Doctor's humanitarians? I really doubt it. I saw the movie The Constant Gardener. I believe doctors are in it for themselves, same as the drug companies.

 

From what I understand U2 moved their headquarters out of Ireland because taxes were high....either way, it's their decision to do what they want.

 

I really do try not to judge Superstars. I've never been one, I wouldn't know how to walk in their shoes. I think if I was to walk in their shoes I would probably see things differently, but I can't so I can't really speak for Bono. judge not....

 

Maybe Bono does like the limelight, I would imagine you would say the same about several actors and famous people. ::shrugs::

 

What Bono has done for Africa is more than what most has done. If he has helped any, it has been at least something, he has not ignored the problem, like many others. He is a activist.

 

Maybe if I lived in Ireland I would see things differently. Who knows.

 

 

(I don't think I really made a point in this post_

In any given time within Rock n' Roll history, there is a Band that is the most important and influential. What is the framework to choose that band? That it is not chosen by anybody, it happens by itself, just four guys getting together, forming a heart together, and the circumstances conciding to bring them to the top. It's all a game, a process with rules, and in between the rules a lot of chaos. The Beatles was the first one, U2 the second one, and Coldplay is the Third One. The difficult thing about Coldplay's position is that they have to progress in their careers knowing the position in which they are, which is simply being the band that is carrying the torch, thus, risking spontaneity, it is very easy for them to fall on the trap of imitation, the career path has already been done twice, once by The Beatles, once by U2, now Coldplay is following the same path, the same progression, but they have to do it genuinly, that is where Brian Eno came in, he literallywas the wise old man hinting at the next moves, he was like Merlin, or Joda. Helping them to get rid of mental pre-conceptions and just go for the raw food. So, it is happening for the Third Time, a third concluding time, make no mistake about it.

For a nice journey about all this go to: www.TheEtherealConnection.com

 

P.S: Did anyone noticed how the Violet Hill "original version" video was influenced by the Ticket to Ride part in The Beatles "Help" movie, and how the Violet Hill "dancing politicians" video was influenced by U2's Window in the Skies.

 

"The Ethereal Connection: a Synthesis of U2 and The Beatles"

www.TheEtherealConnection.com

The Beatles- Thesis

U2- Antihesis

Coldplay- Synthesis

 

I knew that link was coming as soon as you mentioned the beatles and U2. Youre putting to much faith in it. That guy who wrote that isnt any more special than anyone here. Coldplay is nowhere near either of those bands. And there are a boatload of bands who could easily fit into that category he puts coldplay in. Kings of Leon, for one. Muse, radiohead, etc.

 

Oh, and Radiohead sucks.

 

Oh, and you suck.

yah dude my bad. what i said in the previous comment should be ammended. i know ireland's getting very rich because the younger generation. per capita income is higher than u.s.a. if i remember correctly. great tech jobs among other things. i get your points also. i think bono is arrogant, but there's this part of me that doesn't want to believe it because im a big fan of the music. if you read the book you would see some thoughtful but short comments from most of the bandmates, and then Bono would go on some rampage where yeah...he was being an a-hole.

 

once again, my bad with the "poor" comment, i was typing all that crap up real fast, not really thinking. and yeah lol, if you couldnt tell ive not been in ireland ever but for visiting some relatives every few years, but i sense you understood that.

 

like you said, if we're just talking about music though, i still think u2's pretty good. there's lots of arrogant guys out there, that doesn't mean their music is bad. but yeah, whatever. the bands are different. this thread should be dead until someone decides to post a different thread in a few weeks...and bring this argument up again, but im personally done.

 

and yeah, i apologize bout the poor comment, that was a head on backwards moment.

 

 

Edit: Oh and to the comment right above me. That's a pretty thought provoking idea. your right, about coldplay being the third one, thing is u2's still around lol

 

Dude don't worry, yesterday was kinda a bad day (raining like mad here - who woulda thunk it?) and I was just in a pissy mood! My bad too.

 

Still, this thread is very interesting and we all have different views, opinions, ideas etc which is always very interesting to read n discuss. Great topic!

okay well thats good

 

yeah your right, this is very interesting

 

u2 and coldplay have always fluctuated between being my top band at the moment. i think coldplay with viva la vida might have secured the spot indefinitely, but u2's got a new album coming up, but you could say im kind of dreading it because i dont expect it to be as good some of their other stuff.

 

that is really the main difference for me between coldplay and u2, and we can please try to contain this issue with out thinking about longevitity. what i mean to say is, there is a lot of u2 music i do not like at all. where as with coldplay there is very little of their music i can say i outright dislike.

 

if you do take into account longevity than it must be said u2 has been around a lot longer, so therefore they will have more duds than coldplay. but still, percentage wise i think u2s got less good songs per dud.

 

who is say that coldplay wont have an album that is almost completely duds. i think pop and zoorapa could be seen as those type of albums for u2, but thats just my personal opinion as a fan. some u2 fans like those albums. but i think with time coldplay will obviously have a miscalculation somewhere, because even the best bands have bad ideas or missteps.

 

there is obviously a correlation between these bands, not just in terms of popularity, but in style, because otherwise so many people wouldnt like both. its not like we're comparing guns and roses and coldplay. but this is the type of stuff that happens with anything - think sports for example. everyone is supposed to be the next this or the next that. most of the time it doesn't happen (just like with bands like oasis, radiohead, etc, and im not referring to quality, but rather "biggest band in the world" type ideas), and sometimes it does (like with coldplay). but the thing is the next that or the next this is always a different that or this. I follow basketball, so even though Kobe Bryant and Lebron James are amazing players, the guy they were compared to, Michael Jordan, they are not. not that they lack the quality, but they are just simply different. u2 and coldplay are simply different.

okay well thats good

 

yeah your right, this is very interesting

 

u2 and coldplay have always fluctuated between being my top band at the moment. i think coldplay with viva la vida might have secured the spot indefinitely, but u2's got a new album coming up, but you could say im kind of dreading it because i dont expect it to be as good some of their other stuff.

 

that is really the main difference for me between coldplay and u2, and we can please try to contain this issue with out thinking about longevitity. what i mean to say is, there is a lot of u2 music i do not like at all. where as with coldplay there is very little of their music i can say i outright dislike.

 

if you do take into account longevity than it must be said u2 has been around a lot longer, so therefore they will have more duds than coldplay. but still, percentage wise i think u2s got less good songs per dud.

 

who is say that coldplay wont have an album that is almost completely duds. i think pop and zoorapa could be seen as those type of albums for u2, but thats just my personal opinion as a fan. some u2 fans like those albums. but i think with time coldplay will obviously have a miscalculation somewhere, because even the best bands have bad ideas or missteps.

 

there is obviously a correlation between these bands, not just in terms of popularity, but in style, because otherwise so many people wouldnt like both. its not like we're comparing guns and roses and coldplay. but this is the type of stuff that happens with anything - think sports for example. everyone is supposed to be the next this or the next that. most of the time it doesn't happen (just like with bands like oasis, radiohead, etc, and im not referring to quality, but rather "biggest band in the world" type ideas), and sometimes it does (like with coldplay). but the thing is the next that or the next this is always a different that or this. I follow basketball, so even though Kobe Bryant and Lebron James are amazing players, the guy they were compared to, Michael Jordan, they are not. not that they lack the quality, but they are just simply different. u2 and coldplay are simply different.

 

Yeah theres a lot of stuff here that makes sense man, specially with regard to just how long U2 have been on the go compared to Coldplay and that that muddies the water with any comparison - my dad remembers when he was in college back in the late 1970s going to see U2 playing in a place called Dandelion Market opposite Saint Stephen's Green for just a dollar or two adjusted for inflation. Those were the days...

 

...but I'm afraid to say that the basketball analogy goes waaaaaayyy over my head! Tried to get into basketball about 9 years ago, thought I was brilliant at it then discovered something very important out - I sucked lol.

 

And it was at that moment that Coldplay descended from the heavens with The Blue Room and I was spared:)

lol yeah i wasnt sure if the basketball reference would work here, maybe some football, and when i say football i mean football, not american football (which is vastly overrarted my fellow americans).

 

im very up on all the latest stuff with football, not so great with the legends and stuff, but ive heard of the likes of catana (misspelled?), best, bobby charlton, kenny daiglish...basically im saying you cant call guys like wayne rooney or theo walcott the next best or charlton or daiglish (if these comparisons have been made is not something i would know) because most of them won't even reach that level (like the oasis's and radioheads of the world) and the one's that do (like coldplay) are going to be different then them anyways.

 

i'll do a little chart

 

Oasis = Once young player with boat loads of potential, but he never really did what people thought he could.

 

Radiohead = Similarly young player who people thought could be the best ever. now only fans from this players club really like them.

 

U2 - absolute legends of sport. they were great over multiple generations, and captured the hearts and imaginations of many a fan.

 

Coldplay - they were just like Oasis and Radiohead at one point in time, but they broke through that to become what many people see as truly comparable to u2. thing is, they are very different players, so even though they both may be seen as great, theyre a different kind of great.

 

maybe that clears it up. football is really the only sport i can talk about knowledably from europe. so if your a cricket fan or a rugby fan than your fresh out of luck for understanding my meaning lol.

lol yeah i wasnt sure if the basketball reference would work here, maybe some football, and when i say football i mean football, not american football (which is vastly overrarted my fellow americans).

 

im very up on all the latest stuff with football, not so great with the legends and stuff, but ive heard of the likes of catana (misspelled?), best, bobby charlton, kenny daiglish...basically im saying you cant call guys like wayne rooney or theo walcott the next best or charlton or daiglish (if these comparisons have been made is not something i would know) because most of them won't even reach that level (like the oasis's and radioheads of the world) and the one's that do (like coldplay) are going to be different then them anyways.

 

i'll do a little chart

 

Oasis = Once young player with boat loads of potential, but he never really did what people thought he could.

 

Radiohead = Similarly young player who people thought could be the best ever. now only fans from this players club really like them.

 

U2 - absolute legends of sport. they were great over multiple generations, and captured the hearts and imaginations of many a fan.

 

Coldplay - they were just like Oasis and Radiohead at one point in time, but they broke through that to become what many people see as truly comparable to u2. thing is, they are very different players, so even though they both may be seen as great, theyre a different kind of great.

 

maybe that clears it up. football is really the only sport i can talk about knowledably from europe. so if your a cricket fan or a rugby fan than your fresh out of luck for understanding my meaning lol.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Notice that the fourth album is the key here. In the case of OASIS after BE HERE NOW, the third album, they needed a change of direction badly but didn't achieve it, on the contrary "On The Shoulder Of Giants" was the result of a stagnated band. In the case of Radiohead, after OK Computer (third album) they were ready to take on the role of biggest band in the world, but rejected this role and release KID A, which was not evolution, it was disruption of what they were, a disruption of momentum. In the case of Coldplay, after X&Y, with this new album, they achieved an organic progression, a change of clothing but remaining the same within. Which is what U2 did after WAR, their third album, when The Unforgettable Fire was created under Brian Eno's tutelage. It's rhythmic: 1,2,3 and 1,2,3, and 1,2,3. It's just that the band has to be very strong to endure the transition without losing it. Coldplay did it.

Well here we all are, sitting on this little blue marble in space, discussing who's who among us; we, the sophisticated apes..:laugh3:. I'm just amazed it all hangs together as well as it does - does anyone else ever think this?? Even our little corner of the marble is remarkable - almost as though humanity functions as one gigantic neural network at times.., all that, in a world full of life going in all sorts of directions..

Hmm.. I know Chris spent some time with Paul Hewson, but did Paul spend time with George, Paul, or Ringo?? I'm wondering if the connection is more real than just some strands connected through the ether of space and time..:rolleyes:

 

Hmm.. I know Chris spent some time with Paul Hewson, but did Paul spend time with George, Paul, or Ringo?? I'm wondering if the connection is more real than just some strands connected through the ether of space and time..:rolleyes:

 

 

 

During U2's visit to New York during their first US Tour, in december of 1980, guess who passed away, in New York too?

I'm gathering the answer is John Lennon, but then I thought he was shot prior to 1980?? And Harrison passed away more recently, the rest are with us in the living. Their manager, Billy Shears? I'm not exceptionally versed in these details..

Well, I mean, who hasn't been influenced by The Beatles?? Granted, they borrowed heavily from a lot of great R&B artists, but since them, most groups have drawn inspiration. Martin suggests some influences from Neil Young, and Aha, and Echo and the Bunnymen, but there seems to be quite a bit of influence from Dorris Day there as well, and Paul Revere and the Raiders...:laugh3: (well, that's what I hear in their music - someone else probably hears other influences..)

 

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.

 

"Coldplay have already surpassed U2" You have gotta be kiddin me. U2 are and will always be the best band in the world. Coldplay are no where near U2's caliber at the moment and have a long way to go to be where U2 is today and that is a legendary rock band. I suggest you buy U2's best of albums and you will see that U2 have so many great songs compared to Coldplays few. Bonos voice is ten times greater than Chris Martins and The Edge is a superior guitar player to Jon Buckland. U2 can fill out stadiums holding 100,000 plus people where as Coldplay are lucky to get 20 - 30 thousand. Coldplay have a long way to go to surpass U2 and they may get there in the end but they need to write alot more great songs and anthems to surpass them.

During U2's visit to New York during their first US Tour, in december of 1980, guess who passed away, in New York too?

 

Hmm. I see what you're saying...and Bono wasn't a suspect? Perhaps its time to call Grissom in:smug:

lol yeah i wasnt sure if the basketball reference would work here, maybe some football, and when i say football i mean football, not american football (which is vastly overrarted my fellow americans).

 

im very up on all the latest stuff with football, not so great with the legends and stuff, but ive heard of the likes of catana (misspelled?), best, bobby charlton, kenny daiglish...basically im saying you cant call guys like wayne rooney or theo walcott the next best or charlton or daiglish (if these comparisons have been made is not something i would know) because most of them won't even reach that level (like the oasis's and radioheads of the world) and the one's that do (like coldplay) are going to be different then them anyways.

 

i'll do a little chart

 

Oasis = Once young player with boat loads of potential, but he never really did what people thought he could.

 

Radiohead = Similarly young player who people thought could be the best ever. now only fans from this players club really like them.

 

U2 - absolute legends of sport. they were great over multiple generations, and captured the hearts and imaginations of many a fan.

 

Coldplay - they were just like Oasis and Radiohead at one point in time, but they broke through that to become what many people see as truly comparable to u2. thing is, they are very different players, so even though they both may be seen as great, theyre a different kind of great.

 

maybe that clears it up. football is really the only sport i can talk about knowledably from europe. so if your a cricket fan or a rugby fan than your fresh out of luck for understanding my meaning lol.

 

Well you're right there. My dad is an old-school football (soccer) fan and thinks that the current generation are mostly posers and would be trampled by practically anyone from Best's era. When you see a guy like him play compared to *sigh* Rooney (crap!) you just have to shake your head.

 

But, the analogy works. Oasis just went down down down but the thing is I think their music, even their best songs, can get dull and repetitive after awhile as they're both lyrically and composition-wise pretty simple to work out. And on the last album only The Importance Of Being Idle and Let There Be Love (pure Lennon rip-off and critics say that Coldplay steal lol - Oasis have made a living out of being a poor imitation of the Beatles) are up to repeat listens I feel. Radiohead I like but I hardly know anyone else my age who likes them. I end up talking to their older brothers and sisters in their late 20s about the band! Its ridiculous! Kid A - I still remember the first time I heard it. After the first two tracks I turned off my MP3 player, put it on the table, sat back and said out loud, "What the f*ck???!" Just like Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants, both bands just couldn't/didn't want the pressure of becoming worldwide sensations where you had to buy their album or the world will face the end times! Coldplay have truly broken the mould and are the first band since U2 not to flunk the ball and actually get it in the back of the net. I've probably just repeated what you've said lol.

 

But I really like rugby and we don't suck at cricket so much anymore so when are those analogies coming...????:lol:

Motive force

 

:laugh3:Now I don't feel so bad about thinking Radiohead's music is just plain weird! (but then again, that's a big part of their appeal! They're still tops on many charts, so despite the oddness, it's catchy; often with very real messages about human nature - twilight-zone esque..). U2 are truly outstanding when it comes to gutsy moves to change the world, and that's a tall order for anyone to fill! I think, and this is just my gut instinct, that growing up in tumultuous times and places, as U2 did with Northern Ireland's peace marches, and with the Beatles during the 60's - - so there was a certain fearless drive to break through and make a difference in the world. With Coldplay, it's the underpinnings of the modern world and it's need for compassion and fairness that drives them. They get to the roots of our nature, and work at that level - less in the spiritual sense as U2 has done, but more in the human and earthy sense with great feeling ( and a descent bit of humor as well!). For any one of us to strive onward, we need some force or higher purpose to keep us motivated, against what otherwise might be viewed as insurmountable odds, and the belief that we are all connected, and will make a difference.

 

:laugh3:I think, and this is just my gut instinct, that growing up in tumultuous times and places, as U2 did with Northern Ireland's peace marches, and with the Beatles during the 60's - - so there was a certain fearless drive to break through and make a difference in the world. With Coldplay, it's the underpinnings of the modern world and it's need for compassion and fairness that drives them. They get to the roots of our nature, and work at that level - less in the spiritual sense as U2 has done, but more in the human and earthy sense with great feeling ( and a descent bit of humor as well!). For any one of us to strive onward, we need some force or higher purpose to keep us motivated, against what otherwise might be viewed as insurmountable odds, and the belief that we are all connected, and will make a difference.

 

 

Thats something I think most people have thought about, but like in my case, never really put into words - but yeah, great point. U2, and especially Bono (because the lyrics are his) is especially driven by the times he grew up in, and his past, whether that be Irelands or his own families. Coldplay is another generation entirely, so hence the way they go about things.

 

Really though, well said.

Coldplay should just aspire to be a better Coldplay, if you follow.

 

That should have ended this thread IMHO.

:laugh3:OMG - Al Gore Breaths Fire!:lol: Well, anywhohow, I think it only fair to add the Coldplay have a strong environmental bend as well, with the carbon-neutral paper, saving forests, and all.. Speaking of which, I have heard through the grapevine that Bono is in Japan planting trees and mixing a new album. So, maybe some day, the trees that Bono plants could be used to make paper for promo printings, or sequester some of the CO2/CH4 given off elsewhere in his travels around the globe.;)

One thing not often discussed here, and I think Coldplay's music has touched on it, are the common global anxieties we all share. Traffic congestion. Rapidly changing the global biosphere's balances. The dizzying effects of technology, and where it's all headed...

That should have ended this thread IMHO.

 

Haha and yet it didn't did it dude?! This seems to go on and on and on and on and on and on like flogging a dead horse (and I should know...I've helped with the flogging in the past lol)

 

Least I don't feel so bad now, its already back on the first page so its okay if I reply lol