The CD insert of the promo copy of Armchair Martian's Hang, On Ted has a quoted review that says, "You'll swear you're listening to Hüsker Dü." Now, maybe it's just me, but if I were in a band, I probably wouldn't put that quote on the CD insert of my promo copies. Not that there's anything wrong with sounding like Hüsker Dü-- they were, after all, one of the great bands of the 80's. The problem comes with being proud of the fact that listeners will have trouble distinguishing between you and another group. That's only an accomplishment if you're in Great White. If some writer had ever said of Great White, "You'll swear you're listening to Led Zeppelin," they would have shit their spandex and dumped a celebratory liter of Jack down their throats. But indie bands, we want them to be different.

Or do we? "Difference" is something that's valued much more by critics than by artists or (especially) consumers. When you're listening closely to 100+ albums a year, trying to decide which ones are good and which ones are crap, you can't help but long for something to sound unique, if only to break the monotony of record reviewing. But "different" doesn't necessarily mean "good" does it? A lot of music I love is derivative as hell, and I get the feeling the people making it knew it. But it's possible to be imitative and still make something beautiful. Just ask Stereolab's Tim Gane.

This brings us to Armchair Martian, a band I don't feel sounds all that much like Hüsker Dü. The vocals are much too generic, for starters-- this guy sounds more like Toad the Wet Sprocket chain-smoking Pall Malls. (I know, Toad is a band and not a guy. Okay, how about Michael Stipe making love to the guy from the Del Fuegos?) And the guitars only have-- ballpark-- 60% of the necessary distortion to merit a comparison to Hüsker Dü. These attributes, when combined with the nothing-special songwriting, make Armchair Martian your average "College-town band on dollar pitcher night" kind of band.

-Mark Richard-San