yeah saves the day kick ass hey mercedes awsome alkaline trio i love you guys but come on that song sucked what does it mean could some one get back to me on that please

Is is just me or has No Motiv drastically dropped in quality as of late? Their latest cd doesnt impress me, and most of their compilation contributions have been unappealing.

Ugh, what a waste of shelf space.

I normallly hate STD, but their song on this is quite good. Maybe because it hearkens back to their "Shut up! We're not a Lifetime cover band!" days.

Even the No Motiv and Alkaline Trio songs suck, and I like both bands.

paul westerberg is a genius. he plays good straight up rock n roll. sure, another replacements album would be good, but with the quality he is doing now, why complain.

Alright, seriously its good to know you are a "bealesuperfan". When did this kid say he "hated" the Beatles?? He said they were overrated, which he may have something. They did a lot but things have progessed through others as well. And to say that rock had fallen and they brought it back, come on. Thats like saying that rock had fallen in the mid to late 90s when rap and r&b were the rage, which would mean Korn and Limp Bizkit brought rock back? They changed things up, inspired many of the bands today. Crap bands? Yes, but bands nonetheless. Rock tends to go up and down. The 60s with theDoors and the like while it also had Cat Stevens (call him rock and I wont know what to do anymore). The 70s bloomed a lot of the Zeppin type bands (I wont pretend to know bands from then since a lot of that isnt my cup of tea but you get the idea)also had Disco goin big. In the 80s it was hair bands, which featured Guns and Roses (a great band but i guess they dont matter in a scheme of anything) and techno like Flock of Seagulls. the 90s you had the Nirvana and Pearl Jam and such while having Tupac and Usher as well as NSync dominating. Really the Beatles were good in their own right. I'm not saying they sucked. Not my thing, but it was simple music that could easily be enjoyed. Of course these days you would call it mainstream and hate it, but since its old, its cool. Just like James Dean is cool. You kids dont like people who are assholes, but Dean was known to be a major one, and a conceited one at that. But he's cool. But back to the Beatles, yes they had an influence, but none more than Holly or Presley. At least not on "punk music". Really guys, I hear more "Doors" and those bands in todays music than I do Beatles. But maybe its me. I just think of the Beatles as the start to "bubble gum pop" They had a lot more flavor than the rest, but part of it was because they were the first, and also they did it better than many. Still though, I'm not quite buying into the whole "if it werent for the Beatles, music wouldnt be what it was." No, I wont claim to be an expert, just an opinion. So dont do the whole "learn the facts thing" because I have more important things to do than to worry about who influenced music. I can appreciate lots of music for what it is. If you dont want to believe me, dont, I dont care, but my music variety has never been beaten by anyone I've come across. I try to like for what it is. The Beatles I probably dont like so much for the poppiness and the fact that everyone gushes over them. But dont take it wrong, I dont hate, I congratulate. To the kid who made the remarks about Pitt, I hope you arent in High School and that you go to an esteemed school or else "you got served". But whatever, lets find better things to argue about. Honestly, whether or not the Beatles influenced our music or not, its done. Why worry and argue over it? A lot of it is opinion. You take certain things from music. Wow that was a ridiculous ramble, sorry to take time, this is my first comment, I just thought this was so ridiculous. ---Oh and pardon any grammatical errors, I havent slept in a while so I cant see straight, I'm going to bed.

"Except that on the whole that's not all that many bands. And you've neglected the fact that virtually all the British bands to do more than a novelty business in America (like Chumbawumba) did it in the late 1970s. In sum: the Brits may have rocked your tiny little world (where "asshat" apparently means something) but the impact was comparatively small AND time restricted. Assuming you're the writer from University of Pittsburgh (ouch, couldn't get into Penn, eh?) I'd recommend a math class before you graduate (you'll learn about percentages) and an introductory writing course couldn't hurt either. You should have plenty of time considering that Pittsburgh has one of the lowest percentages of "young" people in America and is regarded as the worst dating town in the states... but I'm guessing that someone with "asshat" in their vocabulary doesn't get out much anyways."

Holy shit. Thanks for the back up there BSD.

Well I see you realize you lost your argument there anonymous Beatles hater guy, as you resort to attacking my hometown and college, instead of actually makign a rebuttle to BSD and my arguments (which BSD was good enough to point out indicated your lack of argument and concession to defeat). you might as well of said 'oh...yea? well your....you're gay! and your mom...is...fat! yea!'.

secondly "thats a comparative few bands" ahahahahaha lmao! yea like American quanity is > British quality? I love american and british music, but your obviously ethnocentric and nationalisticly biased towards anything british. To not give credit to the bands I listed (when combined possibly influenced american music from the early 70's til today more than any other 6 or 7 bands) shows your ignorance and ludicrous defence of your opinion. face it, sabbath is probably american metal's biggest influcenc (or maiden/priest who were also brit acts), zepplin/stones/beatles/who probably influcenced american rock more than any 4 bands and don't get me started on the Clash. you are an asshat.

whats this "ouch couldnt get into Penn, eh?'' crap? no shit i couldnt get into Penn, its Ivy league, i doubt you could either, judgeing by your logic and arguing skills. or did you mean penn state? in that case i chose NOT to go to Pennstate, as its overrated and in the middle of nowhere. a football school, nothign more., You assume to much. I graduated Pitt (a very good college btw and I have a very good job now) over a year ago sorry. Guess I wont' have time to take those math and writing classes now retard.

Since you had time to research Pittsburgh enough to see its full of old people and no girls to date, I guess you forgot to see that Pitt is one of the top 100 colleges in the nation.

By the way, although Pittsburgh is rated high for old people and low for night life/dating you do realize that thats when compared to OTHER MAJOR CITIES don't you? So Pittsburgh isnt New York, LA or Chicago, its still one of the 50 biggest cities in the country, meaning that it still has more young people, bars and hot bitches than where most people live.

The lamest thing about your insults, is that you do it the pussy anonymous way. What kick ass city do you live in? What college do you go too?

I'm guessing you are A. in highschool, B. living w/ parents, C. a total net nerd pussy. until you prove otherwise, i'm sticking by these assumptions, just as you ignorantly assumed about me. asshat.

-bealesuperfan

Hahahahahha. Oh god... You're fucking hilarious.

The Beatles... Yeah, what a quick phad. Popular for over 7 years, containing an ultra-loyal and diverse fanbase. Not to mention making long hair fashionable in America when all of the cool kids had crew cuts...

You insult someone for what college they go to, showing that your argument is pathetic... Shit, you don't have an argument, and it's not in a "punk rock no explination, I just want to offend all of you" way, it's in a crazy, xenophobic American way. I guess every band that's not from America is part of some copycat phad... But if that was the case, then why do American bands, by and large, currently copy British ones so much?

Look at the punk scene. Henry Rollins and Ian McKaye (hardly copycats) were huge fans of British punk/hardcore. The New York Dolls were basically an amped-up rendition of the Rolling Stones... Johnny Ramone (the most conservative one in the Ramones) was a fan of the Who... Iggy Pop was often compared to Mick Jagger. Keith Morris adored Johnny Rotten. I shouldn't have to explain this, and I know I'm wasting my time, but stating that all bands non-American suck is just ridiculous. Of course I have no preference... The band community adores/learns from each other.

Just look at pictures of the audiences from the Circle Jerks to Minor Threat... Most of them are dressed up like something that crawled out of the Tube Station... Are you saying that hardcore's fathers were posers?

-BSD

Oooh. That British bands thing stung. Except that on the whole that's not all that many bands. And you've neglected the fact that virtually all the British bands to do more than a novelty business in America (like Chumbawumba) did it in the late 1970s. In sum: the Brits may have rocked your tiny little world (where "asshat" apparently means something) but the impact was comparatively small AND time restricted. Assuming you're the writer from University of Pittsburgh (ouch, couldn't get into Penn, eh?) I'd recommend a math class before you graduate (you'll learn about percentages) and an introductory writing course couldn't hurt either. You should have plenty of time considering that Pittsburgh has one of the lowest percentages of "young" people in America and is regarded as the worst dating town in the states... but I'm guessing that someone with "asshat" in their vocabulary doesn't get out much anyways.

oh yea and those shitty bands the clash and sex pistols, they werent popular at all and had no influence on american music right? yea thank god the beatles were among the last popular british acts (sarcasm)

BSD, forget it, I was the other guy making arguements trying to shed some light on this moron. You and I obviously know whats up, this fuck obviously has not researced much of anything about the Beatles. We both know that the recording studio was revolutionized DIRECTLY by the Beatles, lets just rest easy knowing that you and I know this.

One more point ot make this asshat look like a moron.
"the first British rock band to get huge in America." (BSD)

"And among the last. That means something"(asshat)

...among the last?...wow. this guy is really clueless. I guess led zepplin, pink floyd, the rolling stones, radiohead, coldplay, black sabbath, etc. etc. etc. dont' count as popular british bands right? fucking ignorant.

Fuck all you guys, and your retarded arguing... This score is for Down To Earth Approach who OWN this comp

Listen BSD, I admire your knowledge of musical history, but you're still wrong and the only thing you've proved so far is that you've got the intellectual capacity of a chamber pot.

We can sit and argue over which bands were influenced by the Beatles all day (and there is a legitimate argument here) and it won't change the fact that rock was around before the Beatles and that the actual MUSICAL influence of the Beatles is questionable because they didn't so much revolutionize the SOUND as they revolutionized the way the sound was MARKETED. Two VERY different things.

Ultimately, the Beatles were a decent band who happened to be playing at a time when the way music was marketed and recorded was changing. That's not revolutionary, that's lucky. If you can't see the comparison to Creed (emerging just when the Christian rock market developed) it's probably because your copy of the Time Life Illustrated History of Christian Rock hasn't arrived yet. Don't worry though, I'm sure some mass media outlet will come along and gently explain in small words soon enough.

props to BSD. i usually dont give a crap what he says but hes busting everything open here. good stuff.

and i think its worth noting that the original drummer for the beatles died from injuries suffered in a street fight in the east end of liverpool. this was a few years before they hit it big though.

Yeah... well you're a poopy-head.

I think it's hopeless arguing with this half-aborted fetus. Everyone's explained concrete arguments as to why the Beatles were important, and he just rubs it off with bullshit.

Like Creed and the Beatles have anything in common.

I didn't say "improved production", I said "revolutionized"... They changed how we make records while making some of their best music. How many other bands can you say that about?

-BSD

"No one said it wouldn't exist. But it would definitely be different."

But how different? Sure the Beatles inspired people to form bands, but the sound that those bands were playing was around before the Beatles AND the inventive elements being incorporated were not products of the Beatles (e.g. surf and ska).

"In the third wave of rock n roll, the Beatles were definitely the most important band, not because they looked cool or made complex songs, but because they were probably the first British rock band to get huge in America."

And among the last. That means something.

"Instead of being like Elvis and playing the same old crap forever, they decided to evolve and start expirimenting. The production alone on their last 5 albums revolutionized recording history... "

I applaud the development of modern recording technology - but that would have happened without the Beatles.

"then how come the university of Pittsburgh has a 3 credit music class solely about the Beatles?"

Universities offer classes in Klingon and underwater basketweaving too.

"I am 24 and love the Beatles"

Fine. If you love them because you really find something in their music that appeals to you... but I bet that's not the case. Hell, you had to take a CLASS to appreciate them.

I respect the arguments that have been made, but you have to look at the Beatles phenomena from a more global perspective. When you do that, there's forty years of marketing built up around the truth - which is that the Beatles were a rock band that didn't do anything that revolutionary EXCEPT get huge. And they got huge through charisma, marketing, and timing (the emergence of television media and improved recording techniques).

If that's your measure of success, you'll enjoy a band called Creed.

I read the rest of the comments, and BSD, your stock has gone WAY up in my book. A few points to add, BSD, the Beatles WERE the first brit act to get huge in the states. Secondly, no, Rock music would NOT sound the same if it wasn't for the Beatles. This Beatle hater is obviously some 16 year old w/ no concept of the history of rock, or appreciation for rock music. I liked his "if you were born after the mid 70's you probably dont like the Beatles" or something to that effect, obviously some young arrogant ageist prick. I am 24 and love the Beatles, I took a class in college about their music.

If the Beatles music wasn't revolutionary and they were just an overrated, marketed pop group, then how come the university of Pittsburgh has a 3 credit music class solely about the Beatles? I'm sure Pitt isnt the only one.

Also, "rock music would still exist without them and odds are it would sound pretty much the same. "

WRONG. Rock music was damn near DEAD before the Beatles blew up. The focus in the early 60's/late 50's had moved to Motown, girl groups (shangri la's, etc.) and away from rock. The post Buddy Holly america was largely uninterested in rock, aside from the Beach Boys, (now don't take this too hard, i love them) who were not really that rockin. they were safe. they were clean cut. they were the antitthisis of the dangerous 50's rock image of leather jackets/rebel w/o a cause. they were button down shirt wearing pretty boys. that is Until 64, when the Beatles hit our shores and reinspired rock bands to form, and rock bands that Rocked. Listen to twist and shout, or please please me and tell me that shit didnt blow everything at the time out of the water. it was fast, loud and dangerous. Songs blatently about sex (please please me) and shaggy emo hair. they moved around and shouted.

Rock would exist w/o the beatles but it woudl be LARGELY changed. and punk was not a rebellion agains the beatles, it was a rebellion against, prog and disco in the mid/late 70's. the beatles were already long gone.

And yes, BSD, they did basically reinvent the studio single handedly. Recording technology wouldnt be nearly what it is today or in the 70s w/o their experimentation and invention in the studio.

the Beatles OWN all.

"Just kiddin'. It's ignorant to say things like "the Sex Pistols were the N Sync of the 70's" or "the Beatles were like Michael Jackson", but what can you do? They're probably Coheed fans"

i actually lauged out loud BSD, thanks, that was good. Coheed...oh shit, hahahahahah....ahhh. thanks again.

" rock music would still exist without them and odds are it would sound pretty much the same"

No one said it wouldn't exist. But it would definitely be different. In the third wave of rock n roll, the Beatles were definitely the most important band, not because they looked cool or made complex songs, but because they were probably the first British rock band to get huge in America. Instead of being like Elvis and playing the same old crap forever, they decided to evolve and start expirimenting. The production alone on their last 5 albums revolutionized recording history...

Think what you want, but your argument falls flat.

-BSD

No, they formed in 1977.

-BSD

"Also, you're really quite incorrect in your assumption that the Ramones played distorted 50's rock... Of course they were inspired by that stuff, but you can also hear a lot of British Invasion, surf, and early glam in their sound."

That's the point. The Beatles were one influence - BUT NOT the only one... and MAYBE not even the primary one. So it's possible to conclude they're overrated - because contrary to what some posters seem to think, rock music would still exist without them and odds are it would sound pretty much the same.

As for the Crass comment, didn't they come after bands like Stiff Little Fingers?

See, this Darkstarm kid knows whats up.

Buddy Holly rules.

i think it's quite obvious that the ramones were highly influenced by early beatles songs. what the ramones (and other punk bands) did was bring back the 3 minute (and under) song. At that time, it was all big bloated rock acts with 8 minute songs and ass long solos. They were doing what Buddy Holly did. They wrote simple songs that kicked ass.

I was trying to make some kind of a point here, but I forget it. Case in point: the Beatles were god damn revolutionary, you cannot ignore them.

You're all wrong, Paul Simon owns all, biatch!

"4) What's really important is that there's a valid argument that the Beatles were overrated. If you don't agree, fine, but name-calling can only cover your ignorance so far."

How are they overrated? And is it a bad thing if they are? They revolutionized rock n roll in so many different ways... Maybe they started as a pop group, but what their later albums did layed down the groundwork for everything to follow. Imagine if Refused made 5 "Shape of Punk to Come"s.

-BSD

"1) the Ramones were obviously aware of the Beatles, but their sound was pure 1950s rock'n'roll

2) Prog-rock was inspired by late-era Beatles

3) I don't know if Crass was actually influenced by the Yoko/John Lennon bleating, but they were surely influenced by the first wave of British street punk bands. I'd look into it further, but since you're the source, I'm going to assume the point was a product of your rather prodigious ass."

1) Prog rock was inspired moreso by psychedelia (which the Beatles didn't do nearly as much of as bands like the Misunderstood and the Nice).

2) For one, you claimed that punk rock is anti-Beatles. Well maybe a lot of bands, but the point still stands that the Ramones loved them. Also, you're really quite incorrect in your assumption that the Ramones played distorted 50's rock... Of course they were inspired by that stuff, but you can also hear a lot of British Invasion, surf, and early glam in their sound.

3) Crass WERE a first wave punk band. There were no street punks when they formed, seeing as street-punks were something that came out of the early 80's British scene, not the first wave. I've read interviews with the band as well as their entry in "Lost Legends of Rock N Roll", wherein they explain their John/Yoko influence.

Before you call me an idiot, you ought check the facts yourself.

-BSD

Buddy Holly and Dion & The Belmonts beat all.

End of arguement.

Wow BSD you really are an idiot.

1) the Ramones were obviously aware of the Beatles, but their sound was pure 1950s rock'n'roll

2) Prog-rock was inspired by late-era Beatles

3) I don't know if Crass was actually influenced by the Yoko/John Lennon bleating, but they were surely influenced by the first wave of British street punk bands. I'd look into it further, but since you're the source, I'm going to assume the point was a product of your rather prodigious ass.

4) What's really important is that there's a valid argument that the Beatles were overrated. If you don't agree, fine, but name-calling can only cover your ignorance so far.

None of you on this site reading this will ever write anything as good, catchy or original as what The Beatles and Nirvana produced at their time...

Who cares how popular or "poppy" The Beatles or Nirvana were, those bands and John Lennon and Kurt Cobain in particular, wrote songs that will NEVER be equalled again (in terms of mass appeal and artistic quality).

So what if Nirvana played some three-chord punk... The Ramones did too, and I love the Clash.

The best music the world has ever heard has already been made and the golden era of music ended in 1980 (With alot of obvious exceptions...)

These are all just opinions; music, like art, is subjective.

Hell, John Lennon and Yoko Ono inspired Crass... You can't say it's petty pop music... ELVIS was petty pop (after a while), Aerosmith is what the Ramones were against. Not the greatest rock band of all time.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I never cited the Beatles as the first rock band. That would probably be Green Day, right?

-BSD

No, punk was against 70's mass-market prog and classic rock that the Beatles were never a part of.

The Ramones got their name from Beatle's hotel check in name (Ramona). But nice try.

-BSD

Let's quickly review:

1) the Beatles didn't invent rock'n'roll
2) at least part of the Beatles' catalog is of suspect quality and inspiration (c'mon - "Yellow Submarine?")
3) other rockers - including Elvis - became international superstars before or concurrently to the Beatles

Now let me point out something that BSD and you other, supposedly worldly Beatles fans, haven't managed to sort out for yourselves yet: punk rock was more influenced by surf (the early California scene), ska/reggae (the Clash, early British scene) and 50's rock (the Ramones) than it was by British pop rock as represented by the Beatles. In fact, if anything punk was the rebellion AGAINST the mass-marketed 'top of the pops' music that the Beatles really did inspire. (Where did you think the Sex Pistols came from?)

The Beatles deserve credit for raising the international profile of pop-rock. But that's a marketing success, rather than a truly profound musical one. If you listen to the Beatles' music and really dig it - hey that's awesome - but if you're like most people who post on this board and were born sometime after the mid-70s, there's really no excuse for prattling on about the Beatles unless you really are obsessed with the pop-crap which they are most directly responsible for... and if that's the case I recommend you go listen to Oasis and feel comfortable in the smug security of your People magazine-sponsored world view.

I wonder what black guy wrote that for him...

Just kiddin'. It's ignorant to say things like "the Sex Pistols were the N Sync of the 70's" or "the Beatles were like Michael Jackson", but what can you do? They're probably Coheed fans.

-BSD

The first Rock 'n' Roll song was Bill Haley and The Comets - Rock Around The Clock.

I'm sticking to that.

"This score is for the Beatles. Contrary to popular belief they did not invent rock'n'roll. Plus half of their songs were weird, deeply unfun, exercises in indulgence.

In short: the Beatles were the Michael Jackson of their time."

wow, ignorant comment of the year. No they didn't invent rock n roll, they came out a good 7 or 8 years after rock got popular (the beatles formed in 62). They do have weird songs, but I guess experimentation is bad? I'd say most were fun however, even the werid ones. they released 12 albums in 7 years, and the first 5 albums were not 'weird'. songs like 'i want to hold your hand' 'cant buy me love' 'yesterday' 'hard days night' 'ticket to ride' etc. the second half of their career had the 'weird' stuff, (sgt. peppers, magical mystery tour, revolver, white album) but then they just made classic rock on their last two album, songs like 'get back' 'let it be' 'come together' 'here comes the sun'.

not liking the beatles is ignorant. how are they like michael jackson? they played instruments (very well except for ringo) and wrote ALL of their songs. they played pop rock at first, got into psychedelic experimentation and then laid the template for 70's rock w/ let it be and abbey road.

your a fucking moron. learn something about the history of rock music fuck face.

This score is for the Beatles. Contrary to popular belief they did not invent rock'n'roll. Plus half of their songs were weird, deeply unfun, exercises in indulgence.

In short: the Beatles were the Michael Jackson of their time.

"Yeah I know. That whole 50's/60's rock n roll thing is a myth... Rock didn't exist until the 70's with Led Zep's second album...

You ignorant dick.

-BSD"

THANKS, jesus, anyone who shits on the beatles has NO CLUE what they are talking about. go rent the anthology dvd set, watch it, and learn.

" Why didn't they call this "Straight out the toilet"? "

Hahahahahahahahahahaha gold!

"And Moneen are street-punk? What the fuck crawled into your ears and died? "

OWNED.
this score is for you, BSD.

And Moneen are street-punk? What the fuck crawled into your ears and died?

-BSD

decent comp. However, rad Seconds to Go song. I'm am excited to hear their full length.

"I want to make love to you for that one, Nirvana is seriously the second most overrated band ever, right behind the beatles."

Yeah I know. That whole 50's/60's rock n roll thing is a myth... Rock didn't exist until the 70's with Led Zep's second album...

You ignorant dick.

-BSD

The song on this by moneen proves once and for all that they're the best hardcore/street punk band out right now.

FATA, however, somehow managed to suck even worse than ever before.

Why didn't they call this "Straight out the toilet"?

Did anyone watch the Viva Death video? I can imagine nothing more horrible. This sampler isn't very good. I was disappointed. The only good thing about the Dashboard Confessional song is that it sounded more like his older stuff, which was much better than his newer full banded sound.

As a Saves the Day fan (fan of all albums and eras) I'm shocked they put this song out. It sounds like crap. All you who think it sounds good are deaf.

Nirvana is overrated, just because the critics need some relevant music altering band of the past 15 years to gush over. they are not bad, but they are not nearly as good as they are acclaimed.

the beatles however, if you knew anything about them. desearve every bit of their recognition. jesus, they only invented the use of feedback in a song, drumloops, and recording music backwards. not to mention the first to incorporate middle east instruments into rock. the list is endless. ask anyone who knows anything about music and rocks' history, we owe the beatles alot.

"I hate FATA but I dont think a band can really ruin a Nirvana song, they did them bad enough in the first place. Nirvana is the most overrated band ever.
randomdipshit"

I want to make love to you for that one, Nirvana is seriously the second most overrated band ever, right behind the beatles.

worst comp vagrant has ever, ever put out. there isn't a single noteworthy track. i generally love alkaline trio as a rule, and not even the song on this comp impressed me. and the rest were just skippable.

the alkaline trio song is bad ass...
and for some odd reason, i dig the dashboard one...

"I hate FATA but I dont think a band can really ruin a Nirvana song, they did them bad enough in the first place. Nirvana is the most overrated band ever.
randomdipshit"

you really are a dipshit.

if saves the day could still make tracks like the one on the cd... thatd be nice.

Paul Westerberg needs to stop this madness and make another Replacements album.

-BSD

I hate FATA but I dont think a band can really ruin a Nirvana song, they did them bad enough in the first place. Nirvana is the most overrated band ever.
randomdipshit

There's a Rhythm Collision song which, even though they wrote it like ten years ago, is secretly about Saves the Day. It's called "Hippie Now."

The Saves the Day song is from their first demo...I can't tell if they re-recorded it or not because it sounds a little different, but it's the same song. It's a little slower than their Can't Slow Down stuff and a little more punk but yea, good stuff. I miss old saves the day.

Thanks for the STD information and the information on the saves the day song. I may get this now...'sell my old clothes good' is a bold statement. Is the song old, or just a really good in reverie outtake?

The Westerberg song is simply amazing and makes me even more excited about the album.

-jacobe

Why didn't they name this "Five Years On The Streets: Volume 4".
Are they embarrassed of their first one?

That Alkaline Trio song is fucking awful.
Only good song on here is From Autumn To Ashes, and the Hey Mercedes one is alright.

the .moneen. song on it is good too

The Saves the Day song is totally badass on it. It's "Sell My Old Clothes, I'm Off to Heaven" good. It's when Saves the Day still thought they sounded like Lifetime and not Weezer

My main bitch is that the RFTC song is fucking 12 years old.

From what I hear, the Saves the Day song sounds like it's even older than Can't Slow Down. It's really good actually, Chris's vocals sound really raw, and it's just a good, fast, quick song in the vein of CSD with a cool little transition to the breakdown.

wow, i really hate from autumn to ashes. that tone deaf drummer needs to get punced right in the glasses, that scrawny dorkus malorkus and the old bald singer guy needs to stop doing cookie monster immatations.

how is the saves the day song off this?

Another Year on the Streets...

...Waiting for your mom to pick you up from the thrift clothing store in your family´s second Hummer. Fuckwad.

-(Hi, this is ken! I´m in Argentina right now!)

Fat wreck does this with their comps now, gives them all unrealsed stuff

If Hey Mercedes writes a whole CD with songs like this one it would be amazing. This score is for the Hey Mercedes song.

shitty name for a band.

I might get this if I see it cheap..if only to hear Rocket, Hey Mercedes and Alkaline Trio.

Also, I might get it for the comedy value of hearing those whining bitches try their hardest to ruin 'Territorial Pissings'.