A review is just one person's opinion. You take it with a grain of salt. This ain't physics - there aren't objective laws that we can judge these things against.
Having said that, I *WAS* at the show and have seen Arcade Fire several times. A few things could be easily stated:
- yes, they are incredibly active on stage.
- yes, the group's music is centered on beats. The melody is primarily delivered through keyboards and strings.
- yes, they do exchange instruments frequently through the show. The violinists were the only people not to play at least three different instruments throughout the night.
- yes, Win's vocals were murky and unintelligible. Same thing with Regine's vox. I've had the same complaint everytime I've seen them.
Her main subjective statement is saying that she thought the songs weren't memorable. Hey - to each their own. I can tell you that the after the first time I saw the band, songs like Laika and Wake Up were indelibly stamped on my mind. Then again, I think stuff like The White Stripes are crap and I couldn't remember one of their songs to save my life.
So I think her review was for the most part accurate. But when a reviewer says something like "the music was lame", just forget that unless you know from previous history that you agree/disagree consistently with him/her.
I'm babbling, aren't I?
Off to Keane tonite! Five shows in five nights. Woo hoo!!
