jc90

I thought it was that Chris had to lean back to share the mic with Will

you just lost all credibility (not vry srs) This is now a Japanese Cuisine thread. discuss.

lol, CAN-A-DA! CAN-A-DA!

lol yeah that's where I saw the news from. it's what everyone's discussing since post 61

The thing about Glee is the success has gone to their head. Just search up keyword "Dave Grohl and Glee" and do some reading to figure out what I mean. The gist of it is that Grohl (of Foo Fighters) was defending an artists right to say no to Glee. This coming from the Glee producers or something who badmouthed Kings of Leon and Foo Fighters as a result for saying telling them they can't use their songs. I mean, when did it happen that Glee was the word of god and artists had to do whatever Glee wanted? I'm not trying to sway anyone from watching Glee, I could care less, but if that story is true (and it most certainly is) then it's just making Glee look like a bunch of self-righteous knobs. For the record, not a bad cover, but still not gonna be a gleek.

What people are hung up about MM is Chris's vocal effect. I got past that and remembered the epic bass and jonny solo

trying to be as realistic as i can: -trouble -warning sign -don't panic they've all been played and it's not like i'm asking for a b-side!

Thanks for the scans!

:facepalm: Wait a minute, there's peanut in peanut butter? Derp

I agree, I don't know how or why people can judge a song solely on a title alone. I mean I certainly didn't know a song called 'Up In Flames' would turn out to be the quiet piece that it is. The problem is that in music titles half the time they are literal and half the time they are ironic and there is know way to tell which way it goes.

Used to be 100% Coldplay (no joke) and then Oasis/Noel Gallagher now ~80-20

Perhaps the Oracle may know? I'm sure this is the type of thing to be asking straight from the source and not a random person on an internet forum. Good luck getting them there, it would be awesome if you succeed.

I think i'm joining this boat now not because I dislike Eno, but it's getting close to the point where he's being used like a crutch. If anything, it seems like the band are always switching things up so why not switch/ditch Eno for LP6. I wouldn't go as far as saying i'm depressed, but just not as jittery as I thought I would be for the album to drop. Perhaps it was listening to most of the songs already in live form. Still looking forward to studio versions, videos and b-sides and that's what's keeping me positive.

The answer

This. Are we really wasting time talking about Twilight? You think the Twilight boards are talking about Coldplay? FFS, even if the movie was Star Wars I couldn't give a shit, WE ARE GETTING A NEW FUCKING SONG. After threads about how we don't have enough material, when we get new material, we decide to talk about something else now? I don't think the movie will have too much bearing on what the song sounds like; it's still gonna sound like a Coldplay song and it's not like they're gonna shove in some vampire references just because. Freaking Emimem and Foo Fighters are on the album as well, you think they watch Twilight?

did u just ask yourself?

thats right, i quoted myself :phu:

25th for Canadians (and Americans) :(

Sorry to jump a bit ahead: I can't find any official word on streams for tmr's gig in Atlanta but the one next week on October 1st in Rock in Rio will most likely be here on Youtube.

Would've liked the songs themselves to be longer; not necessarily the whole album, to be clear. Iunno, I look at the classic Coldplay tunes like Clocks, Politik and The Scientist (sorry they happen to be from AROBTTH) and they're 5 minutes deep. I realize that length may not be a prerequisite to quality but I can see myself getting lost early in a song, the song ends and i'm going "is that it?". Quick math suggests an average song is 3:10 (Sleeping Sun is about that long) (I considered that a short song before doing this). And as with Sleeping Sun I liked where the song was going but then it ended much too early for my liking. A followup excluding the 3 undoubtedly short songs (MX, MMIX and AHT) equates an average of 3:39 (think Crest of Waves or Lost?) which is a better for sure and more like my ideal length of ~4:30+. I'm seeing a lot of suggestions that shorter is better than longer and that this was what brought down X & Y. To be honest, I wasn't so much hung up on that than I was on the songs themselves. To me it sounded rushed and over reliant on old tricks. Like, I hear the intro to What If and i'm blown away. Then the song turns into a over complicated mess when it perhaps would have been better staying in the same mellow atmosphere it created for itself. But enough about X & Y. It's over and done with just like this album and the track lengths (assuming they are accurate). Bottom line though, obviously there is nothing I can do or could have done. I'm also certain that they aren't the type of band to say, "let's throw in a solo to add some time to the album, it's too short". The two songs that I like the most this era are HLH and MM and they are 'short' so I guess anything's possible. Heck, older songs like Don't Panic (as mentioned) are short too and they still blow me away.

Just a heads up, i remember this same guy hosting a stream and it getting shut down early on by the cyber po po

i've exceeded my download cap. cant stream :(

no, i don't think so...tonight ~8-10 est?

Regarding the iHeartRadio Music Festival tonight: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=204077259640616

1st Post Hall Of Fame