5.) Arcade Fire- The Suburbs
Expectations are a funny thing. They have the uncanny ability to drastically alter how we perceive new artistic material. Even more than that, the sad reality is that (whether we choose to admit it or not) critical reception plays an important role in determining a specific work's place in our society's artistic hierarchy. It's for this very reason that we have our own personal "guilty pleasures", work that, if highly-regarded in your social circle, would assuredly be an outspoken favorite, thus ceasing to be guilty at all. But instead, we entrust our "personal" judgment to alternative outlets such as television, public opinion, magazines, or the consensus of your most respectable, avant-garde friends.
That being said, it seems artistic response is constantly changing over time, leaving us, the consumer, unsure about how we should regard the artist's latest work. Take, for example, works such as Kid A, Pinkerton and Strangeways, Here We Come (just to name a few)-- all of which were greatly under-appreciated albums upon initial release (and often even to this day), though I'm more interested in what else they have in common-- all three were unfamiliar follow-ups to successful pop juggernauts. In reality, these successors were just as strong as the albums that prefaced them, only different and less accessible. In addition, there are just as many accounts of poorly-received albums with marginal follow-ups being publicly lauded. So, who's responsible for this? Ourselves, really. Whether we're raising or lowering the bar, expectations always get in the way of the truth. But, this is supposed to be about The Suburbs, right?
I must admit, I wasn't too surprised to see Arcade Fire's latest release receive widespread acclaim, both commercial and critical-- it's a cogent musical statement that harbors many effective movements and occasional flashes of brilliance. It passes through so many styles and moods, it's almost impossible for someone to not connect with at least one track on here. Whether it's the swingy, Neil Young-inspired folk number "Wasted Hours", the anthemic romp "City With No Children", or the 80's new-wave feel of "We Used To Wait", you can't blame Arcade Fire for not being ambitious enough. They set out to make a new sound for themselves, mostly steering clear from the Bowie, Talking Heads, and Springsteen comparisons from their past two albums.
But The Suburbs has it's share of blemishes, notably the faster, more rock-driven tracks like "Month of May" and "Ready To Start", which seem to only drag the album down with overproduction and monotony. It's ironic that those songs happen to be two of Arcade Fire's live-staples (both have been performed on their recent late-night guest appearances)-- with their conventional distortion, uniform drum beats and unimaginative melodies, both tracks sound like bad 80's throwbacks to bands like Joy Division and early Human League.
I believe that, in time, critics will realize that The Suburbs isn't a masterpiece or even a "great album" by any standards. I think the true reason for it's positive reception lies somewhere in the embarrassment Rolling Stone must feel for naming Weezer's Pinkerton a runner-up for "Worst Album of the Year" or the legendary Robert Christgau giving OK Computer the honor of "Dud of the Month". Nobody wants to be proven wrong by the test of time, and the fact is that you'll get a lot less hate-mail for giving an album too much credit than not enough-- trust me, it will spare you from having to listen to the backlash of any given artist's devoted followers.
Depending on where they go from here, The Suburbs will likely be known as either Arcade Fire's brief misstep or the point in which the band began their steady decline. Regardless of what any of the critics say now, it simply will not become a classic and would be lucky to even grace a respectable "End of the Decade" list ten years from now. Do you know how I know this? It's simple-- Answer this question (and be honest with yourself):
If every media outlet gave The Suburbs a lukewarm review like the one I gave last month (or worse) and the band was considered to be socially "uncool", would you give two shits about this album?
Perhaps in the pejorative sense, but that's even a stretch. The truth is, we want to like the album because we like Arcade Fire. We might even go so far as to convince ourselves it's great by listening to it over and over until it becomes so familiar, we can't help but enjoy it. Any form of music can grow on you if you're exposed to it enough-- that's why they overplay every song on the radio until it becomes a part of your daily routine; when that day comes, you're going to look forward to hearing it.
Like I stated before, the album is clearly an ambitious one. The problem is, ambition doesn't keep you coming back for repeated listens. It also doesn't help that the album is sixteen tracks long and takes over an hour to endure. Personally, I don't see myself voluntarily sitting down to listen to The Suburbs in it's entirety again. I think I'll just stick with the eight-or-nine songs I care for and patiently wait another three years for the next one.
--Jon Manning
