Arcade Fire is Overrated in this website - Music

Santiago

Location: Vancouver

I do like the Arcade Fire, but I think being listed as the 8th best band ever is a bit too generous. Basically all the artists listed in the website up to the top 20 are better or more relevant than the Arcade Fire.

Of course this is a personal opinion and I do respect people who like the Arcade Fire, however, I would like to know how come it is so high in this particular website, as opposed to most other websites or magazines where it is not considered within the top 30.

Any ideas?

cestuneblague
Edgy to the Choir

Location: MA/FL

What's the big deal with sgt pepper?

theblueboy

Santiago wrote:

I do like the Arcade Fire, but I think being listed as the 8th best band ever is a bit too generous. Basically all the artists listed in the website up to the top 20 are better or more relevant than the Arcade Fire.

Of course this is a personal opinion and I do respect people who like the Arcade Fire, however, I would like to know how come it is so high in this particular website, as opposed to most other websites or magazines where it is not considered within the top 30.

Any ideas?

Agreed. They haven’t had the same influence as a number of significant artists from earlier eras.

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

I agree. They are greatly overrated, and Funeral is not a masterpiece (still a good album) - it looks like someone hacked it from being within 200-300s to #13.

In my opinion, there are Indie Rock and pop bands of the same era that would eat their food (Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys, The White Stripes, Queens of The Stone Age, The Shins etc), melodically, instrumentally, lyrically, emotionally, vocally. And even they probably don't deserve to be top 10 or 20.
_________________
My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1

My music:
- www.hyperfollow.com/dommedamian
Spotify: ----------------------------------------------------↓

Yann

Gender: Male
Location: France

Yes, there's obviously an important American-indie battalion operating on BEA!

EyeKanFly
Head Bear Master/Galactic Emperor

Age: 33
Location: Gotham

For one, I think I disagree with the premise. I don't think Arcade Fire are regarded any higher here than on other critical/meta-user-generated charts. But also remember that this website is best ever albums, so these artists area only being ranked on the quality of their albums, not the quality of their singles, live performances, longevity, individual songs, etc. This is why you don't see artists like Elvis in the top 20, which maybe push Arcade Fire further down in other critics'/websites' rankings.

Let's look at some other comparable artists in the top 20:

5. Led Zeppelin
8. Arcade Fire
9. The Velvet Underground
10. Nirvana
11. The Smiths
12. Kendrick Lamar
15. Pixies
18. Jimi Hendrix

Something these artists all have in common is that they released relatively few studio albums (3 to 7 or so), and they're all or almost all very highly regarded. Arcade Fire have 3 incredible albums, top of the game; 1 very very good album, and 1 meh album. I don't claim to be an expert on how the algorithm works, but my impression is that this benefits AF in a way that some artists like Bruce Springsteen, Kanye West, or R.E.M. end up faltering because they have some crap in their discography. It's worth noting that Arcade Fire was even more highly regarded prior to Everything Now (and prior to Reflektor too I think, but maybe my pre-2013 memory is failing me).

For me, I do really like Arcade Fire. Neon Bible, Reflektor, and Funeral are all in my personal top 100, with The Suburbs in the 101-150 range. I think it's easy to pick an artist you don't like or think is overrated and say "why is Radiohead #2? Why is Nirvana #10? Why is R.E.M. #20?" but I think better questions are "who deserves those spots more? Why are there only 2 bands with women in our top 20 [Arcade Fire & Pixies, no female solo acts until Bjork at #40]? How can I curate my chart in a way that recommends new suggestions to others while staying true to myself?"
_________________
51 Washington, D.C. albums!

hwex9000

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

DommeDamian wrote:

I agree. They are greatly overrated, and Funeral is not a masterpiece (still a good album) - it looks like someone hacked it from being within 200-300s to #13.

I presume you're being facetious about the "hacking" comment - Funeral has always had a high rank on this site, and in fact it was in the top ten for a long time.

I like the band a lot, but I agree that their artist and album rankings look inflated - especially to some of the slightly younger folks here who might not remember when Arcade Fire first emerged in the mid-2000s and there was an explosion of "Our Next Musical Saviors Are Here!!!" adulation, which lasted pretty much until Reflektor.

As the musical conversation has shifted so much in recent years, one result is that the indie rock that was so predominant in the early part of the 21st century is getting severely downgraded (as the recent Rolling Stone album and song lists demonstrate). Some think that this is a good thing (a frequent poster on another music forum I read has basically taken "Brooklyn can go f--- itself" as his rallying cry), some think the pendulum is swinging too far. It's an interesting discussion.

MadhattanJack
I mean, metal is okay, but...

Gender: Male

EyeKanFly wrote:

It's worth noting that Arcade Fire was even more highly regarded prior to Everything Now (and prior to Reflektor too I think, but maybe my pre-2013 memory is failing me).

I'm pretty sure that's almost exactly how it played out, so as far as I'm concerned your memory is just fine.

I guess the counter-argument here would be that to be in the all-time top ten, especially if the rankings are based on albums alone, you shouldn't really have a "meh" album at all — they've all got to be really good, which is why I personally believe Radiohead is over-ranked here as well. Those high ratings suggest that a lot of people on BEA are willing to forget the bad records altogether, at least in cases where the good ones are particular faves for them. And admittedly, it's pretty hard to produce a dozen or more albums over the course of a career and not have any of them be clunkers, so maybe that's fair.

Quote:

I think better questions are "who deserves those spots more? Why are there only 2 bands with women in our top 20 [Arcade Fire & Pixies, no female solo acts until Bjork at #40]? How can I curate my chart in a way that recommends new suggestions to others while staying true to myself?"

I agree, those are better questions. As for the second one in particular, it's unfortunate that so many people haven't heard (or heard of?) Charlotte Hatherley, Emma Pollock, or even Rachel Goswell. You don't even get Kate Bush until #54, and where are the Cocteau Twins, FFS? #134? That's ridiculous! This situation has to change! Razz

Mercury
Turn your back on the pay-you-back last call

Gender: Male
Location: St. Louis

Wait, what great artist with has ONLY released good to great albums? ( I mean any artist with 10+ albums)

Zeppelin has Coda, Bob Dylan has more bad albums than most artists have albums to go along with more classics than almost anyone, Pink Floyd has some duds I hear, The Beatles well a Beatles fan won't admit any are duds but the Yellow Submarine and With The Beatles albums aren't good at all to these ears, Radiohead has Pablo Honey, Kanye has Jesus is King (which I enjoy but is pretty insubstantial), Bowie has Black Tie..., etc etc. Outside of people's personal favorite artists that they regard as gods and also outside of artists like VU or Nick Drake or what-have-you (insert legendary artist with 1-5 studio albums to their name) there are no perfect discographies that also happen to be massively popular and influential.

----------------

Arcade Fire's debut dropped when I was 15 and then proceeded to grow and grow and grow in iconic status amongst my friends and my generation for 3 years when Neon Bible came out. That album also blew most indie rock fans minds at the time, with its big gothic church organs and its cars that kept on running, and with its echo and the bunnymen sound that most AF fans didn't notice including me at the time. Then it got even more insane when they dropped 3 years after that The Suburbs. I was personally over them, but that album blew people's minds as well with many many indie rock fans hailing it as a concept album-to-end-all-concept albums. That 3 album, 6-7 year run of glory and universal acclaim also happen to correspond with the creation of this website and the formative years of music discovery for a large percentage of the users of BEA. The adoration for AF was and is no joke. But couple that with how how their arc corresponds with these rankings, and you have a clear understanding of why Arcade Fire is ranked so incredibly high.

If you started an app or website in 2012 or even 2016 which attempted to answer the question of what are the best artists and albums ever, that site's rankings would almost certainly have Kendrick and Frank Ocean SUPER high based off the fever pitch of acclaim and influence their albums had at the time of this make-believe site started.

That is my take on it. Are Arcade Fire overrated? No, I don't think so. They are properly rated and properly ranked becuase they are factually rated and ranked where they are and that is based off how much love people have for their music - especially those first 3 (arguably 4) albums.
_________________
-Ryan

ONLY 4% of people can understand this chart! Come try!

My Fave Metal - you won't believe #5!!!

indieshins

Age: 25

At their best, they make some of the most viscerally, emotionally powerful music in recent memory. Funeral and The Suburbs are both excellent albums. They're far from my favourite band, I would personally put them a lot lower on my rankings, but I understand the appeal. They've also only made one bad album so far (Everything Now). I'm not a huge fan of Neon Bible, for some reason it hasn't clicked with me, and Reflektor isn't as good as their debut or The Suburbs, but honestly, who has a perfect discography? They've got a slim discography, they haven't had much chance to go wrong yet. Wait and see how their legacy develops over time. I think some of their albums will continue to be treasured, but whether the band as a whole will be considered as such remains to be seen. It's hard to rate a band correctly when the whole picture isn't yet available, in my opinion.
_________________
Top 40 Greatest Music Albums by indieshins