What say you?

what's the reason for pitting these two bands against one another?

I think they represent two sides of what stands for American Indie in the past five years or so. Both have gotten more popular with each release.

Reckon it will be a close vote at the AC fans, on the whole tend to be a lot noisier on here I wager.

AC no question.

Don't care to listen to either of them, but I'd lean National, just because there seems to be more meat there beyond trendy sounds.

AC haters have always seemed the noisiest to me.

The National are just terminally boring, and whatever great "substance" their music supposedly contains has continued to elude me.

So AC.

Yeah, I'm not saying the National are deep at all, I can just "hear words." So that's an advantage. AC is just "OoooOoooOo... Guuurrrrlllls." Too loopy. They smell like a band that will be comically locked in 00s in the future. Both bands are two of the most overrated things in music right now.

I really don't want to get into defending AC or bashing The National because I feel like I've done more than enough of both. But I think those particular criticisms of AC are pretty superficial and off the mark, and they seem to contradictorily apply to both their earlier period (when you couldn't understand the words, but they were more "organic" and rock-instrument based) and their current one (when you can understand them fine, but now they're all electronic and "loopy") which don't really coexist.

Normally I would vote for AC but I haven't been in the mood for their antics for some time now. On the other hand, I listened to Alligator the other day and it's still a 10/10.

I would say the National are the best band of the past decade.

I am a fan of the Animal Collectives, but the National outshine them in every sense.

Kind of like how apples totally outshine oranges, right?

I mean they're definitely shinier.

interesting poll. i don't think it's quite as easy of a "the two sides of the american indie coin" that maxwell frames it as, but it's also pretty accurate. and their similiarities re: career trajectory, etc. are right on the mark. there are a few other bands that i think could be subbed in either place (arcade fire, TVOTR, etc.), but the national and AC are sorta the two ends of the spectrum.

anyhow, very close call, but my vote goes to the national simply b/c their music is more timeless, elegant, will age better, etc., even if it is "less original" or whatever.

glad to see them winning too, although i feel like age may have something to do w/ it. poll this same question to a demographic of people predominantly 27 and under and AC runs away w/ it no contest, i postulate.

yup.

People seem to be labeling the National as boring.

OK. But I'll tell you what's more boring--sifting through a mess of an AC album to find the actual songs and melodies.

AC by a mile even though they can't play live.

This sounds like the opinion of someone who has only listened to MPP.

AC have tried their hand at noise, freak folk, psychadelia, electronica, rave, indie and fuck knows how many other styles over the past ten years with mostly impressive results. They are a good band.

The exact opposite reason I went National. Love AC but when I think band I also think of the live side of things.

Arcade Fire are now a Stadium Rock band.

^who happen to record on an independent record label. welcome to the 21st century mitch, just b/c you're on an indie label doesn't mean you can't play stadiums.

fuck, both domino and 4ad (AC + the national's labels, respectively) are arguably bigger imprints than merge.

wish i was familiar with more of the national's catalogue just so i could vote against animal collective. ac still kick out jams i will love forever but i haven't been able to sit through an entire album from ac since sung tongs.

The National are earnest but weak musicians who've been repeating themselves for a while now, and Animal Collective are usually either glazed-up sonic wank or shrieky jungle fuckery. But AC have some good melodies, so I'll vote for them.

Haha, these are my 2nd and 3rd favorite bands, oh dear

Honestly they trade places all the time but I think National will have more longevity so I'll vote for them.

what's #1?

Both have a few good songs, but neither is really all that great imo. Sorry, don't mean to piss in anyone's cheerios, I just don't feel very excited about either band.

Good point. It all comes down to the melodies, and AC wins there.

national with booze
ac with psychedelics/weed

Never mind what record label they are on, listen to their last two albums. They are a stadium rock band.

I'm not sure what that even means.

They now play massive stadiums and they sound more like U2 than Talking Heads. That was heavily hinted at on Neon Bible and continued on The Suburbs. Not that hard to understand.

They aren't the little guys that could anymore.

So what you really mean is they are sort of bombastic? Because not all bands that sound like U2 and AF can fill stadiums (Can AF even fill stadiums?).

Yes, Arcade Fire are playing 30K capacity stadiums on both sides of the Atlantic.

Filling or playing? Big difference.

Stadium band = band who headlines a stadium show

Pretty simple

So The National are a "theater band"?

You are being tiresome here even for you.

Arcade Fire deliberately booked extra nights for stadiums they can't fill and there's such a thing as 'Theatre Rock'

Montana, being an idiot again. I don't care for Arcade Fire, but I can admit they are popular. Or, say, google their tour dates and see this:

O2 Arena London, UK Wed 1st Dec 2010
O2 Arena London, UK Thu 2nd Dec 2010
The O2 Dublin Dublin, Ireland Sun 5th Dec 2010
The O2 Dublin Dublin, Ireland Mon 6th Dec 2010
Birmingham LG Arena Birmingham, UK Wed 8th Dec 2010
Cardiff International Arena

Those are all arenas, bro.

Those venues have capacity of on average 16,000 and O2 Arena London 23k. Not to forget they played MSG which is about 20k as well.

But, but they didn't sell out every single seat (like Roger Waters), so it doesn't count. I believe that is Montana's "logic."

Right, those aren't stadiums, doofus. If they aren't filling stadiums (50k+), they aren't a "stadium rock band".




If they don't fill those arenas, they aren't an "arena" band either. Just one that tries to be.

Glad we're all clear on the official capacity specifications for a "stadium" now.

So am I.

Sorry what other venues could they be playing in December in the UK that are bigger than the O2 exactly?

Also how many of the 134 professional football stadiums in the UK under 50,000 capacity aren't stadiums?

And Arena Rock and Stadium Rock on Wikipedia go to the same page.

are you guys really having this fight?

It's not a fight, he's factually wrong.

A stadium is an arena where sports are played.

Just be right. You're not going to convince Montana so ignore him.

My posts aren't for his benefit. Merely backing up my own point that Arcade Fire are playing the largest indoor venue in the country in December, where else could they go above that other than playing more nights there.

I guess so. Still looks like tilting at windbags to me.