Why Coldplay needed to go 'Mainstream'

[cleeson7]

Ok firstly I love the Coldplay we have now and I love the Coldplay of the past.

 

Several people have given their opinions of how Coldplay are writing songs which are for the charts and are not thinking about quality. I like Paradise, I thinks it good.

 

Now I believe the reason CP had to go in the direction is because they are living their dream. They want to recreate the moments of Wembley and Headline Glastonbury and other major festivals. This is ANY musicians dream.

 

Coldplay cannot stand still they need to appeal to the masses to make these dreams reality. Its not a money making scheme, Imagine playing 80,000 people in a stadium, it must be incredible. If Coldplay had stopped at X&Y and not produced an Album like Viva la Vida they would be where Keane is now. Highly respected but not at Oasis/Foo Fighter level where they can play an Arena they want.

 

I believe this. I think Coldplay have the right to get to the top to experience the dreams that all musicians have. And this means getting songs which the masses will like. I for one love it all and cannot wait for MX.

 

This probably doesn't make sense, I'm hope it does :)

 

Cheers x

 

p.s. no hate please

[coldplayisawesome]

i see what you mean... in a way i sort of feel like where they are now is where they've been working towards getting since the beginning...

[Hartroc]

Since when is Keane highly respected? :laugh3:

[rudy_o]

I thought they've become mainstream since X&Y era :|

[fakfak]

Ok. I wasn't going to weigh in on this mainstream vs. non-mainstream bulls&^t, but I just can't resist.

 

It's one thing if you don't like the new music, saying so doesn't make you a "hater" (as long as it's new music you've actually heard.) However, IMHO there are a couple things about this "coldplay going mainstream" argument that make absolutely no sense to me. If someone on the other side can answer some of these questions, I'd be genuinely interested in their perspective. Here goes:

 

1. First and foremost how on earth can "old coldplay" not be considered "mainstream" or "made for radio" I'll grant you that perhaps parachutes wasn't a pop record by any stretch (though yellow was the definition of a made for radio 3 minute pop song IMHO), but pretty much everything from AROBTTH was. In My Place, Clocks, The Scientist, Fix You, The Hardest Part, Speed of Sound all of these songs came from the "old" (and thus apparently good) era of coldplay music and ALL of them seem more structurally simple and radio ready than ANY of the tracks on VLVODAAHF. I'm really curious as to the specifics of what makes the old material "not poppy" I love coldplay but they are the most mainstream sounding band in the world and have been for 10 years.

 

2. Seeing as the majority of the live songs played at the summer festivals have been well received, how is all the new material judged by a few polarizing songs? By my count, only ETDIAWF and maybe Paradise have gotten what seems to be a mixed response with the general consensus on the other tracks being fairly well received. Heck, even Princess of China got good reviews from the people who actually heard the sole live performance BEFORE it was discovered that Rhianna was on the studio track.

 

3. Why do people feel they can assume the motives of the band? Chris especially has always had an interest in pop music/pop artists and has collaborated with many of them as a solo artist going back almost to the band's inception. how is that not an organic change? Why do some people apparently feel that there is absolutely no chance the difference in the band's music is primarily due to the fact that this is the type of music they're genuinely interested in now?

 

Like I said, I'm NOT one of those people who thinks you're not a "real fan" if you don't like the new music, but I'm seriously having trouble understanding the main arguments people use on here for why they don't like the new songs.

 

I agree with people who say that this whole direction change thing is Coldplay's version of 80's u2 vs. 90's u2 (also spurred by Eno BTW) I think the band are just interested in different things now than they were before, and people can either be interested along with them or not, neither choice is better or worse than the other, it's just a matter of personal preference, After hearing songs like Christmas Lights and UATW, I think it's clear the band can (and does) still write songs in their "old style", it's just not their primary interest at this moment in time.

[footyfan10]

Ok. I wasn't going to weigh in on this mainstream vs. non-mainstream bulls&^t, but I just can't resist.

 

It's one thing if you don't like the new music, saying so doesn't make you a "hater" (as long as it's new music you've actually heard.) However, IMHO there are a couple things about this "coldplay going mainstream" argument that make absolutely no sense to me. If someone on the other side can answer some of these questions, I'd be genuinely interested in their perspective. Here goes:

 

1. First and foremost how on earth can "old coldplay" not be considered "mainstream" or "made for radio" I'll grant you that perhaps parachutes wasn't a pop record by any stretch (though yellow was the definition of a made for radio 3 minute pop song IMHO), but pretty much everything from AROBTTH was. In My Place, Clocks, The Scientist, Fix You, The Hardest Part, Speed of Sound all of these songs came from the "old" (and thus apparently good) era of coldplay music and ALL of them seem more structurally simple and radio ready than ANY of the tracks on VLVODAAHF. I'm really curious as to the specifics of what makes the old material "not poppy" I love coldplay but they are the most mainstream sounding band in the world and have been for 10 years.

 

2. Seeing as the majority of the live songs played at the summer festivals have been well received, how is all the new material judged by a few polarizing songs? By my count, only ETDIAWF and maybe Paradise have gotten what seems to be a mixed response with the general consensus on the other tracks being fairly well received. Heck, even Princess of China got good reviews from the people who actually heard the sole live performance BEFORE it was discovered that Rhianna was on the studio track.

 

3. Why do people feel they can assume the motives of the band? Chris especially has always had an interest in pop music/pop artists and has collaborated with many of them as a solo artist going back almost to the band's inception. how is that not an organic change? Why do some people apparently feel that there is absolutely no chance the difference in the band's music is primarily due to the fact that this is the type of music they're genuinely interested in now?

 

Like I said, I'm NOT one of those people who thinks you're not a "real fan" if you don't like the new music, but I'm seriously having trouble understanding the main arguments people use on here for why they don't like the new songs.

 

I agree with people who say that this whole direction change thing is Coldplay's version of 80's u2 vs. 90's u2 (also spurred by Eno BTW) I think the band are just interested in different things now than they were before, and people can either be interested along with them or not, neither choice is better or worse than the other, it's just a matter of personal preference, After hearing songs like Christmas Lights and UATW, I think it's clear the band can (and does) still write songs in their "old style", it's just not their primary interest at this moment in time.

 

:clap:

 

As you said, all these people who think Coldplay weren't always mainstream are just people who don't have a clear understanding of the vast music landscape.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not liking the new Coldplay, but so many of the criticisms are littered with talk of selling out, going mainstream, listening to Eno...blah blah blah. None of that is even remotely accurate. The band has always been mainstream. I think a lot of people are suffering separation anxiety or something...wishing Chris was here to sing them 10 lullabies. Fact is that we still get those types of songs, there are just new types in there.

 

Once again, nothing wrong with not liking the new music. But people who think Coldplay have sold out need to realize they were ALWAYS a commercial band. Yellow is up there as the most pop songs of the last decade. And it's honestly not very heartfelt...everything was all yellow? The band have said they don't even know what that means. It was just a lyric. Just like a lot of new songs have lyrics similarly pointless.

[fakfak]

Wow, I never expected to get applause!:smug:

[coldplayisawesome]

oh... you guys are much better at explaining my thoughts than i am. :P

[Blue Glisten]

And it's honestly not very heartfelt...everything was all yellow? The band have said they don't even know what that means. It was just a lyric. Just like a lot of new songs have lyrics similarly pointless.

 

Really? :embarrassed:

[fakfak]

Really? :embarrassed:

 

 

I think so. (the heartfelt part to me is in the way Chris sings it, not in the lyrics themselves.)

[Blue Glisten]

I think so. (the heartfelt part to me is in the way Chris sings it, not in the lyrics themselves.)

I think too, I love the songs but I believed the lyrics had meaning :confused:

[Sienna]

Coldplay has always been mainstream. Nothing wrong with that. Underground, "Indie" if you may might have more quality but that only because most of these bands dare to be different and explore new grounds that the average listener wont digest so readily. However, when it starts becoming the band's motto to be unpopular and simply respected, then its just forced quality.

Coldplay just happens to make music that's both catchy and cool. There's nothing wrong with being popular really. The Beatles made music that was both ridiculously popular and incredibly fantastic.

[anniea89]

The band has always been mainstream.

 

THIS.

[para-para-parrotdies]

Coldplay has always been mainstream. Nothing wrong with that. .

 

I absolutely agree. Coldplay has and probably always will be mainstream. There's nothing wrong with being mainstream per se.

 

However, problems arise when your songs are bland and lack any substance. That's the real issue people have with ETIAW + Paradise. It's not the fact it has that mainstream feel... it's the fact that both songs, from the arrangement to the lyrics, are frankly uninspired and unimaginative.

[Isab3lla]

Ok. I wasn't going to weigh in on this mainstream vs. non-mainstream bulls&^t, but I just can't resist.

 

It's one thing if you don't like the new music, saying so doesn't make you a "hater" (as long as it's new music you've actually heard.) However, IMHO there are a couple things about this "coldplay going mainstream" argument that make absolutely no sense to me. If someone on the other side can answer some of these questions, I'd be genuinely interested in their perspective. Here goes:

 

1. First and foremost how on earth can "old coldplay" not be considered "mainstream" or "made for radio" I'll grant you that perhaps parachutes wasn't a pop record by any stretch (though yellow was the definition of a made for radio 3 minute pop song IMHO), but pretty much everything from AROBTTH was. In My Place, Clocks, The Scientist, Fix You, The Hardest Part, Speed of Sound all of these songs came from the "old" (and thus apparently good) era of coldplay music and ALL of them seem more structurally simple and radio ready than ANY of the tracks on VLVODAAHF. I'm really curious as to the specifics of what makes the old material "not poppy" I love coldplay but they are the most mainstream sounding band in the world and have been for 10 years.

 

2. Seeing as the majority of the live songs played at the summer festivals have been well received, how is all the new material judged by a few polarizing songs? By my count, only ETDIAWF and maybe Paradise have gotten what seems to be a mixed response with the general consensus on the other tracks being fairly well received. Heck, even Princess of China got good reviews from the people who actually heard the sole live performance BEFORE it was discovered that Rhianna was on the studio track.

 

3. Why do people feel they can assume the motives of the band? Chris especially has always had an interest in pop music/pop artists and has collaborated with many of them as a solo artist going back almost to the band's inception. how is that not an organic change? Why do some people apparently feel that there is absolutely no chance the difference in the band's music is primarily due to the fact that this is the type of music they're genuinely interested in now?

 

Like I said, I'm NOT one of those people who thinks you're not a "real fan" if you don't like the new music, but I'm seriously having trouble understanding the main arguments people use on here for why they don't like the new songs.

 

I agree with people who say that this whole direction change thing is Coldplay's version of 80's u2 vs. 90's u2 (also spurred by Eno BTW) I think the band are just interested in different things now than they were before, and people can either be interested along with them or not, neither choice is better or worse than the other, it's just a matter of personal preference, After hearing songs like Christmas Lights and UATW, I think it's clear the band can (and does) still write songs in their "old style", it's just not their primary interest at this moment in time.

 

Word. I like that they're trying diffrent styles, even though I'm not yaaying for the new songs I would rather have this than 5 Parachutes albums

[fakfak]

I absolutely agree. Coldplay has and probably always will be mainstream. There's nothing wrong with being mainstream per se.

 

However, problems arise when your songs are bland and lack any substance. That's the real issue people have with ETIAW + Paradise. It's not the fact it has that mainstream feel... it's the fact that both songs, from the arrangement to the lyrics, are frankly uninspired and unimaginative.

 

 

Fair Enough. If people would just say that, I think that's a perfectly reasonable answer. Although, I would point out that the band's many detractors have been using similar language to describe all of the band's output.

[Sienna]

I absolutely agree. Coldplay has and probably always will be mainstream. There's nothing wrong with being mainstream per se.

 

However, problems arise when your songs are bland and lack any substance. That's the real issue people have with ETIAW + Paradise. It's not the fact it has that mainstream feel... it's the fact that both songs, from the arrangement to the lyrics, are frankly uninspired and unimaginative.

 

Truth be told, Coldplay hasnt changed all that much, if anything they've grown. They use more color, more instruments and more vocals. Deep inside Coldplay is still Coldplay. :happy:

Coldplay has never had any profound lyrics to begin with and the music has never been particularly groundbreaking anyway. Quite honestly, "Yellow" is fairly "bland" both lyrically and musically, even slightly ridiculous....now why do we love it? Because its simple. Because its honest. Because its adorable. Because its a good song. Just that. Because its from the heart.

I believe that if they would have released "Paradise" during "Parachutes" or "AROBTH" time, it would have been the same song, just different instruments(basic normal instruments:guitar, piano, drums, bass).:thinking:

 

Im in no way being condescending but rather explaining that i've always been perfectly content with this fact. My love for Coldplay has never stemmed from them being musically ground-breaking or wildly imaginative...its still alive because they keep on making music i enjoy, and can listen to over and over...years after years.:sunny:

[para-para-parrotdies]

Truth be told, Coldplay hasnt changed all that much, if anything they've grown. They use more color, more instruments and more vocals. Deep inside Coldplay is still Coldplay. :happy:

Coldplay has never had any profound lyrics to begin with and the music has never been particularly groundbreaking anyway. Quite honestly, "Yellow" is fairly "bland" both lyrically and musically, even slightly ridiculous....now why do we love it? Because its simple. Because its honest. Because its adorable. Because its a good song. Just that. Because its from the heart.

 

Musically, I do agree to some extent that they have grown since their early days. Their recent output might not reflect a direction I would like for them to go but you can definitely notice the change + effort. I also agree that Coldplay were and probably never will be known for their lyrics - just compare their songs to works by Bob Dylan or Ian Curtis for example and there's a huge difference

 

My issue is that the recent songs lack heart + emotion. Someone compared Paradise to a summer blockbuster: it's made for people to be entertained with catchy hooks + generic lyrics. Do the recent singles sound pleasant enough? Sure, I guess they're ok to listen to once. But are they songs that merit repeat listens? My answer still remains no. Hopefully, the other songs on the album will change my mind but this is my general feeling regarding the new songs

[Major_Love]

What do you say? I can't hear this "mainstream, mainstream, oh my god its mainstream". I don't know what you mean.

 

Come on, lets talk about Fix you, Yellow, In my Place, The Scientist. And you really say that Coldplay going to be mainstream with Paradise?

 

Coldolay was always mainstream, they wrote simple melodies but it was highly emotional. Nowadays the style is complexer, richer, there is more variety, there isn't only Chris' voice and some little riffs and piano tunes beside. They really improve their musical side.

 

When I compare Paradise with Yellow and all the good old stuff (I desperately love) I have to say, that Yellow is the mainstream hit and radio friendly song, not Paradise.

 

Don't get me wrong, I respect the people who say that they don't like the new stuff. Its ok, because its so different to anything before, no problem. But I can't understand if people say they go mainstream. Look at VLVODAAHF or at Paradise - I just don't see the "mainstream".

[Mark]

Ok. I wasn't going to weigh in on this mainstream vs. non-mainstream bulls&^t, but I just can't resist.

 

It's one thing if you don't like the new music, saying so doesn't make you a "hater" (as long as it's new music you've actually heard.) However, IMHO there are a couple things about this "coldplay going mainstream" argument that make absolutely no sense to me. If someone on the other side can answer some of these questions, I'd be genuinely interested in their perspective. Here goes:

 

1. First and foremost how on earth can "old coldplay" not be considered "mainstream" or "made for radio" I'll grant you that perhaps parachutes wasn't a pop record by any stretch (though yellow was the definition of a made for radio 3 minute pop song IMHO), but pretty much everything from AROBTTH was. In My Place, Clocks, The Scientist, Fix You, The Hardest Part, Speed of Sound all of these songs came from the "old" (and thus apparently good) era of coldplay music and ALL of them seem more structurally simple and radio ready than ANY of the tracks on VLVODAAHF. I'm really curious as to the specifics of what makes the old material "not poppy" I love coldplay but they are the most mainstream sounding band in the world and have been for 10 years.

 

2. Seeing as the majority of the live songs played at the summer festivals have been well received, how is all the new material judged by a few polarizing songs? By my count, only ETDIAWF and maybe Paradise have gotten what seems to be a mixed response with the general consensus on the other tracks being fairly well received. Heck, even Princess of China got good reviews from the people who actually heard the sole live performance BEFORE it was discovered that Rhianna was on the studio track.

 

3. Why do people feel they can assume the motives of the band? Chris especially has always had an interest in pop music/pop artists and has collaborated with many of them as a solo artist going back almost to the band's inception. how is that not an organic change? Why do some people apparently feel that there is absolutely no chance the difference in the band's music is primarily due to the fact that this is the type of music they're genuinely interested in now?

 

Like I said, I'm NOT one of those people who thinks you're not a "real fan" if you don't like the new music, but I'm seriously having trouble understanding the main arguments people use on here for why they don't like the new songs.

 

I agree with people who say that this whole direction change thing is Coldplay's version of 80's u2 vs. 90's u2 (also spurred by Eno BTW) I think the band are just interested in different things now than they were before, and people can either be interested along with them or not, neither choice is better or worse than the other, it's just a matter of personal preference, After hearing songs like Christmas Lights and UATW, I think it's clear the band can (and does) still write songs in their "old style", it's just not their primary interest at this moment in time.

 

Best thing I've read on this forum.

 

I mean, has anyone LISTENED to the charts? Coldplay don't use autotune, rapping, say their name at the start of their songs, and they - especially recently - are very guitar-centric, something that is out of favour in the charts. For people to say that this era is "mainstream" goes totally against Hurts Like Heaven, Charlie Brown, Major Minus AND the two singles. Music can be beautiful whether it's played on one acoustic or by a full orchestra.

[para-para-parrotdies]

What do you say? I can't hear this "mainstream, mainstream, oh my god its mainstream". I don't know what you mean.

 

I certainly can't speak for other people but what I mean by "mainstream" is something that is generic sounding, something that could have been easily recreated by another band or group. In that regard, "Paradise" certainly fits the bill because it's highly reminiscent of a lot of OneRepublic's songs, such as their hit song "Apologize." The similarities are not that surprising considering Timbaland was involved in both songs.

 

To be clear, I think only a few people really dock points from Coldplay for being "mainstream." If people don't want to listen to music because it's more accepted, then their loss. I could care less. However, I do care about the quality of the songs and unfortunately, ETIAW + Paradise don't meet Coldplay's high standards or potential.

 

I will say I have some hope for other songs we've heard, such as Charlie Brown and Us Against the World but I'll reserve judgment until I hear the studio versions. For all I know, they could have undergone a "Major Minus" treatment

[Major_Love]

Hm I don't see the similarity to One Republic or any other band in Paradise. With regard to all the musicians in the world its hard to create something real new - one octave just have 8 tones and nobody ownes them. There are always similarities. You say today its One Republic, some other saw the similarities to Blink 182, Muse, The Verve, U2 in older records...

 

...sorry, but honestly its no argument for me.

[fakfak]

I certainly can't speak for other people but what I mean by "mainstream" is something that is generic sounding, something that could have been easily recreated by another band or group. In that regard, "Paradise" certainly fits the bill because it's highly reminiscent of a lot of OneRepublic's songs, such as their hit song "Apologize." The similarities are not that surprising considering Timbaland was involved in both songs.

 

To be clear, I think only a few people really dock points from Coldplay for being "mainstream." If people don't want to listen to music because it's more accepted, then their loss. I could care less. However, I do care about the quality of the songs and unfortunately, ETIAW + Paradise don't meet Coldplay's high standards or potential.

 

I will say I have some hope for other songs we've heard, such as Charlie Brown and Us Against the World but I'll reserve judgment until I hear the studio versions. For all I know, they could have undergone a "Major Minus" treatment

 

I can respect that (although I'm not really sure what "generic sounding" means.) Either the new songs sound good to you or they don't , that's a matter of personal opinion. Just out of curiosity, do you think that all of the band's previous singles meet their "high standards"? I love the band, but IMHO they've put out plenty of bum songs mixed in with the greats over their career. (as is true of any band.)

[MajorM]

I certainly can't speak for other people but what I mean by "mainstream" is something that is generic sounding, something that could have been easily recreated by another band or group. In that regard, "Paradise" certainly fits the bill because it's highly reminiscent of a lot of OneRepublic's songs, such as their hit song "Apologize." The similarities are not that surprising considering Timbaland was involved in both songs.

 

To be clear, I think only a few people really dock points from Coldplay for being "mainstream." If people don't want to listen to music because it's more accepted, then their loss. I could care less. However, I do care about the quality of the songs and unfortunately, ETIAW + Paradise don't meet Coldplay's high standards or potential.

 

I will say I have some hope for other songs we've heard, such as Charlie Brown and Us Against the World but I'll reserve judgment until I hear the studio versions. For all I know, they could have undergone a "Major Minus" treatment

 

Are there any OneRepublic songs that start out with a minute of hard core strings? :P I hear Coldplay in Paradise, whether anyone else does or not. I agree about Charlie Brown and UATW...and I don't think they're going back to whatever voice thing they used for Major Minus. I think it was a one time thing. (But it wasn't autotune, you know? It was just an effect.)

 

I have high hopes for MX. UATW isn't going to be mainstream. It's going to be more like a...Coldplay song from the past. :)

[Sienna]

Musically, I do agree to some extent that they have grown since their early days. Their recent output might not reflect a direction I would like for them to go but you can definitely notice the change + effort. I also agree that Coldplay were and probably never will be known for their lyrics - just compare their songs to works by Bob Dylan or Ian Curtis for example and there's a huge difference

 

My issue is that the recent songs lack heart + emotion. Someone compared Paradise to a summer blockbuster: it's made for people to be entertained with catchy hooks + generic lyrics. Do the recent singles sound pleasant enough? Sure, I guess they're ok to listen to once. But are they songs that merit repeat listens? My answer still remains no. Hopefully, the other songs on the album will change my mind but this is my general feeling regarding the new songs

 

I can see where you are coming from. One of my best friends and fellow Coldplay fan has simply quit and stated a string of similar sentences regarding their lack of heart in music lately. She feels like they have indeed, sold out. However, the way I see it is...they are famous now, so might as well cater to the audiences. Its a smart decision, business wise, popularity wise.

Although, truth be told, whether they stay true to their roots or change for the masses, people wil always be disappointed ie: Radiohead's new album. :(