fakfak

I don't know if I would call it "trash" (or if it's even possible to make any kind of objective statement about the quality of any given piece of music), but my take on this is that the band (and especially Chris) all seem to have a genuine interest in pop music and just wanted to do a song in that style, and with a vocalist who's accomplished in that style. While I personally prefer Florence Welch and Adele over Rihanna, neither of them would've really been right for what's essentially an electro-pop/dance-pop type song which PoC essentially is. I think the simplest answer is probably that the members of the band like the song best they way they chose to record/release it. Personally, I don't get why people always insist on ascribing some ulterior motive to a band when they make a piece of music they don't like. Sometimes bands just do what they want to do, and the answer is that simple. (or not ;)).

Lots I'm guessing, especially in light of the "hiatus" :thinking: She usually waits awhile to address rumors and then rubbishes them in a post if they're persistent.

Well, I guess all the people wondering how serious Guy is about his relationship can stop guessing, since he included her in the list.

Generally speaking, the trend of lengthening album cycles has more to do with the industry changing than it does with anything going on with bands. When the Beatles were recording, the primary commercial unit of music was the single, and albums served as essentially glorified clearing houses for already released material to be repackaged. These days, most labels won't/can't release material in those quantities and the relative success or failure of each individual album carries a lot more weight than it did back then. (think of how many bands the majors are dropping after a single "under-preforming" album) In addition, touring (which eats up a ton of artists' time these days) wasn't as developed. The Beatles had a crushing schedule, but it was essentially constant short tours punctuated by recording, as opposed to the massive, time and labor intensive touring model they'd be under if they were working today. for example, there were only 19 shows on their 1965 US tour, over just under 3 weeks, and this was at the height of their popularity. I'm affraid the days of being able to produce multiple albums a year are gone forever in the mainstream at least.

I remember that one because the caption identified him as "bass player Guy Berryman" :rolleyes: (the article in question was about Guy buying two vintage Jaguars from some car club in California IIRC)

'06 is actually from '07 and I'm pretty sure '07 is a publicity photo from the AROBTTH era.

Given the way this is blowing up, I'm sure a lot of panicked fans will write into Debs and she'll have to refute it in the next round of Oracle posts, just like she has will all the other rumors over the years. ;) It won't get mainstream attention, but at least it should calm down the fans who pay attention to those posts.

Absolutely. Consider that on paper the AROBTTH tour consisted only of the 70 2003 dates when in reality the total was around 140 something, and that the 2007 dates aren't a part of the Twisted Logic tour even though for all practical purposes they were.

In terms of "indie" being a stylstic genre descriptor, they are (or at least were). It has nothing to do with actually being independent.

Don't want to make you mad, but it's absolutely feasible they'd not go to certain places (Asia, South America, etc.) for a very long while. Off the top of my head, I can think of tons of bands who have had long gaps between visits to some of those areas.

How so? Sure they've taken three years or so to finish the last couple album cycles, but people tend to ignore they've also toured for 2+ years each time before they even begin recording in earnest. That's way different than taking 3 years "off". I call shenanigans on this whole thing, especially in light of Chis apparently saying "I don't want to stop" in the same sentence. I think he was probably talking about this tour coming to an end combined with the fact that it will in all likelihood be around 3 years before they wind their way back to Australia.

It's hard to tell, but I think it's from the current Australia tour.

They said they hope to reschedule, not that they will reschedule. It remains to be seen if they ever will reschedule the shows.

Actually as much as the mega giants like LiveNation are (rightly) maligned, a huge factor in their rise is that they were/are able to offer large tours a more simplified and professional touring experience when compared to many of the "mom and pop's" that used to be industry standard.

Hate to say it, but I think it's likely you won't. My fingers are crossed for you guys though. :)

Yes, but promoters are an interesting sort, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them didn't have their s%^t together. :laugh3:

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out a logistical reason, nor do I expect we'll ever get a 100% candid explanation. If it is a business reason, they'll likely not be at liberty to say, and if it's personal, they probably won't want to. Frankly, IMHO they don't really owe one, most especially because they never put anything on sale. Just my opinion.

Nah, it's very much like the band honestly. I love them, but it's undeniable that they have a pretty long and extensive track record of cancellations and postponements (many of them last minute) that rivals that of any band I can think of off the top of my head.

Even if it's not the same promoter, issues with one promoter (leading to the cancelization of some dates) could potential screw up the logistics/economics of the entire tour, and seeing as how nothing's gone on sale yet, in those circumstances, postponing all the dates may have been the most feasible option.

Almost certainly something along those lines. If you'll recall a substantial portion of the first leg of Viva in '08 was postponed for similar reasons.

Just my guess, but I'd say it has to do with producing demands. If the tour is mainly playing stadiums, they're likely bringing production geared toward stadium venues (whether that will be the same as their stadium production elsewhere remains to be seen.) If they're geared toward stadiums it probably isn't practical to bring an entire separate set of production elements for arena shows. Plus, factor in that to be profitable, they need to be reasonably sure they can make at least Coldplay's downside guarantee (the bare minimum fee they get for playing a show regardless of what it draws), and without knowing what that is (currently rumored to be somewhere between half and three quarters of a million USD), there's know way of knowing what the minimum crowd/venue size/price point equation is that will give them a reasonable shot at making it.

Fair enough, I wasn't trying to be harsh with you. It's just that as you said, the entire concert industry has changed, and I'm always a bit bewildered when I hear people complaining about it while at the same time ignoring the one true power they have-that of the consumer. The only way things will ever change is if the industry faces economic hardship from the current model over the long term. Similar to what happened to the recorded music industry, where digital distribution is finally starting to be truly embraced-simply because the industry had no alternative. We all have tremendous power as consumers, but only if we choose to use it.

The simple answer then is not to "fly across country" to see a show. If you want to do something extraordinary like that, great, more power to you, but if it's not worth it to you, why put yourself through the expense or the anguish? Even without secondary sellers and ticket scalping, there are always going to be people who get stuck at the back. Everyone wants to be near the stage, yet only a small portion of tickets qualify. For a popular show that fills or nearly fills a venue, most people will have "bad" seats, that's just a fact of arena shows. Again, if that really agitates you, wouldn't you be better off staying home? :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Barclay's Center considerably smaller than MSG, the old Long Island Coliseum and other "arena" sized venues in the NYC metro area? I think those tix are going to be WAY hard to come by (at least at face value), especially since it's been since 2008 since they played a headline show in NYC and since 2006 since they played one open to the general public. Also, FWIW the Mohegan Sun Arena is routinely rated as one of the top arenas in the country in terms of sightlines and acoustics.

The aability to draw a crowd (or sell out a venue), is only one factor that determines where the tour goes. Coldplay are capable of drawing most anywhere, but there are a lot of places they're not hitting this time. Personally, I think it mostly has to do with a combination of fairly mundane logistical concerns (travel, freight, calendar scheduling etc.), and the preference, stated fairly openly by the band and those close to them on a number of occasions, to work a lighter schedule than they have in the past.