And yet there are loads and loads of people acting betrayed over this album, claiming Chvrches are trying too hard for a radio hit. I can see both sides; some tracks sound like them, whereas others (like Miracle) are desperate cash grabs.
If they were trying to desperately grab cash, you'd think it'd have been the lead single.
I still can't remember what that song sounds like and I've played the album about five or six times now, so make of that what you will.
seriously who cares about some synth pop when Failure is coming out with a new album and they already released 2 EPs that would be a part of the album?
Who cares about Failure? I mean, shit, I move in circles where their music would be popular and some reunion album is hardly the talk of the town.
But keep trying to prove you listen to more niche music.
My point was clear and to the point but I will rephrase. I find it interesting that many of the same people on this site who bash U2's 2000's output for being too poppy, structured, focused on getting hits...etc would give such glowing praise for a song as generic and cliched as Chvrches "Get Out." That's it. This is saying nothing of the rest of their discography, just that song in particular which I can't stand in the same way I feel about "Thunder." Usually I'm not bothered enough to say anything, but Alt-Nation played the thing so damn much that I couldn't avoid it. They seem to have really cut it's spin time down drastically lately which is a good thing.
I can only speak for myself, but I haven't criticised U2 for being poppy, I've criticised them for writing bad songs and self-consciously chasing a bad target. U2 have always written pop songs. I love me some synthpop bangers, which for one thing isn't what U2 are trying to make anyway.
I think one can make a pretty strong, informed argument that Chvrches is redundant. They may or may not be a standout in that particular domain, but theirs is a very, very crowded field that they hopped into fairly late. When comparing them to a legendary band like REM that broke ground for hundreds of ripoffs, in terms of talent and appeal, one has to concede a bit of room to the band that changed music in a meaningful way. Tracking that back to some objective measure of talent is, of course, a fool's errand.
I don't even hate Chvrches or anything like that, but I absolutely get how someone could listen to them and find them average. They do blend into the background. That's partially why their success in the B&C year end polls has become a running joke. They're a decent band, but really?
How the sweet fuck can a band be "redundant"? You of all people know that's a silly thing to say.
I think the thing about Chvrches is that they first appealled to a different crowd. They brought in post-rock and metal fans who otherwise wouldn't have thought to listen to such a band, since Iain and Martin were best known for Aereogramme. And they had exactly the aesthetic to appeal to people from certain synth-y ends of the indie hipster spectrum, especially those who had been into chillwave and witch house and welcomed some more straight-forward bangers, and those who missed Ladytron. Stuff like The Mother We Share might be more direct synthpop, but if you'd been hanging around smelly alternative clubs or indie pubs listening to bands mess around with synths, Chvrches had relatable themes and aesthetics. Their first gig at a club in Melbourne was a strange mix of people I saw at those sort of gigs, and Triple J kiddies who'd clicked that this would be the next big thing. And then with Lauren Mayberry being assertive about feminism and women's rights, well that further expanded the appeal. You couldn't design a band this well suited to Tumblr, let's be real.
Perhaps now they're crossing over to the Imagine Dragons sort of crowd. They've certainly struck something lately in Australia. Their previous tours were in clubs of about 800 or theatres of about 1,500-2,000, but this time it's small arenas that hold 5,000-7,000.