or it means that people liked their previous work enough to try this...

I haven't heard enough albums from this year to call judgment on how great The Suburbs is in comparison to others. I do like it quite a bit, though.

yes, but still... the arcade fire are certainly not the only majorly popular and acclaimed indie outfit to make a release this year. there have been others. but the excitement surrounding those releases does not really seem to compare. people appear to acknowledge that there is something important and year-defining here, whether they care to admit it or otherwise... and whether the album is actually any good or otherwise. the suburbs is a winner whatever way one looks at it.

i think you're reading too much into it. i would guess most of the hype stems from the quality of their prior releases coupled with the frequency of their output.

and where are you observing this excitement? these forums?

I wouldn't call it year-defining or a landmark album but it's certainly enjoyable.

PS- I really don't know why everyone hates Neon Bible. :(

I don't hate Neon Bible at all. In fact, I think it's very good! I think most of the dislike from Neon Bible stems from it not measuring up to Funeral. Arcade Fire's worst career move, I think, was releasing an album they would never be able to top as their debut, because anything else they release will simply never be as good.

However, that's a problem for the critics, not for me. I think both Neon Bible and The Suburbs are very good.

That makes sense but it's a silly standard. I don't see the point in taking an album from a band and comparing it with a different album from the same band to decide how good it is. Isn't that an apples to apples kind of thing? Maybe I'm missing something but if I released an album that was well received I wouldn't be releasing other albums just trying to top the first. Each album is it's own thing, and each album can be considered good in different ways. I don't know what the fuck point I'm trying to make. When I was first asking about Arcade Fire I remember someone on here asking what I've listened to and I was like "well I've got Neon Bible" and they were like "ewwww, don't listen to Neon Bible," so I guess I just feel bad for it and feel the need to defend it, haha.

these and others. everybody is talking about this album. as for output, it is anything but frequent. 3 albums in 6 years. not particularly prolific and especially not by indie standards. as for quality/popularity of previous releases, then yes, of course that is an important factor in creating hype around this record. but the point is, it IS being hyped, and more than anything else. that makes it year defining.

It is year defining in the sense that, when asked in the future about major indie releases in 2010, the first album to come to mind WILL be the suburbs. that's all i meant by "definitive".

the suburbs is better than funeral. neon bible is IN SOME WAYS better than funeral. i hate the way that funeral has to automatically be the best thing they've done. it isn't. it's very good, yes, but it's also an uneven and incohesive record that sounds almost immature by comparison to later efforts.

the frequency of their output is fairly long. that leaves a lot of time for speculation / anticipation / hype.

Not in my opinion. I think Funeral trumps their other albums easily. I don't think that because Funeral is the designated masterpiece, decided by the Grand Music Council and set in place for us that we may follow the general critical opinion. I think that because I've listened to all of their albums many times, and I like Funeral the best.