The Role of Multiple Points of Reference in Divergent Fan Reactions to Crash Love
...or why some people like the new album while others totally lose their shit.
I've been noticing a common complaint among some people who hate Crash Love, people screaming "This isn't AFI!!!" I always found that complaint somewhat absurd. Since the band changes its sound with every record, how can you define what AFI is (and isn't) supposed to sound like? Are they supposed to sound like BSITS? STS? ATASF? The answer depends on your point of reference. That's why I find "This doesn't sound anything like STS!" a more valid argument than "This doesn't sound anything like AFI!" Because really, how do you define AFI when there are so many different incarnations? How can you point to just one sound and say, "THAT is what AFI is supposed to sound like"?
I think people define AFI's sound by whichever album they like best. For me, AFI's sound is STS. That's my first album and my favorite, so that's my point of reference. If someone told me, "Dude! I just found this super secret AFI song floating on the Internet, and it's like all the best parts of AFI rolled into ONE SONG. It's effing awesome!"--if someone said that to me, I'd expect the song to sound something like Synesthesia or BHIN (epic chorus, big guitars, driving rhythm, beautiful melodies, poetic lyrics, a sense of rage mixed with despair or vulnerability, light mixed with dark, etc.). For other people, they might expect the song to sound like Totalimmortal or Love Like Winter or This Time Imperfect. It just depends on which album/era you use as your point of reference for what AFI is supposed to sound like. In short: AFI means different things to different people.
It's these differences in POV that surprise us when a new album comes out. We get a new sound and a new definition of AFI, and we have to somehow reconcile this with our old POV. Sometimes we can easily tweak our notion of AFI to accommodate the new era and embrace the new sound. We get excited because we recognize how the new sound is related to our vision of what AFI should sound like. Someone who uses STS as their point of reference might get excited because "This is the album they should've made after STS!" We see echoes of the old in the new, and the familiarity is comforting and exciting.
But sometimes we are unable to reconcile our vision of AFI with AFI's vision of AFI, which then leads some of us to be disappointed and scream "This isn't AFI!" (A presumptuous and absurd charge, for the reasons outlined in the first paragraph above.) A more valid argument might be, "This isn't the AFI I expected!" or perhaps "This isn't my version of AFI!" Anything to acknowledge that our opinion of what is (and isn't) AFI comes from whichever AFI era/sound/album we assume to be the definitive AFI sound--whatever is our point of reference or home base or true north--rather than stating our opinion as a declarative, objective statement.
Sometimes in our disappointment, we try to come up with arguments and excuses to explain the huge gap between our expectations and reality: "The label made them write these songs!" Such arguments seek to explain why the new AFI is no longer the AFI we recognize (again, whichever version of AFI that happens to be), but seeks to do so without blaming the band. We still love the band, so surely it isn't their fault that the new album sounds like crap. "There must have been something nefarious interfering with their ability to put out a great record," we assume or write on message boards. In doing so, we reject the legitimacy of the new album without directly questioning the artistic integrity of the band. The possibility that the band may have actually wanted to sound like this, that it was their intention to create this sound, is difficult for us to imagine because of our expectations or preconceived notions of what AFI is supposed to sound like. In short: new sound does not compute.
And then sometimes, in our bitter disappointment and inability to reconcile the new incarnation with our own idea of AFI, we tell ourselves, "Surely the real AFI would never have written something like this." By saying "this isn't AFI" and differentiating between "the real AFI" and the new AFI, we reject the new incarnation itself as illegitimate. In other words, the current AFI is not "real." We try to come up with charges to prove that illegitimacy: "They sold out!" "They have lost all their passion!" "They're lazy!" "They're just writing radio-friendly singles for the money!" This form of de-legitimization attacks not only the new album but the band itself. We forget that when we say "the real AFI," what we really mean is "my vision of what AFI is supposed to sound like" and that there are multiple versions of "the real AFI." (At least 8, in fact....) The new AFI (i.e. what currently exists in reality) is rejected in favor of the "real" AFI (i.e. the version that exists in our minds).
All this is to say that I hope people are aware of what they're really saying when they support or criticize the new album. The act of reviewing an album is already subjective in and of itself; the fact that there are multiple points of reference possible--points that we are invested in--makes reviewing an even messier ordeal.
Disclaimer: The preceding essay does not presume to cover all the reasons why someone might like or dislike the new AFI album. It merely attempts to understand a few reasons why some people have strong reactions of a certain flavor to it. I fully acknowledge that there are can be legitimate criticisms of the album that do not have anything to do with the reviewer's preexisting conceptions of AFI.
I've been noticing a common complaint among some people who hate Crash Love, people screaming "This isn't AFI!!!" I always found that complaint somewhat absurd. Since the band changes its sound with every record, how can you define what AFI is (and isn't) supposed to sound like? Are they supposed to sound like BSITS? STS? ATASF? The answer depends on your point of reference. That's why I find "This doesn't sound anything like STS!" a more valid argument than "This doesn't sound anything like AFI!" Because really, how do you define AFI when there are so many different incarnations? How can you point to just one sound and say, "THAT is what AFI is supposed to sound like"?
I think people define AFI's sound by whichever album they like best. For me, AFI's sound is STS. That's my first album and my favorite, so that's my point of reference. If someone told me, "Dude! I just found this super secret AFI song floating on the Internet, and it's like all the best parts of AFI rolled into ONE SONG. It's effing awesome!"--if someone said that to me, I'd expect the song to sound something like Synesthesia or BHIN (epic chorus, big guitars, driving rhythm, beautiful melodies, poetic lyrics, a sense of rage mixed with despair or vulnerability, light mixed with dark, etc.). For other people, they might expect the song to sound like Totalimmortal or Love Like Winter or This Time Imperfect. It just depends on which album/era you use as your point of reference for what AFI is supposed to sound like. In short: AFI means different things to different people.
It's these differences in POV that surprise us when a new album comes out. We get a new sound and a new definition of AFI, and we have to somehow reconcile this with our old POV. Sometimes we can easily tweak our notion of AFI to accommodate the new era and embrace the new sound. We get excited because we recognize how the new sound is related to our vision of what AFI should sound like. Someone who uses STS as their point of reference might get excited because "This is the album they should've made after STS!" We see echoes of the old in the new, and the familiarity is comforting and exciting.
But sometimes we are unable to reconcile our vision of AFI with AFI's vision of AFI, which then leads some of us to be disappointed and scream "This isn't AFI!" (A presumptuous and absurd charge, for the reasons outlined in the first paragraph above.) A more valid argument might be, "This isn't the AFI I expected!" or perhaps "This isn't my version of AFI!" Anything to acknowledge that our opinion of what is (and isn't) AFI comes from whichever AFI era/sound/album we assume to be the definitive AFI sound--whatever is our point of reference or home base or true north--rather than stating our opinion as a declarative, objective statement.
Sometimes in our disappointment, we try to come up with arguments and excuses to explain the huge gap between our expectations and reality: "The label made them write these songs!" Such arguments seek to explain why the new AFI is no longer the AFI we recognize (again, whichever version of AFI that happens to be), but seeks to do so without blaming the band. We still love the band, so surely it isn't their fault that the new album sounds like crap. "There must have been something nefarious interfering with their ability to put out a great record," we assume or write on message boards. In doing so, we reject the legitimacy of the new album without directly questioning the artistic integrity of the band. The possibility that the band may have actually wanted to sound like this, that it was their intention to create this sound, is difficult for us to imagine because of our expectations or preconceived notions of what AFI is supposed to sound like. In short: new sound does not compute.
And then sometimes, in our bitter disappointment and inability to reconcile the new incarnation with our own idea of AFI, we tell ourselves, "Surely the real AFI would never have written something like this." By saying "this isn't AFI" and differentiating between "the real AFI" and the new AFI, we reject the new incarnation itself as illegitimate. In other words, the current AFI is not "real." We try to come up with charges to prove that illegitimacy: "They sold out!" "They have lost all their passion!" "They're lazy!" "They're just writing radio-friendly singles for the money!" This form of de-legitimization attacks not only the new album but the band itself. We forget that when we say "the real AFI," what we really mean is "my vision of what AFI is supposed to sound like" and that there are multiple versions of "the real AFI." (At least 8, in fact....) The new AFI (i.e. what currently exists in reality) is rejected in favor of the "real" AFI (i.e. the version that exists in our minds).
All this is to say that I hope people are aware of what they're really saying when they support or criticize the new album. The act of reviewing an album is already subjective in and of itself; the fact that there are multiple points of reference possible--points that we are invested in--makes reviewing an even messier ordeal.
Disclaimer: The preceding essay does not presume to cover all the reasons why someone might like or dislike the new AFI album. It merely attempts to understand a few reasons why some people have strong reactions of a certain flavor to it. I fully acknowledge that there are can be legitimate criticisms of the album that do not have anything to do with the reviewer's preexisting conceptions of AFI.