06:05 PM on 12/23/13
This comment is not about Reflektor, it is about this review. First of all, Kelly, ambiguity and vagueness are not the same, and neither is a compliment. Art that is purposefully vague so that its audience can project their own emotions onto it is cheap. An audience sees itself in good art because art requires truth to be good. Do you think Funeral or The Suburbs were written because Arcade Fire wanted to make emotive records that lots of people could relate to? They weren't. The reason so many have connected with those albums is because Arcade Fire hit record and bled. Second of all, do you realize only half of your review talked about the album at all? You spend as much time talking about the depravity of modern music as you do Reflektor's lyrics. (By the way, I've heard enough of that; the music of the past fifteen years, both mainstream and alternative, has been as strong, possibly stronger, than any pop music since the sixties). You also spend the same amount of space unnecessarily building up Arcade Fire's career into a kind of myth as you do talking about Reflektor's music. Third, your job as a critic is not to throw worshipful adjectives into the same sentences as song titles. It's to discuss the ambitions of a work of art and whether those ambitions have been achieved. The closest you come is mentioning Reflektor's "constant observations of death" (which is, by the way, not your only clunky sentence). What is the purpose of these observations? Where do they fit in this piece of art, perhaps as opposed to how death imagery works in Funeral? Are your friends and family the ones posting "well written review" in the comments? It baffles me. This review reads like a bad freshman composition paper.
Sounds like you'd like to write a college paper about this album, not a review. You make a lot of assumptions about what should and shouldn't be. Strange.