THATS THE SLOGAN. i think they dont want to stop until they see coldplay break up. what do you think?.

What makes you think this?

What makes you think this?

well my english suck i dont know how to explain in this lenguage but i can say that in spanish if you dont mind.

No it's not!

Some amazingly positive articles, interviews and reviews. All can be found on this forum.

Just a few for starters:

 

http://www.coldplaying.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4394

 

http://www.coldplaying.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4377

 

http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46646

well my english suck i dont know how to explain in this lenguage but i can say that in spanish if you dont mind.

I can translate if you want but hey not everyone is against coldplay, besides, it has always been like this, has n't it?

maybe a better title for the topic would be "Most Critics are unfairly biased about Coldplay's music". Also, I know the negativity is getting to a lot of us, but, even the most biased critics are giving the album 3/5 stars. That's not bad at all. In fact, anything 3 stars or over could be considered to be a positive review. Even they can't deny the fact that the new album is something special.

and I forgot to add that coldplay are on the main page of most of the magazines

Interesting article, first posted on the Keane forum:

 

The bands the press love to hate

If a band has the audacity to conquer the charts despite the press butchering them then this is taken personally

June 19, 2008 1:30 PM

Ben Wardle

 

When Chris Martin walked out of a Radio 4 interview last week muttering "I'm not enjoying this", a gleeful press relished the thought of having more opportunity to knock Coldplay. But Martin's reaction wasn't about the interview, it was due to a heightened sensitivity caused by eight years of critical mauling. It seems there are some bands we just love to hate.

 

Ever since Alan McGee's famous "bedwetters" comment, Coldplay have been members of a Million-Seller Hate Club alongside Phil Collins, Supertramp, Sting, and, more recently, James Blunt, Snow Patrol and Keane.

 

So what is it about this sort of band? Why is it that while the record-buying public form queues at the supermarket for their wares, these artists have never received any love from the press? Andy Gill, in his damning of the band in the Independent last week, repeats a comment often made of these artists - that he doesn't know a single person who has ever bought one of their records. Gill's friends probably have the White Stripes, Lee Perry, Vampire Weekend and Neil Young vinyl carefully placed on the coffee table, but what is it that separates artists who can do no wrong from those that can never put a chord right?

 

Firstly, and most obviously, it is that the artist has succeeded despite the best efforts of the press. If a band has the audacity to get records in the charts despite the press butchering them then this is taken personally. Led Zeppelin's first four albums all received lukewarm reviews in the UK and the US because critics saw them as a band their younger brother liked - upstarts who had nothing to do with the approved Clapton and Hendrix hegemony. And, of course, the more these youngsters bought Led Zeppelin records the more it annoyed the press, and the worse the reviews became, the third album suffering the most.

 

Of course, Zep's reputation has been scrubbed up and they now enjoy peerless status - but they are in a minority. Most bands never get over their critical black spot. The Bee Gees, for example, have since Saturday Night Fever been perceived as a big-haired, tight-trousered cabaret act and not serious singer-songwriters who have written as many classics as the Beatles. No wonder they set the template for Chris Martin when they stormed out of Clive Anderson's show after he joked about them being tossers.

 

A group I was involved with, Sleeper, never enjoyed the easy Britpop ride that some other bands had in the mid-90s. And when they ended up outselling many of them, the press really got the knives out. Louise Wener, the lead singer, who it must be said, was fond of winding people up, once commented that the Boo Radleys always got better press "because they look like journalists".

 

Is there jealously perhaps? Are critics simply envious because they look at, say, James Blunt, or Gary Lightbody and see a middle-class guy just like them who happens to be earning millions and going out with supermodels?

 

Whatever, it seems Chris Martin just needs to wait a while to get some respect. After all, consider whose music gets the most press acclaim from the 70s: T-Rex, Abba and Slade - the smug, formulaic, big-selling pop music of the day.

 

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/06/the_bands_the_press_love_to_ha.html

Interesting. And very true. Though I would hope that they haven't become as uncool as James Blunt or Phil Collins.

 

When Chris Martin walked out of a Radio 4 interview last week muttering "I'm not enjoying this", a gleeful press relished the thought of having more opportunity to knock Coldplay. But Martin's reaction wasn't about the interview, it was due to a heightened sensitivity caused by eight years of critical mauling.

 

I totally agree with this.

couldn't care less. 40 million albums by 2010 will piss on the media's soggy chips.

plus the bad reviews are reading so much better with Ugly Kid Joe's 'Everything About You' in the background :laugh3: (its what media player had random'ed to whilst I was reading a particulalry dreadful review)