Ryan and Matt consider The Arcade Fire and their latest album, Reflektor.
→ Download TFT Episode 81 (MP3)
Subscribe to the TFT Podcast
TFT Podcast on iTunes
TFT Podcast RSS Feed
Contact Us
Email us
(203) 285-6401 call/text
TFT Podcast on Facebook
@tftpodcast
Syllabus
- Reflektor Arcade Fire Site
- Reflektor music video on YouTube
- Review: Reflektor on Pitchfork Media
- Review: Reflektor in The Washington Post
- Save the Album: Tim Harrington (Les Savy Fav)
- Best and Worst Double Albums on The Unified Scene
- Sweat and Suit by Nelly on Wikipedia
- Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness on Wikipedia
- Structure Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences by Jacques Derrida
- Course in General Linguistics on Wikipedia
- Simulacra and Simulation on Wikipedia
To the best of my memory, the #1 album of 2004 was Outkast’s “Speakerboxxx/The Love Below” – a hip-hop album with MASSIVE pop crossover appeal and including “Hey Ya!”, one of the biggest hit songs of the entire 2000s. But it shares the “double album” status with these last Arcade Fire albums. I also recall a Salon poll around that time asking people about “the only band that matters” (and what a quaint notion that is!) in which Outkast was #1 and Arcade Fire #2.
but interestingly (or I suppose relevantly) that Outkast album is more like “two solo albums” that were very different from one another. so it’s a good point of comparison in that way as well.
WELL ACTUALLYING myself! I just checked with Billboard and the Outkast album was actually #2 at the year’s end! The #1 album was actually Usher’s “Confessions”. I suspect my lapse here has entirely to do with my intense dislike of Lil Jon in general and “Yeah!” in particular. So the album with better thematic paralells is shown up, as such things are wont to be, my the mainstream peak of the crunk fad.
Gentlemen, I am appalled at the lack of terminological specificity of your discourse — you speak repeatedly of a performer’s/group’s “authenticity”, but don’t answer the crucial question of “authentic to WHAT?” When we say an indie band is “authentic”, what precisely is meant? “Authentic” is a descriptor of adherence to some other quality, but what that quality actually is is always left unspoken or hazy. I’d love to hear the two of you deconstruct (in the informal sense) what you mean by the term.
Speaking of deconstruction, the more philosophical musings on meaning remind me very much of the philosophy of language/cognitive science debate between semantic holism, where meaning is purely in the internal relationships among concepts, versus externalism, where a concept meaning is purely determined by its connection to the external world. (And may I say how truly “authentic” an Overthinking It experience it is to reference Frege, Wittgenstein, Quine, and Putnam while debating the week’ best-selling pop album.)
Great episode guys! At first I was kinda annoyed about the changes in the podcast, but I’m starting to get in the groove. Also, music TFT is better than no TFT (although I still wish you would tackle Vampire Diaries, of maybe at least do a one of about Reign! It has teenagers, and Royals!).
I would also love to hear you take on the Arctic Monkeys’ new album, “AM”. It’s not only probably the best rock album of the year but it also provides some interesting points of discussion:
1. It has not been “advertised” as such, but it’s kinda of a concept album, about obsession (among other things).
2. The album is an interesting mix of male vulnerability (or maybe even insecurity) and a very old-school rock’n’roll machismo, especially in the promotional material.
3. I don’t know if you guys are familiar with the band, but I think they are at a interesting place right now. They used to be very much an stereotypical “indie band”, kinda hostile to the press (although they did it in a very British way, by either being very vague or by spreading nonsensical and fake news or information about the band), avoided tv appearances, etc. They even released a ridiculously defensive song called “Who the fuck are the Arctic Monkeys” at the peak of the press craze. But then after releasing two universally loved albums they decided to do a stoner rock album that alienated a huge part of their audience, (but still was successful with critics) and had a tour that was marked by very bad reviews, due to the fact that Alex (lead singer, lead guitarist and only lyrical composer of the band) was even less chatty than usual and had his new stoner rock hair in his face the whole time.
But just when everyone thought they were gone for good down the rabbit hole of unlikeability, they “staged” a very clever come back in two parts. First they released a very poppy album that mostly didn’t really excite anyone but me, apparently, but also didn’t, you know, offend anyone, and now they released this kinda bluesy rock album with clear hip-hop influences (although in my opinion, hip hop was a clear influence from the start. It’s just that in the beginning it was more in Alex’s delivery and lyrics, and now it’s more about their sound and production) that both the public and the critics love, and are cultivating a very different image full of sharp haircuts, couture suits, and Alex suddenly decided to be alive on stage.
Of course you could do a very simple reading of this information and simply say they “sold out” or something like that, but I think their case has some complicating factors. First, most of their fanbase, while happy with the new album, would still prefer them to come back to the style of the first two albums, and they seem pretty adamant about not engaging in this kind of fan service, something “selling out” is usually all about. Second, while their sound is going further and further away from their roots it has not necessarily become more commercial, it’s just a different kind of indie rock, and most people agree that their music is now more complex, not less, and loss of complexity is also usually one of the byproducts of the act of “selling out”.
So my theory is that after the general insatisfaction with their third album they decided (and when I say them, I mean mostly Alex, since he is the public face of the band and the one who seems most “changed”) on a sort of compromise. They continue not engaging in fan service when it came to their music, but would put on a less detached public face so that their decision to not do the kind of music they became famous for would go down a little easier. Or maybe they just aged, and matured a bit, after all they were ridiculously young when they released their first album.
Well, I have a lot more reasons, like the fact that Alex is one of the best lyricists of his generation, how moving from small town England to New York and then LA impacted their sound, and etc. But this comment is already gigantic, and I’m typing on a smartphone, so if you ever decide to do an episode about them and want some more information, just shoot me a an email. I clearly can not shut up when it comes to them. :)
Great episode guys! At first I was kinda annoyed about the changes in the podcast, but I’m starting to get in the groove. Also, music TFT is better than no TFT (although I still wish you would tackle Vampire Diaries, of maybe at least do a one of about Reign! It has teenagers, and Royals!).
I would also love to hear you take on the Arctic Monkeys’ new album, “AM”. It’s not only probably the best rock album of the year but it also provides some interesting points of discussion:
1. It has not been “advertised” as such, but it’s kinda of a concept album, about obsession (among other things).
2. The album is an interesting mix of male vulnerability (or maybe even insecurity) and a very old-school rock’n’roll machismo, especially in the promotional material.
3. I don’t know if you guys are familiar with the band, but I think they are at a interesting place right now. They used to be very much an stereotypical “indie band”, kinda hostile to the press (although they did it in a very British way, by either being very vague or by spreading nonsensical and fake news or information about the band), avoided tv appearances, etc. They even released a ridiculously defensive song called “Who the fuck are the Arctic Monkeys” at the peak of the press craze. But then after releasing two universally loved albums they decided to do a stoner rock album that alienated a huge part of their audience, (but still was successful with critics) and had a tour that was marked by very bad reviews, due to the fact that Alex (lead singer, lead guitarist and only lyrical composer of the band) was even less chatty than usual and had his new stoner rock hair in his face the whole time.
But just when everyone thought they were gone for good down the rabbit hole of unlikeability, they “staged” a very clever come back in two parts. First they released a very poppy album that mostly didn’t really excite anyone but me, apparently, but also didn’t, you know, offend anyone, and now they released this kinda bluesy rock album with clear hip-hop influences (although in my opinion, hip hop was a clear influence from the start. It’s just that in the beginning it was more in Alex’s delivery and lyrics, and now it’s more about their sound and production) that both the public and the critics love, and are cultivating a very different image full of sharp haircuts, couture suits, and Alex suddenly decided to be alive on stage.
Of course you could do a very simple reading of this information and simply say they “sold out” or something like that, but I think their case has some complicating factors. First, most of their fanbase, while happy with the new album, would still prefer them to come back to the style of the first two albums, and they seem pretty adamant about not engaging in this kind of fan service, something “selling out” is usually all about. Second, while their sound is going further and further away from their roots it has not necessarily become more commercial, it’s just a different kind of indie rock, and most people agree that their music is now more complex, not less, and loss of complexity is also usually one of the byproducts of the act of “selling out”.
So my theory is that after the general insatisfaction with their third album they decided (and when I say them, I mean mostly Alex, since he is the public face of the band and the one who seems most “changed”) on a sort of compromise. They continue not engaging in fan service when it came to their music, but would put on a less detached public face so that their decision to not do the kind of music they became famous for would go down a little easier. Or maybe they just aged, and matured a bit, after all they were ridiculously young when they released their first album.
Well, I have a lot more reasons, like the fact that Alex is one of the best lyricists of his generation, how moving from small town England to New York and then LA impacted their sound, and etc. But this comment is already gigantic, and I’m typing on a smartphone, so if you ever decide to do an episode about them and want some more information, just shoot me a an email. I clearly can not shut up when it comes to them. :)