Well, it's kind of necessary, based on the steady stream of hosannahs and hallelujahs sent toward AF in the last few weeks (and years). It's trolling, but it's wonderfully done trolling. In the Washington Post, no less.theplatypus wrote:Aw. That's just unnecessary.evenslow wrote:This is wonderful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... story.html
Look, I’m sure they’re very nice people, but on their fourth album, “Reflektor,” Arcade Fire still sound like gigantic dorks with boring sex lives.
Still haven't listened to this. I like "Reflektor", the single, a whole lot. The internet's abuzz with debate about the album, though, which is usually a good sign.
Look, I like Arcade Fire. They've got some really great moments and they're a good live experience (especially 5-7 years ago). But I too often get the feeling that the emperor has no clothes. They're hitting all the hallmarks and signifiers of being a BIG IMPORTANT BAND (concept albums, pushing their sound, Bruce/Bowie/Byrne), but don't always have the songs/chops to back that up. I get the sense a lot of people are trying hard to like Arcade Fire more than they actually like Arcade Fire. To my mind, they're easily a big notch below all the people in the epic, sweeping club they're trying to join: Springsteen, Bowie, Talking Heads, U2, The Clash, and apparently Chic.
And that's okay, most artists never rise to the top level. Being "good" is good. But that's not sexy and it's harder to write.
