chron.com | tubular tv | comics | games | horoscopes | iPhone | Quick Search
Today marks the release of Arcade Fire’s latest album The Suburbs, but you know that, because the hype has been overwhelming. It's getting the much coveted, all important radio attention, it's getting critics creaming their jeans, and its hype is reaching a critical mass that threatens to explode over the entirety of North America. I have trouble leaving the house without someone I know talking about the new Arcade Fire album. My ultimate problem with that is this: The album is bad. Real bad.
Pitchfork Media feared the album would suffer from the same pitfalls that Neon Bible suffered and were excited to report that it did not. Really? Let's take a look at that. Neon Bible was an attempt at some sort of epic masterpiece that fell flat on its face. It focused too much on its influences and what there was of an original sound being pursued was honestly the worst aspect of it. The Suburbs actually exacerbates those problems. It has the same general sound as Neon Bible, but if Neon Bible was influenced by Bowie and Springsteen, The Suburbs lazily rips them off. It attempts to be less epic and more mundane than Neon Bible (hence "the suburbs"), yet somehow manages to be even more of a test of patience, running for over an hour, making it the longest Arcade Fire album yet. The songs aren't necessarily monolithic in scale or length, there's just a lot of them, and the best moments are few and far between.
Where The Suburbs excels -- and it's a rarity -- is when it throws all the usual Arcade Fire trappings to the wind and gets back to something resembling that first album we all love. "Empty Room," "Month of May," and the U2-ripping "Half Light II (No Celebration)" are somewhat faceless rockers, but they're at least trying to just get down and not trying to achieve anything out of their reach.
But let’s focus on what Arcade Fire offers to music in 2010. Why is this album so important in the grand scheme of things? Why is there such hype for its release?
When I listen to The Suburbs, I hear nothing that hasn't been done before and isn't being done by other bands. Let's be honest, Funeral was overrated even when it came out, sure, but it was definitely highly influential and responsible for indoctrinating so many into this ironically now massive machine we call "indie."
The Suburbs seems to be an active thumbing of the nose at experimentation or innovation. It's neither modern, nor does it advance their sound or music as a whole. It simply exists as an exercise in making an Arcade Fire album. That's enough for most die-hards, but the level of hype and attention it's receiving seems unnecessary. Normally when a band peaks and begins to just repeat itself for the sake of the most hardcore fans, the attention dies off. Instead, this is possibly more attention than I remember Neon Bible getting.
Why be excited when Arcade Fire has done nothing to be excited about?
I would have rather heard Andrew Dansby's take on the album. Good call, 29-95.
bless you.. When will this last fart(intelligent, non=profit rock) of the music biz end.. so we can start having fun again?
!
What a useless review. This reads like an angry screed by on livejournal by a 14 year old Shinedown fan. Criticism should consist of more than hurling insults at what you're reviewing, IE: explaining your opinion at least a little further than "this sucks!"
I don't read a single point here beyond claiming that this song rips off this band or that song rips off another band. I don't really hear any of that, but even if I did, criticizing a band for ripping off Springsteen and Bowie is like criticizing a band for ripping off the Beatles. And seriously, it's a little silly for you to hit Arcade Fire for ripping off Bruce when the first entry on your blog praises The Gaslight Anthem, which is basically an E Street cover band.
I like the record, not 100% crazy about it yet, but record reviews like this are the reason music journalism's in the toilet right now.
P.S. "This ironically now massive machine we call 'indie'" is a lot older than Funeral; try R.E.M.'s Murmur.
The current first entry on my blog was written by a guest contributor named Andrew Menzies. I'm not a fan of the Gaslight Anthem either.
I said Arcade Fire contributed greatly to that "massive indie machine" with Funeral, not that it invented it, would you disagree with that? I'd say Funeral was a big influence on a lot of the bands around now. I'm very aware of R.E.M. and the Smiths and Dinosaur Jr. and Sonic Youth and all those 80's bands that contributed, though STILL did not truly invent it. I love those bands.
In any case, my intent was not to review the record, but to analyze the bigger picture of whether this sort of album actually contributes anything to the current music scene or anyone beyond Arcade Fire diehards. I had many more points to make and much more to say on the subject, but there's really only so much column space and so you get you what you get.
If you are putting the task of saving music journalism to me, you've made a huge mistake. I don't care to save music journalism, I just simply give my opinions and seek to start a discussion. That was the ultimate point of the article. There needs to be a dialogue about what the purpose of getting excited over such a shallow album as this is. If you disagree that the album is shallow, feel free, but comments like this are the reason comments on music journalism are in the toilet right now.
Sorry for mis-attributing the Gaslight Anthem talk to you.
"In any case, my intent was not to review the record, but to analyze the bigger picture of whether this sort of album actually contributes anything to the current music scene or anyone beyond Arcade Fire diehards." Hmm... that sounds like the definition of a record review. Putting that aside, if your goal was to analyze hype about a record you didn't like, it might've been wiser to allot more of your word count to actually quoting some of that hype instead of creating a straw man argument about being mobbed by a hype machine every time you leave your house. I don't think Merge Records has a massive publicity budget to devote to this or any other record, so any hype you've been subjected to came not from an artificial PR machine but instead from your fellow music journalists or people who legitimately like the band. A discussion of that would've been a lot more interesting than reading about how the record you're not reviewing is "bad... real bad".
I am definitely not putting the task of saving music journalism to you, I am simply stating that music journalism won't be worth reading until it moves past lazy name-calling hurled from a jaded hipster ivory tower.
awesome review. fucking hate this band.
I completely disagree. I love the album and its one of my favorites of the year. But to each their own.
This article strikes me as more anti-Pitchfork than anti-Arcade Fire. We get it that you don't like how they hype a band and that band subsequently becomes critical darlings, etc. Nevertheless, did you actually listen to the record or just take the exact opposite position as Pitchfork? The album is terrific or at least really good. It wasn't fair to just label the entire band over-hyped and their album shit. Maybe you're just perturbed by the fact that the album paints the suburbs, Houston suburbs no less, as wastelands that hold people back.
Arcade Fire made an Arcade Fire album. I'm okay with that. But you are not. You want them to do more. To push music forward. To be modern. To experiment and innovate.
You sorta hint that you understand the record is actively rejecting your thesis of what music is for. But you're not quite there yet.
Try this. List a single, innovative, experimental band that's come out in the last 10 years.
I'll stop you.
There aren't any. Stop. Period. Done.
Indian Jewelry!!!
Yeah, suburbs really hold people back. Good point.
He's just giving his opinion. He thinks it's overhyped. I totally agree.
What a ridiculously lazy excuse for a so-called non-review.
What did this review accomplish? Nothing. So why would anyone pay attention to a music journalist who adds nothing to the field of journalism. It's "bad. Real bad."
Its not the best review, but I just listen to the record and it really is a DULL 40 mins.. And I think everyone know this but wont admit it. 5 yrs from now this band will be SO forgotten, only to be brought up on VH1 to be made fun of like 4 non-blondes or something, when they do 'remember 2010'.
"Is the hype justified?"
Answer: Who cares?
A critic who takes into account hype and the critical acclaim of others and decides that the bar has been raised has immediately lost objectivity. The questions should be: "Do you like the album and why or why not?" If the answer is that you dislike it, then an intelligent justification can give any reader (including die-hard fans) insight into what a random individual thinks of the album and why. I think that you should probably read Roger Ebert's recent blog entry about how the content of reviews by critics is more important than the numeric value that websites like Metacritic and Rottentomatoes have boiled everything down to. Even if I disagree with you, if you back up your argument with a well thought out critique of why you find something lacking in artistic value, then I get something out of reading your review even if I disagree with your opinion. That is the role of the critic. If you attack something based upon the "hype" that your own profession has placed upon a band and use that as a measuring stick, then you have immediately lost all credibility and revealed yourself to be more concerned with popular opinion than your own. Not exactly a critic's job.
"Does this album contribute anything to the current music scene?"
Answer: You win the award for Most Retarded and Misguided Way to Analyze and Critique Music Ever.
Every album that is at least moderately successful in being heard contributes something to the current music scene, be it Janelle Monae, Antony and The Johnsons, Jay-Z, or even freaking Kesha, every artist contributes something to the current music scene. I don't even care that I disagree with your review of the album, it's the premise that your argument is based upon that I so vehemently disagree with. In the future, when you decide to write a review of an album that you feel failed to live up to your expectations or those of the general public, please please please feel obliged to include an intelligent and well thought out analysis of the album and your arguments against it's artistic merit, rather than arbitrary and inflammatory anti-hype machine blanket statements.
In other words, write a review of the music on the album, not of the rest of the worlds' thoughts on the music of the album. Believe it or not, your job is to worry about your opinion alone.
Post new comment