I'd just like to air a viewpoint and see if anybody shares it.

 

Coldplay are not U2 and should never aspire to become them, partly because they have already surpassed them. They have more subtlety than U2. The only terms in which Coldplay should desire any comparisons to U2 are in those of prolonged success, but I don't think there's any doubt that will happen.

 

Does anybody else agree with me? I sometimes think U2 is a case of the emperor's new clothes, and all it takes is somebody to take something. I really don't rate them very much at all, and I find people saying Coldplay are playing up to their image actually insulting.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I don't like U2 (except some old songs maybe) and I don't think Chris Martin should try to be like Bono (who IMHO is a poser).. ;)

Coldplay should just aspire to be a better Coldplay, if you follow. I also find comments regarding them wanting to be the next U2 or whatever to be foolish and ill-advised. If you look at U2's first 3 albums, in my mind, they're shit with only Sunday Bloody Sunday from LP3 War being worthy of keeping - ditch the rest. It was Eno working with them on The Unforgettable Fire that actually made them a credible band, then Joshua Tree worldwide megastars, even though they're totally overrated. But with the exception of the again overblown Achtung Baby the 90s were a doldrum period for any halfway decent music from them and, on their 2 latest LPs, once you take away the singles, the entire album falls apart and is worthy of your local rubbish bin. Plus, Martin has a much more refined and pleasing voice than Bono who really just shouts into the microphone a lot IMO. Bono really just wants to cosy up with the rich and famous like Presidents and Hollywood stars whereas Martin, Buckland, Berryman & Champion want to make great music.

 

Martin does appear to be genuinely sincere about MTF and Oxfam commitments whereas Bono is pissing in the wind. For example, last year the band moved money to the Netherlands out of Ireland so as to avoid paying taxes that they could EASILY afford (pocket change to them) so as to provide money for hospitals, schools, roads etc. But I guess to those guys saving a few quid is a lot better than having to pay taxes like ordinary joes to pay for sick children and prevent people from dying on hospital trolleys in a corridor somewhere.

 

Oh well, least Bono & co have got their priorities right:

MONEY = VERY VERY important

PEOPLE = screw 'em if they're not rich and powerful

 

And for most people in their home country and in my age bracket (secondary school (high school)/college) U2 are a total joke - to like them is to be VERY uncool. Everyone has Coldplay on their iPods/MP3s

 

So, though I've gone way off-topic, Coldplay rock, U2 suck.

 

My two cents.

 

Now you can tear me apart!

All true. I would never claim to know enough about U2's back catalogue to be capable of structuring any sort of reasonable and fair critique. That's why I ask this question, really, because I want to know whether my gut instinct - that U2 are overrated and that all these articles listing U2 as a MAJOR and WORTHY influence are nonsensical - was anywhere close to popular opinion.

i don't even want to listen to U2

 

alotof people say coldplay is copying U2 and i just find that to be annoying..i agree with u knotty..i find it rather insulting:veryangry2:

 

maybe U2 is good..but its not for me..this is coldplaying dot com and i love it :D

Coldplay are not U2. They are bothe very very good in their own respects.

 

Im a huge Coldplay and U2 fan so here is an clean opinion here. U2 are and always will be a live band. Bono does not have the talent Martin has for music, not for one second. Martin has a far far stronger voice cause I dont think Martin has hit his prime yet, where Bono did in 1987 on the Joshua Tree. Bonos voice on that album was amazing and deep, something Martin has been burned for so far for this album as trying to impersonate. Martin can also play the piano like a god, where Bono cant, and Bono cant play the guitar well either. Martin win the overall talent pool.

 

What Bono has over Martin though is live, Bono can connect with someone in row 1 or against the back wall. U2 live trump Coldplay. U2s stage designs are just brilliant and Bono can break that barrier of audience a stage very well. Their music live is also way better. Someone said U2 only had 1 good song off their first 3 LPs, go get U2s "Under A Blood Red Sky" that will change your mind.

 

Also as much as I love Buckland, The Edge is easily a way more talented guitar player, who Buckland does draw A LOT of influence from. I hate to say it but the reason Coldplay is often called U2 Jr. is because of Bucklands clean delay driven guitar. Which Edge has been the master of since the opening notes of Streets. If you dont believe me on it, simply google "Edges Guitar set up" then Bucklands. I guarantee Edge is far more complicated.

 

Then a lot of you buckland supporters are gonna say Edge uses a lot of effects. Well youre right, and thats why he is so brilliant he masters the effects he gets. Some of which Buckland has draw influence from.

 

Rythm section...its a fair draw, mind you Guy is way better looking than Adam.

 

The one thing we all have to remember though is that these two bands are very different. U2 are elders here so by default they are compared. They are both amazing in my opinion.

 

Another side note, as much as I hate to say it, U2s new disc in the fall has already been making a ton of noise. Expect it to heat up after Viva Dies down and out sell Viva.

O.o

 

Yeah, I guess you're right. I don't like U2 (except some old songs maybe) and I don't think Chris Martin should try to be like Bono (who IMHO is a poser).. ;)

 

 

I think exactly the same... and yeah they (coldplay) should only try to be better than themselves...

 

... who cares about U2 next album when coldplay's is just around the corner...

Well I don't know some people here can bash U2 without having listened to their songs, that's preposterous. I'm not a die hard fan, but I've listened to most of their albums and most of them are very good. A slightly different style to Coldplay, but the overall feel of the songs are similar to those on AROBTTH and X&Y. Now I can't do an in depth comparison like Malcom-edge did, because I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about u2 as I am about Coldplay, but comparisons to the former band should really be taken as praise. I also think that the songs on The Joshua Tree match most of the songs on Coldplay's albums, and even their last album wasn't as bad as people made out, i don't think.

 

What I do know though, is that I'm looking forward to U2's new album a lot, even more than Oasis' new disc. I obviously think that Viva should be able to outdo that album, because I generally think Coldplay are slightly better anyway, but I think if they've worked hard on this new one, U2s new album should be pretty spectacular. I'm just not sure how people can take the U2 comparisons that negatively, or even as insults! Being mentioned in the same breath as U2 shows that (perhaps subconsciously) they think Coldplay are a worthy rival to U2. And as people before me have said, U2 are very highly regarded by most critics.

 

To those saying that they don't even want to listen to U2, please go and listen to The Joshua Tree. Then at least you can have a real, founded opinion about them!

Fair enough, Zemy. I've heard JT, though, start-finish, and just wouldn't really think of comparing Coldplay to it in any shape or form if I were reviewing. I guess these things are subjective, though.

I agree Coldplay doesn't appear to be like u2.

 

btw.....I never slam any other music artist(s). My opinions don't always have to be expressed verbally. Coldplay is cool and U2 is cool but both in their own ways.

Well I don't know some people here can bash U2 without having listened to their songs, that's preposterous. I'm not a die hard fan, but I've listened to most of their albums and most of them are very good. A slightly different style to Coldplay, but the overall feel of the songs are similar to those on AROBTTH and X&Y. Now I can't do an in depth comparison like Malcom-edge did, because I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about u2 as I am about Coldplay, but comparisons to the former band should really be taken as praise. I also think that the songs on The Joshua Tree match most of the songs on Coldplay's albums, and even their last album wasn't as bad as people made out, i don't think.

 

What I do know though, is that I'm looking forward to U2's new album a lot, even more than Oasis' new disc. I obviously think that Viva should be able to outdo that album, because I generally think Coldplay are slightly better anyway, but I think if they've worked hard on this new one, U2s new album should be pretty spectacular. I'm just not sure how people can take the U2 comparisons that negatively, or even as insults! Being mentioned in the same breath as U2 shows that (perhaps subconsciously) they think Coldplay are a worthy rival to U2. And as people before me have said, U2 are very highly regarded by most critics.

 

To those saying that they don't even want to listen to U2, please go and listen to The Joshua Tree. Then at least you can have a real, founded opinion about them!

 

like i posted above..i did say that i wouldn't want to hear U2

but to find my real opinion i'll give a listen to The Joshua Tree :)

I'm also a huge U2 and Coldplay fan. I like lots of music from the UK, some of my fav bands being those i said and Oasis, snow patrol, keane, the beatles, the rolling stones, etc.

 

U2 and Coldplay rain supreme for a couple of reasons, but they also aren't truly comparable because U2 has been around for thirty years and Coldplay have been around for almost ten.

 

U2 like someone said is a great live band. They really get you into what they're doing, and while I've recently started liking some of Coldplay's live stuff a little bit better, I'd give u2 the nod here without thinking twice.

 

U2's length of time as a band have allowed them to have a lot of great songs. per album they don't necessarily come up with lots of great one's, just a good single or two, and maybe some songs that will come into their own live.

 

Coldplay have made albums in my opinion that tend to have at least half of the songs as absolutely top class.

 

U2 took two albums to come into their own in my opinion, but they do have some redeaming songs from their first two efforts (Boy and October). War had a few really good songs. Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Years Day, 40. The Unforgettable Fire let them grow up a bit, and with that change they created the legend that is The Joshua Tree. The thing about U2's best albums is they make at least three songs that are just flat out class, like great singles. Coldplay have usually only had one or two songs that are pure class, and the rest just being really good.

 

Bono and Chris Martin really are incomparable. Bono is an energy man. He's fiesty, he gets pumped up and he gets the crowd pumped up. He's a bit of actor too, with a taste for theatricality that's annoyed some of his bandmates. All this aside he is a great singer, with a classic voice. His lyrics are inspired, and quite complex, and when he really feels a song you can hear it in his voice. For Bono a lot of songs aren't just songs, theyre near and dear to his heart. This passion is something I think seperates him and Chris Martin.

 

That doesn't mean Chris isn't class in his own right. He does have passion, as seen in Green Eyes, where his emotion just takes you into another place. But on the whole he's more downbeat, reflective i guess you could say. He and Bono do not have similar personalities. Chris like someone said is musically more talented. He connects to his audience with comedic value, more lighthearted than Bono.

 

I don't think its necessary to get into the other stuff about the two leadmen, in terms of what they stand for outside of music. I respect both of them, and I think its unfair the way some people are annoyed by Bono. I think it would be better to be someone who takes initiative where most people would not, and use his celebrity for good causes than simply sit at home and be rich. I'm not comparing him to Martin there mind you, but really most rich people. Martin is involved in what he believes in, albeit to lesser media awareness.

 

In terms of other bandmates. I think The Edge wins because he is quite possibly the most talented and innovative guitar player I've ever seen. He takes you places, and if he wasn't in U2, we wouldn't be having this debate. Buckland is great too, and I've been really impressed with him on Viva la Vida, but he's not Edge right yet.

 

The other players are relatively equal, but its really hard to tell the difference with bass and drums because there's not enough to quantify talent.

 

All in all I think they're both great bands, but definitely different bands. I've got to give Coldplay props because they seem to have hit a groove early in their career, whereas U2's career arc has been more of a middle, then WAY UP, then way down, than a little bump above the middle. I think Coldplay has only gone down with X & Y, which i think if they make a lot more albums, will be seen as a popular album, but not good enough on the long term. I think we can expect some amazing albums from Coldplay, maybe even one that defines them like The Joshua Tree, and we'll probably see a time when they take a misstep. Time will tell.

 

Right now though, I think they are different. And I think whenever people compare them (and even when the band does) they are referring to the massive popularity, rather than type of sound. I don't envision a future where Coldplay sounds like U2, and I don't think anyone should worry about it.

wow it is true..its so early in their career..20 years from now..they'll have like a gazillion albums..but it all started with the first four albums :)

*

 

Truth be told, I know Chris Martin was spending quite a bit of time with Bono, trying to gain inspiration years back - and Martin does occasionally gloat about the music their band has "borrowed" from other groups (I think he uses the term *stole*:laugh3:)- but then they all do that - The Beatles, Dylan, Rolling Stones - their music all has roots somewhere.. In all fairness, Bono has done tremendous good for Africans, with the disease epidemics they face on the continent, and raising awareness, and trying to get debt relief for Southern Hemisphere nations - Yes, the business with the tax tricks in Ireland is dodgey, but to say he's all about the money just isn't true. Besides, Larry's the manager on the band as far as I know. I'm not saying their perfect angels, but they do care a helluvalot to even bother with issues like AIDS, even going so far as to directly speak with Jessie Helms to free up more money here in the US for helping with the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Yes, making trade fair - and economic fair play, are as critical as anything in helping bring about global equity. Chris Martin, Johnny Buckland, Will Champion, and Guy Berryman have brought the issue center stage, and I'm grateful for their tremendous efforts equally as well. It's a package deal, and both are essential to healing the hurt and redressing the grievances.

 

Well I don't know some people here can bash U2 without having listened to their songs, that's preposterous. I'm not a die hard fan, but I've listened to most of their albums and most of them are very good. A slightly different style to Coldplay, but the overall feel of the songs are similar to those on AROBTTH and X&Y. Now I can't do an in depth comparison like Malcom-edge did, because I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about u2 as I am about Coldplay, but comparisons to the former band should really be taken as praise. I also think that the songs on The Joshua Tree match most of the songs on Coldplay's albums, and even their last album wasn't as bad as people made out, i don't think.

 

What I do know though, is that I'm looking forward to U2's new album a lot, even more than Oasis' new disc. I obviously think that Viva should be able to outdo that album, because I generally think Coldplay are slightly better anyway, but I think if they've worked hard on this new one, U2s new album should be pretty spectacular. I'm just not sure how people can take the U2 comparisons that negatively, or even as insults! Being mentioned in the same breath as U2 shows that (perhaps subconsciously) they think Coldplay are a worthy rival to U2. And as people before me have said, U2 are very highly regarded by most critics.

 

To those saying that they don't even want to listen to U2, please go and listen to The Joshua Tree. Then at least you can have a real, founded opinion about them!

 

Some U2 is like AROBTTH and X&Y, but not really at the same time. I'd find it very hard doing song by song comparisons.

 

They are indeed very very different, and both very very awesome.

 

I have been waiting for both the U2 and Coldplay discs for 3 years. When i heard Eno was with Coldplay i was excited. When I heard Eno and Lanois rejoining U2 in Morocco I just went through the roof. Finally they rejoined their band!

 

I have to say Im looking forward to U2 slightly more cause they have heavy expectations at this point.

it'll be interesting to hear U2's new albm after eno has just finished with coldplay.

Yes exactly.

 

What if U2's next one is a masterpiece? (just like VLVODAAHF :P)

Two great Eno-produced albums by 2 great bands in one year. Almost too good to be true.

U2s album is gonna rock. There has been minor leakage and it sounds amazing!

 

Take a look at this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vnsVoPSzgQ&hl=en

 

THis is from Lanois film Here Is What Is(title may be wrong. It shows Eno and Lanois discussing their history together and with U2. The 2 of the 3 albums those 2 worked on are in the top 100 on RS list, and the other one Eno worked on is in the top 500. To see these 6 back together means something amazing is gonna happen. This may be U2s last huge album. Who knows? All I know is this album will go down as U2s 3rd Classic album. Im not gonna go into detail but it will be kinda like Viva La Vida in the fact its different from the norm. Thats why Im batshit excited.

^Thanks for the link!

Should I rant?

Should I rant?

If you want to be swarmed, be my guest :P

The comparison between U2 and Coldplay are there for a reason. It used to be the guitar sound and now its because of the career path. You can tell Coldplay is more than inspired by them. Expect Coldplay to become a little more rootsy on Lp5 and completely change their public perception on Lp6, and thats because I dont think they will try to release a hollywood film (where Rattle and Hum was supposed to be a reserved documentary anyway until the money men had their say, resulting in a rare failure for them). Why did they have to get Eno? Of all of the talented producers out there did any of ever ask yourselves why Eno? Is it not painfully obvious, especially being Lp4?

 

Bono sings much more passionate and powerful than Chris Martin ever will, and thats ok. If it werent for Bono you wouldnt know who Chris Martin is. How do you know Bono isnt as talented a musician as Martin? Because he doesnt play an instrument? That's laughable. I think U2 did pretty well for a bunch of 15-17 year olds starting out with no proper musical knowledge whatsoever. What U2 had, and all they had, was raw talent. They learned their craft on the fly. Speaking of Fly, a lot of people who know nothing of U2 yet feel their ignorance isnt enough to keep them from criticizing them, have a misconception of Bono because of the different personas Bono has donned over the years. Someone mentioned his acting earlier in this thread. The reason he acts that way, or acted, was to mock the 'rockstar' and kill it off. Bono didnt change, he just put on a mask. But youd have to know that to understand it.

 

The first two albums were made by teenage kids. October is a grower and a mighty fine one at that. And listen to Drowning Man off of War if you think the material back then wasnt up to par.

 

Coldplay is a great band, one of my favorites, but they will never surpass U2, not this way. Imitation is never greater than creation, no matter who does it.

 

And Im not a long time U2 fan either, I actually discovered both bands around the same time. The thing that fascinates me about U2 is that you get so many drastically different flavors of the same food. All 11 albums have their own distinct perspective. U2 is a band hell bent on not repeating themselves no matter what the cost. And then you have the tours, a whole nother side of the coin....

Okay. First of all I will state that U2 was my favourite band for a long time. Followed closely by Coldplay. Things have changed over the past year and half. Now Radiohead is my no.1 band by a long shot. U2 is second. But Coldplay have really dropped off.

 

Apples and Oranges

Now, I think its hard to compare apples and oranges. Its hard to compare a band that has released 3 albums to a band that has released 14 albums.

Yes, Coldplay are good at what they do. But I think they have to stick it out for at least a decade before you can compare them to U2 in any sense.

I think its remarkable the band has stayed together and has managed to keep their integrity as well (not selling out, they have turned down millions of dollars multiple times for songs such as Streets to be used in commercials). Also their have not been scandals in the band, they have a good reputation.

 

Chris Martin vs. Bono

Okay, take your pick whose voice you like better. Its neat listening to U2 and the way Bono's voice has changed over the years as he has grown older. I enjoy it very much. Chris Martin has a good voice as well, I just find it can get annoying at times.

As for their humanitarian work. Somebody in this thread mentioned that Chris seems sincere about OXFAM and MTF. Fair enough, he does sound sincere.

But I don't think you can brush away what Bono has done. He has put the needs of people ahead of the band, which can be annoying at times. But no doubt he cares about the world and wants there to be justice and wants Africans to have a chance at a normal life. He has many creative ideas. Red, Edun, DATA for example. And its not like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Just youtube and google some of the speeches he has given and tell me if it doesn't:

a). give you hope

b). make you want to do something

Boy, October, and War

Sunday Bloody Sunday is the only song worth listening to off of them? Have you actually listened to any of these albums?

 

U2 are superior live

I think U2's live shows are what reallly set them apart. Its amazing to watch the same songs being played each tour yet somehow each tour they sound quite different and sound like they were just written. That is one trait I have not yet heard in any other band, Radiohead included.

Don't believe me? Just youtube Where the Streets Have No Name from the Joshua Tree Tour, ZooTV, Elevation Tour post Sept. 11, and the Vertigo Tour.

 

Conclusion

I don't think its fair to compare a "new" band with an "old " band like some people here are. Especially if you haven't even listened to anything other than Vertigo. Both bands excel at what they do, but come back in 10 albums and we'll see how Coldplay survive the test of time.

Coldplay = Radiohead

 

and

 

Coldplay = U2

 

Therefore, by the commutative law of mathematics:

 

Radiohead = U2

OR... U2 = Radioplay.

 

:P