Jump to content
📡 HIGHER POWER MUSIC VIDEO OUT JUNE 8 📡

Criticisms with the album?


Recommended Posts

I'm starting to think that you guys can't use your brain

 

you are completely ignoring the production of this album, which is a masterpiece, because your brain can't get over the fact that they are not a rock band anymore

 

get over it

 

 

and by the way, radiohead aren't a rock band anymore too, and they haven't created anything new since OK Computer, you all praise them like they discend from freaking God but they are nothing special, there are bands that have been doing what radiohead does for years and even better but who gives a fuck about them, right?

 

I'm sorry if now i'm coming out as rude but i'm really tired of the bullshit that coldplay recieves everyday

If they do something more mainstream (ie Paradise) = sell outs

if they do something more subtle, like a spell a rebel yell = rip offs

if they do something rockier (violet hill) = trying hard to be cool

 

Who cares about what critics say about them, and by the way, they've always and I say ALWAYS been radio friendly even with your beloved Parachutes and AROBTTH, what's changed? In the early 2000 guitar driven songs were cool and over played on the radio, now songs like ASFOS are

Chris Martin loves to hear their songs over played on the radio, and he has aways been proud of it and that will never change in Coldplay, maybe, some day when they will be 50 years old or something.

 

this is getting ridicolous

 

I agree with everything on this post, holy shit, everything spot on.

And yes, Radiohead is way too overrated the way everyone praises them. Coldplay is 100x times better IMO

 

And for the record, people hating on this beautiful album is a crime. And people even hating on True Love, arguably best song on the album... my head

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 557
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What exactly makes Radiohead better? People always says they're more talented and such things, but Coldplays music is better and that is what counts for me

 

arrangements, melodies, concept of music, concept of lyrics, they can play everything live without any back track (something that coldplay needs to do)

and are a lot more prepared about music theory, see both the guitarist and the drummer went to proper music schools, i know it sounds pretentious, but it makes the differnce

they all are very skilled in their own instruments, and we know that Coldplay aren't, and that, i know it's not the most important thing, makes the difference

 

but they never created something "original" the sound they adapted now and before was nothing new to the music world

Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly makes Radiohead better? People always says they're more talented and such things, but Coldplays music is better and that is what counts for me

 

They're two totally different kinds of band and they should never be compared

Link to post
Share on other sites
nah, muse is my third fav band (after coldplay and radiohead lol) and i think that coldplay are better, muse need to improve the production and the cohesiveness of their music

 

Even though I love Coldplay live to the death, I think Muse live is one little point ahead. They rock it from the beginning to end, even more after The 2nd Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even though I love Coldplay live to the death, I think Muse live is one little point ahead. They rock it from the beginning to end, even more after The 2nd Law.

 

oh yes live, i've never NEVER heard Matt's voice crack in his entire career, they are EPIC live, they are good at surprising their audience, but less good at connecting with them

Link to post
Share on other sites
oh yes live, i've never NEVER heard Matt's voice crack in his entire career, they are EPIC live, they are good at surprising their audience, but less good at connecting with them

 

Yes, there is more interaction with Coldplay, but as you said Matt's voice is monstrous live. I love every performance of Knights of Cydonia(even if there's little vocals[words]). Chris (Wolstenholme)is an average side singer too(though Will is much better[he is better in everything he does, he is better breathing air than anyone lol jk]).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, there is more interaction with Coldplay, but as you said Matt's voice is monstrous live. I love every performance of Knights of Cydonia(even if there's little vocals). Chris (Wolstenholme)is an average side singer too(though Will is much better).

 

Yeah but Chris W. bangs his bass like he bangs his wife (he has 6 children with her lol)

 

tumblr_m6enbw4jja1qaejwv.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Radiohead is indeed "better" for not using backing tracks but still sounding big and great live. Though to be fair, they do have a 5th member over Coldplay and Muse. Honestly I think Coldplay can just down-regulate the amount of backing tracks they use because honestly their music wouldn't get worse just because there are less strings in the background or something. And Muse needs to promote Morgan Nichols to a full-time 4th member. Well two takeaway points from my meandering paragraph: backing tracks occur when the amount of music is not proportional to the number of members on stage and Coldplay's music would sound fine without the backing tracks. But I don't think backing tracks means a group is "less talented". They just have different priorities.

 

I think Muse has the most raw virtuosity in their playing style. Radiohead does a good job of experimentation and stuff too. And of course, Coldplay > Muse > Radiohead in audience connection and concert "fun" level.

 

Also I think Coldplay is totally capable of experimenting and being "ambitious" musically even if they are not given credit for this. VLV (the song and the album) is very much evidence of this, as are certain individual tracks on MX and GS. And there are cases where minimalism and restraint do make the music better. Songs like Yellow and The Scientist come to mind there. Though some more virtuosity from Coldplay would be good - Hurts Like Heaven would be the best example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kmm1482

I don't understand why some people keep saying "a lot of you guys on here keep saying Radiohead is better and you treat Radiohead like Gods". I have never once seen any Coldplayer post anything like that

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm assuming rafi is me lol :laugh3:

I'll explain to you, the other people don't really need to read.

 

 

The reasons are several but the most important are: Chris too much centered (I'm a Coldplay fan, not only Chris'), too much use of synth drums (I do like them but I really never expected a Coldplay album only with it. 2 songs are acceptable), strange suppression of guitars, True Love sounds like a Disney song, the ohh ohhs in the end annoy me, Ink was almost a good song but drums ruined it, Oceans to ASFoS transition too forced, lack of real guitar on Oceans like live, production holes like the click on the beginning of AIMH and too subtle start of ocean sound in Oceans, Another's Arms ending (Your body in my body-ody-ody-ody-ody-ody), True Love again

 

I understand where you're coming from on a lot of of these points. I personally like the drums on GS, I don't mind that they're electronic. And the fact that the entire album uses electronic drums makes it more cohesive, which is a factor that I really hold up high when judging an album.

 

And yes, True Love is very Disney-esque, but it builds to a satisfying crescendo at the end, in my opinion. And yes, it is very Chris-centric, but I don't mind that either because it's coming from a very genuine place.

 

Personally, I love GS. It's probably 3rd place behind Viva and AROBTTH for me! :)

 

I appreciate where you're coming from though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now addressing Radiohead:

 

I agree with Mrk; Coldplay and Radiohead are two completely different bands.

 

Radiohead's music is much more complex, much more difficult to digest, and more interesting in my opinion. I can stand back and look at them objectively and say Radiohead makes much more thought-provoking and interesting music. But music isn't something to be looked at objectively; it's extremely feelings-based.

 

Coldplay is my all time favorite because that's just my gut feeling, and it's been this way since like 2002. Which band is technically "better"? Probably Radiohead, but I don't care, and nobody else should care either. Listen to what you love and let others listen to what they love.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And now addressing Radiohead:

 

I agree with Mrk; Coldplay and Radiohead are two completely different bands.

 

Radiohead's music is much more complex, much more difficult to digest, and more interesting in my opinion. I can stand back and look at them objectively and say Radiohead makes much more thought-provoking and interesting music. But music isn't something to be looked at objectively; it's extremely feelings-based.

 

Coldplay is my all time favorite because that's just my gut feeling, and it's been this way since like 2002. Which band is technically "better"? Probably Radiohead, but I don't care, and nobody else should care either. Listen to what you love and let others listen to what they love.

 

 

Totally agree. "better" is all objective, but Radiohead is the more interesting, layered, and evolved band. First they have more members, all of whom strive for different experimentation. Thom Yorke is a genius and Jonny Greenwood has done wonders with his solo work as well. I love listening to Radiohead when I am feeling in a certain mood because their music is amazingly and uniquely done, and always has a certain harshness or melancholy that is jarring. They truly are a band that revolutionized what bands can do in my opinion.

 

But Coldplay will always be above for me. Are they experimental? No. Are they as diverse of instrument players? No. Are they revolutionary? Definitely not. They just make the music for me that is interesting, beautiful, catchy, and emotive enough to be my favourite band quite simply. They are a package that includes so much more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what happens to those who refuse to "go along with the world"? They vanish.

 

What I mean is, in everything and I mean everything, if you don't "evolve" you're left behind. Our world is mad and it's in constant changing.

 

For example, industry, once they were manual, now they're all about "robots" and machines, and those industries that kept their old ways, what happened to them? They lost their track, they vanished.

 

Same happens in music industry. Once they used, what some of you like to call "real instruments", now it's all about computers. Coldplay only has one option if they want to keep in the music industry, go with the flow. Don't believe me? MX explains my point. (I'm not saying it's a bad album)

 

The album has too much Chris? Obvious. It's about his love life. And believe me, if the album exists it's because the band agreed and if they're "okay" with that why can't we just be too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad fact about Radiohead is that they've barely made a memorable track since OK Computer. Which was almost 20 years ago. And the few that do stand out, e.g. Everything in its Right Place and Reckoner, are mostly just good for the first 30 seconds before getting boring. They don't really have it in them to write great melodies, so they compensate by layering tons of 'complexity' and conceptual experimentation onto the records (and their career in general).

 

I remember when Coldplay's Parachutes came out, Radiohead fans recommended it to me. I thought it was pretty good. Then when Rush of Blood to the Head came out and cemented their popularity, Radiohead fans simultaneously dismissed them as rubbish and called them a Radiohead clone. Strange that. In reality, the only thing they had in common was high quality production (remember, the 90s were dominated by pub-rock) and falsetto singing. Coldplay had hits in them, Radiohead by this point just had critical acclaim (the general awfulness of chart music between 1998 and 2002 led some poor rock fans to spurn anything catchy-sounding in favour of shoe-gazing nonsense).

 

I remember the long anticipated day Kid A came out (and some ridiculous thing about them recording two albums simultaneously and only releasing one at a time, and how if you played 2 copies of Kid A 15 seconds apart then it unlocked a whole new experience), asking Radiohead fans if they liked it, was it better than Bends/OK, what were the best tracks. They all said something like 'not sure, it needs time to sink in.' 'I won't know if I like it until I listen to a few more times.' Thing is, basically anything grows on you if you listen to it a few times. That's why mediocre bands manage to do 2 hour concerts for their fans, when the rest of us only care about a couple of their songs. The true test is how much of an impression it makes at first.

 

Curiously I don't think I ever bought Rush of Blood to the Head, though I obviously enjoyed the singles. Coldplay in my book were a good band among a number of other good bands (Travis, Franz Ferdinand, The Libertines, etc). I did buy X&Y however, and was pretty impressed - they'd managed to get past the '3rd album' curse that most bands stumble at. When Viva La Vida came out, I realised that they were starting to pull away from the pack - they weren't 'cool,' didn't have critical acclaim, but at the same time no one could name any other bands which had released 4 strong albums since 2000 with amazing singles on each one. And they were now the biggest band in the world. With Mxyo Lotto (or whatever it's called), they came up with possibly their best single yet (Charlie Brown) and the others were great too. They now clearly deserved to be the biggest band in the world.

 

With Ghost Stories they have pulled it off once more. At this point they are in a league of their own for bands active since 2000. In historical terms, I'm surprised to say it but they're actually catching up with Oasis. It's doubtful that anyone will ever match the intense brilliance of Oasis's first 2/3 years, but slow and steady wins the race as they say. They have probably surpassed Blur. Their legacy is pretty secure at this point - a large list of anthemic hits and great album tracks. And the best thing is, there's no reason why they can't keep going.

 

Criticisms of the album? It's quite short, although I don't have the two extra tracks. Also I'd like more sections for some of the songs, e.g. Magic, Sky Full of Stars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...