archive : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z sdtk comp
Cover Art Flying Saucer Attack
New Lands
[Drag City]
Rating: 6.7

Flying Saucer Attack formed in Bristol, England, releasing their first seven inch, "Soaring High" in 1993 on the notorious noise-wave label, VHF. And with New Lands being their seventh full-length release in four years (not to mention more than ten 7" records), they'd probably qualify as "prolific," to say the very least. I'm not sure how difficult the songwriting process is for them (or rather, him-- Rachel Brook appears to have the band) or how much stuff they record that never gets released.

New Lands isn't dramatically different than most of Pearce's recent outings-- it begins with a low rumble and erupts into a dissonant wall of noise. This static charge goes out to all y'all that want to like Brian Eno, but refuse to tolerate the guy's cheesy 70's tendencies. (It was different time.) Pearce throws out an updated version of ambient-- it sounds great on headphones, but when you're not paying close attention, it falls to the background. But under the thundering blast of distortion, Pearce's beautiful folk hymns can be distinctly heard, as if radio waves transmitted from another planet millions of years ago had just reached your stereo antenna.

The thing about New Lands is that when you turn it off, it vanishes completely. And not just from the room. As great as a song like "Up in Her Eyes" sounds up close, I guarantee you won't remember it when the disc is back in its case.

-Ryan Schreiber

TODAY'S REVIEWS

DAILY NEWS

RATING KEY
10.0: Indispensable, classic
9.5-9.9: Spectacular
9.0-9.4: Amazing
8.5-8.9: Exceptional; will likely rank among writer's top ten albums of the year
8.0-8.4: Very good
7.5-7.9: Above average; enjoyable
7.0-7.4: Not brilliant, but nice enough
6.0-6.9: Has its moments, but isn't strong
5.0-5.9: Mediocre; not good, but not awful
4.0-4.9: Just below average; bad outweighs good by just a little bit
3.0-3.9: Definitely below average, but a few redeeming qualities
2.0-2.9: Heard worse, but still pretty bad
1.0-1.9: Awful; not a single pleasant track
0.0-0.9: Breaks new ground for terrible
OTHER RECENT REVIEWS

All material is copyright
2001, Pitchforkmedia.com.