At least the grammy voters aren't a bunch of wiggers who think music is talking aggressively in rhymes (I won't even call it 'poetry') with a synthesized beat thumping in the background.
At least the grammy voters aren't a bunch of wiggers who think music is talking aggressively in rhymes (I won't even call it 'poetry') with a synthesized beat thumping in the background.
A bit surprising Arcade Fire won, since they didn't win any of the other categories they were nominated. They lost to the Black Keys in the two other categories, and the Black Keys were not nominated for album of the year.
Both albums are rock-solid, but it is kind of surprising Arcade Fire won.
The fact that Arcade Fire didn't win years ago for the song "Tunnels" alone is unfair.
Camel Cigs FTW wrote:
There is nothing Hipster about Arcade Fire. They are straight up Rock and Roll music.
It isn't like they are Wavves or something ghey like that, their sound is totally Rock and Roll. They aren't even snobby or pretentious. Super nice people who give ridiculous amounts of money to charity with each album/tour.
It like saying that Zack Galifinakis sucks b/c he is not Brad Pitt.
everything you said is exactly wrong, except the part about galifinakis. THey are not rock and roll. They belong to the Cure/Depeche Mode school of mope rock, with just a little smashing pumpkins guitar to appeal to men.
So no, there is virtually nothing straightup rnr about them. Who compared them to bruce? so wrong. They are 95% hipster and 5% rock. And they are snobby and pretentious with that ambient moody stuff on their new album. they are challenging you to like tuneless music. THat is the definition of snobby/pretentious.
I do like 'rebellion' tho.
q: does anyone like radiohead and NOT like arcade fire? liking difficult music goes together.
I don't know, I'm 57 and I've had The Suburbs for 3 months, getting the Decembrists tomorrow and have Amos Lee on order when it is released. In Madison, don't know if that makes a difference or not. Whatever.
agip wrote:
And they are snobby and pretentious with that ambient moody stuff on their new album. they are challenging you to like tuneless music. THat is the definition of snobby/pretentious.
I'd love for you to expand on that gem of logic.
well...listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwcdN1Iivac
(half life 1)
then 1 minute later try to remember the tune. I couldn't do it.
When musicians record music that has no tune, they are selling themselves, not their music. Selling their attitude, clothes, etc. Saying how cool they are. That is pretentious, no?
Now, I actually like arcade fire - most of their music is pretty good. But calling them unpretentious is wrong - they are trying to move beyond the need for tune sometimes.
Huh? It sounds like you're expecting your music to be the typical over-produced pop stuff. What exactly do you mean by tune? It's not really a musical term.
they sound like most other indie bands, which is uninterested in their own music. what reason do i have to be interested if they don't even seem interested? Make a song that sounds like you have something to say and you want me to listen.
Also they have like 30 people in their band, but they're all playing rhythm guitar/violin/piano.
Why does everyone hate on Arcade Fire? They had the best album in their genre by far. Just because you aren't into the type of music doesn't mean you can judge it negatively.
wilfredo wrote:
they sound like most other indie bands, which is uninterested in their own music.
1. Actually, they always seem really excited about their music.
2. The defining quality of indie music to me is taking yourself really seriously. I can't think of any bands who sound uninterested in their own music.
Of the Arcade Fire's 3 albums, this one is by far their worst. Still pretty good, but that's usually how it happens with bands out of the mainstream - people start to catch on much, much later as compared to where the music is.
Or maybe i just hate when the mainstream starts to listen to the bands that used to be like my own little secret...
sdjfhksdljfh wrote:
Don't worry - you'll figure it out someday. Some of their stuff reminds me a lot of the Pixies but they definitely have a sound of their own.
Probably the same day that the Pixies don't sound like overrated crap.
Ho Hum wrote:
wilfredo wrote:they sound like most other indie bands, which is uninterested in their own music.
1. Actually, they always seem really excited about their music.
2. The defining quality of indie music to me is taking yourself really seriously. I can't think of any bands who sound uninterested in their own music.
perhaps we hear something different, but nothing about them to me is attention grabbing except the idiot with 1 drum dancing around and the piano lady hitting her elbows on the keys
P.Whelan wrote:
Was "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" not eligible for best album for some reason? Released too late perhaps?
It was in fact released too late. It will be nominated for Album of the Year next year (hopefully along with Radiohead's King of Limbs).
To the idiot who that said Arcade Fire sounds like all other indie bands: there isn't a set sound to indie bands. If you listened to music, you'd know that there are many sounds and genres among indie bands. Indie bands tend to provide more diverse sounds than major label bands because people who listen exclusively to major label bands are narrow minded and don't want to be challenged by music. Saying all indie bands sound the same is even worse than saying all rock sounds the same or all rap sounds the same or all country sounds the same or all jazz sounds the same...
And The Suburbs sounds like MGMT??? Not even sure where this comparison comes from.