Punknews.org
The '89 Cubs - There Are Giants In The Earth (Cover Artwork)

The '89 Cubs

The '89 Cubs: There Are Giants In The EarthThere Are Giants In The Earth (2004)
Slowdance Records

Reviewer Rating: 2
User Rating:


Contributed by: JesseJesse
(others by this writer | submit your own)

Let it be known that I was already perturbed when going into this review. The CD would not play in my computer. It simply just made my computer retarded and forget how to eject a CD. So after a few restarts (yeah, I'm lazy enough to keep trying it over and over again so I don't have to get up), I fi.
Amazon


Let it be known that I was already perturbed when going into this review. The CD would not play in my computer. It simply just made my computer retarded and forget how to eject a CD. So after a few restarts (yeah, I'm lazy enough to keep trying it over and over again so I don't have to get up), I finally got my little boombox and dragged it into my room. Trust me. I haven't moved from this spot all morning, and I didn't want to. But The '89 Cubs made me. And Lord, do I resent them for that.

So then I put in the CD, and am I rewarded for my work? No! I'm left with uninteresting crap. I'd compare this album to the dribble of food coming out of a babies mouth when you feed them mashed peas. You don't really like looking at it, but you don't care enough to wipe it off until it's all over.

I guess this is supposed to be some sort of supergroup with people from Desaparecidos, Bright Eyes, and The Good Life. Wait a minute, I hate all those bands. No wonder this does nothing for me. But usually I like stuff from Slowdance. I think that Slowdance normally does a good job of signing good acts. Looks like those pug-loving bastards dropped the ball on this one.

I mean, it's not horrible. It's just boring. It goes nowhere. It's unobtrusive. It's safe. It doesn't cross boundaries. It's just what you'd expect from the side project of a sideproject of Cursive. I mean, it's Cursive twice removed. And you know how Cursive can be bland at times, I mean, sheesh, it's like eating saltine crackers topped off with a whole lotta nothing. The problem is, you can't pinpoint a problem. It's like, "This band would be good if they just...if they just...hunh." You can't think of a way to make them better, and that's a problem. In my mind, they're just stuck in mediocrity.

 


Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?
  • Share your opinion by posting comments on the stories that interest you
  • Rate music and bands and help shape the weekly top ten
  • Let Punknews.org use your ratings to help you find bands and albums you might like
  • Customize features on the site to get the news the way you want.
Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not respon sible for them in any way. Seriously.
Anonymous (January 20, 2005)

Yeah, but this band isn't Good Charlotte. They're real musicians, and should be entitled to a real review. Pitchfork gave this album a 7.3, which is a pretty good score considering their disdain for Saddle Creek.

-Chinatown

ThriveToFailure (January 20, 2005)

Hang on, so people are complaining when Jesse reviews a band that he hates, he doesn't "talk about the music"?

Sorry, have you guys not read any music reviews in magazines or anything? It's pretty much common practice -
I once read a Good Charlotte review that was one paragraph (actually, one sentence even) and consisted entirely of the phrase "please please please please please [...] please fuck off and die."

I read another review where the reviewer spent most of the review describing a time when he was kicked in the genitals by a small child and the agony he experienced, and ended by saying that it had still been "more fun than listening to this record."

Did it mention the music? Hell no! Did it raise a smile? Hell yes! Did I go away from that review knowing that the record in question was an abomination of all that is good and true? Yes, because I knew that the reviewer had found the music on that disc so unbearably bad that he didn't even feel the need to mention it.

You wanna know what the guy thought of the record? That's what the review is for - not some public service announcement along the lines of "like these bands? [namedrop, namedrop, namedrop] Well, you might like this, only it's nowhere near as good".

You wanna be able to "judge for yourself"? Download some tracks and form your own opinion! And hey, maybe if you like it,you could go buy the album and write your own review talking entirely about the music and how wrong Jesse was not to mention it.

(Score is for Jesse saying what he actually thought of the music rather than who or what it sounds like).

Anonymous (January 20, 2005)

How bout this?

Jesse (January 20, 2005)

How 'bout this:

You all suck!

Anchors (January 20, 2005)

More pathetic than calling somebody out on the internet?

Get real.

Anonymous (January 19, 2005)

Wow, so I misread his comment. Is that your only defense? Attacking people when they misread/misspell something? You're fucking pathetic.

-Chinatown

Anchors (January 19, 2005)

"I want you to place your hands around your neck and choke yourself nice and hard for 2-3 minutes."

What part of 'you' is incomprehensible? Do I need to dumb it down for you? He wants you, Chinatown, to commit suicide. So how you'd 'like to see him try' is beyond me.

And in any case, that statement makes you sound like a 13 year old in a Blink 182 chatroom.

Anonymous (January 19, 2005)

bob dylan is scene man.

Anonymous (January 18, 2005)

I'd like to see you try you fucking pussy.

-Chinatown

Icapped2pac (January 18, 2005)

Not only do I want you to shut up, Chinatown, I want you to place your hands around your neck and choke yourself nice and hard for 2-3 minutes.

Anchors (January 18, 2005)

If by quite a while, you mean like two days. Get real, man.

Anonymous (January 18, 2005)

No one's told me to shut up in quite a while. Burn in hell you goddamn fascist.

-Chinatown

Anchors (January 18, 2005)

Chinatown, how many people here tell you to shut up every time you leave a comment? When you've got an answer, get back to me.

Jesse (January 18, 2005)

What fucking indie cred? Did you not see Usher and Alicia Keys on my 2004 Mixtape? How about the fact that my favorite album of all time is Paul Simon's Graceland? Or that I'm obsessed with The Boss' Born to Run? How about Bob Dylan and Marvin Gaye? Do I get cred for listening to them? Because that's all I listen to. Shit, I listen to music. Fuck genre. Fuck indie cred. This is just a boring, bad release. Deal with it.

FortyMinutesWest (January 18, 2005)

If you don't like a review, nothing is stopping you from writing your own.

Anonymous (January 18, 2005)

get over yourself jesse. being an ass constantly does not give you the "indie cred" you are so pathetically starving for.

Anonymous (January 18, 2005)

score is for people who comment without having a name

-nfgrawker

Anonymous (January 18, 2005)

score is for chinatown and his un-descended testicles

Anonymous (January 17, 2005)

Score's for Anchors and his retarded comments.

-Chinatown

slippy (January 17, 2005)

The score is for 311.

Anonymous (January 17, 2005)

Shit. "DON'T" Read it. ( see below.)

Absinth is rad.

Anonymous (January 17, 2005)

Christ.

Let's all whine about people's reviews.

If you don't like it, go read it, and fuck yourself while your at it. It'll waste some time so we don't need to read your bitchy little complaints.

Anonymous (January 17, 2005)

Safe? there is nothing safe about it. i think they did a great job of being quite freekin original. i dont think these people give a crap whether you like them or not. nothing to safe about that. sorry but these people rock.

Anonymous (January 17, 2005)

Can Jesse's reviews be specially marked in the "New Reviews" column so that I don't accidentally give them hits in the future?

Seriously, man, not only are you a bad writer, but you're also a jerk who can't handle constructive criticism.

Anonymous (January 17, 2005)

"C) It's how I review bad records. Deal with it. I've been doing it since the start."

If that's how your going to deal with constructive criticism, I'm just not going to read your reviews anymore. I'll just check out who wrote the review and skip it if you wrote it. You really are showing your age and lack of maturity with this review and your response to criticism.

Jesse (January 17, 2005)

Yeah, Stephen King is a bastard.

Anonymous (January 17, 2005)

"It's how I review bad records. Deal with it. I've been doing it since the start."

Good argument... I actually think that's how King convinced the African Americans to just "deal with" sitting at the back of the bus.

Jesse (January 16, 2005)

A) re·tard1     P   Pronunciation Key  (r-tärd)
v. re·tard·ed, re·tard·ing, re·tards
v. tr.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

v. intr.
To be delayed.

n.
A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.

Hmmm...yes. I definitely intended to use it in a derogatory fashion.

B) I like Slowdance. I like pugs. Is it wrong for me to use derogatory terms ironically as terms of endearment?

C) It's how I review bad records. Deal with it. I've been doing it since the start.

FortyMinutesWest (January 16, 2005)

Delusions of Adequacy is a great site, probably my second most read site, next to this one. I do have to say though, sometimes their "RIYL" is pretty far off. The reviews themselves are solid though.

Anonymous (January 16, 2005)

whoah. i have not heard this but
a. really not kosher, and pretty offensive to use "retarded" as an adjective.
b. if ezra is a "pug loving bastard" then they must be the greatest things ever, beacuse quite frankly, ezra is amazing, and deserves much more respect than your choice words.
c. don't feel you have to make some sort of colorful attack on whomever through your writing just becaue you don't like the music. why not tell us what you didnt like about it, rather than explaining how much you hated their other/previous bands.

come on, jesse.

vocalyouth (January 16, 2005)

I really like Cursive but i think they are pretty bland at times, too.

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

"it's infancy"

its infancy

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

is "adequacy" a website?

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

If you combined adequacy's consistency and ability to find new stuff, with pn.org's news and community, you'd have one kick ass website.

Imposs1ble (January 15, 2005)

The person below me hit it right on the nuts. What if these guys played my favorite style of music and I've just never heard of them? Well, I would probably never know because all I know is that "it sucks."

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

If you're going to hate a record you review, even knowing beforehand that there are reasons to believe that you probably won't like it, you should probably at least provide enough of a description of what the record is like so that people who might be into that sound can get some use from it.

Just saying "This sucks" really doesn't do much to inform anyone and this is a band that I think many people who read this site would like.

Anchors (January 15, 2005)

I'm a fan of Adequacy myself, the kids over there do some excellent work, and I've been reccomended some great stuff through their reviews, but in my personal opinion, PN is a great source for music reviews.

I mean, if you look at some of the other zines out there, it seems a lot more focus is put on the reviews here. Some examples. I love punkrocks, and have for years, but what was the last time a new review was posted there? True, when they are, they're for the most part good reviews, but new ones are so few and far between. APnet has two good reviewers, and the others are all absolutely terrible. I'm suprised some of those kids have left grade school. Ryan Mills writes amazing reviews, and Scott Weber has some pretty solid ones as well, but some of those kids write shorter reviews than the ones posted here when this zine was in it's infancy.. it's 4 years later now. Pitchfork reviewers often spend far too much time with background and comparisons, and trying to show off their vocabularies, that the music gets completely lost in it.

Punkhardcore and Pastepunk also have solid reviews, but again, the same issue with them being so few and far between. That said, I really think this site is ahead of the curve in the review department. Reviews aren't easy things to do, I'm sure everyone that writes them, hell, even Jesse, puts a decent amount of time into what they're doing. True, Jesse goes about reviews a much different way, and while that's personally not my style at all, I can't fault anybody who takes the time to write them.

And don't get any ideas about me seeing your point of view, Jesse, I still hate you.

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

I agree.. in the early days it was pretty basic, but only one of those reviews were staff, and it was a review that was originally in another zine. I'm not saying that the current reviews are terrible, but when I can go to someplace like adequacy.net and get reviews that are at least relevant, I kind of wish that pn.org could match the quality (I'm no pitchfork fan though, their reviews are often just as irrelevant, only in 3x as many words).

This review, if you cut out all the self-righteous crap about Jesse's boring life, the only real content is the final paragraph. It is the only part that is relevant!. Honestl Anchors, I think you write some excellent reviews.. as well as adam and forty and some others. It's just that i think the quality of some of the staff reviews are a bit low, and I think they could be better. As a very community-centered website, I'm just calling for some more time to be put into reviews. Maybe I'll start writing a couple reviews, there is some stuff that I noticed has gone overlooked (minus the bear?)

Imposs1ble (January 15, 2005)

To Anchors (and anyone who cares),

True, those reviews are exceptionally short, but only one of them was posted by a staff reviewer (and he didn't even write it). The Lagwagon review, no matter how short it was, at least addressed what the music was like and made a very basic comparison. And this comparison had nothing to do with dribbling over naked babies, or whatever Jesse was talking about. I'm not trying to rip on anyone here, but I am becoming increasingly disappointed by the quality of the reviews on this site. I would rather read a fanboy article than an article by someone who doesn't even give the album a chance, but maybe that's just me. If there has to be a cull, so be it, but something needs to change here. I'm done.

Anchors (January 15, 2005)

"It's not even Jesse-hating... it's his writing... just a bad reviewer. While i understand this site is very much a product of its readers... a public forum of sorts, it has become more and more amateur with time. When someone regarded as "staff" writes a review this shallow.. something's wrong."

Not to defend Jesse, but I'd have to say the writings gotten a lot better. If you go back and look at reviews from like 2000, 2001, most of them are a just a paragraph or two.

http://www.punknews.org/reviews.php?op=albumreview&id=161
http://www.punknews.org/reviews.php?op=albumreview&id=93
http: //www.punknews.org/reviews.php?op=albumreview&id=56

I'd have to say things have improved a ton since then, not just staff, but kids who submit their own, everybody learned by continually writing, how to improve. So I disagree that it's become more ameteur, but I can understand not where you're coming from.

Anchors (January 15, 2005)

Still not counting, but by my not-counting tally, it seems the number in support of you is actually more along the lines of:

5.

One was iffy, so it could be 6, but I honestly don't know where you're getting 10 from.

Jesse (January 15, 2005)

Because those are the albums they send me to review. I don't just pick and choose.

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

Why do you review albums you know you will hate?

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

haha, Jesse always gets these melodramatic Saddle Creek-like bands to review, and he clearly hates most of it. good times

Jesse (January 15, 2005)

And not that I'm counting, the Jesse supporting comments total:

10.

Half and half. Like it's always been. Suck it.

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

"Jesse-hating comment tally is:"

It's not even Jesse-hating... it's his writing... just a bad reviewer. While i understand this site is very much a product of its readers... a public forum of sorts, it has become more and more amateur with time. When someone regarded as "staff" writes a review this shallow.. something's wrong.

Anonymous (January 15, 2005)

"And 311 is the best band from Omaha, by and large."

Dude 311 couldn't even be the best band at an autistic-only middle school talent show.

Anchors (January 15, 2005)

Not that I'm counting, but so far the Jesse-hating comment tally is:

11.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

Jesse:
No matter how right you are about any albums you review...
nobody respects your opinion because you're an obnoxious asshole.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

Ahh..Jesse

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

quit* before you rail me

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

jesse, your reviews are horrible. quite trying to be buddyhead.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

I'v never heard this band so I'm not biased towards them...but this review was absolutely terrible.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

Thiss reads more like a maddox post then a review, but meh, i had fun.

-duped

P.S. bright eyes sucks. i can't remember if that's relevant to this, but it's goddamn true at all times.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

i like saltines. :|

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

cursive can be bland?
....what the FUCK is wrong with you?

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

if your going to do a review that tells us nothing about the record and is just to be funny....make sure its funny.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

I guess I'm not COOL cause I feel in love with this album.

Toby_at_Fat (January 14, 2005)

Ryno!

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

Cursive has been many things, but bland is not one of them.

OC

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

You used to be funny, Jesse. What happened?

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

score is for the review

inagreendase (January 14, 2005)

if anything it sounds like some of the 90's grunge stuff.

Okay, good, maybe I'm not nuts after all, as I could've sworn I heard a Nirvana influence creeping up here and there...it just didn't seem likely coming from a band with that type of pedigree.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

Jesse wishes he was Buddyhead

theundergroundscene (January 14, 2005)

This bored the crap out of me.

And 311 is the best band from Omaha, by and large.

TheMarc (January 14, 2005)

Fuck the hatas! Great review, Jesse!

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

god damn terrible review. You give no clue as to what it sounds like. It doesn't sound like Cursive at all, if anything it sounds like some of the 90's grunge stuff. Very thick, and awesome live. The two vocalists have voices that compliment each other well. Good shout along lyrics. My quibble with the album is that sometimes the vocals are too low. Otherwise I thought it was a solid rock album. Nothing spectacular, but at least worth listening to MORE THAN ONCE on a goddamn boombox. Seriously, the reviews here just keep gettin shittier.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

this review is just plain bad. at least have the decency to go into the listening session with a clear head.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

The cubs suck!

lou (January 14, 2005)

i like saltines, then again, i really like cursive. so maybe that explains my affinity to each. ...i have to agree with jesse though. this album didn't necessarily 'do it' for me either.

xmidipunkbastardx (January 14, 2005)

damn great review.
score is for the review.

(just a nine because you didn't talk about the music)

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

The Giants beat the Cubs in '89 in the playoffs, but I was so rooting for Chicago. They could've beat Oakland in the series, that would've been sweet.

No, wait, they would've got dope smacked too. Stupid Bash Brothers.

ElVaquero (January 14, 2005)

good review.

irish_joo (January 14, 2005)

This review bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew. It didn't even give a vague description of the music on the album. Give more information before you rip into a band next time.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

score is for Ryne Sandberg.

joeg (January 14, 2005)

review made me want to not like this band much.

Anonymous (January 14, 2005)

sweet. i'm not even gonna listen to it. i'll just assume it sucks like every other band from omaha. except cursive.

mykindofmurder (January 14, 2005)

super name, horrid artwork. nice, blunt review.

blunts...

crossfiyaaa (January 14, 2005)

hooray for throwing around the word retard!

hooray for pc punks!

Exclusive Streams

Newest Reviews

Punknews.org Team

Other Places to Go