Cute is What We Aim For - Rotation

[Jeremy Aaron]

Cute Is What We Aim For - Rotation
Record Label: Fueled by Ramen
Release Date: June 24, 2008

Cute Is What We Aim For pulled off a bit of a surprise when they posted the song "Doctor" on their Myspace on April 21st. Reactions were mixed, but the typical response was astonishment at how "good" it was. Truthfully, "Doctor" is not a great song, but expectations for the band were so low after their debut album, that any progression would be heralded as a great success. The song is definitely a step up from their first album, and even got their detractors at least a little curious about their upcoming album.

Now everyone's questions have been answered with the album's release. Biases aside, there are a few things that are apparent on this album right away. First off, Cute Is What We Aim For add a little more punk to their punk-pop, which actually makes them sound more generic. Rarely is that ever a compliment, but in this case, it definitely is. The Same Old Blood Rush With a New Touch was unique in that no band had ever recorded a album that sounded like that, released it and proudly called it their work.

Perhaps the new sound is less attributable to the band than it is to new producer John Feldmann. Rotation is definitely a more polished album. While there are definitely times when a producer should stand back, let the band take control of their music and lay off the studio sheen, working on a Cute Is What We Aim For album is probably not one of those times, and Feldmann wisely lays the gloss on thick. Also, the addition of horns (as in "Hollywood") add another dimension to the music. It really "saves" the album because some of the underlying flaws from their first album remain.

Vocalist Shaant Hacikyan's lyrics are either overly simple and repetitive or tend toward the cliched when he tries to sound witty. Also, the songs border on catchiness, but their are a lot of incomplete hooks. Take the chorus of "Navigate Me" as an example of both. The first part of the chorus "Navigate me through your body / Navigate me," has a melody that catches your ear, but they follow it up with "Navigate me through your body / Navigate," with exactly the same melody. This album is peppered with these "missed opportunities" where changing a few notes here and there would have created a strong hook, but instead, the song comes off as sounding monotone. In this genre, you need to have really catchy songs, especially if you're lacking in the lyrics department. Cute Is What We Aim For ultimately fail at this.

On the flip-side, Hacikyan's vocals are greatly improved. He sounds much more forceful and confident this time around, although this could also be a benefit of better production. His really odd inflections and his tendency to over-enunciate aren't so prominent.

Whether or not you like the band's music, it's hard to deny that this is a major improvement. While they sound much more like their pop-punk contemporaries, they are still below average in comparison. Hacikyan needs to come up with some original lyrics and stronger melodies to prove his band belongs in the big leagues.

The Maine, We the Kings, Houston Calls
myspace.com/cuteiswhatweaimfor (http://www.myspace.com/cuteiswhatweaimfor)

[hockeyguitar99]

Good review, i think that your rating is a bit low.

[Spenny]

I think your review was well-written and unbiased.
Of course I enjoy the album and think the score should be higher, but it's all up to the reviewer and I thought you did a good job.

[iseethesun123]

Great review. But I still think the album was pretty solid. But I agree that Shaant needs to come up with some better lyrics for whenever they put out a third record

[Chris Fallon]

Who rated this 100%? They must be hard of hearing.

[TooLateF0rRoses]

omg! butterflies!

[Klatzke]

I think your review was well-written and unbiased.
Of course I enjoy the album and think the score should be higher, but it's all up to the reviewer and I thought you did a good job.
Unbiased, are you kidding?

The only way for someone to look at this "unbiased" is to not review it on this site.

I'm not bashing this review (or reviewer), I just don't understand what's with all the criticism and such surrounding them on this site, when there are far worse bands.

[Jeremy Aaron]

Unbiased, are you kidding?

The only way for someone to look at this "unbiased" is to not review it on this site.

I'm not bashing this review (or reviewer), I just don't understand what's with all the criticism and such surrounding them on this site, when there are far worse bands.

My main goal with this review (and all reviews I write) is to be as objective as possible. AP makes this easier by including the ratings criteria. I try to keep how much I like an album or band out of my ratings and reviews. You'll notice I never mentioned whether I liked the album or not. I just basically gave the album a rating based on the criteria and attempted to justify those ratings with the review.

Now, if you read Joe DeAndrea's review, he mentions something to the effect that Blood Rush was the soundtrack of his summer or something like that. That sets up a biased review. While I'm sure a lot of people enjoy reading reviews with a personal touch, that's not my style. I feel it's more important to say that a certain quality on the album was good or band and explain why rather than say how much I liked or didn't like the album, although sometimes I guess this will be evident in the review.

I made a point to mention the positive improvements the band made on this record, and it wasn't meant to be a scathingly negative review at all, merely an objective one. There are those that hate the band unconditionally and others that like them. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and did my best to express that.

[Klatzke]

My main goal with this review (and all reviews I write) is to be as objective as possible. AP makes this easier by including the ratings criteria. I try to keep how much I like an album or band out of my ratings and reviews. You'll notice I never mentioned whether I liked the album or not. I just basically gave the album a rating based on the criteria and attempted to justify those ratings with the review.

Now, if you read Joe DeAndrea's review, he mentions something to the effect that Blood Rush was the soundtrack of his summer or something like that. That sets up a biased review. While I'm sure a lot of people enjoy reading reviews with a personal touch, that's not my style. I feel it's more important to say that a certain quality on the album was good or band and explain why rather than say how much I liked or didn't like the album, although sometimes I guess this will be evident in the review.

I made a point to mention the positive improvements the band made on this record, and it wasn't meant to be a scathingly negative review at all, merely an objective one. There are those that hate the band unconditionally and others that like them. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and did my best to express that.
I'm not saying you're unnecessarily biased, i realize it's completely impossible to be entirely objective. And yeah, Joe's was extremely biased.

I'm just saying that, on this site, there's such like, "anti-hype" about them that there's no way for a comment to be taken subjectively.

It was a well written review, and i'm on the fence about the album. I have no qualms with you or the review, i just hate the bias on this site sometimes.

[xopuppyluv]

nice review

[The Personist]

Good review, and I agree about the album, though I really honestly just can't stand this band. I am a fan of some of the generic pop-punk bands, but CIWWAF has neither the charm nor the exuberance that they should to justify their lack of originality.

Plus they stole Dave Melillo.

[Kbm600]

Good review. It was an improvement. But I still don't enjoy it.
They still suck, but I can stand this album. That's enough for me.

[Praetor]

"The Same Old Blood Rush With a New Touch was unique in that no band had ever recorded a album that sounded like that, released it and proudly called it their work."

hahahahahahaha

[Gumbyjag]

great review.

Good review, i think that your rating is a bit low.

i thought it was pretty fair. could have been 60 at most.

[birtcho]

Good review, i think that your rating is a bit low.
yeah. i agree that feldman should have let them do their own thing a bit because it was a bit over produced

[hockeyguitar99]

yeah. i agree that feldman should have let them do their own thing a bit because it was a bit over produced

I found that feldmans production was very good, I'd say that one or two tracks are a bit over produced, but the album as a whole wasn't overproduced. After this album being out a week I can't even listen to it any more.

[Chris Fallon]

I found that feldmans production was very good, I'd say that one or two tracks are a bit over produced, but the album as a whole wasn't overproduced. After this album being out a week I can't even listen to it any more.
I don't know how anyone can listen to this album, period.

[hockeyguitar99]

I don't know how anyone can listen to this album, period.

They're just shitty pop songs, but they were okay for a while. But I do see why everyone hates them, even if there are worse bands.

[Klatzke]

I liked it at first, and i can still listen to the old one actually, but this album had NO replayability.

I listened like, 2 full times, and i'm done with it. I may visit a single song every now and then, but i can only stand one or two at a time.

[i<3uatlst42day]

I think new album is fine and truthfully I've never been blown away by CIWWAF like I have by other artists. Shaant's vocals are good but the lyrics have always been simple and a little odd. With the first album aleast it didn't sound like anything else out there but with Rotation it sounds a little bit generic. With interviews I've read from Shaant and how proud the band is of this album I expected a little bit more.

[thisgamewelose]

You're about 10-12% under what they should be.

[Joe DeAndrea]

I'm not saying you're unnecessarily biased, i realize it's completely impossible to be entirely objective. And yeah, Joe's was extremely biased.

I'm just saying that, on this site, there's such like, "anti-hype" about them that there's no way for a comment to be taken subjectively.

It was a well written review, and i'm on the fence about the album. I have no qualms with you or the review, i just hate the bias on this site sometimes.

I don't understand how I'm biased. Because I liked their debut? If I thought Rotation was a pile of shit, I would have given it a bad review.

[Jeremy Aaron]

I don't understand how I'm biased. Because I liked their debut? If I thought Rotation was a pile of shit, I would have given it a bad review.

Since I made the comment first, and potentially planted the idea, I suppose I should stand up for it. I was just pointing out that in your review, you mention a lot about what you were hoping to hear in the songs and how much you enjoyed a particular track or tracks, which makes the review seem less like an objective appraisal of the record based on its merits and more like an explanation of whether or not you liked the album and why. I'm not going to pretend that a reviewers personal opinion shouldn't have a bearing on the review. It's always going to.

I normally wouldn't care and I wasn't trying to be offensive or point fingers. Klatzke commented about the review being biased and I was just pointing out that nowhere in the review did I mention if I even liked the album and instead tried to treat it objectively, and I mentioned your review as a point of comparison.

[Klatzke]

I don't understand how I'm biased. Because I liked their debut? If I thought Rotation was a pile of shit, I would have given it a bad review.
I liked the debut too, so no its not that. No matter what, reviewers are biased. I didn't mean to like offend you with that comment.

Just as Cosmonaut Day said, its impossible to be entirely subjective, and your opinion is going to play a part (and just particularly yours on the other Rotation review, because you did like the debut, and you seem to like pop more than most other staff memebers for the most part). Saying it was "extremely biased" may have been a bit hasty on my part. It was just part of the conversation.

And... I do find this album hard to review and have ANY KIND of subjective opinion, and i was saying that no matter what anyone says about this album on this website, it's going to get blown out of proportion and the reviewers going to get "OMG BIASED"-- because of the whole hype with them here.

I didn't mean to be offensive.