Clearly neither do you. But again I don't want to make this any worse, or become part of the problem, so I am leaving this thread, and will probably not see any further replies :escaping:

Sorry, if I was verging on rude. But it is partly frustrating to still not know which 'hypocrites' you were indicating while you were talking. I felt obliged to defend this unknown enemy when you pulled the word out.

 

This article is completely harmless, it is someone's opinion so all those people who disagree with it and then say they are just stating their opinion are being complete hypocrites.

*Hands in the air* I misread you first time around. Had someone claimed immunity to criticism because they were just stating their opinion, they would indeed be a hypocrite. What threw me off is the fact that this didn't actually happen.

 

Sir, you've just stepped into the boggy mire of aesthetics which is anything but simple. The vast majority of critics will concede that no one experiences art in a vacuum, but nor is it completely random what we experience. Many artists create art with an intended response, and some artists are more successful at this than others. If my intention is to create a Mozart style concerto, but my end composition is just me sitting down on a piano, most would say I have failed.

 

- - - - -

 

The way you feel music decides which songs are bad or good. Thanks to the critics now people have the tendency to believe the idea that there's good and bad music when in reality no song in history is bad/good (objectively speaking).

 

For example, Party Rock by LMFAO is not necessarily a bad song. If I want to party in a club, I rather hear music by LMFAO, Flo Rida, David Guetta than hearing music by Bon Iver or Yo La tengo.

 

What if Will.I.am went to the studio for the purpose of making a catchy song on the radio? If the next day I'm mumbling his song because it's stuck in my head, wouldn't you say he was succesful?

 

I've read or heard somewhere that sometimes Chris Martin writes his music thinking about Glastonbury. My guess is that Chris loves arena anthems. Wouldn't you say Chris was succesful the moment when everybody at a concert is singing Fix You or yelling 'OHHHH'?

 

If Chris Martin made Mylo Xyloto just for the purpose of pleasing NME critics then yeah he failed, but I really doubt that was the purpose.

_____________________________________________________

 

 

I'll sidestep this, because while I too have experienced some truly frustrating music articles, I think it's a very broad and crude generalization.

 

- - - - -

 

If you understand that music critics are only stating their opinions about music, then you wouldn't get fustrated. Don't take reviews too seriously. Like I said: Music is subjective. You decide if you either like a song/album/artist or not.

 

________________________________________

 

See, you're dehumanizing 'music critics', but I'll let that go. You're kind of dismissing people's opinions outright, that the 'goodness' of the article has nothing to do with the opinion being stated (correct me if I misunderstood, I'm still hung up on 'good' and 'bad'). But I don't believe that two articles that make exact opposite claims about a piece of music ("The lyrics on Mylo Xyloto are the worst CM has ever written" - "The lyrics on Mylo Xyloto are the best CM has ever written") can be equally persuasive to the same reader.

 

- - -

Ok, maybe I'm being too harsh on critics; They have vast vocabulary; They listen to a lot of music; They know how to decribe music very well, and they need to be good at persuading. That's fine, but my main point is that they're only stating their opinion about the music, so their critiques are not facts. If some music is better than other (objectively speaking) then why don't critics always agree on something? Why does Pitchfork thinks Mylo Xyloto is Coldplay's best album while NME thinks is the worst?

 

_________________________________________

 

 

 

.

i just meant that liking Coldplay is probably not going to get you physically beaten up or anything like that.

 

Read this:

 

http://www.gigwise.com/news/36134/coldplay-fan-assaulted-for-singing-their-song

 

 

I know this is sad :(

Read this:

 

http://www.gigwise.com/news/36134/coldplay-fan-assaulted-for-singing-their-song

 

 

I know this is sad :(

:sick: :confused: :uhoh2:

Like I said in my earlier post, you only gotta post once to get your opinion across. All this extra banter of saying why other people are wrong is stupid, and quite frankly, a waste of time.

 

then isn't this whole website a waste of time? (and the original article, for that matter)

they only need to say they don't like Coldplay once. ok. then we only need to say we do like Coldplay once. no one ever gets a post count higher than 1. everyone is happy.

 

Honestly though I don't see why people need to post their opinion.

 

no seriously what is the point of this website if no one should post opinions???

 

and anyway there's still a difference between a "debate team" and, like, a boxing ring.

Read this:

 

http://www.gigwise.com/news/36134/coldplay-fan-assaulted-for-singing-their-song

 

 

I know this is sad :(

 

:blank:

ok, but this was still just an isolated incident. :P

jesus christ what the fuck

 

how is this even an article? is this REALLY IMPORTANT? SERIOUSLY?

:disappointed:

 

This is a great example of the way you're saying something often being more valuable than the thing you're actually saying.

 

The person who wrote this article had some good points, but it was buried in the voice of a bitter and biased fanboy. I felt frustrated because I knew that any point he was trying to make would be negated because he just manages to annoy anyone who's not a fan of Coldplay. Listen to this:

 

But when it comes to your inchoate, narrow minded, unimaginative and hackneyed explanation of just why it’s wrong to like Coldplay, you honestly could not be more mistaken.

Rude, whiny, emotionally charged, and ruins any credibility that the author had. After these string of insults of course he plays the victim and says some cheesy thing like he 'felt like less of a person' for liking Coldplay, like dealing with a negative comment of Coldplay from some guy is the same as having severe depression or living in a country where you can be murdered for being homosexual. Please. It was just painful to read.

 

This is an article for Coldplay fans to boost their self-esteem, not for people who criticize Coldplay.

 

I did like how they briefly mentioned more established artists being able to 'brush off' things like musical plagiarism because it's more socially acceptable to like them.

 

I've met many people who don't really dig Coldplay, and, who knows, probably secretly fucking hate them, but they don't scream it in my face because they have the maturity and decency of a normal human being (I'll get to that in a minute). This could be anyone and their taste can reach any piece of the musical spectrum.

 

The people I've met in real life that just had the absolute urge to tell me about how much of a (I seriously quote) "waste of fucking space" one of my old favorite bands is, keep in mind this is not just a friend taking the piss and an actual stranger that I'm just getting to know, tended to almost always only mention liking the 'standard' universally-acclaimed bands like Radiohead, Oasis, and the Beatles, with a surprising lack of mention of any other genres when we're talking about music.

 

What a coincidence that a person who only dedicates themselves to bands that everyone's supposed to like, would have the nerve to bash me in my face for a band that everyone's supposed to not like! Hmm...

 

 

Of course I'm not saying that Radiohead, Oasis, and the Beatles aren't good, if you got this from my post you really don't know how to read.

 

 

Honestly I don't think there's any point to this article, if you're friends with someone they're probably gonna make a joke or two about liking Coldplay because that's what friends do, they make jokes, deal with it or ask them to tone it down. The only strangers who would do this are severely socially inept people who never learned from their parents when to keep their mouths closed when they have the urge to say something rude and insulting to someone, or people on the Internet. In which case, who cares, it's the fucking Internet!

 

EDIT: Poster above me got to the point much faster.

(not sure if this is related to the topic but I guess it is) I've never heard anybody critisize coldplay in my country. They are like one of the most respected bands. If you go to blogs or forums in Spanish, you'll find a lot of people that like radiohead, oasis, and coldplay at the same time.

 

It's totally the opposite in English forums. You post something about coldplay in a radiohead video, and they will eat you alive.

:disappointed:

 

This is a great example of the way you're saying something often being more valuable than the thing you're actually saying.

 

The person who wrote this article had some good points, but it was buried in the voice of a bitter and biased fanboy. I felt frustrated because I knew that any point he was trying to make would be negated because he just manages to annoy anyone who's not a fan of Coldplay. Listen to this:

 

 

Rude, whiny, emotionally charged, and ruins any credibility that the author had. After these string of insults of course he plays the victim and says some cheesy thing like he 'felt like less of a person' for liking Coldplay, like dealing with a negative comment of Coldplay from some guy is the same as having severe depression or living in a country where you can be murdered for being homosexual. Please. It was just painful to read.

 

This is an article for Coldplay fans to boost their self-esteem, not for people who criticize Coldplay.

 

I did like how they briefly mentioned more established artists being able to 'brush off' things like musical plagiarism because it's more socially acceptable to like them.

 

I've met many people who don't really dig Coldplay, and, who knows, probably secretly fucking hate them, but they don't scream it in my face because they have the maturity and decency of a normal human being (I'll get to that in a minute). This could be anyone and their taste can reach any piece of the musical spectrum.

 

The people I've met in real life that just had the absolute urge to tell me about how much of a (I seriously quote) "waste of fucking space" one of my old favorite bands is, keep in mind this is not just a friend taking the piss and an actual stranger that I'm just getting to know, tended to almost always only mention liking the 'standard' universally-acclaimed bands like Radiohead, Oasis, and the Beatles, with a surprising lack of mention of any other genres when we're talking about music.

 

What a coincidence that a person who only dedicates themselves to bands that everyone's supposed to like, would have the nerve to bash me in my face for a band that everyone's supposed to not like! Hmm...

 

 

Of course I'm not saying that Radiohead, Oasis, and the Beatles aren't good, if you got this from my post you really don't know how to read.

 

 

Honestly I don't think there's any point to this article, if you're friends with someone they're probably gonna make a joke or two about liking Coldplay because that's what friends do, they make jokes, deal with it or ask them to tone it down. The only strangers who would do this are severely socially inept imbeciles who never learned from their parents when to keep their mouths closed when they have the urge to say something rude and insulting to someone, or people on the Internet. In which case, who the cares, it's the fucking Internet!

 

EDIT: Poster above me got to the point much faster.

:nod:

(not sure if this is related to the topic but I guess it is) I've never heard anybody critisize coldplay in my country. They are like one of the most respected bands. If you go to blogs or forums in Spanish, you'll find a lot of people that like radiohead, oasis, and coldplay at the same time.

 

It's totally the opposite in English forums. You post something about coldplay in a radiohead video, and they will eat you alive.

 

English is the language of hate :P

Honestly though I don't see why people need to post their opinion.

Shh, it's ok. It's ok. Calm down.

Sorry, if I was verging on rude. But it is partly frustrating to still not know which 'hypocrites' you were indicating while you were talking. I felt obliged to defend this unknown enemy when you pulled the word out.

 

 

*Hands in the air* I misread you first time around. Had someone claimed immunity to criticism because they were just stating their opinion, they would indeed be a hypocrite. What threw me off is the fact that this didn't actually happen.

 

Yeah that's what I was going for. Looking back I see the confusion. I wasn't talking about 1 particular person, I was speaking more of people in general and how they often try to claim this immunity. I hope this whole thing is more or less resolved now, differences aside:)

.

 

Sir, you've just stepped into the boggy mire of aesthetics which is anything but simple. The vast majority of critics will concede that no one experiences art in a vacuum, but nor is it completely random what we experience. Many artists create art with an intended response, and some artists are more successful at this than others. If my intention is to create a Mozart style concerto, but my end composition is just me sitting down on a piano, most would say I have failed.

 

- - - - -

 

The way you feel music decides which songs are bad or good. Thanks to the critics now people have the tendency to believe the idea that there's good and bad music when in reality no song in history is bad/good (objectively speaking).

I don't know what the first sentence means, but yeah, I really don't think complete objectivity is really important here. It's human to react differently to songs that may objectively be almost indistinguishable. There's no mathematical equation you can apply, but what you said regarding LMFAO and Will.I.am was exactly my point, there's no problem with speaking about successful and unsuccessful songs. You could even refer to the ethical effect music has on human behavior as another type of yardstick. Some art is more skillful or original than others within the current musical backdrop. Of course there are tons of variables involved in the conversation regarding artistic intent blah blah blah, but I think it is a conversation worth having, and its why reading musical reviews is a meaningful experience for me.

 

If you understand that music critics are only stating their opinions about music, then you wouldn't get fustrated. Don't take reviews too seriously. Like I said: Music is subjective. You decide if you either like a song/album/artist or not.

I'm not frustrated, nor do I take most reviews that seriously, nor do I think critics are stating anything other than their opinions (or that most claim to state anything beyond it), but certain opinions feel more insightful or valid others based on how they correspond with ones own experience with a musician or album. Often you agree or disagree, and often critics articulate or describe what you experience more accurately than you ever could (as in poetry).

If some music is better than other (objectively speaking) then why don't critics always agree on something? Why does Pitchfork thinks Mylo Xyloto is Coldplay's best album while NME thinks is the worst?

Reviews are generally (or ought to be) written by individuals, not companies. And if you want an answer, I'm sure they're described in the reviews.

I wasn't talking about 1 particular person, I was speaking more of people in general and how they often try to claim this immunity. I hope this whole thing is more or less resolved now, differences aside:)

Last post, during your hole spiel, were you actually talking about this thread/people in this thread at all? Are you saying the hypocrites you described are not actually in this thread?

That doesn't get people agitated though. It's the whole act of wanting to make an argument. This article is completely harmless, it is someone's opinion so all those people who disagree with it and then say they are just stating their opinion are being complete hypocrites. The argue, quite violently as I see it, against the article but when people argue against them they get all ticked off. Like their opinion is something special or something. Really. Like I said in my earlier post, you only gotta post once to get your opinion across. All this extra banter of saying why other people are wrong is stupid, and quite frankly, a waste of time.

 

I come to the Coldplay section to read about Coldplay but all I ever see are these arguments. It really ruins it for me actually. I don't want to come in here and see hate, but all over the internet it's all I see. Arguments are gonna come up, I get that, it's the internet after all. But it's just too much now. You don't agree, you can post that and leave don't start World War 3 in the Coldplay section. Honestly though I don't see why people need to post their opinion. Maybe that's just me. It may go back to what I said before, that people want to say something they know will get people angry. I don't know, and I really don't care. Take the anger elsewhere people. This is a music forum, not the debate team or something.

 

you know it would help these feelings a lot if you didn't confuse healthy debate with HATE and ARGUMENTS and WORLD WAR 3 IN THE COLDPLAY SECTION

 

you might actually enjoy this forum a bit more and feel a bit more enriched by the content instead of avoiding participation in such a conversation like the plague

 

But Sigur Rós also uses "uuuuuu"'s and "aaaaaa"s and sounds I can even type. Why do people care so much about the lyrics? Isn't the melody mostly what stays in your head later on?

 

also this is a fair point, i just thought it was interesting when someone else pointed it out. obviously that person wants either more or something different than just a catchy melody in the songs they will listen to often tho

i love lmfao

I SWEAR IVE NEVER POSTED IN THE COLDPLAY SECTION WITHOUT GETTING A DOUBLE POST I GUESS I SHOULD PROBABLY SAY SOMETHING USEFUL NOW BUT IM NOT GONNA

Yeah that's what I was going for. Looking back I see the confusion. I wasn't talking about 1 particular person, I was speaking more of people in general and how they often try to claim this immunity. I hope this whole thing is more or less resolved now, differences aside:)

 

What a total cop-out after your infuriating post, the irony is that after everything you wrote about "people" inciting hatred you go on to write the most generalising crapola I've ever read, what could incite hatred more than pure ignorance?

 

We should all become Silencers and lock up all the people who bring their ridiculous anti-Coldplay rants onto a Coldplay forum, more directly the Coldplay section:P

 

Seriously though, you'll go "bla bla bla my opinion guh grow up" but really you're just hear to tick of the Coldplay fans. It's some kind of weird complex people have over the Internet, they are entertained by getting people worked up. It's not about your "opinion" or whatever, you're just being annoying. You only have to post 1 thing for us to understand your opinion. You don't like Coldplay. We get it. You don't need to post why everyone's wrong and your views are valid. Nobody cares what you think just like I'm sure you don't care about what they think, so just stop. You're taking up valuable space on Ian's servers....:rolleyes:

 

This is just embarrassing to read back, and your first sentence may be a "joke" but it's clearly how you feel if you say insane things like people shouldn't express their opinions, obviously you just want the bad people to go away. I don't know what a Silencer is (Apart from the gun) but I'm presuming it involves some geeky shit that revolves around your life to the point that you assume everyone knows what it is (We can both be presumptuous now can't we?).

 

The reason I felt the need to respond to this topic is because of others responses, which have carried on, things like how the writer needs a medal etc. My original post stated why Coldplay are actually shit, and sorry if it wasn't made clear enough, but it was because I thought the 5 common arguments against them were incredibly weak and vague reasons to dislike any band (You could use most of the arguments against Radiohead) and I thought I'd get a bit more specific as to what the problem actually is. I'm not here just to annoy anyone (I'm taking your quote to me personally to give it some balls).

 

It's the whole act of wanting to make an argument. This article is completely harmless, it is someone's opinion so all those people who disagree with it and then say they are just stating their opinion are being complete hypocrites. The argue, quite violently as I see it, against the article but when people argue against them they get all ticked off. Like their opinion is something special or something.

 

This is just too much nonsense to comprehend, that's what makes a hypocrite in your eyes? Do you understand the difference between simply stating an opinion, and imposing an opinion on others? Because the person who wrote the article imposed it. Where is the violent arguments? (Well, until this post now) Wait actually, what is a violent verbal argument?

 

I didn't see anyone get ticked off (Until now, but again that's not because you disagree with my opinion it's because of how stupid your posts are).

 

^This is exactly what I'm talking about. How long did that take you to write? I could go in and respond to how everything your saying is taking my point out of context or whatever

 

No you couldn't, shut up, you just couldn't.

 

I come to the Coldplay section to read about Coldplay but all I ever see are these arguments.

 

Where?! If you are going to reply to any part of my post, just please show me where you see people arguing about Coldplay, in any recent thread. You are incredibly sensitive, to the point that the idea of people disagreeing is World War 3 (You literally wrote that) when up until this post, everyone's been civil, and I don't really care about changing that, you wrote the most fleeting bullshit and you should be aware of how ignorant it was, I don't know how to put this across more than attacking you.

Hahaha! Hey Reilly, a Silencer is from the Mylo Xyloto comic...they are bad guys... :uhoh2:

Although that's incredibly geeky, I was expecting geekier.

Yeah...it's not as geeky as it could be...but it's still geeky...

I don't know what the first sentence means, but yeah, I really don't think complete objectivity is really important here. It's human to react differently to songs that may objectively be almost indistinguishable. There's no mathematical equation you can apply, but what you said regarding LMFAO and Will.I.am was exactly my point, there's no problem with speaking about successful and unsuccessful songs. You could even refer to the ethical effect music has on human behavior as another type of yardstick. Some art is more skillful or original than others within the current musical backdrop. Of course there are tons of variables involved in the conversation regarding artistic intent blah blah blah, but I think it is a conversation worth having, and its why reading musical reviews is a meaningful experience for me.

 

- - - -

 

I agree with you on how some art can be more skillful or original. These are correct words to describe art(music). It's also important how to apply/use these terms. You can't diminish an artist's work just because is not groundbreaking. You can't say Thom Yorke is more skillful than Tiesto at making music. You'll need to be more specific because Tiesto has great skills when producing house music. (I don't think we're arguing about this though).

 

 

Good/Bad/Awful/Great are terms to describe what's your opinion on the music. More precisely, how you reacted after hearing a specific piece of music. That's why I said there's no such thing as "that music is bad or good'', rather, the correct way of expressing this should be "I THINK this music is bad or good".

 

Different opinions or tastes about music exist because everyone perceives it differently. I know what I'm saying is obvious and cliche, but unfortunately some people don't seem to understand this. Instead we hear insults of bands and artists, or meeting people out there who feel so much superior for listening to only critical acclaimed music.

 

_________________________________________________

 

 

I'm not frustrated, nor do I take most reviews that seriously, nor do I think critics are stating anything other than their opinions (or that most claim to state anything beyond it), but certain opinions feel more insightful or valid others based on how they correspond with ones own experience with a musician or album. Often you agree or disagree, and often critics articulate or describe what you experience more accurately than you ever could (as in poetry).

 

Reviews are generally (or ought to be) written by individuals, not companies. And if you want an answer, I'm sure they're described in the reviews.

 

- - - - -

 

I'll take my words back insulting music critics. They do their job, and it's fine that you like reading their reviews. There's nothing wrong with that. I have to admit I get curious about Rolling Stone's or Q magazine's reviews of my favorite albums, so I read them. However, I feel many people take critic's words as fact when they write their verdict on music/art.[/b]

.

Last post, during your hole spiel, were you actually talking about this thread/people in this thread at all? Are you saying the hypocrites you described are not actually in this thread?

 

I mean all over the Internet really, but a lot of people on this forum (and I don't mean you by the way, if that's what it sounded like) like to think that they have some sort of immunity to criticism. And it's not like it's one person, usually the two people arguing are both doing it and so many threads degenerate to people just yelling at each other:shrug:

 

But I really do like everyone on the forum these days. We've had a lot of trolls in the past but these days it's much less of an issue. But there are still a lot of really heated arguments being made around what I see as non issues. I may be guilty myself sometimes, it's just an issue that bugs me sometimes when every thread is in a big web fight or whatever.

Also Reilly I'm not going to reply to your post because I feel like I've already addressed most of that stuff in other posts on here. Even though a lot of your responses actually seem just plain disrespectful to me, I feel like this is kind of settled and as I said above I do not want to become part of what I see as a problem. Your telling me I started an "issue" with my post but mine war more or less though I am sad to say, a response to yours.

 

Again can we please stop all this, really? You'll never be satisfied with anything I have to say, so what do you want me to do?