The Song Fight Bulletin Board

tviyh wrote:

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................
]

I don't really see any similariies between U2 and Coldplay. They're both pretentious and dull sure - but that's about as far as he comparison goes

erikb wrote: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.

That's probably the most accurate take on the subject I could have imagined.

Am I the only one who actually enjoys Coldplay? I quite like "A Rush of Blood to the Head." Although the new album doesn't seem to be quite as good. I saw them perform a song off of "X and Y" on SNL and it made me cringe. So either they completely suck live or it's a bad song, and I think it's probably a bit of both.

i like 'em pretty well. i enjoyed "clocks" even though it got overplayed, and "yellow", some others. i think a lot of people have strong reactions to this sort of thing because the critics are fawning over them.
i definitely don't think they're the best band ever or any of that crap.
-bill

That's pretty much the issue--people love them, and so some fraction of the people hate them with ten times that enthusiasim. It's some kind of natural law, I think.

They're really not <i>bad</i>--Parachutes was a fine enough little pop album, and it was pretty modest all around. The thing that turns most of us off to Coldplay is the Rolling Stone and Spin snippets calling them the next Insert-"Classic"-Band. It's not the music--there's really nothing that offensive about the music. It's the pretense that's annoying, both from the band and from its proponents.

sparks wrote:. The thing that turns most of us off to Coldplay is the Rolling Stone and Spin snippets calling them the next Insert-"Classic"-Band. ... both from the band and from its proponents.

What pretense are the band propagating? I agree that the marketing is pretty annoying, but what pr campaign for a multi-million-selling band isn't? and I have certainly never encountered Coldplay proponents (by which I assume you mean their fans) as numerous and fanatical as, say, the Libertines, who have much less reason to be smug about their 'heroes' success....

Oh, that's interesting - grammar question: 'heroes' success - or 'heroes'' success??? Hmmmmm (yes I am trying to change the subject!)

j$ wrote:

sparks wrote:Oh, that's interesting - grammar question: 'heroes' success - or 'heroes'' success?

I would say "heroes'".

j$ wrote: Oh, that's interesting - grammar question: 'heroes' success - or 'heroes'' success???

"hero"es'

I'm fairly sure that's wrong, Mog. That would only be the case if it was only acceptable to say "You're my hero" and not "You're my heroes"

j$

I figure the pluralizing is external. Difference between (fake (group of heroes)) and (group of (fake heroes)). Although the difference between those two is so small it's irrelevant. Just like this entire point, whatever that was.

Also, I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to put quotation marks around <i>parts</i> of words. Something I think should be changed.

And in penance for this derailment... what 15-6 said. Coldplay may mimic a relatively small subset of U2's music, but that's it. Achtung, baby! Also, what sparks said. Coldplay isn't bad; they're just not as good as the world thinks they are, right now. The pop culture world, I should specify. The <i>world</i> doesn't really give a shit about them, I'd think.