Options

Arcade Fire are horrible

13

Comments

  • Options
    the title should be "Arcade Fire Is Horrible."

    Nathaniel Hornblower
    B.A. English
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • Options
    boroff89boroff89 Posts: 786
    Songburst wrote:
    Arcade Fire are ok but their sound will not stand the test of time.

    The statement that the Arcade Fire are a better live band than Pearl Jam is simply laughable.

    I have seen Pearl Jam 14 times. I have flown from San Francisco to Vancouver to see them. Also to Toledo and Philadelphia. Their three nights at the Bill Graham here in SF are among the best nights of my life.

    All this is true. And, Arcade Fire are Pearl Jam's equal if not their better when it comes to live performances. I have never felt more inspired or experienced a beauty greater than Arcade Fire live.
    It makes much more sense to live in the present tense.
  • Options
    I think Modest Mouse is a great live band.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdzOd-2kh8&feature=related

    Arcade Fire remind me of Dexy's Midnight runners


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ThWaMnlSZM

    just a little gay



    ...a smidge...
    the Minions
  • Options
    IgottagoIgottago Posts: 483

    Arcade Fire remind me of Dexy's Midnight runners


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ThWaMnlSZM

    just a little gay



    ...a smidge...

    LOL! You can't argue with that...arcade fire has some good songs but they totally have that cheesey ass Dexy's Midnight thing going on. It gets a little annoying.
  • Options
    keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you watch this and are not moved then you are probably dead inside anyway. The arcade fire have put passion back into music and they are phenominal in concert.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq6M4PWKvq4
    Wow.
    Just wow.
    I need to see this band again.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • Options
    what do you mean their sound wont stand the test of time?

    Indie rock is the "cool" thing right now, and anyone who is into that scene, myself included, will name off tons of good bands, Modest Mouse, Death Cab, the Shins, Wolf Parade, Broken Social Scene etc...

    AF's sound is the cutting edge. It has been since 2004. Thats nearly 4 years. Grunge was around from 1991-1994.

    Me thinks people are pissed PJ doesnt get named best live band.

    PJ has an amazing live show, but please. Their show doesnt even come close to an AF show. And this is coming from a person who is a Ten Club member, a person who has every studio album, a person who has been a fan since 1991. Arcade Fire are the most important band in music. Simple as that.

    Just as people like me as a youngster tried to convince my parents to let me move to Seattle when the grunge scene broke, I and others recognize Montreal as the next scene, or the only other scene since Kurt's death. Montreal is home to the best bands in the world. The streets of Montreal are indeed paved with indie rock. Broken Social Scene, Feist, AF, Wolf Parade, besnard lakes, bell orchestra, Islands, Sunset rubdown etc... and lets face it people everyone of those bands would mention AF as a major influence and guiding light.

    As far as I am concerned AF is the face of indie rock. Just as Nirvana and PJ were the face of grunge.

    AF have released two of the most critically adored albums of 2000 era. Their live shows are world reknowed for their intensity. Bowie and Byrne are fans. Chris martin calls them the greatest band in history.

    How long do they have to stand the test of time? They have stayed relevant and important for 3 years now, going on 4. Although Neon Bible wasnt called the second coming and didnt seem to get the same reviews as Funeral, those two albums still are pretty much classics.

    I think its laughable almost. If people raved about PJ like they do Arcade Fire, no one would make threads like the idiot OP.

    I love PJ. Always have, always will. Been loving them since 1991 as I said. But their fans are some of the wierdest and most idiotic. Anyone who criticises and band, no matter how valid, is shot down, maligned, called a non fan and ostracized.

    You say tickets are too high. Which is a valid point. And people yell at you. You say you love their politics and people who are conservative flip their wigs.

    you call out those wimps and hypocritics who threw crap at the band in uniondale, and you get threatened.

    you say they should lower ticket prices and people tell you to find a new band.

    you say they have some good and some bad albums and you are shot down.

    Face it people, I listen to PJ, but I also listen to other bands.

    My life was forever altered when grunge became the voice of my youth. The soundtrack to my life.

    Now 15 years later, finally a new scene speaks to me. After 15 years. And people still cant take criticism.

    For a band whose reputation is so moral, accepting and promoting of free speech, their fans are uptight and mean!
  • Options
    Most important band in music, what a joke. The singing is absolute garbage.
  • Options
    SoupySoupy Posts: 171
    I like the Arcade Fire alot. Funeral is a brilliant debut album and Neon Bible while not quite upto the standard of Funeral is still a solid piece of work.

    However in my opinion 'The Decemberists' are better in the studio and on the stage. 'The Crane Wife' and 'Picaresque' are richer and more rewarding works than The Arcade Fires output so far.
  • Options
    Most important band in music, what a joke. The singing is absolute garbage.


    If you think Win's singing is garbage, then I can only imagine where that puts Bob Dylan and Neil Young in your book.
  • Options
    Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Oh, come on.... that is like the RICHEST thing I've ever heard... I'm only a boy, not a man, because I don't think ARC isn't the best song on Riot Act? :rolleyes: It doesn't make you a man, it makes you pretentious. :D

    My favourite Riot Act song is almost as surprising, judging by comments on the board: Thumbing My Way.

    But then we're all pretentious hipsters if we're into Arcade Fire, hey :rolleyes:
    Haha, I'm only kidding Mark :) well, I do think ARC is the best song on it but I'm kidding that it makes me better than you. There are numerous other reasons why I am :D

    I also love TMW and have a healthy level of distrust for anyone that doesn't.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Options
    SongburstSongburst Posts: 1,195
    what do you mean their sound wont stand the test of time?

    I mean that bands like Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, Led Zep, etc will always have a contingent of kids and middle-agers who think that their music is among the best ever created. Arcade Fire is music for the moment. It is good music but it will never span generations like great music does. A big reason why they are so popular is because of the credibility that is associated with liking the "indie" sound. Arcade Fire will eventually fade away into obscurity and one day you will wake up and be 30 and start reaching for the timeless albums that span generations and leave the music of the moment on the shelf.
    1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
  • Options
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Haha, I'm only kidding Mark :) well, I do think ARC is the best song on it but I'm kidding that it makes me better than you. There are numerous other reasons why I am :D

    I also love TMW and have a healthy level of distrust for anyone that doesn't.

    LOL I got it, I was kidding too... :D Sorry did that sound aggressive? I was in a bad mood the other night. Actually no, let's just say a deadpan mood... I almost picked a fight with a girl (sorry to you, if you're reading).. :D
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • Options
    Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    pjl44 wrote:
    As a ginormous Floyd fan, I couldn't disagree with this statement more. "Just because it's popular don't mean it ain't good."
    I never said it was bad and I never said I didn't like it because it's popular. I am saying, regardless of public opinion on it, I can't see why it is so praised these days. Why is it that because an album is important and revolutionary for its time, it must be held up as a masterpiece still? art changes with the times. Does anyone really think Pet Sounds is one of the 10th best albums in existence? maybe in 1966 yes. It's great but it's not that great. DSOTM isn't even great really. It's ok, has some great moments. I just can't for the life of me see why it would excite anyone. It's not like it's not to my taste. I used to love it when I was 12, I just realised that there is better music out there. A lot of it.

    But hey, it's just my opinion :)
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Options
    Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    LOL I got it, I was kidding too... :D Sorry did that sound aggressive? I was in a bad mood the other night. Actually no, let's just say a deadpan mood... I almost picked a fight with a girl (sorry to you, if you're reading).. :D
    Nah it didn't sound aggressive :p it sounded like you genuinely took exception to my remark but weren't overly perturbed by it... which is good. It's just music :D

    Fighting with girls? :eek: I hope she was bigger than you.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Options
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Nah it didn't sound aggressive :p it sounded like you genuinely took exception to my remark but weren't overly perturbed by it... which is good. It's just music :D

    Fighting with girls? :eek: I hope she was bigger than you.

    What made me feel guilty was that she had one of those cute girl names.... hang on, I'll see if I can find it...

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=268304

    It's only music... I must remember that.... and breathe...
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • Options
    intodeepintodeep Posts: 7,228
    Songburst wrote:
    I mean that bands like Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, Led Zep, etc will always have a contingent of kids and middle-agers who think that their music is among the best ever created. Arcade Fire is music for the moment. It is good music but it will never span generations like great music does. A big reason why they are so popular is because of the credibility that is associated with liking the "indie" sound. Arcade Fire will eventually fade away into obscurity and one day you will wake up and be 30 and start reaching for the timeless albums that span generations and leave the music of the moment on the shelf.

    I disagree. Sort of...

    Arcade Fire have the type of popularity that bands like pixies, pavement, and neutral milk hotel enjoyed. I think they will be remembered as the 00's version of those bands. Not the mainstream success of the big bands you mentioned but they will be remembered as makinga prominent stamp on music and influencing many other bands just as the others listed did.
    Charlotte 00
    Charlotte 03
    Asheville 04
    Atlanta 12
    Greenville 16, Columbia 16
    Seattle 18 
    Nashville 22
  • Options
    Songburst wrote:
    I mean that bands like Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, Led Zep, etc will always have a contingent of kids and middle-agers who think that their music is among the best ever created. Arcade Fire is music for the moment. It is good music but it will never span generations like great music does. A big reason why they are so popular is because of the credibility that is associated with liking the "indie" sound. Arcade Fire will eventually fade away into obscurity and one day you will wake up and be 30 and start reaching for the timeless albums that span generations and leave the music of the moment on the shelf.

    There's nothing I hate more than the "indie" scene right now, and nothing I care about less than its apparent "credibility". But I still love Arcade Fire - only because I've not heard music so objectively brilliant in almost 20 years.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • Options
    Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    What made me feel guilty was that she had one of those cute girl names.... hang on, I'll see if I can find it...

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=268304

    It's only music... I must remember that.... and breathe...
    You weren't out of line so I wouldn't worry about it :D
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Options
    Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    intodeep wrote:
    I disagree. Sort of...

    Arcade Fire have the type of popularity that bands like pixies, pavement, and neutral milk hotel enjoyed. I think they will be remembered as the 00's version of those bands. Not the mainstream success of the big bands you mentioned but they will be remembered as makinga prominent stamp on music and influencing many other bands just as the others listed did.
    Neutral Milk Hotel enjoyed the same popularity as Arcade Fire?! The Arcade Fire are one of the biggest bands around today. No one cared about NMH when they were around. They built a small cult following that grew in the years after they stopped making music. This is why some people make such generalisations like "people only like Arcade Fire because it gives them indie credibility". They don't actually know enough about what they are talking about. Indie is NOT a music genre.

    Arcade Fire are great, as are the bands you mentioned but why do they have to be lumped together all the time?
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Options
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    You weren't out of line so I wouldn't worry about it :D

    Not out of line... just opinionated...

    The other music forum is obviously the next AMT :D
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • Options
    intodeepintodeep Posts: 7,228
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Neutral Milk Hotel enjoyed the same popularity as Arcade Fire?! The Arcade Fire are one of the biggest bands around today. No one cared about NMH when they were around. They built a small cult following that grew in the years after they stopped making music. This is why some people make such generalisations like "people only like Arcade Fire because it gives them indie credibility". They don't actually know enough about what they are talking about. Indie is NOT a music genre.

    Arcade Fire are great, as are the bands you mentioned but why do they have to be lumped together all the time?

    no you are correct and i thought about that when i was writing the post. I wanted to include NMH because years later they are looked at as an influencing band and that is what arcade fire will be looked at as i think.

    I don't know if i agree that arcade fire is one of the bigest bands around today. I mean my freinds who are just casual music listeners have no clue who they are but if i aske them about Chris Daurtry or Nickleback or some other pop crap rock bands they know who they are.

    That is why i think Arcade fire are more akin to the other bands like pixies in the 80's and pavement in the 90's and will have a similar influence on music as those bands did.

    I never claimed indie to be a genre and please don't think i like the arcade fire to help my indie cred. I like them because they make great music and their live shows are very good. I also like them a lot because i feel their music is "real" tehy love making music and it shows in their work.
    Charlotte 00
    Charlotte 03
    Asheville 04
    Atlanta 12
    Greenville 16, Columbia 16
    Seattle 18 
    Nashville 22
  • Options
    Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    intodeep wrote:
    no you are correct and i thought about that when i was writing the post. I wanted to include NMH because years later they are looked at as an influencing band and that is what arcade fire will be looked at as i think.

    I don't know if i agree that arcade fire is one of the bigest bands around today. I mean my freinds who are just casual music listeners have no clue who they are but if i aske them about Chris Daurtry or Nickleback or some other pop crap rock bands they know who they are.

    That is why i think Arcade fire are more akin to the other bands like pixies in the 80's and pavement in the 90's and will have a similar influence on music as those bands did.

    I never claimed indie to be a genre and please don't think i like the arcade fire to help my indie cred. I like them because they make great music and their live shows are very good. I also like them a lot because i feel their music is "real" tehy love making music and it shows in their work.
    Fair enough :) I'm just in an argumentative mood today. I was under the impression that Arcade Fire are huge. Maybe it's just in Canada and the UK. They drew a massive crowd at Reading in 2007.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Options
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Fair enough :) I'm just in an argumentative mood today. I was under the impression that Arcade Fire are huge. Maybe it's just in Canada and the UK. They drew a massive crowd at Reading in 2007.

    Well I've heard that they're one of the biggest bands in the world right now and draw crowds wherever they go....

    That said, I don't seem to know anything about chart success or world popularity since Top of the Pops finished....
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • Options
    intodeepintodeep Posts: 7,228
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Fair enough :) I'm just in an argumentative mood today. I was under the impression that Arcade Fire are huge. Maybe it's just in Canada and the UK. They drew a massive crowd at Reading in 2007.

    I saw them in Jan of 2005 in a club that held about 800 people. It sold out quick.

    I saw them this past year in May of 07 in a place that held 4500 and it did sell out but it took a long time.

    Right now it seems they are on or just a slight notch below the level that a band like Wilco is. At least around here. it seems they play the same types of places. Usually mid size theatre shows.

    Edited because of my mistake on the amount of people at the second show i saw
    Charlotte 00
    Charlotte 03
    Asheville 04
    Atlanta 12
    Greenville 16, Columbia 16
    Seattle 18 
    Nashville 22
  • Options
    Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    intodeep wrote:
    I saw them in Jan of 2005 in a club that held about 800 people. It sold out quick.

    I saw them this past year in May of 07 in a place that held 2500 and it did sell out but it took a long time.

    Right now it seems they are on or just a slight notch below the level that a band like Wilco is. At least around here. it seems they play the same types of places. Usually mid size theatre shows.
    wow ok. They filled a field with about 20,000 people at Reading :D I guess they ARE more popular outside the US. I'm assuming you are from the US? (don't ask me why :p)
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Options
    dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    wow ok. They filled a field with about 20,000 people at Reading :D I guess they ARE more popular outside the US.


    well Reading is a festival so those 20,000 werent there just to see them if you know what i mean

    anyway... i saw them in November at SECC and there were 14000 just to see them... and there was still Newcastle, London and Manchester after that.

    i thought they were awe-inspiring live... if i had the opportunity to see them in a 2500 club... well i'm nursing a semi at the mere thought


    anyway, big crowds mean fuck all... i watched about 14mins of Queen live in Rio the other day and there were 250,000 people there to watch Freddy prance around in a leotard... size isnt an indicator of how great a band are or how shit...

    i love arcade fire but if people dont i couldnt give a fuck... i dont like Tool, mainly cos its a shit name
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • Options
    dunkman wrote:
    i dont like Tool, mainly cos its a shit name

    I really think they should've named themselves 'appliance' or 'instrument' instead. Or just dildo.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • Options
    boroff89boroff89 Posts: 786
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    wow ok. They filled a field with about 20,000 people at Reading :D I guess they ARE more popular outside the US. I'm assuming you are from the US? (don't ask me why :p)

    They sold out two shows at the Greek Theatre in Berkeley, which holds about 8000 people, in a few hours. They just about sold out the Shoreline Ampitheatre in Mountain View, even the shitty grass seats, and I believe it holds around 22,000. They are reasonably popular here, at least in certain parts of the country. That being said, Neon Bible is up for the Short List prize, which means it hasn't sold 500,000 copies.
    It makes much more sense to live in the present tense.
  • Options
    Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    dunkman wrote:
    well Reading is a festival so those 20,000 werent there just to see them if you know what i mean

    anyway... i saw them in November at SECC and there were 14000 just to see them... and there was still Newcastle, London and Manchester after that.

    i thought they were awe-inspiring live... if i had the opportunity to see them in a 2500 club... well i'm nursing a semi at the mere thought


    anyway, big crowds mean fuck all... i watched about 14mins of Queen live in Rio the other day and there were 250,000 people there to watch Freddy prance around in a leotard... size isnt an indicator of how great a band are or how shit...

    i love arcade fire but if people dont i couldnt give a fuck... i dont like Tool, mainly cos its a shit name
    I agree on all counts, particularly the Queen bit (who oh why do people like this band?!) but you kinda got the impression at Reading that those 20,000 WERE there to see Arcade Fire. They could have been watching other bands but they weren't.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Options
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    I agree on all counts, particularly the Queen bit (who oh why do people like this band?!) but you kinda got the impression at Reading that those 20,000 WERE there to see Arcade Fire. They could have been watching other bands but they weren't.

    True.. there are other stages to go to.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
Sign In or Register to comment.