the reviewer). Starflyer 59 has been around recording music since 1992 in Orange County,CA. I suggest you check out their 10 albums they have released through Tooth and Nail over the years. "...and channel it through the worst rip off of the Hives" That is about the most ridiculous statement I have ever read especially considering the life of this band. Ha.

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 18, 2004 at 6:18 PM (EST)
My Score:

you guys can call go suck a cock
this band has kept me breathing thru the toughest of times... their intricate riffs and heartfelt lyrics inspire me to be the total penis head i am today... i could mosh all day to their totally hardcore and original rythms.. these guys just rock, period...second best band of all time, behind dashboard confessional... learn to love em
from Idontdosarcasm

Posted by Haggard on 2004-03-17 19:39:15
My Score:

Worst name ever.

-Justin

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at 1:12 PM (EST)
My Score:

band sucks.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at 10:10 AM (EST)
My Score:

I am huge fan of Starflyer 59. Check out their albums "Old", "The Fashion Focus" and "Everyone Makes Mistakes" if you are looking to hear what they are really about. This album was recorded this year, but is comprised of songs that they had scrapped back in 1996. The fans wanted to hear them, they wanted to have some fun recording some old songs so they went for it. Definately not their best moment, but necessary for their fans.

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 7:53 PM (EST)
My Score:

I haven't heard this album, but I was under the impression from all their previous stuff that they were a kinda shoegazer/indie rock band.

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 6:12 PM (EST)
My Score:

the casualties of emo.

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 5:03 PM (EST)
My Score:

I didnt really see a review...more of an uninspired rant...congratulations

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 4:48 PM (EST)
My Score:

why does their band name sound like the instant messanger screename of my 12 year old sister's friend?

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 4:14 PM (EST)
My Score:

tooth and nail fuck off

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 3:20 PM (EST)
My Score:

This score is for Tooth and Nail. If you want to market Christian punk - fine - I'm not going to buy it, but it's your right. But can't they at least sign bands that don't suck?

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 2:02 PM (EST)
My Score:

Is that an album cover or a picture of a kitchen tile?

Posted by Pirate on 2004-03-16 13:05:28
My Score:

Worst, cover art, EVER.

-Pirate

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 12:47 PM (EST)
My Score:

have you heard any of starflyer's 8 other albums? They sound nothing like this. This album is a one shot recorded years ago that their fan's heard about and wanted. Its not a real starflyer album. Thats all.

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 12:29 PM (EST)
My Score:

So....you're not supposed to write a review if you hate the record?

Posted by Jesse on 2004-03-16 12:20:37
My Score:

I wrote the review because Scott sent me the CD to review. It's as simple as that.

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 at 12:17 PM (EST)
My Score:

so then why write the fucking review you moron? scott, is this your idea of a joke? this guy is a moron.