How many times should you listen to the new Arcade Fire before saying it sucks?

If you haven't already noticed Arcade Fire released a new album this week. And while the first missive out deemed that it's was pretty good, every other review from mags to local Tweets have called it a boring let-down.

This prodded us to ask if maybe we were jumping the gun on this: How many times should you listen to Arcade Fire's 'The Suburbs' before you can definitively say that it sucks?

The band's 2004 album 'Funeral' was a grand, melodic shout-fest - a generation-defining piece that stands as one of the most significant albums of that past decade (whatever it's called).

'Neon Bible' in 2007 was a mediocre sophomore effort. Sure it had it moments, but none of those triumphant peaks and cascading choruses we heard on the original.

Now we are given 'The Suburbs' - today actually - and it sounds pretty decent on the first couple of spins. And we are wondering whether the negative pronouncements and tweets about the overall lameness of it may be a little premature.

We guess the bottom line here is that maybe we should give this album some time. Could it a grower, more like a National album, than the traditional catchiness of popular indie rock of years past?

Sure, in the rush to get something out by the time the album is due in stores and lands on Twitter's trending topics everyone needs to say something about the new Arcade Fire. But we're willing to wait before saying it definitely sucks ass.

Arcade Fire - The Suburbs