I had a moment with Neon Bible earlier this year: my first few weeks with the record were excellent, as it reminded me of those things that I liked so much about Arcade Fire to begin with, and also reminded me that bands don't have to slump after a great debut. I felt like AF were not treading water, rather that their arrangements and musicianship had reached a more mature and sophisticated level. And it was exciting, even hopeful to listen to an obviously talented band reach for the next level, and to believe that they could do it.

But what would it be like live? I am both blessed and cursed when it comes to seeing Arcade Fire shows. Blessed in that I was one of the lucky souls who saw them play the Merge showcase at the Mercury Lounge during CMJ nearly three years ago. That was one of the most memorable shows I've been to: a band that some folks had been talking about discovered they were great in front of an audience that discovered that they loved them. It was urgent and emotional. It was excellent, and unfortunately it's not possible to repeat that experience with that band again. In the next few months, they would sell hundreds of thousands of records, have nice things written about them in the NY Times, and play a sold out shows at increasingly bigger venues, all on the first tour for their first record.

I have been cursed in that until Monday, I've never been able to get tickets to see them again. But at the last minute, a friend of mine couldn't go and I was on my way to Washington Heights and the United Palace Theater. Would this show be a joyous and cathartic celebration like the first time I saw them, except with 3500 people instead of 200? Yes, and no. First, the United Palace Theater was much nicer than I expected. The theater itself is cavernous, with good sight lines and really beautiful detail on all the walls and the ceiling. They don't build rooms like that anymore. The sound for such a big venue was also decent; while not at the level of Radio City Music Hall, it is still better than a lot of other big rooms I've seen shows in. Drinks were outrageous (7 dollars for a beer) for a show that's only barely in Manhattan. But I'm not opposed to seeing more shows there (even though the train ride is substantial), if I like the band enough.

So what happens to a band when you sell close to 1 million records of your debut and then tour the world for a couple of years? Your stage show gets a lot slicker, and you transform from being in a band to being a professional musician, who has played hundreds of shows before on other big stages to thousands and thousands of other fans. This brings some benefits, like nice instruments, a decent stage setup and a sound crew that can balance and handle 10 different folks playing many different instruments at once. All of these things served the Arcade Fire well; to quote Fluxblog, "They definitely played good songs, and it seemed like they did a pretty nice job of it." The crowd was certainly into it, or at least it sounded that way from where I was sitting (I happened to be in the leftmost seat of the loge, and could sit, whereas almost the entire rest of the audience was standing for the entire show). People really loved the songs, both new and old, something that reaffirms my belief that this could be a band that continues to grow its audience and make music that crosses over. But something was missing for me; even though everything seemed to be right, it just didn't connect. Perhaps I was just tired, but honestly I think I caught a great band on an average night. I'm still happy I saw them again, and I enjoyed the show. But it can't be special every night, even if you're the Arcade Fire.

Labels: Arcade Fire, Concert Reviews