Talk:Arcade Fire

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oops! My modification is listed as Creation when I obviously did not create this article. Sorry. - mchengcit ---

... entralling live performances ... rich and intricate indie rock songs ... However, it is a child-like exuberance rather than a funereal gloom that shines through on their debut, an exuberance that comes through with even more clarity onstage.

That was clichéd hype, not objective analysis. The article reads as though it were written by either a member of the band, their manager, or an over-enthusiastic fan. Draconiszeta

I agree. This isn't Select magazine. I will take it out, because it doesn't belong. Curtsurly 17:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The band probably has better things to do than self-promote themself on wikipedia, and you can't be overenthusiastic about the Arcade Fire. --B. Phillips 02:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this article is over the top, I can't be enthusiastic enough about this band. Their genius, or possibly insane, but, either way, their music is sweet. I also don't see arcade fire as the type of band that would be desperate enough to create fake fan praise. --[Brian Elder] 10:14 PM, January 4th 2006

Generally, whenever people describe the arcade fire to me, the "entralling live shows" are almost always brought up. It's probably a bit over the top, but they are actually known for that.

Emily 12:30 AM, January 6th, 2006

Previous name for the band?

Someone wrote that the name "Arcade Fire" was taken from the title of an early bootleg. Does anyone know what the band was calling themselves before this? --Jleon 19:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My wording may have been too pat. According to the Chicago Reader last month,

Win attended college in New York and then in Boston, where in late 1998 he began performing in the first of several bands he'd call the Arcade Fire. In early 2001 he transferred to McGill University in Montreal, where he met his wife-to-be, Regine Chassagne, and invited her into a new version of the group.

The bootleg song is supposedly from demos recorded in 2001, so one could suppose the band name preceded the song, or maybe Win just liked the phrase.--Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move / Name Change

Oh, no you don't. 209.135.108.191 moved this page from The Arcade Fire, but Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music guidelines clearly state:

If possible, check with an authoritative source to find if the word the is part of a band's name. For example, The Beatles is correct, as is the Pixies. In either case, the opposite should always redirect (or be disambigged) to avoid having multiple articles

Merge Records uses The Arcade Fire
The Arcade Fire website uses Arcade Fire by itself in the logo but The Arcade Fire at numerous points, e.g. the contact page uses the in the e-mail address but no the in the domain name.
Rough Trade Records uses Arcade Fire in both the album and shows lists
Google search shows a clear preference for using The Arcade Fire

The main problem with moving this way was that it was done without moving the history or talk pages. The latter can be done with the appropriate checkbox (and wasn't), but the former requires an administrator. At any rate now we need one to sort this out. There was no discussion of the move and certainly no consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 29 June 2005 07:39 (UTC)

Since it was a cut-and-paste move, I reverted both pages back to their prior state. As stated above I believe the evidence for the band name without the article is mixed at best; when combined with a clear standard preference for including the article, I think it should stay at The Arcade Fire with Arcade Fire as a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 29 June 2005 08:34 (UTC)

Actually, the Pixies do not use "the" in front of their name on any of their records, and I think I actually might have heard Frank Black discussing that once in an interview or something. Also, the Wikipedia entry for them is at "Pixies". --B. Phillips 02:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, off topic for this page. I didn't copy the brackets which clarify the point, which was indeed what you just said. You may want to read the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music page. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the album cover of Funeral says Arcade Fire w/o 'The', so I think it should say Arcade Fire.

They're inconsistent, unfortunately. They are consistent, however, in that the name should use the article. It's not a article-less name like Metallica. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually it's not inconsistant - ALL the album/single covers/spines have it without the 'The' - I own all of them. For artists, their product must remain authoritative.--Gecks 09:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? While in the KCRW studio in Santa Monica, CA, Win told DJ Nic Harcourt that it does not matter. "The Arcade Fire," he added, makes the band sound more like a historical event. All in all, they are THE greatest band ever.

Well, it doesn't matter to me how you refer to them, I'd just appreciate to have consensus across Wikipedia and the Musicbrainz project (and last.fm), for practical reasons. On Musicbrainz there also was a discussion on this, they decided on "Arcade Fire", apparently because the band don't use the article on their album covers (while they seem to use it inside the booklets; but according to the majority of voters, not as part of their name). To see the discussion, you have to have a Musicbrainz account, so it won't help if I provided a link here. last.fm lists them as "The Arcade Fire", and as far as I can see, the only way to change this is to mail the owners of the site. 84.63.104.31 10:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about this too. I think that if the band uses it both ways, let's just leave it as it is. If we do take 'The' off, I think someone in 3.5 months will have an argument as strong as the current one to add 'The' back in. If someone wants to add that the name can appear both ways near the top of the article, then both ways are accounted for and hopefully further disagreements on this issue can be avoided. And if the band uses both, I think that Musicbrainz and last.fm are entirely irrelevant.--Hraefen 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the band do not use it both ways on their printed media. I am fortunate(?) to have near enough the entire Arcade Fire back catalogue, vinyl's and all, and they always use it sans 'The'. The website uses 'The' (sometimes), but in the face of consistant printed media, surely that's irrelevant? I really think this should be changed back ASAP.--Gecks 08:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we found a quote from Win that it's not important to them either way. Maybe I have to find that again. --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he would be of that opinion, and indeed it's of course almost certainly not important, I just reckon we should be consistant with printed media, certainly over websites and the like.--Gecks 15:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter which one we decide to use; either is valid. But if consensus does emerge to move the article to the title without the definite article in it, Wikipedia rules require that we move it via the move tag, not by cutting and pasting text. Bearcat 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixation on Pitchfork Media?

Something seems fishy to me about the way Pitchfork Media is repeatedly mentioned here, especially given the recent vandalism that said Pitchfork's Ryan Schreiber was part of the band. I surmise that one of this article's editors has the intent of subtly promoting Pitchfork. I think, for example, that the sentence about Pitchfork Media making the band what it is should be removed. Anyone else agree? rspeer 16:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that reference, but if it's there, it should certainly be removed. The Arcade Fire is a very great band and very few people I know read Pitchfork. Their success is correctly attributed to the fact that they are really cool. Cookiecaper 07:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I exaggerated the claim a bit, but here's what I'm referring to:

the success of the band and the album Funeral has been acclaimed as an internet phenomenon, with much of the early push coming from reviews on sites such as Pitchfork.

That's one of three places that Pitchfork (which I've never heard of before this article) is mentioned. I'll remove that last clause for a start. rspeer 08:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless on your take of Pitchforkmedia, there is no question that their early success was hugely helped by Pitchfork's gushing 9.7 review. Immediately after that review, the Arcade Fire became one of, if not the most talked about bands on indie-rock message boards and has remained one ever since. To not include some reference to Pitchfork's contribution to their success in this article would be absurd. The notion that the references are to promote Pitchfork are offbase.

I appreciate your response, but who are you? Your comments will be more credible if there's a consistent identity behind them. Please sign your posts, and preferably get an account - it takes no time at all. Just click the link in the upper right corner.

The fact that Arcade Fire got popular after a good review from Pitchfork is a suggestive correlation, but it doesn't show causation. It also doesn't show that Pitchfork needs to be credited three times in this article. rspeer 04:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 3 times is excessive, but Pitchfork is pretty well known with indie fans. This is all anecdotal, but with my friends and I, when we first hear of a band we check out what Pitchfork graded it, and Pitchfork naming it album of the year for 2004 (I BELIEVE, very high I know) is significant, and helped their popularity a good amount. Again though, I agree that this was excessive207.127.128.2 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored one (1) mention, with source and concrete results of the Pitchfork review, per Merge Records. No, we don't need to slap their name all over the article, but not mentioning it at all, when Merge readily acknowledges their "help", seems nonsensical. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Ireland?

Is the fact that Funeral remained in the charts in Ireland for several months really relevant? I'm Irish and a fan of Arcade Fire and I know no reason to mention Ireland as they are no more popular than several other bands here. This was the first I've heard any suggestion they were extraordinarly popular here. Sales details are given for Ireland but no other country so its hard to say that these are in anyway special. Toastemeister 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seemed out of place to me too... I mean, who cares? If they were #1 in Ireland it would be one thing but they just seem to be pretty popular. I would wager they have similar success in many other countries that are not mentioned.207.127.128.2 15:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that their popularity here is larger than in most other countries, the UK for example. Like on UK music forums Arcade Fire are mentioned a lot less frequently than on Irish ones. Also i think the fact that a quarter of my form class are fans is an indication of exactly how big they are here. But is it really necessary to mention it? I don't think so. Johnny-Carmello 12:00, 2 June 2006

2001 Demo

There is no mention of the demo released in 2001 which is called nothing more than "2001 demo" or "demo 2001" but could someone shed some light into this subject please

thanks - Chris 18:03, 08th May 2006 (UTC)

A citation would be nice, too. I really like "Accidents" from the 2001 demo, and I don't particularly like unsourced dismissal of it. -- 203.11.167.254 04:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End Lyrics on Une Annee Sans Lumiere

What is being said towards the end when the song speeds up? PrettyMuchBryce 16:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral (album) move

Electrolite41 moved Funeral (album) to create a redlink to the album by the artist DJ Cyber-Rap, whose article had AFD earlier this week. Additionally, he failed to move the Talk page, so now they are disassociated. A Requested Move is being discussed at Talk:Arcade Fire - Funeral, but if an administrator is reading this, a speedy move seems appropriate to me. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"recently" and dates

I nixed two worthless uses of "recently", but if anyone has any dates for their Jools Holland appearances, that would be nice. I found a link (http://www.nme.com/news/the-arcade-fire/21670) for their purchasing of the church-as-studio, but since the current line mentions their planning on releasing something in the '05-'06 winter which already elapsed, it needs an update, so I didn't cite it.

Strange Comment

Does "leaving some to believe that they had been sexually seduced by band members, due to the low quality of the music." strike anyone else as a dubious comment undeserving of a encyclopedia?