Showing 1-13 of 13
This is a great album though maybe not as perfect as the last two. The Radiohead comparisons are well founded and yet silly at the same time. Mostly, I agree with jjskck- if they play a show in the KC area, I will do everything I can to clear the date and make the show.
Finally made it all the way through (twice). It's a decent album, but at this point it's my least favorite of the three they've released so far. Maybe it will grow on me; maybe it won't.
Either way, if they make their way through KC on tour I'll be there. They put on a hell of a show.
So much vitriol, over who happens to like it? Ridiculous. This album is fantastic, a very mature work. Neon Bible was thematically troubled, whereas this record is much more thought out and balanced. I don't care who you are, if "Empty Room" doesn't get your blood pumping and make you feel excited to be alive, then I don't know why you pretend to care about music in the first place.
So much vitriol, over who happens to like it? Ridiculous. This album is fantastic, a very mature work. Neon Bible was thematically troubled, whereas this record is much more thought out and balanced. I don't care who you are, if "Empty Room" doesn't get your blood pumping and make you feel excited to be alive, then I don't know why you pretend to care about music in the first place.
Nah, the band sucks in 2010 because of hipsters and their hype machine.
The band sucked in 2004 also, but that was just because they sucked. Their music is the audio equivalent of Lunesta.
I think the BBC SHOULD have said that this is the Arcade Fire's OK Computer, which is much more accurate. Well PROBABLY. I wouldn't know, because I refuse to listen to the Arcade Fire because a bunch of hipsters like them and Pitchfork gave them a good review which COMPLETELY invalidates their music.
If I HAD listened to it, I might say that the Arcade Fire are that band that everyone secretly wants to make a misstep so they can say "OH THEY WERE JUST THAT BAND THAT MADE ONE REALLY GOOD ALBUM THAT THEY COULD NEVER LIVE UP TO THEY SUCK" but I might say that they keep making really great records, and that the Suburbs is a really lovely record with more ambition than most new bands, who SHOULD be full of ambition, have in their little coke-scooping fingernail. But I would never say that, because HIPSTERS HIPSTERS HIPSTERS HIPSTERS HIPSTERS.
Steps to writing a hipster review:
1. Know nothing about music
2. Pick a band at random that Pitchfork gave at least a 7.5 to.
3. Praise band's "songwriting and arrangement"
4. ?????
5. Still know nothing about music
This is a very good album, even brilliant in parts. For me the Sprawl II was a highlight in songwriting and arrangement genius, worthy to at least bring reference to something like OK. This album is thematic and layered in very similar way to the Radiohead masterpiece, and The Suburbs is very, very well written, but it's to not the level of innovation that OK Computer was for it's time. Nothing to do with age. This album is dam good, but I don't think it's decade busting like OK Computer was.
Ok Computer was Zooropa on steroids, and there was nothing that even came close to it artistically at the time. This album is brilliant, but it isn't OK Computer brilliant.
Hipster bullshit.
Better than OK Computer? lol, this band can't even write a better album than Pablo Honey. Why do people trip over themselves trying to praise this band? They aren't interesting, and they aren't memorable.
I think everyone's been waiting 13 years for the right album to say "better than OK Computer" and still be taken seriously.
I'll reserve judgment for later today. I know that an album in my mid-30s will never strike an emotional chord (so to speak) like an album from my early 20s, but this one will definitely get a fair listen from me.
like
dislike
