Architects @ CMW 2008

BACKGROUND/COMPOSITION: These U.K. exchange students have learned the ways of Canadian hardcore, but may end up teaching us a thing or two in the process. Their image-conscious, dual-guitar approach may not be revolutionary thinking, and was most likely cribbed from the smart kids' notes, but Architects give form and structure to a style that sometimes resembles the chaos (and sound) of a car wreck.

Grade: 74

Comment: These guys are the private school preps. Architects try to come across as a natural, organic sort of group, but I got the impression that every note and every word was planned out well before they got on the plane. Maybe it was the jet lag, but they seemed awfully worn out before the first song was over. Next time, make it less flash, more substance.

Achievement of Rock 'n' Roll Expectations
80-100: Exceeds skill and knowledge expectations, i.e. rocked us so hard we peed our pants.
70-79: Achieves required skills and knowledge. Meets rock 'n' roll standard.
60-69: Demonstrates some skills. Approaches rock 'n' roll standard.
50-59: Demonstrates some required skills and knowledge in a limited way.
00-50: Has not demonstrated required skills or knowledge.

Learning Skills: E=Excellent, G=Good, S=Satisfactory, N=Sad Really

Oral And Visual Communication
Eye Contact: E
Pronunciation: E
Stage Presence: E
Stage Banter: G
Image: E
Appearance: E
Use Of Stage: G

Strengths/Weaknesses/NextStep: 
Architects put some effort into making sure there is movement onstage. I'll even bet some of their sections were choreographed. Their vocalist was the most fun to watch. He was a live wire, spazzing out in British flailing and hopping around the stage, always finding his way to the south side where the most cameras were. He gave crowdsurfing a couple goes too; the second time while still holding the mic and shouting the last chorus of the set, ending with a final, "We've been Architects!"

Musical Analysis
Level Of Participation: E 
Problem Solving: E
Teamwork: G
Work Habits: E
Organization: E
Audience Participation: G
Sound: E
Composition: S
Songs: G

Strengths/Weaknesses/NextStep:
I know it's a little redundant to say all of a hardcore band's set sounded the same, but Architects were prime offenders in this regard. They put lots of thought was put into their image, but more should be put into their sound. They've demonstrated a strong comprehension of the hardcore basics (heavy rhythms, lots of low end and vocals that sound like something from The Exorcist), but seem unmotivated to move onto advanced material.

Other Skills And Areas Of Interest
Charisma: G
Problem Solving: G
Teamwork: G
Sexiness: S
Haircut: G
Indie Rock Footwear: E
Nods To Disposible Fashion: E
Cool Equipment: E
Level Of Inebriation: E
Actual Ability: G

Strengths/Weaknesses/NextStep: 
Like so many U.K. bands, Architects were great at holding our attention for 15 minutes and terrible at holding it beyond that. Good thing they kept the set relatively short, because the audience was quickly losing interest. They obeyed the vocalist when he called for a pit o' death, but that didn't last long before people forgot about Architects and went back to their conversations.