January 11, 200917 yr Based on sound, appearance, and how they act on stage, do you prefer the style from Live 03 Tour, or how they do things now? Feel free to explain. :)
February 3, 200917 yr haha i think it's a good quesiton. imo... definately a rush of blood tour. chris's voice was impeccable and everything was natural... no backing tapes and stuff. there might not have been as many stage antics and stuff (confetti, magic balls etc.) but thats not necesarrily a bad thing.
February 3, 200917 yr the stage, the lighting, the show in general is better on viva la vida tour, but the performances on the arobtth era were awesome. If you want a good show, viva is for you, but if you want magical live performances, live 2003 is for you
February 3, 200917 yr Is there some reason why you didn't include the Parachutes Tour in your poll? :thinking:Ā Beginning of the Rush tour. No one knew who they were yet, so you didn't have kill someone to get a ticket. Most of the shows were GA show, so if you went early, you were first row. They hung around and met with fans after the shows. By the end of the tour, you could see how much more popular they had become. I knew things would never be the same.
February 3, 200917 yr In terms of setlists AROBTTH was far better, in that they would play B-Sides, obscure covers and new songs, obviously they had a lot less material back then, which is a factor.Ā This show is a better show, production wise, I love all the ideas they have for connecting with the audience, the ramps, acoustic section etc, but like Angie said it's a totally different band. Ā My only gripe with this tour is the overuse of back tracks and loops.
February 3, 200917 yr I've never seen them before (but I am going to in exactly 25!!! days), but from what I gather from some obsessive watching of videos, both tours are wonderful for different reasons, most of which have already been mentioned.Ā AROBTTH was good because Chris' voice seemed less shaky, the material played was interesting (a good mix of the obvious hits and the lesser known songs) and that the shows would have been more intimate because the venues were smaller (I would think). It was really more about the music back then.Ā The VLV tour is a good 'show', visually-wise, with multicoloured confetti and big banners behind the stage. I'm not saying that, music-wise, it's weak, but rather sometimes I prefer not have all the paraphernalia distract me from the songs.Ā But still, they continue to put up a great show every night on tour, so kudos to the boys.
February 4, 200917 yr the stage, the lighting, the show in general is better on viva la vida tour, but the performances on the arobtth era were awesome. If you want a good show, viva is for you, but if you want magical live performances, live 2003 is for youĀ This is exactly what I was going to say. Unfortunately I didn't have the chance to see Coldplay live back in 2003. I was too young and experienced coldplay just some weeks before they came to Germany. I do remember when I saw my first Coldplay concert on TV. It was magical. This live 2003 atmosphere on the DVD, etc is unique. It's funny to watch 3 "clocks" performances on youtube: the 1st one from 2003: I can't desbcribe how I feel when I see that. It's magic. the 2nd from 2005: Is awesome. The 3rd from 2008: Is ok. Ā I think the AROBTTH tour included more feelings that's why I think it was the best, eventhough I didn't have the chance to see them live back then.
February 4, 200917 yr Viva tour - no question!Ā This is a band that oozes confidence, during AROBTTH they were still too wide-eyed and almost apologetic for being good. They have a bit of swagger now, and that's a good thing!Ā The X & Y concert I went to gave me a migraine :(
Create an account or sign in to comment