The case against Coldplay

Ryan Rickenbach · Post by **Ryan Rickenbach** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:18 am

I guess I'm just extremely biased against the whole genre.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:21 am

j$ wrote:And all this just proves their iconic status, of course ...

They're fine enough. I'd rather listen to them than say, The Bravery or the Libertines. And actually you're all very smug for a continent that enforced Limp Biskit and Linkin Park on the world.

And as for idealism, Sparks, I'd rather see people trying and failing to make things better, than sitting around using cynicism as an excuse for not even trying in the first place -it's the battle that makes it worthwhile!

I like The Libertines

But Coldplay really are the UK's answer to Matchbox 20

j$ · Post by j$ » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:25 am

Your statement

Caravan Ray wrote:I like The Libertines

invalidates your opinion

Caravan Ray wrote:But Coldplay really are the UK's answer to Matchbox 20

j$

jack · Post by **jack** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:09 am

i was flipping channels last night and they had a coldplay mini concert from times square or something on, where they played some songs from their new album. so i watched it. or part of it anyways.

they were actually pretty good live, i have to admit. it's not that they lack talent. but they seemed to be trying really hard to recreate this U2/joshua tree sound all the way around, from the arrangement to the way the singer likes to trail off his singing like Bono. and whatever that song that borrowed liberally from "Also Sprach Zarathustra" was pretty lame. it sort of reinforces the unoriginal, gimmicky side of the band.

in fact, in one song, i thought the singer was going to yell "unos, dos, tres...." ala Bono.

so they have somewhat admirable chops but they are still a shill for the man.

Justincombustion · Post by **Justincombustion** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:13 pm

I don't like them becaue that song "the Scientist" is really just a rip off of a U2 song (Beautiful Day-which I didn't like in the first place)--that's musically.

Now personally, I don't like the guy who sings because he had a baby. Yeah, lots of people have babies. But he is one of those jackasses that thinks HE did something SOOO spectatular that it's never been done in the history of the human race.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:53 pm

Justincombustion wrote:But he is one of those jackasses that thinks HE did something SOOO spectatular that it's never been done in the history of the human race.

I don't know, convincing Gwyneth Paltrow to name your kid Apple doesn't really happen every day.

Post by jb » Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:16 pm

Justincombustion wrote:Now personally, I don't like the guy who sings because he had a baby. Yeah, lots of people have babies. But he is one of those jackasses that thinks HE did something SOOO spectatular that it's never been done in the history of the human race.

If it happens to you and you DON'T feel that way, I'm calling Social Services on your ass.

c.layne · Post by **c.layne** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:19 pm

i eat babies.

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:55 pm

blue wrote:
deshead wrote:The EMI Group is the third largest record label in the world. That their stock price could swing on the fortunes of a single band is ludicrous. And yet, it's perfectly emblematic of the state in which the industry has placed itself by forgoing the active development of new talent to focus on building a brand.
stock prices fluctuate because large holding companies see a good opportunity to make a quick buck. bad news? sell. good news, but not quite good enough? sell.

Spoken like a veteran day trader.

Dan-O from Five-O · Post by **Dan-O from Five-O** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:05 pm

Ryan Rickenbach wrote:Coldplay...

People are calling them the best rock band alive, and that makes me ill. They are not bad, but they're just not that great either. No where near the caliber of Led Zeppelin, Beatles or Rolling Stones. Coldplay=hype.

I haven't finished reading this whole thread, and I don't think Coldplay is the best rock band alive, hell I don't know enough about them to make an educated guess, but the references you make are mostly of bands that no longer exist, which could make them the best band alive by virtue of the last one standing. (The Stones not withstanding, but hell my band kicks their ass now. Back in the '60's no, but now, well sure. How hard is it to kick a senior citizens ass? If you need help with the answer let me know, I'll PM you with the results)

deshead · Post by **deshead** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:30 am

blue wrote:
deshead wrote:That their stock price could swing on the fortunes of a single band is ludicrous. And yet, it's perfectly emblematic of the state in which the industry has placed itself by forgoing the active development of new talent to focus on building a brand.
does the price of a stock always represent the value of a company?
no.

is EMI really not signing any other bands just to concentrate on coldplay?

No, of course not. But Coldplay's power over EMI's stock price is still emblematic of the industry's woes. It's an all-eggs-in-one-basket scenario for EMI (whether real or the cause of fickle day traders), just like the industry puts all their eggs in one basket with brand- and genre-biased talent development (and for that matter, suing customers to protect a business model.)

jack wrote:they seemed to be trying really hard to recreate this U2/joshua tree sound

Justincombustion wrote: "the Scientist" is really just a rip off of a U2 song

Téodor said it best: http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=05202005

In other news: Did anyone get the new Coldplay album on Tuesday? It's exactly what I expected. The music is flawless, every song has a prominent hook, and Chris Martin doesn't stop asking me questions (like "what if you should decide that you don't want me there in your life?".. heh).

I'm going to be sick of it after 5 listens.

Justincombustion · Post by **Justincombustion** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:16 am

jb wrote:
Justincombustion wrote:Now personally, I don't like the guy who sings because he had a baby. Yeah, lots of people have babies. But he is one of those jackasses that thinks HE did something SOOO spectatular that it's never been done in the history of the human race.
If it happens to you and you DON'T feel that way, I'm calling Social Services on your ass.

If that happens to me, I'm beating the crap out of my doctor!! And making him pay for it. I just fail to see the big deal. Some of the dumbest, most un impressive people have kids. It's not like it takes a genius or a special talent to do it.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:50 am

Lots of people make songs. Many of these people are dumb and unimpressive. Yet most musicians feel excited when they create a new song, especially one that is truly different from anything else they've heard, one that has your personal mark of uniqueness on it.

Lots of people have babies. But every time a child is born, it's something spectacular* because those are the only two people on the planet who could have produced THAT exact child.

*Go ahead and quote Bill Hicks now if you really, really feel the need.

Justincombustion · Post by **Justincombustion** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:07 am

Yeah I get it, it seems some people almost worry more about how they come off now and act. The worry should be focused more on the kid than the parent's image.

boltoph · Post by **boltoph** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:10 am

erikb wrote:Lots of people make songs. Many of these people are dumb and unimpressive. Yet most musicians feel excited when they create a new song, especially one that is truly different from anything else they've heard, one that has your personal mark of uniqueness on it.

Lots of people have babies. But every time a child is born, it's something spectacular* because those are the only two people on the planet who could have produced THAT exact child.

YEAH!
Isn't it funny how the babies look like the parents?
Isn't it funny how songs seem to sound like the people who wrote them, and give indication as to what kind of personality the writer has?
Isn't it great how much easier songs are to take care of than babies?

Hasn't Coldplay been deteriorating ever since "Yellow"? I think so.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:19 pm

I thought "Yellow" was an Oasis song for so long. Man, fuck Coldplay. That's what I just realized.

Ryan Rickenbach · Post by **Ryan Rickenbach** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:01 am

Dan-O from Five-O wrote: I haven't finished reading this whole thread, and I don't think Coldplay is the best rock band alive, hell I don't know enough about them to make an educated guess, but the references you make are mostly of bands that no longer exist, which could make them the best band alive by virtue of the last one standing. (The Stones not withstanding, but hell my band kicks their ass now. Back in the '60's no, but now, well sure. How hard is it to kick a senior citizens ass? If you need help with the answer let me know, I'll PM you with the results)

Maybe you're right...Is this the best rock the world has to offer? We can't find anyone better?

Justincombustion wrote: If that happens to me, I'm beating the crap out of my doctor!! And making him pay for it. I just fail to see the big deal. Some of the dumbest, most un impressive people have kids. It's not like it takes a genius or a special talent to do it.

How many times does a "rock star" marry a moviestar, become lead singer of the most popular band in the world, and name their kid Apple? Just saying...

jack · Post by **jack** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:23 am

i got a chuckle out of this.

http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:30 am

Justincombustion wrote:Now personally, I don't like the guy who sings because he had a baby. Yeah, lots of people have babies. But he is one of those jackasses that thinks HE did something SOOO spectatular that it's never been done in the history of the human race.

Sort of like someone who posts on a BBS thinking he's got something to say and it's something soooo spectacular. Yeah, I see your point.

deshead · Post by **deshead** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:35 pm

jack wrote:i got a chuckle out of this.
http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

As did I ... A chuckle, and lots and lots of yearning.

Eric Y. · Post by **Eric Y.** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:14 am

deshead wrote:
jack wrote:they seemed to be trying really hard to recreate this U2/joshua tree sound

Justincombustion wrote: "the Scientist" is really just a rip off of a U2 song
Téodor said it best: http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=05202005

man i've been saying for months that coldplay is now better at being u2 than u2 is. and they're still relatively new, and have got nowhere to go but up from here. and then listen to the smeg u2 have been putting out in the past decade................

[edit: i just realised this thread title kind of precludes any kind of contrary opinions... oh well.]

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:29 am

Coldplay is doing U2 in the same way that Oasis is doing the Beatles: they focus in on *some* of the things that the earlier band did really well, but the previous band had such a wider variety of songs than the newer band ends up creating.