The Arcade Fire - Neon Bible
The Arcade Fire is a unique band whose music has been a part of my life at some pretty significant and special moments. Yet, Funeral was not a record that latched onto me immediately. As a matter of fact, when I bought Funeral, over a year had passed since its release. Despite glowing reviews from every respected and personally trusted publication, I just didn’t want it. Hype is a strange beast; I can either overcome it or dismiss a record completely because of it. At any rate, Funeral became a piece for repeated listening and close examination, requiring the utmost care and attention. As I continued to play it, I realized that what was special about it was not the grandiose, elaborate arrangements (though they are beautiful). Rather, Funeral reminds us of the power of songs. Through its beginnings, through to its lulls and tempo changes and on to its grand, grand finale, Funeral reminds its listener that gimmick may sell records but it certainly doesn’t have to. Through each of its 10 tracks, the record doesn’t find us leafing through the liner notes for photographs of the players or checking our iPods to see which track we’re on. Rather, it eliminates all of the distractions and brings us back to the time when we didn’t know anything of band politics or cancelled tour dates. With Funeral, every inch of the focus is on the songs.
To an extent, the follow-up, Neon Bible, does the same thing. No gimmicks, no tricks. Win Butler and his tremendous band have brought forth another collection that delivers our listening focus only to the songs and nothing else. Upon first listen, these songs are vintage Arcade Fire: engrossing, meticulous, fascinating. However, while it may not be entirely fair to judge Neon Bible in light of its mammoth predecessor, we have no other choice. Funeral is arguably the finest album of the decade. Evaluating this new album without Funeral-colored glasses is impossible.
With that said, Neon Bible is not Funeral. The production here is more slick, the arrangements even more grandiose, and the lyrics equally as melodramatic (if not exceedingly darker). Every single song is truly fantastic. The bookends (“Black Mirror” and “My Body is a Cage”) are dark, foreboding tracks requiring two or three minutes to allow for the surfacing of a larger melodic framework, demanding repeated listens. “Keep the Car Running” drives like an orchestra commandeered by New Order while the terse standout title track eerily tells us that there’s “not much chance for survival if the neon Bible is right.”
“Intervention” brings the most cynical heart to its knees while the darkness of “Black Waves / Bad Vibrations” showcases the band’s capacity for tight, complex arrangements at its best and most bipolar. The stormy, minor key “Ocean of Noise” gives us a most welcome result of the band’s members exploring the depths of Dick Dale’s catalogue before bursting into the most energetic new wave (and allegedly fable) influenced track on the record, “The Well and the Lighthouse.” “Antichrist Television Blues,” another New Order tribute, stands as the album’s most intriguing and best song as it leaves the listener abruptly with the imprint of a fiery, gesticulating man losing his faith. It leads into the rebellious ballad, “Windowsill,” before the monumental new arrangement of shout-inducing, fist-pumping “No Cars Go.”
Since I have heard Neon Bible, I have been attempting to isolate what sets this new record apart from the last and the answer is simple: the Arcade Fire is three years older. The band’s youth seems to have been represented by the infectious, wordless melodies that dominated the first record from beginning to end. However, it is hard to say how this band managed to recover from the abandonment of this technique on which it relied so heavily. Perhaps the fact that the band has chosen to forego the strategy of the last album is what makes this one a complete triumph. Rather than falling flat or rehashing old tricks, they have furthered the saga.
To pre-order a copy of this album, please click here.
Posted on February 12, 2007 12:00 AM
Comments
Ryan, great review. Your writing has inspired me to check out an album I likely would have otherwise ignored.
Posted by: Jon | February 12, 2007 12:29 AM
ryan, nice review. i agree that funeral was very hyped for me but upon further listens there IS something there - i just think there are WAY too many Flaming Lips rip-off bands surfacing right now. arcade fire are amazing though - quality performers as well as great people. they recently did a private show in ottawa, ontario at a few of the members' old high school (canterbury high school) in the gym! my cousin went and apparently it was an event for the ages.
keep writing, brother
matty
Posted by: matty mckechie | February 12, 2007 5:47 PM
Funeral is not agruably the finest album of the decade. Obviously, dear reviewer Ryan, you havent heard a Limp Bizkit album.
Posted by: Jason | February 12, 2007 9:45 PM
Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's not agrue.
Posted by: Bob | February 13, 2007 8:22 AM
Sorry, a track-by-track listing jammed full of adjectives does not constitute a good review.
Beyond that... from what little content was actually in your review, I think you've completely missed the boat on Neon Bible. Probably - and forgive my pretentious conjecture - because in your haste to get out an early Arcade Fire review you forgot to give it time, let it sink in, and place the album within a larger context (and no, assigning a simplistic ranking with their debut does not count as context).
Posted by: kevin | February 14, 2007 6:45 PM
i love this album.
Posted by: jon | February 15, 2007 11:35 PM
Hey, Kevin. I'm the music editor of the BWC site. Although I disagree with you about the review, I appreciate your comments.
I don't know how to put this nicely, so I'll just say it how I'm thinking it (and this goes for everyone who reads our music reviews): Walk the walk like you talk the talk. You don't like the reviews that we write here at Burnside, write some of your own and send them in.
I promise that I will not immediately slag them or toss them away out of spite. I really want more people to get involved if they think our content is lacking (which I don't, by the way).
Posted by: Bob Ham | February 16, 2007 8:24 AM
Hi Kevin
I can't speak for Bob but I'd like to agree with him - with your use of phrases like 'track-by-track listing jammed full of adjectives', 'pretentious conjecture' and 'assigning a simplistic ranking with their debut', it would be neat if you 'hashed' (excuse the term) those out a little more.
Major music review sites and zines usually don't leave the reviewer time to 'give it time, let it sink in, and place the album within a larger context' as most writers have to meet deadlines.
I don't know really what you were expecting/looking for but I thought Ryan did a great job with the tools and timeframe given.
Oh, and by the way...Arcade Fire is a rap group, right?
Posted by: matty mckechnie | February 16, 2007 6:58 PM
Bottom line, I can't wait to get the new album.
Posted by: Wess Daniels | February 16, 2007 9:04 PM
The Arcade Fire = crunk
Posted by: Bob | February 17, 2007 4:22 PM
Bob - I actually would consider submitting some writing, but that's fairly irrelevant. Your 'challenge' is simply confusing to me. Surely you don't seriously expect everyone who dislikes a review to come back with their own. If Ryan Smith had written a critical review, would it be appropriate for The Arcade Fire to fire back with "Oh yeah? Make a better album yourself then!" Of course not. It only discourages reader-writer interaction if everyone who reacts negatively to an article is promptly challenged to a writerly duel.
Matty - the album in question isn't even being released until 3+ weeks after this review was written... so the urgent need to whip something out shouldn't really be there. Secondly, even with deadlines the critic is supposed to remove himself and sort out where this music "fits" without needing as much time as someone less experienced. This is, presumably, why Robert Christgau is more highly respected than your average 13-year-old. He's ingested such vast quantities of music over this life that it doesn't take him years to understand the importance of a particular work. The best critics can tell you now what will be "classics" in the future and conversely, weed out which bands/albums are merely flash-in-the-pan hype acts that won't last (This, by the way, is part of what makes Pitchfork's occasional revisionism so odious).
I won't continue to dissect this specific review since there's no further need. Ryan Smith is apparently a good writer and I'd love to read more -- I just think in this particular case he's written a sophomoric review full of meaningless bloat. It's made all the more unfortunate considering Neon Bible is a great, great album.
Posted by: kevin | February 18, 2007 3:55 PM
Kevin,
I think Bob's challenge wasn't a "Let's see YOU write a review, smart guy" thing as much as a "If you don't like the way we're reviewing, then join up and write some!" We genuinely want to have more reviewers, so that's what he was saying.
I'm the one behind the early release of the review, being the editor and all.
Finally, it just comes down to this: you like "Neon Bible" and Ryan Smith didn't like it as much, so you disagree with him. I felt the same way about Pitchfork's review of "Fox Confessor Brings the Flood" last year...they only gave it a 7.something and i thought it deserved at least an 8, so I mumble to myself about how Pitchfork sucks and doesn't understand great music. If i'm honest, i'd say it's because they didn't validate my opinion (and because they're stupid).
From the brief snippets I've heard, "Neon Bible" sounds great...
Posted by: Jordan Green | February 19, 2007 12:38 PM
Jordan, thanks for backing me up.
I wasn't trying to say that you should write your own review of the Arcade Fire record, but it was obvious that you took umbrage with Ryan's reviewing style. So, yeah, it's a bit of a challenge, but I also encourage anyone that if there's a review or a piece or a style of music that they feel is being neglected or underappreciated, to please write something for us.
Posted by: Bob | February 19, 2007 2:44 PM
great album! did anybody catch the NPR broadcast of their nyg gig? solid.
http://www.funderpants.com
Posted by: Fizz Byers | February 24, 2007 10:13 AM
kevin (if you ever DO come back to this review)...really sorry if i offended you in any way. i appreciate all new opinions as they are always enlightening.
it seems that, arcadefire aside, you are more interested in arguing over the semantics of the ingredients of a 'good' or 'worthy' music review than actually digging into 'neon bible':
1. "The best critics can tell you now what will be "classics" in the future and conversely, weed out which bands/albums are merely flash-in-the-pan hype acts that won't last" - wow! you sure put MUCH more faith in music reviewers than I ever would. i'm just wondering where you're getting your information from (i.e. are you a pro reviewer/journalist/critic?) because i would love to know how you've come to arrive at some of the conclusions you have. do you have a blog or email address where we could continue this conversation?
2. "I just think in this particular case he's written a sophomoric review full of meaningless bloat"
Using the word 'sophomoric' here would indicate that you thought Ryan's review was juvenile, childish, intellectually pretentious and basically exhibiting the characteristics of a sophomore (I'm pretty smart. I know things...) showing immaturity and/or lack of judgment.
I guess what I don't understand, Kevin, is how you became the one to hand out the assessment of his review BEING all of those exhasutive terms you used so sparingly.
In fact, in lieu of the actual definition of the word, if you're not careful, your words will end up being the sophomoric ones - not Ryan's.
Again, Kevin, if you do want to continue this conversation, I would have no aversion to doing so - gravenrecords@yahoo.ca
Cheers to good music and good critical thinking.
Matt
Posted by: matty mckechnie | February 26, 2007 7:01 AM
Ryan's pretty.
Posted by: Sam Albertson | March 6, 2007 8:55 AM
Your eloquence puts many of the thugs at pitchfork to shame.....However, I disagree with you about Neon Bible. While the record has a few gems here and there, there's nowhere near as much continuity nor are there as many compelling tracks as the previous record. In fact, the lyrical content is far too preachy, and falls victim to the novelties of this day and age.
Posted by: Alyosha Fortin | March 18, 2007 1:59 AM