Thread: Coldplay lol

I don't blame him.

That's awesome. Smart kid.

I recall enjoying coldplay quite a bit in the past. I haven't listened to them recently, but i still think they are pretty rad.

It's the kind of music you would listen to before jumping off the local bridge. Still, whenever I feel like a good blub, coldplay comes in to complement the mood.

We should all follow your kid's exellent example- all block coldplay!

What's the deal?

I really like Coldplay. Clocks/Speed of Sound/Talk... These are great songs people...great songs.

Clocks and Speed of Sound are the same song.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Clocks and Speed of Sound are the same song.

Wrong


All you Coldplay haters should find some taste. Seriously. Coldplay is amazing and all y'all should recognize.

Yeah, I'm totally at a loss... It's like saying something crazy-off-the-wall silly like "I don't like sex."


You people are off.

That is all.

Originally posted by FreshBrains


That is all.

the heck is that?!

and yes, Coldplay is a talented group...so let's hear actual REASONS why y'all think they suck

That would be the album cover to Meddle, IMO Pink Floyd's best work before Dark Side of the Moon.

Parachutes was a great album, I'll give them that.

Rush of Blood....also not bad. A step in the safe direction.

X&Y, however, was a disgusting display of cowardice on the part of Chris Martin. They'd finally achieved the level of success where any self-respecting musician can and should take some chances. With the world on its knees, he was given a perfect and rare opportunity to challenge the frontiers of popular music.

What does he do? Puts out Rush of Blood pt. 2. Why? He knows it'll sell.

He's certainly secured a wealthy future for his oddly-named children, but at the cost of all artistic merit and respect that he had previously earned.

Good music doesn't mean you always have to take chances. People liked what he was doing so he kept doing it.

Originally posted by Gorky
Good music doesn't mean you always have to take chances. People liked what he was doing so he kept doing it.

And that's why the TV and radio are jam-packed with post-grunge clones, teenie-bopper flavour of the week's and trashy R&B skanks.

Good thing Coldplay isn't any of those.

Nope, Coldplay fits into the self-concerned, metaphor-mixing, cliche-sligning pop-rock category along with U2, Keane, Lifehouse, Live, etc, etc.

Monchromatic, underwhleming, uninspired, bland. Listenable but not memorable.

(Didn't like the way I articulated my second reply, so here's another shot at it.)

Those of us who are not "artsy" tend to determine the merit of a particular song based on whether we enjoy listening to it, and not on whether the artist is pushing the envelope in regards to what passes as "mainstream," nor on what particular niche one might classify a song within or how similar the style is to any other song.

In short, we know what we like when we hear it...we don't have to stop and think about it.

Originally posted by FreshBrains

huh. "A picture is worth a thousand words" eh?

Originally posted by icedawg
(Didn't like the way I articulated my second reply, so here's another shot at it.)

Those of us who are not "artsy" tend to determine the merit of a particular song based on whether we enjoy listening to it, and not on whether the artist is pushing the envelope in regards to what passes as "mainstream," nor on what particular niche one might classify a song within or how similar the style is to any other song.

In short, we know what we like when we hear it...we don't have to stop and think about it.

Nothing wrong with that, but by taking such a stance you forfeit the right to judge their artistic talent. Which is what I was getting at. Sure Coldplay puts out some very listenable tracks, but that doesn't make them good.

Hell, give me an unlimited budget, 2 years, state of the art mixing software and I could put out X&Y.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Nothing wrong with that, but by taking such a stance you forfeit the right to judge their artistic talent. Which is what I was getting at. Sure Coldplay puts out some very listenable tracks, but that doesn't make them good.

It seems to me labels such as, "monochromatic, underwhelming, uninspired, bland" are rather tenuous and completely subjective.

Alright, let me break it down. Listen to Clocks and Speed of Sound, back to back.

The melody and motion of Speed of Sound is a near-exact replica of Clocks, perhaps their most commercially successful song. The problem? It replicates a piano-hook that we've all heard a thousand times over. Negating the intended emotional impact.

Sure the lyrical content is different, in Speed he talks about planets and inventions and 'whooshing' things in the universe. But these are ideas he already delved into on The Scientist. Nothing new here.

Add some echo effects, string synths (god forbid Chris would let his vocals actually stand out from a song) and presto! A multi-platinum radio hit is born, err...compiled?

This isn't even mentioning the non-sensical/vague lyricism.
a) Planets don't travel at the speed of light.
B) Can you stand with your head in sand?
c) Find a part of a mountain to climb other than the side and I'll be impressed.

Hence the labels; uninspired, underwhelming.

Monochromatic and bland? These would stem from the fast/slow/fast/slow (but somehow all midtempo) album progression. Not to mention the lack of variation from album to album.

I don't even really hate Coldplay. It's pointless to harbour such strong feelings toward such an inconsequential load of doe-eyed love songs and cheap existentialism.

Wow....do you do this with every band you hear of? It's easier to just like them if you like them. I enjoy their music. It can just be that simple. If they have likeable music, just like it.

Originally posted by Gorky
Wow....do you do this with every band you hear of? It's easier to just like them if you like them. I enjoy their music. It can just be that simple. If they have likeable music, just like it.

See, that's kind of what I was trying to get at with bradybaker, but I was only alluding to it and wasn't completely clear. Music is completely subjective.

Let me try and give an example to explain. Someone can tell me about a book or a movie and I can get a reasonable idea of whether I'll enjoy it or not; conversely, no amount of adjectives or labels used to describe a particular song could give me the faintest clue of whether I'd like it. I have to actually hear it to determine if I'd like it (and I don't need to hear hundreds of other songs that may be similar in order to form my opinion of one particular song). Music is so abstract, to the point where I feel it is futile to attempt to describe it using terms such as "uninspired" (what does that even mean?) or "underwhelming," "bland," etc. It boggles my mind that professional music critics have jobs...I mean come on, who can honestly decide they'll dislike or enjoy a song simply based on someone's [essentially arbitrary] labels and adjectives?

To me, a song should be appreciated as a whole, and not broken down into a number of elements and then critiqued accordingly. At least, that's how music is received in my mind...perhaps being more logic/scientific-oriented renders me forever unable to understand the minds of the artsy. (Still kinda seems like a waste of time to me though. Just write your own music and celebrate whatever music you enjoy; stop belittling the music the rest of us love!)

Originally posted by icedawg

huh. *"A picture is worth a thousand words" eh? *

Yes.
Seriously, listen to Echoes, Meddle's last song. It's 23 and a half minutes of amazement.

Originally posted by icedawg



See, that's kind of what I was trying to get at with bradybaker, but I was only alluding to it and wasn't completely clear. Music is completely subjective.

Let me try and give an example to explain. Someone can tell me about a book or a movie and I can get a reasonable idea of whether I'll enjoy it or not; conversely, no amount of adjectives or labels used to describe a particular song could give me the faintest clue of whether I'd like it. I have to actually hear it to determine if I'd like it (and I don't need to hear hundreds of other songs that may be similar in order to form my opinion of one particular song). Music is so abstract, to the point where I feel it is futile to attempt to describe it using terms such as "uninspired" (what does that even mean?) or "underwhelming," "bland," etc. It boggles my mind that professional music critics have jobs...I mean come on, who can honestly decide they'll dislike or enjoy a song simply based on someone's [essentially arbitrary] labels and adjectives?

To me, a song should be appreciated as a whole, and not broken down into a number of elements and then critiqued accordingly. At least, that's how music is received in my mind...perhaps being more logic/scientific-oriented renders me forever unable to understand the minds of the artsy. (Still kinda seems like a waste of time to me though. Just write your own music and celebrate whatever music you enjoy; stop belittling the music the rest of us love!)