All this article seems to be is someone saying that they never liked this album to begin with (or the band) and still don’t.
I find the criticisms annoying, it’s like because The Suburbs made some themes too easy to identify it’s somehow cliche and not sophisticated enough. I think maybe if the reviewer was really into this band/album he would have given it more of a chance and found that there really is a lot to this album, and a lot of themes, imagery, etc. that run throughout that make this a lot more sophisticated, if thats what your knock on it. I’m not criticizing the reviewer for not liking the album, sometimes bands just rub people the wrong way and that’s obviously totally legitimate, no matter how popular/well-reviewed the band is….but I don’t like that the review seems to knock the intellectual worth of the album as the reason for not liking the album. I happened to really like the songs you say that should have been cut because they make the album “interminable” and think that a song like “Suburban War” clearly qualifies as “raw power.” I mean just by suggesting that the album is about simply “rebellion” shows that the reviewer missed a lot that other people may have got from it…I personally think that the album takes a very complex approach to its themes and by no means can be simply summed up as being about rebellion.
I also don’t get the ending section where the review suggests other albums to consider: “Want calmer, moodier, more specifically intelligent and moving thoughts on adulthood from adults, go for the National’s High Violet.” I also really liked High Violet, but why suggest an album with a totally different theme from The Suburbs as a replacement for it? You can certainly legitimately think that High Violet is a better album, but the way you put it (“more specifically intelligent”) is just pretentious and creates a false comparison.
All this article seems to be is someone saying that they never liked this album to begin with (or the band) and still don’t.
I find the criticisms annoying, it’s like because The Suburbs made some themes too easy to identify it’s somehow cliche and not sophisticated enough. I think maybe if the reviewer was really into this band/album he would have given it more of a chance and found that there really is a lot to this album, and a lot of themes, imagery, etc. that run throughout that make this a lot more sophisticated, if thats what your knock on it. I’m not criticizing the reviewer for not liking the album, sometimes bands just rub people the wrong way and that’s obviously totally legitimate, no matter how popular/well-reviewed the band is….but I don’t like that the review seems to knock the intellectual worth of the album as the reason for not liking the album. I happened to really like the songs you say that should have been cut because they make the album “interminable” and think that a song like “Suburban War” clearly qualifies as “raw power.” I mean just by suggesting that the album is about simply “rebellion” shows that the reviewer missed a lot that other people may have got from it…I personally think that the album takes a very complex approach to its themes and by no means can be simply summed up as being about rebellion.
I also don’t get the ending section where the review suggests other albums to consider: “Want calmer, moodier, more specifically intelligent and moving thoughts on adulthood from adults, go for the National’s High Violet.” I also really liked High Violet, but why suggest an album with a totally different theme from The Suburbs as a replacement for it? You can certainly legitimately think that High Violet is a better album, but the way you put it (“more specifically intelligent”) is just pretentious and creates a false comparison.