coldplay

davylee

Can anyone tell me just what everybodys problem is with coldplay. I have 3 albums and think their songs are genuinely very good songs. Ive seen them live and they were 10 outta 10. Thought they might have peaked before last album. Along came viva la vida. just brilliant
Ive seen lots of posts with pure hatred for them. ??????????????

jill_valentine

See sig for details.

I dunno, I don't hate Coldplay, it's just that I don't get them. There's something mildly irritating about them that I can't quite put my finger on, and all their best stuff comes from other, better bands. I don't bear them any ill will or anything, but I do have a friend who loves to chew my ear off about how special and unique they are, and it makes me oddly and irrationally resentful...

davylee

jill_valentine wrote: »

See sig for details.

I dunno, I don't hate Coldplay, it's just that I don't get them. There's something mildly irritating about them that I can't quite put my finger on, and all their best stuff comes from other, better bands. I don't bear them any ill will or anything, but I do have a friend who loves to chew my ear off about how special and unique they are, and it makes me oddly and irrationally resentful...

thats exactly wat i mean. you dont like them and you dont no why. is it a commercial thing? prob not because you prob like other bands considered commercial. i dont get it. if you said you didnt like any new, say oasis stuff thatd work because their more recent stuff is not good. The songs are just poor. But coldplay are still writing proper songs. So i dont think its that

Nailz

Well, Coldplay are very unoriginal, uneventfull and boring. They don't have anything that makes them stand out (from a bad bunch) and don't seem to be musically talented at all and always use a very very basic song structure. Overated in everyway, in which their commercial success coming from their record companies' ability to splash it's cash, instead of their music alone. And it's well proven, that the more a radio station plays a song, the more popular it becomes, and I'm not talking about people "getting" to like it, I'm talking about people "being made" to like it.

jill_valentine

There's just something about them that seems a little bit too... needy? I don't know, I have to admit it's really hard to articulate. They remind me of that kid in school who's just trying too hard to be liked.

davylee

Nailz wrote: »

Well, Coldplay are very unoriginal, uneventfull and boring. They don't have anything that makes them stand out (from a bad bunch) and are don't seem to be musically talented at all and always use a very very basic song structure. Overated in everyway, in which their commercial success coming from their record companies' ability to splash it's cash, instead of their music alone. And it's well proven, that the more a radio station plays a song, the more popular it becomes, and I'm not talking about people "getting" to like it, I'm talking about people "being made" to like it.

See thats it. I cant see how there music is unoriginal.
theyve changed their sound since they started.much more keyboard orientated now so i cant see how theyre uneventful. (coldplay would change their sound and be considered useless. If someone like radiohead did it would be genius)
I only saw them once but the thousands of people there certainly didnt find them boring
I wonder if they were not huge. Would everyone who knew them think they were brill then. Id love to know

Nailz

Well the Smiths seemed "needy", and by-fùck were they articulate!!! And they are a top band, thought their fans were hateful at the time. So I doubt that could be their only fault...

nyarlothothep

Liked the first album, the songs have nice textures to them and there are some very catchy melodies on guitar/vocals, but anything afterward I found to be unappealing.

Nailz

davylee wrote: »

See thats it. I cant see how there music is unoriginal.
theyve changed their sound since they started.much more keyboard orientated now so i cant see how theyre uneventful. (coldplay would change their sound and be considered useless. If someone like radiohead did it would be genius)
I only saw them once but the thousands of people there certainly didnt find them boring
I wonder if they were not huge. Would everyone who knew them think they were brill then. Id love to know

D-post, sorry (Edit: ...or not).

Unoriginal as by ways of popular culture in music. They bring nothing to the table. They may sound different to a few bands, but they're doing nothing to push it away from the normal. Which also counts for the keyboards and stuff like that, I can't see how keyboards can now all of a sudden make them eventful. Lots of bands do that sort of thing without passing any remarks to it (eg. Iron Maiden on Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son). Also, I see Radiohead on the same level as Coldplay so that doesn't help your case. Some people would like them (if they weren't huge) because somebody everyway would like to seem alternative, so therefore every band would have a fan no matter how crap they are, but generally, they wouldn't be noticed. And also, those few thousand people should have some sence and stop listening to daytime national radio.

Thank you very much Gerry Ryan... :rolleyes:

xbox36016

coldplay are ok

ShawnRaven

They have nothing new to offer since a rush of blood to the head basically. Every album they've done since then sounds exactly like that. Parachutes was fresh, but everything after that seems to be a rehash of everything they've done since.

I'm loving it, Coldplay have become the new U2 as far as band hatred as concerned, yet they haven't even accomplished a tenth of what U2 have.

themont85

Have to say loved Coldplay's first album but got a bit pissed of listening to them for a while cos they really seemed to be trying hard to be U2. I like the new album, some cracking songs on it. I have to admit though that part of me getting peeved of with them was probably due to their commercial success. I went through a phase where I was a complete and utter music snob. Once a band or songwriter went too commercial(such as snow patrol or damien rice who i liked before they were big), I scoffed at their music. Nowadays though I'm far more laid back when it comes to music-if its catchy and not annoying i'll like it even if its not 'cool'. I lead a happier existence since i gave up trying not to like commercial music.

BaZmO*

Ah you could give a million reasons as to why there's so much negativity towards Coldplay. Stuff like being too needy, unoriginal, the fact that Chris Martin looks and dances like a Geography teacher, naming his kids after pieces of fruit, etc. etc. But the simple fact is that the reason why you hear so many negative comments about them is because just like U2 they're very famous and being slated just comes with the territory.

It doesn't make them any less or any better as a band it just means that because of success you just hear more from both sides.

Xavi6

Loved the whole first album. Thought it was absolutely superb.

All went a bit **** after that.

Roaster

At the end of the day it's not cool to like Coldplay and I think that's were the majority of the hatred comes from. One of the best live bands on the planet.

Censorsh!t

I don't have a problem with them. They're just boring.

gustavo

One of my favourite bands , done 4 great albums imo

JP Liz

great band with great songs

Declan A Walsh

I bought Coldplay's first three albums. I was really into them for a while and I really enjoyed any live performances on the t.v. Live you see the mad hyper charisma of Chris Martin, Chris's piano skills (such as they are), Johnny Buckland's Edge-like guitar skills and some vocal harmonies. There is definitely an atmosphere at Coldplay's concerts which reminds me of U2 - the fromtman's presence, the guitar sound and, a bit pretentious here I know, the spiritual vibes.

Have to admit, having been absolutely bowled over by their whole sound, that I have cooled (sorry - no pun intended) a bit. I still think that each of those three albums are very good - at the moment, I think X and Y shades it. That's despite the fact there are a couple of songs on it I'm not too keen on. I like all the songs on "A Rush of Blood to The Head", but, somehow, X and Y, is that bit better. Parachutes was a good debut, but the next two albums were better.

For some reason, I just can't work up the enthusiasm to purchase album #4. Is this a case of a novelty wearing off? Only time will tell.

davylee

Nailz wrote: »

D-post, sorry (Edit: ...or not).

Unoriginal as by ways of popular culture in music. They bring nothing to the table. They may sound different to a few bands, but they're doing nothing to push it away from the normal. Which also counts for the keyboards and stuff like that, I can't see how keyboards can now all of a sudden make them eventful. Lots of bands do that sort of thing without passing any remarks to it (eg. Iron Maiden on Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son). Also, I see Radiohead on the same level as Coldplay so that doesn't help your case. Some people would like them (if they weren't huge) because somebody everyway would like to seem alternative, so therefore every band would have a fan no matter how crap they are, but generally, they wouldn't be noticed. And also, those few thousand people should have some sence and stop listening to daytime national radio.

Thank you very much Gerry Ryan... :rolleyes:

Push away from the normal? how can anyone say viva la vida is not away from the norm. totally unique (esp within the pop scene)

davylee

Declan A Walsh wrote: »

I bought Coldplay's first three albums. I was really into them for a while and I really enjoyed any live performances on the t.v. Live you see the mad hyper charisma of Chris Martin, Chris's piano skills (such as they are), Johnny Buckland's Edge-like guitar skills and some vocal harmonies. There is definitely an atmosphere at Coldplay's concerts which reminds me of U2 - the fromtman's presence, the guitar sound and, a bit pretentious here I know, the spiritual vibes.

Have to admit, having been absolutely bowled over by their whole sound, that I have cooled (sorry - no pun intended) a bit. I still think that each of those three albums are very good - at the moment, I think X and Y shades it. That's despite the fact there are a couple of songs on it I'm not too keen on. I like all the songs on "A Rush of Blood to The Head", but, somehow, X and Y, is that bit better. Parachutes was a good debut, but the next two albums were better.

For some reason, I just can't work up the enthusiasm to purchase album #4. Is this a case of a novelty wearing off? Only time will tell.

good post. your very right about his charisma. comes across fantastic i think. but alot of people seem to be comparing them to u2. fair enough the frontman thing but dont see any real other similarities.
Spiritual vibes - i think i see wat your on about. Theyre presence nd performances create sum atmosphere. Hard to explain

jill_valentine

Seriously, everything I've heard from Viva..., at best just sounds like a really watered-down Arcade Fire.

JerryHandbag

I like Coldplay, I think their albums have improved from first to last...

jill_valentine wrote: »

Seriously, everything I've heard from Viva..., at best just sounds like a really watered-down Arcade Fire.

The track Lovers In Japan from their latest album has a very Arcade Fire vibe about it alright (Neighborhood no.3 Power Out)!!

jill_valentine

Everytime I hear Violet Hill I think it's Crown of Love. There's bits where the lyrics even start to sound familiar...

Nailz

davylee wrote: »

Push away from the normal? how can anyone say viva la vida is not away from the norm. totally unique (esp within the pop scene)

It's hard to bore me, in that way it's away from the norm. Oh please, I heard it all before... From crappy old U2 anyway. Viva La Vida is terrible, nothing special about at all. They don't know how to make songs that don't bore you I'm afraid...

Chardee MacDennis

major problem with coldplay is they became "the biggest band in the world" by default when there were no good big bands around to fill the void, the worst part is they believe the hype and actually believe they are the best band in the world (well 7th)! the clothing thing seems very pretentious esp when it looks so crap, their music is nothing special, but not bad mind you, and chris martin is an attention grabbing nothing; like climbing out of windows in interviews, actively making an effort to never allowing himself and paltrow to be seen together in public.

just makes me want to slap him and tell him to get over himself really, i dont think he really gets into the music as much as he pretends on stage and that just plain annoys me and i think he thinks Coldplay are the next U2...

so really my main problem with coldplay is chris martin....

Kold

It's the same reason I dislike Oasis. They have one or two nice songs but quickly stagnate. If I heard 12 very similar songs on an album I wouldn't be happy. Yet these are bands that release 10 albums of very similar songs. It's alright when you hear the song on the radio, isolated. That's all they are to me though. Singles bands. Not artists, craftsmen.

They're hailed as these hugely important bands and as such are always asked about music. From their interviews you thing 'Wait... This person hasn't got a clue!' The fanboys who tote them as such great bands but instantly disperse if they were to try taking a new direction.

Amazotheamazing

They are music for people who don't like music that much, their lyrics are for the most part, rubbish. They are elevator music, simple, inoffensive, bland.

That being said, I'm sure I go along and hum at one of their concerts and totally enjoy myself, Radiohead's Kid A was amazing live, but I don't have much time for that in an album format either.

Kold

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Radiohead's Kid A was amazing live, but I don't have much time for that in an album format either.

Different kettle of fish altogether. That album is a landmark by a hugely relevant band.

Nolanger

davylee wrote: »

Can anyone tell me just what everybodys problem is with coldplay?

• Lack of originality
• Watered down version of Radiohead
• Lame, wimpy music for dinner parties
• Songs for men in touch with their feminine side
• Public school boys with nothing to say on life
• Overproduced sounds to appeal to radio listeners
• Music that will not stand the test of time

BaZmO*

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

They are music for people who don't like music that much,

I'm sorry but that's complete BS. So if you like Coldplay you don't like music? :rolleyes:

I absolutely hate music snobbery.

Huggles

Declan A Walsh wrote: »

For some reason, I just can't work up the enthusiasm to purchase album #4. Is this a case of a novelty wearing off? Only time will tell.

If you own a copy of the Joshua Tree then don't bother buying #4

big b

I don't mind Coldplay, but they certainly haven't developed into the band I hoped they would, regardless of their commercial success. They seemed so promising with their first two albums, but they don't seem to have grown musically.

X & Y got me thinking about it, and Vida confirmed it - there's one hell of a "best of" double album in their reportoire,(and a great live DVD too) but there's just too much filler that sounds like a flat version of the same few ideas.

They're surely getting some negative response to their popularity - lots of people just have to hate whoever is big at the time. That makes feck all difference to me, but I'm afraid it's just too much filler, not enough killer.

Nailz

BaZmO* wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's complete BS. So if you like Coldplay you don't like music? :rolleyes:

I absolutely hate music snobbery.

To be fair, he used a wrong monarch for such a discussion, but I can see what he means. Coldplay are a band who make simular songs to each other, then pick the most 'catchy' ones out for their singles. They are money orientated. So people only listen to them because they have a catchy single and a stronghold on popular music. These so-called fans don't listen to the band, they listen to the songs...

humberklog

Nailz wrote: »

They are money orientated.

With the exception of trappist monks isn't every music artist in some way.

Jayzuz I know it was safe as a brick house but that Parachutes album is brilliant. Safe, safe...but phew I'd wheel my granny in a hand cart straight into the arms of the Algerian white slave trade to have wrote one of the songs off the album.
Life can't be all coke, vodka, heroin, hookers and TV's fecked from hotel windows. Some times the body needs a salad, smoothy and an early night and that's the end of the spectrum they supply too. They and many like them are the reason for the on/off button.


It does flipping annoy me how they're dressed so obviously by stylists though. Not a big gripe I know but they're grown lads being dressed by someone else.

KnifeWRENCH

I can't stand Chris Martin - his voice is very weak and unbearably nasal and he seems like a smug, irritating tool. The band's music is just bland - "Yellow" is one of the most vile songs ever constructed lyrically and musically)

I used like a few of their songs (In My Place, Clocks) but I can't listen to them anymore because I just want Chris Martin to die.*

*ok maybe die is a bit harsh - I just wish I'd never have to hear him ever again.

Helix

i like viva la vida quite a lot

fantastic album

BaZmO*

square_igloo wrote: »

I can't stand Chris Martin - his voice is very weak and unbearably nasal and he seems like a smug, irritating tool. The band's music is just bland - "Yellow" is one of the most vile songs ever

Nasal? He certainly has a week voice but it's not nasal.

And as for Yellow, you are sooooo wrong on that one.

sparkzter

Xavi6 wrote: »

Loved the whole first album. Thought it was absolutely superb.

All went a bit **** after that.

Yes, I'd have a agree with that school of thought! I always thought they started off so well- so new and different but to me IMO they seem to be blending in a bit more these days- and not so original and different as they once were.... Maybe thats not their fault, I dunno, I'm sure it doesnt help that there are so many copycat bands out there too....
Maybe its because of the copycat bands and thats why people are getting bored of the sound......

jill_valentine

I'm not a Coldplay fan, but I will say: I really, really don't think Chris Martin is in it for the money. I really don't.

Amazotheamazing

BaZmO* wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's complete BS. So if you like Coldplay you don't like music? :rolleyes:

I absolutely hate music snobbery.

Not snobbery, they sell to people who don't buy a lot of music. The people out there who like them because they hum along to them on the radio, maybe there's something I'm missing, here's an article on it, just swap matchbox 20 for Coldplay.



Matchbox Twenty Finally Finishes Watering Down Long-Awaited New Album
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 | ISSUE 40•38


LOS ANGELES—Executives at Atlantic Records announced Monday that multi-platinum recording artist Matchbox Twenty, which set sales records in 2000 for its mega-hit release Mad Season, has finally finished watering down tracks on its long-awaited new album Beige.

"Everyone here at Atlantic is thrilled about what's sure to be the biggest-selling, least-rocking record of the year," Atlantic public-relations spokeswoman Janet Cosgrove said. "It's been a long wait, but the incredibly boring results speak for themselves. Beige is bigger and blander than anything Matchbox Twenty has ever done."

"Grab a chair, America!" she added. "The most uninteresting band in formulaic, corporate radio is back!"

The release has been eagerly awaited by Matchbox Twenty's enormous fan base, composed of American record buyers who have a limited interest in music but enjoy the act of shopping. In order to satisfy the undemanding non-tastes of this lucrative market, Matchbox Twenty has made every effort to create what record-industry insiders say is the band's least distinctive album yet.

"Some were disappointed with the relatively limited reception to Matchbox Twenty's 2002 release More Than You Think You Are," Rolling Stone contributing editor Nathan Brackett said. "That album proved what record executives have known for years: It's actually very difficult to record a rock record that has no rock in it at all. But with this new release, Matchbox Twenty has really delivered on its signature non-sound."

After the enormous commercial success of 1996's Yourself Or Someone Like You, demand for simplistic, cookie-cutter output from the band has been high. Yet, according to Grammy-winning lead vocalist Rob Thomas, the new record's release was delayed repeatedly because of Matchbox Twenty's perfectionism in the studio.

"Our goal was to follow in the tradition of great multi-platinum artists like Elton John, Phil Collins, and the Dave Matthews Band—sales powerhouses who relied on the musical ignorance of their fans," Thomas told reporters following Monday's announcement. "We knew that if we wanted to match those historic giants for sheer lack of energy, we couldn't settle for anything less than total banality. And, though it took a lot of time and effort, I think we achieved that—an album that sets a new standard for trite crapola."

"It's really derivative and boring," he added.

Thomas said it was the expectations of listeners that drove the band to create the most average music possible.

"We wanted to give our fans exactly what they've come to expect: music so inoffensive and indistinct that it could be played virtually anywhere—a bank lobby, an SUV stuck in traffic, a party full of aging stockbrokers and their girlfriends. That's no small task. Even a lot of the most vacant and unimaginative people have some capacity to actively engage in the music they're listening to."

According to band members, hundreds of hours were spent in the studio trying to render the sound adequately benign.

"No matter how many times we recorded the new single 'Sitting Down (Hands At My Side),' there was still a certain 'oomph' coming through in the drums, a loud-ish, slightly gripping sound that we couldn't remove," drummer Paul Doucette said. "Finally, after running them through about two dozen filters, we managed to get that 'plastic spork hitting mashed potatoes' sound we were after."

There was a similar problem, band members said, with the guitar solos, some of which contained trace elements of what musicians call "passion." In addition, the interplay among bass, drums, and guitars occasionally produced uncomfortable polyrhythmic effects that provoked unintentional toe-tapping or head-bobbing in listeners. The problems were fixed through extensive re-recording.

"I'm satisfied that all the watering-down we put into this album was worth it," Thomas said. "My lyrics are super-bland, the bass might as well have been recorded on a keyboard, and just wait until you hear how dull we managed to make the guitars sound. It's amazing."

The band will introduce the album's first single next week on MTV's hugely popular, entirely insipid show Total Request Live.

davylee

BaZmO* wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's complete BS. So if you like Coldplay you don't like music? :rolleyes:

I absolutely hate music snobbery.

I second that.
If a band wants wants to play to full stadiums theyve sold out according to most people. Coldplay dont seem to be the sort of band influenced by the "rock and roll" lifestyle. Regardless of what people say they are into their music

davylee

Nailz wrote: »

To be fair, he used a wrong monarch for such a discussion, but I can see what he means. Coldplay are a band who make simular songs to each other, then pick the most 'catchy' ones out for their singles. They are money orientated. So people only listen to them because they have a catchy single and a stronghold on popular music. These so-called fans don't listen to the band, they listen to the songs...

Id say 99% of bands pick their singles using that method
Whats this they dont listen to the band they listen to the songs rubbish.
You listen to a song. You like or you dont like.
Calling people so called fans is ridiculous. The reason great bands are great is because they have great songs. individual taste says which bands are great

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

BaZmO*

Nailz wrote: »

Coldplay are a band who make simular songs to each other, then pick the most 'catchy' ones out for their singles. They are money orientated. So people only listen to them because they have a catchy single and a stronghold on popular music. These so-called fans don't listen to the band, they listen to the songs...

Are you for real? Did you actually read what you wrote?

"They write songs and then pick the best ones to put on the album"?? Ehh, that's what every band does.

And how is people listening to a band because they have catchy music a criticism?

And your last last comment has to be a p1ss take? "People only listen to their songs and not the band"???

How can you listen to a band and not the songs? It doesn't make sense. And surely if people are only listening to their songs, how could they have fans?

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Not snobbery, they sell to people who don't buy a lot of music.

And you know this as a definite fact then?

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

The people out there who like them because they hum along to them on the radio, maybe there's something I'm missing

People like them because they actually like them, there's nothing to miss about that. It's quite simple really.

As for the "article" Yawn :rolleyes:

KnifeWRENCH

BaZmO* wrote: »

Nasal? He certainly has a week voice but it's not nasal.

And as for Yellow, you are sooooo wrong on that one.

I'm sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo not (I used more o's so I win! )

Kold

BaZmO* wrote: »

"They write songs and then pick the best ones to put on the album"?? Ehh, that's what every band does.

And how is people listening to a band because they have catchy music a criticism?

I'm not saying you're wrong but an album is meant to be a piece, it's not meant to be the best tracks and then some filler so they can sell it for more. A band of their genre should be looking for a bit more depth.

I'm not saying they're a bad band, I think Chris Martin is a pretty good guy. I'm just saying that I don't they're a very good band and that they're not really all that relevant.


Ooh, 5,999th post... What to do with number 6,000?

BaZmO*

Kold wrote: »

I'm not saying you're wrong but an album is meant to be a piece, it's not meant to be the best tracks and then some filler so they can sell it for more. A band of their genre should be looking for a bit more depth.

Not necessarily. An album can be anything the artist wants it to be, it's there work after all. It's then up to the individual buying it or listening to it to decide if they like it or not.

And on the subject of "Albums" it would seem that since the birth of digital downloads they are becoming less and less relevant as people are just downloading the individual singles.

Don't get me wrong though, personally I still love albums and I like the way it can be a snapshot of where a particular band is at that moment in time.

Kold wrote: »

I'm not saying they're a bad band, I think Chris Martin is a pretty good guy. I'm just saying that I don't they're a very good band and that they're not really all that relevant.

But that's fair enough, but it's also only your opinion.

I think one of the best ways to gauge if a band is relevant or not is how many up and coming bands cite them as being and influence. I think time will tell on that one.

Kold wrote: »

Ooh, 5,999th post... What to do with number 6,000?

Gotta be a "Yore Ma" post!!

KnifeWRENCH

Kold wrote: »

Ooh, 5,999th post... What to do with number 6,000?

Mustard forum. Go. NOW

---

>

faigs

jill_valentine wrote: »

Seriously, everything I've heard from Viva..., at best just sounds like a really watered-down Arcade Fire.

Is that just because its cool to like Arcade Fire? I like both bands and they both have strenghts and weaknesses. Arcade Fire have some damn boring songs that just dont seem to kick in and entertain me at all, so do Coldplay. But they both have amazing songs too, Arcade Fire's high points being better that Coldplays admittedly. I don't want to compare them, they only slightly sound alike in a couple of songs but it must be hard for every band to be completely unique all of the time. Editors and Interpol can sound alike, CSS and Ting Tings, Delorentos and Dirtector etc in places but you never hear people getting so worked up over them or others.

I would call myself a fan of Coldplay but I do think Chris Martin is a dick and I dont like the way he goes on...they have a good live show though and at the end of the day some really good music. So what if they have 'conventional' structures to their songs, not every music fan is too cool for school and only listens to 'alt' music all the time and hangs round Whelans and the Village four nights a week talking about bands that no one has heard of only to stop liking them when they get popular and 'sell out'.

jill_valentine

faigs wrote: »

Is that just because its cool to like Arcade Fire? I like both bands and they both have strenghts and weaknesses. Arcade Fire have some damn boring songs that just dont seem to kick in and entertain me at all, so do Coldplay. But they both have amazing songs too, Arcade Fire's high points being better that Coldplays admittedly. I don't want to compare them, they only slightly sound alike in a couple of songs but it must be hard for every band to be completely unique all of the time. Editors and Interpol can sound alike, CSS and Ting Tings, Delorentos and Dirtector etc in places but you never hear people getting so worked up over them or others.

Like I say, I actually do think Chris Martin is probably a nice fella. I don't think Coldplay are necessarily bad musicians, and I think they probably really do love music. What irks me about them is that they haven't got anything of their own, anything at all that I would recognise in a vacuum as "Coldplay's thing". All over their stuff, I just keep hearing it and thinking "Hmm, this bit sounds like U2. And Arcade Fire have already done that bit. Oh, and there's Radiohead again."

Everything I see and hear, from their lyrical style, to their instrumentation, to their look, all of it feels like something they saw elsewhere and decided to try out for themselves. For Arcade Fire in particular, and for entirely uncynical reasons, I think Coldplay looked at a band they liked and made a conscious decision to ape them. And sometimes to comic effect:



Like the needy kid in a playground biting the popular kid's style, they want to be as cool as a band they obviously admire very much, but by simply doing an impression of them, they've missed the point. Chris Martin likes Arcade Fire because they are Arcade Fire. There's already one of them, and trying to do exactly what they do will only ever, at best, let you be the second best Arcade Fire out there.

It frustrates me that Coldplay, who I really do think are decent dudes capable of decent music, just can't quite seem to take their own risks. I think they'd be a far better band if they could create their own identity.

I still don't quite hate them though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-QlJCPW5LQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6TTWE7E6WY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5l7fBwAmmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYyN935tN7A