Arcade Fire are horrible

Options
1235»

Comments

  • intodeep
    intodeep Posts: 7,249
    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 | Ohana Festival 24 x2 | Atlanta 25 x2
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 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"
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    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
  • intodeep
    intodeep Posts: 7,249
    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 | Ohana Festival 24 x2 | Atlanta 25 x2
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 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"
  • dunkman
    dunkman 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.
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    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
  • boroff89
    boroff89 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.
  • Jeremy1012
    Jeremy1012 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"
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    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
  • intodeep
    intodeep Posts: 7,249
    I made a mistake.
    I looked up the venue i saw them at and it is actually bigger then i thought oops it holds 4500 and i'm pretty sure it sold out the day of the show.

    That is right on par with what Wilco does in this area of the US as well.
    Charlotte 00 | Charlotte 03 | Asheville 04 | Atlanta 12 | Greenville 16 | Columbia 16 |Seattle 18  | Nashville 22 | Ohana Festival 24 x2 | Atlanta 25 x2
  • harmless_little_f***
    harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    Did they sell out their British venues this year? Brixton Academy for example?
    '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
  • aspoonfulweighsaton
    aspoonfulweighsaton Posts: 2,067
    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.

    The problem I have with this statement is that all music is "music of the moment" at some point. Did everyone REALLY think that Pearl Jam would stand the test of time back in 1995 (four years after they hit the scene)?

    If you have that mentality, then we must be at a standstill with great music because you're basically saying that no one else will span generations with their music. Now while I'm not guaranteeing that Arcade Fire is the band to do that, I see them having as good of a chance as anyone and I would be curious as to who you think has a better chance as far as bands that have come out in the last five years or so.

    Unless of course you really believe that all the "timeless" albums have already been made.
  • Songburst
    Songburst Posts: 1,195
    aspoonfulweighsaton wrote:
    The problem I have with this statement is that all music is "music of the moment" at some point. Did everyone REALLY think that Pearl Jam would stand the test of time back in 1995 (four years after they hit the scene)?

    If you have that mentality, then we must be at a standstill with great music because you're basically saying that no one else will span generations with their music. Now while I'm not guaranteeing that Arcade Fire is the band to do that, I see them having as good of a chance as anyone and I would be curious as to who you think has a better chance as far as bands that have come out in the last five years or so.

    Unless of course you really believe that all the "timeless" albums have already been made.

    Not once did I say that all timeless albums have been made. I know for sure though, that Arcade Fire is not timeless. I have not heard a band that has came out in the last 5 years that is anywhere close to being timeless. I would not have said that PJ was a band whose music would stand the test of time until No Code came out (5 years). Even then, I was really young and it took me years to actually appreciate No Code. Maybe Arcade Fire will prove me wrong but I have yet to hear one song of theirs that I haven't forgotten 5 minutes later.
    1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    I think we need to wait for mroe albums to come out, but after 5 or so albums it'll be a good barometer.
    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
  • electronblue
    electronblue Posts: 3,502
    melodyman22 wrote:
    Thats right from there horrible singing, to there bad lyrics. No passion in there songs. So many people talk about how great they are. There horrible. Now i know people are gonna start bashing me for saying this, that is fine have at her. I repeat ARCADE FIRE are trash.





    LOL...~
    ********************************
    "Forgive every being,
    the bad feelings 
    it's just me"


  • Its Evolution Baby
    Its Evolution Baby Posts: 849
    melodyman22 wrote:
    Thats right from there horrible singing, to there bad lyrics. No passion in there songs. So many people talk about how great they are. There horrible. Now i know people are gonna start bashing me for saying this, that is fine have at her. I repeat ARCADE FIRE are trash.

    I love Arcade Fire but I had no problem with this post utihl they said there are no passion in there songs. This is a big clue that this person has no idea what they are talking about.

    The number one thing I like about them is the passion in there songs.

    Yes the Singing isn't for everyone, maybe you don't like the lyrics but to say they are passionless is asinine.

    (Arcade Fire with David Bowie: "Wake Up")

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=1-wEBmLht5g
    10/31/2000 (****)
    6/7/2003 (***1/2)
    7/9/2006 (****1/2)
    7/13/2006 (**** )
    4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
    6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
    10/1/2009 LA II (****)
    10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
  • reversedarwinism
    reversedarwinism Posts: 1,151
    I kept seeing Arcade Fire listed on the "top albums of 07" thread so I decided to check them out. Didn't sound very good to me,,,, at all. But who knows may be I will get turned on to them later. I'm going to check out the link on th eprevious post.
    bombs, dropping down, please forgive our hometown
  • TheGossman
    TheGossman Posts: 1,120
    amazing band that sells out venues in Europe and America, thats more than any mainstream rock band in america can do right now so we should be greatful, Arcade fire are amazing by the way!
    9/4/98, 8/4/00, 12/8/02, 12/9/02, 4/15/03, 4/16/03, 4/19/03, 4/25/03, 4/26/03, 4/28/03, 4/29/03, 4/30/03, 7/8/03, 7/9/03, 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/6/04, 9/1/05, 9/2/05, 5/16/06, 5/17/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 8/5/07, 6/11/08, 6/12/08, 6/14/08, 6/16/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08
  • muppet
    muppet Posts: 980
    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 think you've just described people's attitude to Pearl Jam in the early 90s.

    And if somebody doesen't like Arcade Fire, posting a Youtube video is not going to suddenly cause a revelation and make them like the band.

    I think Arcade Fire are great.

Categories