Page 57 of 94

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 7:41 pm
by BurtReynolds
EJ wrote:This is going to be a joke. I'd be surprised if there's more than 25% participation in this nonsense.
i think they'd view 25% as a smashing success.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 7:43 pm
by EJ
BurtReynolds wrote:
EJ wrote:This is going to be a joke. I'd be surprised if there's more than 25% participation in this nonsense.
i think they'd view 25% as a smashing success.
I hope not. I hope they get pissed off. I'm looking to get berated via binoculars way up in Section 214 at Barclays.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 8:06 pm
by stip
harmless wrote:
Brett wrote:I've found parts of every album after Funeral to be enjoyable, but failing to engage on the whole, and this one is no different. Ultimately, I think disc one is more successful, and probably would have made a fine album on its own. The concert dress code thing goes along with this double album format to show that these guys definitely have some out-there ambitions, and are actively seeking to cultivate their artistic existence in a very specific fashion, but it's way too heavy-handed for me.

I don't have time to waste indulging something that doesn't reciprocate. I won't say that I'm done with this band, because they keep managing to string me along almost ten years after they were relevant to me, but I'm going to keep my interaction with the music at arm's length.
To be fair, during this tour you're not really seeing Arcade Fire, you're seeing 'The Reflektors', their concept-album concept-band. So you dress up as well. I'm sure it's just part of the fun for this particular album, and nothing to do with any future ambitions. They'll most probably go back to being Arcade Fire for the next one, with perfectly normal attire expected at gigs.
look, this is still pretentious hipster douchiness. that's just the justification for it

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 8:07 pm
by stip
theplatypus wrote:
Strat wrote:How is humiliating a person dying for attention and flashing her tits at a show even remotely pretentious or in the same league as making your audience show up in specific well dressed attire?
Making fun of the size of a girl's breasts is several dozen notches above implementing a dress code for your show in the asshole scale.

absolutely! but it is NOT pretentious.


I see strat had this covered.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 8:12 pm
by Harry Lime
BurtReynolds wrote:I doubt anyone gets kicked out over it.

And no one is getting kicked out. It was just a request from the band (or Win), not a command. What is everyone getting bent out of shape for?

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 8:14 pm
by Strat
Harry Lime wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:I doubt anyone gets kicked out over it.

And no one is getting kicked out. It was just a request from the band (or Win), not a command. What is everyone getting bent out of shape for?

i dont think anyone is bent out of shape. basically its just like any pearl jam argument:

Dont like the band: This is another reason why we dont and we will hammer that point home because we are on the internet
Do like the band: This is utterly pointless thing to discuss

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 8:15 pm
by Norah
Just got an email from LiveNation:

Arcade Fire:
Reflektor Tour

Tuesday, August 19
Comcast Center

Presale starts: Thu, Nov 21 at 10am
Presale ends: Thu, Nov 21 at 10pm
Use Password: turkey
Public On Sale: Fri, Nov 22 at 10am

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 8:18 pm
by Harry Lime
Strat wrote:
Harry Lime wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:I doubt anyone gets kicked out over it.

And no one is getting kicked out. It was just a request from the band (or Win), not a command. What is everyone getting bent out of shape for?

i dont think anyone is bent out of shape. basically its just like any pearl jam argument:

Dont like the band: This is another reason why we dont and we will hammer that point home because we are on the internet
Do like the band: This is utterly pointless thing to discuss
Makes sense.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 11:29 pm
by harmless
stip wrote:
harmless wrote:
Brett wrote:I've found parts of every album after Funeral to be enjoyable, but failing to engage on the whole, and this one is no different. Ultimately, I think disc one is more successful, and probably would have made a fine album on its own. The concert dress code thing goes along with this double album format to show that these guys definitely have some out-there ambitions, and are actively seeking to cultivate their artistic existence in a very specific fashion, but it's way too heavy-handed for me.

I don't have time to waste indulging something that doesn't reciprocate. I won't say that I'm done with this band, because they keep managing to string me along almost ten years after they were relevant to me, but I'm going to keep my interaction with the music at arm's length.
To be fair, during this tour you're not really seeing Arcade Fire, you're seeing 'The Reflektors', their concept-album concept-band. So you dress up as well. I'm sure it's just part of the fun for this particular album, and nothing to do with any future ambitions. They'll most probably go back to being Arcade Fire for the next one, with perfectly normal attire expected at gigs.
look, this is still pretentious hipster douchiness. that's just the justification for it
I think that someone who hates the album itself for its 'hipster douchiness' is already biased against anything else furthering the concept.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 11:31 pm
by harmless
stip wrote:
theplatypus wrote:
Strat wrote:How is humiliating a person dying for attention and flashing her tits at a show even remotely pretentious or in the same league as making your audience show up in specific well dressed attire?
Making fun of the size of a girl's breasts is several dozen notches above implementing a dress code for your show in the asshole scale.

absolutely! but it is NOT pretentious.


I see strat had this covered.
You want to read my post on that, because whatever else it was, it was pretentious also.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 11:35 pm
by surfndestroy
I could imagine this being a reasonable request if they were playing small, intimate venues. If it were done in a "We're playing small venues as a thank you to our fans and would like to make these fun celebrations with everyone dressing up to make a celebratory night even more special. We'll see you again in the fall when we play larger venues." kind of way it would be cool. But when you're playing arenas, it just comes across as pretentious.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 11:36 pm
by harmless
'Pretentious' can join 'cringe' in that list of banned RM words now, surely.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Tue November 19, 2013 11:38 pm
by surfndestroy
harmless wrote:'Pretentious' can join 'cringe' in that list of banned RM words now, surely.
Cringe worthy, hearing Ed talk politics between songs when drunk.

Pretentious, see Arcade Fire's dress code.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Wed November 20, 2013 12:02 am
by harmless
I know what pretentious means.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Wed November 20, 2013 12:10 am
by Harry Lime
I was about fed up with the word "pretentious" after The Tree of Life.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Wed November 20, 2013 12:17 am
by dimejinky99
Wow. Tide turned pretty quickly on the Fire eh?

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Wed November 20, 2013 12:19 am
by Harry Lime
No, people are just in bad moods. It's not AF's fault that we're in a recession. Dicks.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Wed November 20, 2013 12:21 am
by BurtReynolds
More and more I tend to view pretentiousness as a virtue.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Wed November 20, 2013 12:23 am
by Harry Lime
Yeah. I think anytime someone tries to tackle the subject of God, they're considered pretentious. I don't know why.

Re: Arcade Fire

Posted: Wed November 20, 2013 12:41 am
by harmless
Harry Lime wrote:Yeah. I think anytime someone tries to tackle the subject of God, they're considered pretentious. I don't know why.
Because he's invisible?