|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 16, 2020 23:07:37 GMT -5
It’s really not fair to compare modern day bands with ones from 40-55 years ago. Different era. Different record company mentality. What other current bands are doing what you wanted Arcade Fire to do? I mean really who is or had put out that much quality in a short amount of time??? AF basically dropped 3 albums in 5.3 years. Two of them masterpieces. Jump for joy for Oasis releasing 4 albums in 6 years. Two of those were trashed by the press and fans. I wouldn’t hang your hat on that. You know some people even trash first two Oasis albums... I agree with oasisserbia, Arcade Fire prime is behind them. That doesn't mean everything they will release is gonna be mediocre (they are incredible musicians after all) but the intensity of "Funeral" and "Neon Bible" will be hard to top. Well his main point was that AF wasted their “prime” which I do not agree with and I outlined all they accomplished within their prime. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Apr 17, 2020 3:49:47 GMT -5
Anyway, let's hope that next one will be great fucking record, we really need that these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 17, 2020 5:19:09 GMT -5
I really like it, I think it was massively underrated. Not a classic by their own high standards and it is their weakest but it’s partly misunderstood, partly underrated and overly criticised. It just didn’t meet high expectations that’s all - great songs but nothing iconic or grand like previous albums, but it’s still one of my favourite albums from 2017. It’s a really good album, just not a timeless classic. Spot on. |
|
|
|
Post by yeayeayeah on Apr 17, 2020 5:28:57 GMT -5
And one more band that, in my opinion, wasted their potential. Five albums since 2004, it's pathetic. And I'm sure if they made some quick albums when they were in their prime, it would be better than Everything Now and most of their future albums. It's such shame that almost all these ,,new bands" wasted their prime years. I miss those days when Stones and Beatles had one or even two records every year. I mean, I don't miss them, I wasn't born then :-) But you know, I think that's the way how it should be. Yeah, some songs were shit, even some albums were, but when you look back, I am glad that we have all that material and McCartney's worst song from his prime years is better than his best songs now. Same thing with Arcade Fire. Definitely agree. I was listening to In Rainbows tonight thinking holy shit this came out 12 years ago and that Radiohead have only produced 2 albums since then. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 17, 2020 7:16:37 GMT -5
And one more band that, in my opinion, wasted their potential. Five albums since 2004, it's pathetic. And I'm sure if they made some quick albums when they were in their prime, it would be better than Everything Now and most of their future albums. It's such shame that almost all these ,,new bands" wasted their prime years. I miss those days when Stones and Beatles had one or even two records every year. I mean, I don't miss them, I wasn't born then :-) But you know, I think that's the way how it should be. Yeah, some songs were shit, even some albums were, but when you look back, I am glad that we have all that material and McCartney's worst song from his prime years is better than his best songs now. Same thing with Arcade Fire. Definitely agree. I was listening to In Rainbows tonight thinking holy shit this came out 12 years ago and that Radiohead have only produced 2 albums since then. But that wasn’t Radiohead’s prime. Their prime was 1995-2001 (The Bends, Ok Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac). That was when they were younger and most fruitful. All bands slow down when they get older and have families. Radiohead are now in their 50s. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Apr 17, 2020 10:32:12 GMT -5
Well yeah, that was my point, band in their prime and 20s were recording albums every few years, like they are some old band.
And soon you are almost 40 and singing Infinite Content. They had much more potential than recording two great albums. But it's their life and career, so let's move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 17, 2020 10:45:33 GMT -5
So good.
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Apr 17, 2020 11:02:59 GMT -5
I really like it, I think it was massively underrated. Not a classic by their own high standards and it is their weakest but it’s partly misunderstood, partly underrated and overly criticised. It just didn’t meet high expectations that’s all - great songs but nothing iconic or grand like previous albums, but it’s still one of my favourite albums from 2017. It’s a really good album, just not a timeless classic. I put it in the same bracket as U2’s Pop. If Funeral/Suburbs/Reflektor are Raiders of the Lost Ark, Everything Now is Temple of Doom (Neon Bible is Last Crusade). It certainly ain’t Kingdom Of Crystal Skull like many seem to think. I'll have to watch Crystal Skull again to be sure, but I think I might like it more than Temple of Doom. Always dug its fifties setting; there are memorable turns from John Hurt, Ray Winstone, and Cate Blanchett; and it's great to have the lovely Karen Allen back as Marion Ravenwood. Think I read somewhere that Spielberg wanted her for Doom, but Lucas overruled him, saying Indy should have a different girl in each movie. However the decision was arrived at, I think we can all agree that mistakes were made in the creation of Willie Scott and Short Round. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 17, 2020 12:31:30 GMT -5
Well yeah, that was my point, band in their prime and 20s were recording albums every few years, like they are some old band. And soon you are almost 40 and singing Infinite Content. They had much more potential than recording two great albums. But it's their life and career, so let's move on. Yet your point about AF wasting their prime didn’t make sense. They were a band in their 20s who released 3 albums in 5.3 years. Two of them being modern indie masterpieces and winning album of the year at the Grammys. I see nothing wasted there. What other contemporary bands was doing more in that span? Please save your references from 40-55 years ago. To follow up that initial run, they collaborated with Bowie in 2013, had another #1 album and were nominated for an Oscar for the film Her. What else did you want them to do for an encore? |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Apr 17, 2020 12:46:30 GMT -5
2004 - Funeral
2005 - album number two
2007 - Neon Bible
2008 - album number four
2010 - The Suburbs
2012 - album number six
2013 - Reflektor
2015 - album number eight
2017 - Everything Now
2018 - album number 10
2021 - album number 11
That's my opinion how young band should work, ofc, they don't give a shit about my opinion and ofc that's the right thing that they don't but that's just my opinion.
In that situation, even when they record shit album like Everything Now, nobody gives a shit that much, you just record another one, you had also another album one or two years before.
But when you wait four years and then get Everything Now...
But it's their choices but I see that people are making fun of them now and they were one of the most respected bands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 17, 2020 13:36:02 GMT -5
2004 - Funeral 2005 - album number two 2007 - Neon Bible 2008 - album number four 2010 - The Suburbs 2012 - album number six 2013 - Reflektor 2015 - album number eight 2017 - Everything Now 2018 - album number 10 2021 - album number 11 That's my opinion how young band should work, ofc, they don't give a shit about my opinion and ofc that's the right thing that they don't but that's just my opinion. In that situation, even when they record shit album like Everything Now, nobody gives a shit that much, you just record another one, you had also another album one or two years before. But when you wait four years and then get Everything Now... But it's their choices but I see that people are making fun of them now and they were one of the most respected bands. Again so what modern band meets your expectations of not wasting their prime? Feels like you are in deep troll mode. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Apr 17, 2020 13:46:10 GMT -5
Well, that's the problem with modern bands, I've said it like ten times. That's why they will never be like old bands.
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Apr 17, 2020 13:47:28 GMT -5
And don't call someone troll just because that he has different opinion than yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 17, 2020 14:07:50 GMT -5
I really like it, I think it was massively underrated. Not a classic by their own high standards and it is their weakest but it’s partly misunderstood, partly underrated and overly criticised. It just didn’t meet high expectations that’s all - great songs but nothing iconic or grand like previous albums, but it’s still one of my favourite albums from 2017. It’s a really good album, just not a timeless classic. I put it in the same bracket as U2’s Pop. If Funeral/Suburbs/Reflektor are Raiders of the Lost Ark, Everything Now is Temple of Doom (Neon Bible is Last Crusade). It certainly ain’t Kingdom Of Crystal Skull like many seem to think. I'll have to watch Crystal Skull again to be sure, but I think I might like it more than Temple of Doom. Always dug its fifties setting; there are memorable turns from John Hurt, Ray Winstone, and Cate Blanchett; and it's great to have the lovely Karen Allen back as Marion Ravenwood. Think I read somewhere that Spielberg wanted her for Doom, but Lucas overruled him, saying Indy should have a different girl in each movie. However the decision was arrived at, I think we can all agree that mistakes were made in the creation of Willie Scott and Short Round. Apologies to everyone as an Arcade Fire thread is briefly about to turn into a *checks notes* Indiana Jones thread! I agree Temple of Doom is flawed mainly for the reasons you suggest - Marion is a strong independent woman who could probably go on an adventure by herself and not need Indy which is one of the appeals of Raiders, while Willie Scott is just a 2D damsel in distress who does nothing but scream and act the diva. Really poor characterisation which should be the real regret of Spielberg and Lucas rather than the dark tone they wish they didn’t go for. But I generally like the straightforward story and the set pieces are memorable, while the darker tone isn’t a problem for me at all. It’s got no depth to it, but it’s simplicity and straightforward manner is a rollercoaster ride and isn’t tied up in pointless knots like Crystal Skull. Crystal Skull - I thought the cast was great but I can’t remember anything of the characters. I even forget that Jim Broadbent was in it as the character to replace Marcus Brody. Shia La Bouef was just awful and incredibly annoying. I feel the film overreaches itself and I dislike the set pieces because the CGI ruins it and I can’t remember any of the script. I don’t get any sense of emotion from it either. There’s no heart or great sense of meaning from it like Last Crusade gave, it’s completely meaningless. I agreed with Mark Kermode when he said this film didn’t need to be made. If I never saw a film with CGI in it again I’d be happy because we are so overexposed to it now, and it’s over used by every blockbuster director. Spielberg can’t do blockbusters anymore, he’s now just like every other half arsed director in the business I feel (I still like his more serious stuff though). If it has to happens, Indy 5 (a film I doubt will be made) has to have an emotional heart to it, a sense of solemnity and meaning with its ageing character, in a way that the Holy Grail quest in Last Crusade was a figurative backdrop to the resolution of the distant and antagonistic relationship between father/son. Likewise, age should underpin Indy 5 and should include an archeological quest that acts as a figurative backdrop to the passing of time with a foreboding sense of mortality. Sounds morbid I know but it can be done gracefully and tastefully with the heart that you get from Raiders and Last Crusade. His age shouldn’t just be a smart one line gimmick or running joke, it should underpin the entire serious premise of the film. Only then can it be successful. Wondering what your thoughts on the next one should be? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 17, 2020 14:17:46 GMT -5
Well, that's the problem with modern bands, I've said it like ten times. That's why they will never be like old bands. The modern world is the problem - even the biggest acts only make a pittance from album sales now, unlike The Beatles who still made millions from album sales alone despite retiring from touring. All the money is in tours, tours and more tours with not enough time to make an album. I wish it wasn’t the case. Whether this dulls a band’s creative instincts, I’m not sure but are young bands going to be motivated to create the greatest album of all time knowing that their chances of success and money are very slim? It’s a shame - it’s just never going to be a priority. Albums aren’t big events anymore and music is fast becoming a mass produced commodity of little merit, merely acting as a background soundtrack to most people’s increasingly fast and busy lives but never a serious part of it in the way that it is for us forum dwellers. A massive massive shame. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Apr 17, 2020 14:28:04 GMT -5
Yes, like young Beatles didn't have big tours and plus they were recording two albums every year.
And poor Arcade Fire, they would probably die of hunger if they were touring less and recording more.
If you call yourself an artist, that can't be excuse.
But I agree, you explain it very well, I am just saying that is no excuse for Arcade Fire. Yes, I can understand but can't support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 17, 2020 15:28:36 GMT -5
Well, that's the problem with modern bands, I've said it like ten times. That's why they will never be like old bands. Well I am trying to have a civil discussion and counter your claims but you don't seem to answer any of them. Just more accusations against modern day bands wasting their primes which isn't even true. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 17, 2020 15:33:32 GMT -5
Yes, like young Beatles didn't have big tours and plus they were recording two albums every year. And poor Arcade Fire, they would probably die of hunger if they were touring less and recording more. If you call yourself an artist, that can't be excuse. But I agree, you explain it very well, I am just saying that is no excuse for Arcade Fire. Yes, I can understand but can't support. It’s about quality not quantity though. Arcade Fire probably don’t have the creative ability to reel off an album in a matter of months - that’s not a slight on their ability, it’s just that many artists have different ways of working. And nobody doubts the quality of Arcade Fire. If they’d released an album between Neon Bible and The Suburbs, then it probably would have meant quality spread thin over two albums rather than one outstanding piece of art. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Apr 17, 2020 17:01:09 GMT -5
They don't have work ethic, not creative ability. Beatles were in studio every day at 10am, it was like they had regular job. Damon also does that.
Yes, it's their lives and their careers but if we can buy their albums, go to their shows, share their music, write good things about them, recommend them to our friends...we also have the right to write if something we don't like about them.
And I'm sure that they will regret it one day.
60+ years old Neil young, their hero - 15 albums since 2005, Arcade Fire - five albums.
And look at first 16 years of Neil's career. He recorded like 15+ albums, 4 or 5 of them were 9 or 10 out of 10 albums, some of them were shit but you can find always at least one good songs. In my opinion, that's the way it should be.
But everyone choose their own path. Neil will be in history books, Arcade Fire will be more like Oasis, two good albums and rest that will be forgoten soon. Although their best albums are not as biblical as DM and WTSMG.
But they still had chance so let's see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 17, 2020 17:54:13 GMT -5
They don't have work ethic, not creative ability. Beatles were in studio every day at 10am, it was like they had regular job. Damon also does that. Yes, it's their lives and their careers but if we can buy their albums, go to their shows, share their music, write good things about them, recommend them to our friends...we also have the right to write if something we don't like about them. And I'm sure that they will regret it one day. 60+ years old Neil young, their hero - 15 albums since 2005, Arcade Fire - five albums. And look at first 16 years of Neil's career. He recorded like 15+ albums, 4 or 5 of them were 9 or 10 out of 10 albums, some of them were shit but you can find always at least one good songs. In my opinion, that's the way it should be. But everyone choose their own path. Neil will be in history books, Arcade Fire will be more like Oasis, two good albums and rest that will be forgoten soon. Although their best albums are not as biblical as DM and WTSMG. But they still had chance so let's see. Again you keep naming artists and bands from 40+ years ago. Give us a modern example of a band that was doing more than Arcade Fire between 2004 and 2010? I feel like you are taking completely unfair shots. The music industry hasn't been like the way you are describing in decades. |
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Apr 17, 2020 18:25:36 GMT -5
Well, that's their problem. Nobody stops them to write and record songs every day. They could find the way if they really want it to. They don't, ok, it's not problem.
And please, I am really not trying to have a debate here, that's my opinion, it maybe right or wrong, it doesn't matter. I respect yours.
There are no other modern bands or there are few but that is the reason why the music is not as good as it was. Ok? That's my opinion - they are not working hard enough and don't have work ethic like old bands.
You keep following me and request answers, I don't have answers, I have an opinion and my opinion is that they could do much more.
You think that they did the best they could. And that's it, that's your opinion, I have mine and I won't convince you, you won't convince me and that's fine. No need for further discussion, I said what I had to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeayeayeah on Apr 18, 2020 3:27:44 GMT -5
Definitely agree. I was listening to In Rainbows tonight thinking holy shit this came out 12 years ago and that Radiohead have only produced 2 albums since then. But that wasn’t Radiohead’s prime. Their prime was 1995-2001 (The Bends, Ok Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac). That was when they were younger and most fruitful. All bands slow down when they get older and have families. Radiohead are now in their 50s. I've always prefered 00's Radiohead. Possibly because that's when I was a teenager/early 20's. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Apr 18, 2020 4:09:12 GMT -5
I like this one a lot, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 18, 2020 9:35:59 GMT -5
I remember reading an interview with Win shortly after Everything Now dropped. They had done private shows to select fans months prior to judge reactions to their new material. He claims "Chemistry" got the strongest reaction and the band was really happy by this and even considered making it the main single for the album and their crowning achievement during this album campaign. Those fans got it wrong because its one of the weakest tunes on the album. I gotta assume the band did not showcase "Put Your Money On Me" or "We Don't Deserve Love". Focus groups can be wrong it seems! Kinda reminds me when Noel use to say during HC promotional work that the band almost used "Force of Nature" as the lead single. Jesus Christ man!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 18, 2020 9:39:35 GMT -5
But that wasn’t Radiohead’s prime. Their prime was 1995-2001 (The Bends, Ok Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac). That was when they were younger and most fruitful. All bands slow down when they get older and have families. Radiohead are now in their 50s. I've always prefered 00's Radiohead. Possibly because that's when I was a teenager/early 20's. Well this was in response to him saying bands in their prime releasing a lot of albums in a short manner of time. For Radiohead that would fall between 1995-2001. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5