The Arcade Fire
You must be logged in to rate. Create your profile
What do you think?
 |
 |
 |
What our users think
50%
22%
28%Apologies
Write an apology
An apology is a formal justification or defense of a position.
A wall of cacophonous sound is not epic or sweeping, and nor is it original or clever.
Evoked some interest with their first album; had three or four strong songs; haven't heard the next one because I'm not interested; another band hyped by the music press to sell more magazines and indicative of the dire lack of talent in todays music culture; HIGHLY overrated and cliched but are not totally hopeless
Individual musicians are probably talented. But the overall sound they produced is quite boring. Very 80s too. Singer is horrible.
Unbelievable band, the music is simply on point in all aspects. Neon Bible is unreal.
I think they're really good on tape, but their live show is WAY overrated.
Albeit they get more credit than a lot of their more talented indie counterparts, the Arcade Fire is still a good band. And they in some light must hav earned that rank, because it's not like pop culture threw them a bone. So them being where they are is how the dice fell. So in conclusion: by pop cult standards, underrated, and by indie standards probably overrated. Who cares? It's good music. I'm not about to deny their a talented bunch.
I was at the "greatest musical event ever" as according to many hipsters and bloggers last night, and LCD blew them the f' out of dodge.
Arcade Fire is my drug.
And if anyone wants to think I'm stupid for it, then I'm a fucking retard. Whatever. I love them regardless.
What do you get when you take decades old rhythms, melodies that stick to chord progressions like glue and finally add a pinch of monotony and a sense of melodrama for the ages? The Arcade Fire.
The Arcade Fire may play passionately and with emotion, but they don't play with a great amount of musicality and talent. I'm not sure that the singer realizes how bad he really is. Everyone tells me how AMAZING this band is, but, the Arcade Fire are nowhere near amazing.
Wow, the Shins...now there's an overrated band.
A band surrounded by the likes of Dan Bejar, Spencer Krug, Carey Mercer and Dan Boekner, etc. And these guys get all the fame. It's as if I am in a different reality. Is Arcade Fire a bad band? not at all. But they are by no means amazing. There imagery is fine, but there is simply no sign of lyrical brillance. I am fine with simplicity but for some reason they have been elected Indie Gods. I make the comparisons to the other Canadian indie bands only to make a point of why Arcade Fire gets too much praise. You got Carey Mercer creating the most creative atmospheric songs you will ever hear; Spencer Krug lyrically blowing everyone out of the water (perhaps with the exception of Brock of Modest Mouse); and then you have Arcade Fire playing Tunnels again because it is the only song they can pull off with any sort of artistic beauty. One album is out and the 10 tracks hardly diverge from each other. And from what we get from Neon Bible it doesn't look like they are even trying to branch out. That's ok if you want to be a good band; but not if you are being praised as a great band. Listen to Krug's Cathedral Bells and then listen to Butler's Intervention. That should be enough for you to see while Butler is talented; he isn't the messiah of music. I know this comes off reading as an attack against Arcade Fire, but it isn't truly meant to be. I think they are a really good band. But the question is if they are overrated. And to that they most certainly are. When you have a reputation as good as The Shins...you better be as good as The Shins. Tunnels is no New Slang...and neither is Intervention.
