Gotta say, I'm a little surprised at how much I'm diggin' this thing. It's one great tune after another - I keep waiting for the cracks to show, but every listen brings new respect. "Robinson Crusoe" sounds nothing less than Meet the Beatles getting all cozy with the Stones' "Rocks Off" - "Love Her" is the greatest slice of power pop bubblegum I've heard since the Plimsouls' "Now" - "Front Page" has got the Lennon mojo workin' and one of the coolest guitar solos you're gonna hear in this sorta pop context . And "Rock And Roll" does. Amazing.

[img][200:200]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0009MAPYK.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]

And how old are these dicklickers? They look like high schoolers on the cover. How do dudes this young get this good? Must drive older knobs like Brendon Benson and the Fountains of Wayne apeshit.

shit, I forgot to order this

Beatles? Wow, I hear none of that. But, yeah, I believe they're fresh outta high school or something. Assholes, I hate 'em.






But, dammit, they put out good shit.

<---- looking for the sarcasm emoticon

The cracks show on Universal Blues. I haven't heard this new one so I don't really know if perhaps they've improved on their sound since then.

To me it became old on UB. Yes they obviously are influenced by THe Beatles but there's a fine line between influence and just plain trying to be the band. I bought UB and The M's album the same day. I prefer the latter of the two.


Radcliffe, yeah they all just turned 21. Or damn near close to it.

Tania, they're playing lollapalooza so we'll go see them and see what happens.

i want to hear this. they're playing here soon with some band i don't wanna see.

Are these the same dicklickers who opened for Keane earlier this year?

The last time I did an in-studio at at radio station, there was a band before me called The Pages... it was them. (They later changed their name.) They blew me away and the little fuckers were all around 18 or 19 at the time. I don't think any of them are over 20 at this point.

Their manager Mitch, is a pretty good guy, too.

no shit

Logan's old enough to drink, barely.

It's about time this damn album came out, they've been signed for 2-3 years now. I think the songwriting is more their own on this album than UB, but I like the production and the drummer on UB better.

Just picked this up for $.99. Listening to it now, and I'm surprised it didn't get airplay. Not sure if I agree with the Beatles sentiment, but I definitely hear Kinks, Cheap Trick, The Move and Blur in there.

I wish I could find it for $0.99.

when is/was its release date? their 2003 release is in emusic.

It's well-crafted.
But it just leaves me a little cold.

Good hooks.
Good playing.
Good songs.
Good harmonies.

It's all good, but it just doesn't hit me liked I had hoped.
In all, I am appreciating it more than I am enjoying it.

I honestly don't know how anyone can listen to this record and not hear the shameless aping of John Lennon. I think this band is unbelievably derivative .

I wish i was that derivative. Then i'd have a record deal with capitol, some loot, no day job that I don't like, and a record that radcliffe touts. I mean, seriously, that's the impossible dream. Icing on the cake would be if billyg and billzebub dug it too.

I still like Universal Blues better, but the album is no slouch. You think it's easy being derivative? Try it sometime. Sounding like Lennon is totally different than sounding like you're trying to sound like Lennon.

I'd rather listen to them then more than 90% of the shit that's come out this year.

Seems like it only got some college radio airplay from what I've heard

I bought this because I was curious about all the hype and was left kinda disappointed. It sounds like something Rod Stewart would have done in the early 70's. To some, maybe that's a good thing but for me it's just meh.


Anyone want to trade me something for it?

All the hype around this band mentions the Beatles or the Stones or the Faces or some combination of the three - so I don't quite understand why you'd pick it up if you didn't want to hear "something Rod Stewart would have done in the early '70s" - especially given your loud and repetitive dislike for all '70s rock in the first place.

1. I had no idea what this album sounded like before I bought it but like I said, I heard people recommending it and I was curious so I bought it.

2. I don't hate all 70's rock, just the crappy stuff.

3. I don't hear the Beatles in this at all.


That's it. Just giving my opinion. Sorry if it differs from yours and you can't take it. I'm not trying to spread any hate.

There's a fine line between "the right influences" and "derivitive". A line that the Redwalls defintely balance on, but I don't think they fall into. They write great catchy rock'n'roll influenced by great bands. Oh, and they're really good.

And I'm sorry that I mistakenly thought "all the hype" meant, y'know, the music industry rather than a couple of Rami's friends.

You know what, over-analyzation of records bore me. Its good. It pleases my ears. I could put it on and dance in a odd manner to it. Thumbs up. Screw all this derivative talk. If you like it, you do, if not, ok, so be it.

After reading Radcliffe's thoughts on this record, I just chucked it into my yourmusic.com que. Worth $5.99 I take it?