fakfak

It's a date.:wink3:

And I'd rather Radiohead had seized the brass ring after OK Computer and tried to become the biggest band in the world in earnest, instead of disappearing down the rabbit hole of deep experimentation and electronic music, but they made the choice that was best from their perspective, and I respect that. Coldplay has clearly made the opposite choice, and I also respect that. I just don't see why everyone always has to assume cynical motives for things like this, I mean, money aside, it looks like it would be a hell of a lot of fun to be in U2 these days, so maybe that's why bands do it. It's not always money and commercial appeal that makes people want to be that popular.;)

I'm not saying it does. For my part, I only ever tried to attack your arguements and not you, at least until the sarcasm started to grate on me. If I crossed over the personal line, I apologize.:) Look, I know some people can be fan girl/boy-y here, but that's just how it goes on a site like this.

Of course they're from a different era. However, that doesn't mean they're not heading the same general direction.

True, but they're closer to either of those bands in status than they are to young bands just becoming popular, and are more or less on par with the point U2 were at during a similar age. It's not a fair comparison with Aerosmith, because their mid 30's were during their wilderness years. I was only using them as a band who's been sitting on a new album for ages because they have no commercial or financial imperative to release anything.

Anything upwards of 30 is absolutely old in the sense of how the music industry reckons the freshness and promotablilty of talent. With all your harping on "media puppets" I'd think you of all people would get that. Also, bands who started in the 70's came up in an era when the industry model was to release tons more material than is common today, so it's not an apples to apples comparison (which you seem to acknowledge.) My point is, at this stage of their career, Coldplay is considered a mature superstar act, and is beyond the point where they can be promoted as the "it" band of the moment, in addition, their commercial pressence, especially as a live draw is such that they've more or less eclipsed their same age peers and are now more aptly compared to those older, established bands. (who incidentially almost universally suffer from the same perception of reduced quality of output that you ascribe to Coldplay.) It should be clear that Coldplay are merely following the common pattern for aging successful acts, and thus it is fair to estimate their likely future status by looking to the bands that have gone down the same path before.

You "dish out" more insulting comments to other posters than any 5 people on here, so please don't give me that. People only attack you after you repeatedly insist that your opinion is the only correct one, and that everyone must think like you do. If you can't see how that provokes people to snap at you, than you're missing the point in a big, big way.:)

:lol:

That was a bit uncalled for man. So what if some people want to post in the Gwyneth thread? People want different things out of a site like this, and if that's how they want to spend their time here, there's no reason to belittle it with a snarky comment.

I won't speak for anyone else, but In that case, just say "eh, I like their early stuff" and leave it at that and I'll have no issue with you. That's how I feel about Radiohead for example. Statements like you made there, may be true for you, but are not objective truth (for example, I would argue that certain lyrical passages in MX are in fact, vintage Chris Martin style lyrics.) Both of our opinions reflect our personal truth, but neither is absolute truth. I guess my position in this matter boils down to 3 things: 1. Just because you like or dislike something, doesn't give you the right to claim your opinion as the objective truth, nor to run down people with opposing opinions (unless you're attacked first.) 2. No one can say for sure what they band's motives are for doing anything they've done, so stop acting like you can, it just makes you look foolish, and "proves" nothing. 3. Because Coldplaying is a Coldplay fan site, any critisism of the band is bound to be met with a negative reaction from a subset of the posters. This is just a fact of life on a site of this nature, and expecting otherwise is IMHO unreasonable.

It's no less annoying than the old "sell/out/gone commercial/ all bands should do what Radiohead does" arguement that precipitated it.:)

:rolleyes:

Mid 30's is fairly old for a band, and generally that's when bands either wane/split/etc. or begin to be regarded as a veteran act. So you admit they may be doing what their doing because it's what they like (sarcasm notwithstanding), and yet I'm still wrong?:rolleyes: Anyway, I was talking about the realease timing of new material here, not anything else, which is certainly affected to some degree by their age/sucess/stage in their career. That's all I was talking about in this context.

To be fair, they're filming for a live release, it remains to be seen if that plan will ever be fully realized. They have a fully completed concert film from Twisted Logic that's never been released, and they filmed at numerous shows on the Viva tour and nothing came of that either, despite the band (and roadie #42) talking about how they were filming.

Oh, absolutely, it's better than being the other way given the nature of her job.

It's not really her dealing with fans that I meant I guess. She developed a somewhat negative reputation among people I know who worked local crew for their shows over the years, the only member of the band's touring crew I've ever heard bad things about.

They have very good security, both while on tour, and otherwise. I've seen them, and they all tend to be ex-SAS man mountain types with huge celtic tattoos. Suitably intimidating. While working of course, their looked after by Jackie and her crew. I've personally found her to be just a tad on the heavy handed side (although reports from recently seem to indicate she's mellowed a lot), but there's no doubt in my mind that she's also a bad a$# security coordinator. They're in good hands.

Nor do I, but it is a reality.:(

For the most part...

To be frank, I'm not sure that Coldplay's general level of accesability isn't dangerous for the guys and their families. It only takes one crazy to ruin things. Remember that John Lennon thought Chapman was just a fan too.:\

I know, but my stubborn nature just can't let such a weak arguement go unchallenged.:smug:

Uhm... Because they like the one they chose. Really man, unless you have the magic power to see into the bands thoughts you have no way of knowing what their motives may or may not have been. I trust you remember the old saying about what happens when you assume things?:laugh3:

Again, your arguement depends on a lot of assumptions that you have no way of proving and are frankly arrogant IMHO. Because you personally don't care for Rihanna or for the overall sound of MX, the band couldn't possibly actually be making the music the genuinely want to make at this time?:rolleyes: I'd rather a band make whatever they wanted to make without clearing it with a bunch of prententious music snobs first.:P

Does it ever occur to you that they may actually like that type of music?

People did go to far on at least one occasion that I know off. During the period where a lot of people were disappointed by the Christmas Lights boat ride (don't get me started on that.:rolleyes:), Several people reported ringing the doorbell to attempt to seek some form of redress from the band. (I guess...). Appearantly, they very briefly made it harder to actuall access the door after that, but it's reportedly back to normal now.