There is some valuable discussion here between the "hype-ers" and the "hypees" on marketing music ouside of the mainstream and the endemic risk of the overexposed independent release.
Pitchfork: On some level, it does suck for us to love a record, praise it, and then have it be instantly perceived as overexposed by some people. But to me, it's an incredible record that would have been going places regardless of what we said or did.
Win Butler: There's a segment of people who are very sensitive to overexposure and really like the thrill of knowing things that other people don't know about. But we're not ramming it down people's throats. I mean, most people in Montréal haven't heard of our band. Régine has friends calling her like, "I didn't know you were in a band! That's great! I heard you on TBC!" The overwhelming majority of people have no idea who The Arcade Fire are or have heard of Pitchfork.
Pitchfork: But within this sort of subculture, the Arcade Fire is like incredibly popular. I just find the reactions to perceived "hype" in the underground to be kind of extreme. Like, I can see where some of these people are coming from on one hand, because I don't like shit being marketed at me and shoved down my throat either. But doesn't it seem now that the culture has just reached this point where people assume that if something is popular on any level at all, it must be crap? I always wonder if those people take into account at all that, within independent music, the vast, vast majority of bands that get popular only do so because lots of people thought their music was genuinely good.