fakfak

Again though, simple as it may be, you didn't write it, Coldplay did. (use of a licensed sample aside.) Nothing Coldplay has ever written is exceptionally complex, that's not the point.

Agreed. Even if you don't like the song, the lyrics seem like classic Chris Martin lyrics to me.

That's actually not a half bad comparison.

I agree that more than likely there will be more legs, just maybe not North American ones.

It's some kind of English thing.:laugh3: (In all seriousness, the year I lived in London, I saw more people wearing stripes than the rest of my life put together.)

Ok, I guess they did play some longer sets then. I'm only going by my own experience, I've seen them about 8 times (from 2003 to last summer), and they played from 16 to 19 songs for about 90 minutes every time. Based on what other people have posted here, I think that's pretty standard for them.

Stadium gigs have more people. I'm not sure why the arena dates were shorter, but they were.

Probably so! :laugh3:

Exactly! :smug: People need to respect others' viewpoints. That said, people also need to stop acting like: A. their personal viewpoint is the only objective reality B. The band somehow only have the right to make a certain kind of music C. They know with absolute certainty what was in the band's mind when they created a certain song I really try to respect people's opinions when thy say they don't like MX, but a lot of the "arguements" against it are variations on one of the 3 points above, and I simply can't respect any position that builds from one of those points.

The way his shirt is tucked reminds me of when I was 5 or 6 and hadn't quite mastered re-tucking my shirt after our restroom break at school.:P

Not JB's best photo there...:laugh3:

There were R42 entries during the period of time last year when the band were doing appearences/promotion. They can't blog when nothing's going on. We'll probably get plenty of updates once there's something to actually update people on.

Then why didn't you?:rolleyes:

At this point though, they're also a band that people will commute long distances to see. A lot of bands start phasing out smaller markets when they get to that level. OTOH, Coldplay have historically played a lot of places in North America where UK bands seldom go, so anything's possible. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

For the arena shows 17-19. About 22 for the stadium gigs. This has been their standard length for 10 years now, I will be highly surprised if the set is substantially different.

IMHO recording an album after 21/2 years touring the last one is quite different than recording an album after a few years of inactivity, which was the situation with radiohead

That means you've still got to wait out Coldplay's Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief. Sometimes it's a long distance between two points. Coldplay may get where you want them to be eventually, just maybe not tomorrow.

I don't think any one band can claim that title. Blur were certainly one of the early big hitters in that scene, but far from the only one. Blur started out as a shoegaze band anyway.

Not neccesarily disagreeing with you (or the article), but I still have to ask, what if ETDIAW and Paradise really do represent where Coldplay genuinely want to go? I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that so many people feel they can divine the band's thoughts and intentions as to why they've gone the direction they have (and this applies to all bands, not just Coldplay) It's just confusing to me.:thinking:

I I highly doubt they will ever really go back to the smaller, more acoustically driven sound. All four band members have statd at various times that they feel they've grown beyond that particular sound. I really don't think the band has much interest in that sort of music anymore.

That's an interesting point. Perhaps you're perception of how much "excitement" this era has (or doesn't) has to do with how much you like the album. I don't think that accounts for all of it though, as MX has actually outsold VLVODAAHF through it's comprable point of release. But yeah, if you think MX is their weakest album I can see how that would sort of drain the excitement out of everything else.

I was talking about live sales, not album sales. According to Pollstar and other analysts, advance demand for Coldplay Tickets (at least in north america) is higher than it's ever been. I believe their UK/Europe stadium tour has also met with exceptional demand. Since that's where big bands make virtually all of their money now anyway, that's probably a truer measure of success/popularity.

It has nothing to do with with the perceived quality of one song vs the other. Paradise and ETIAWF were pre-release singles released in an atmosphere of pre-release hype, CB is not. There was no "marketing" that would've greatly altered the reception that CB recieved as a single. There are no pieces to pick up as you say, because things are going fine. The band is about to embark on a major tour with sales figures that already look to be the best of their career. I doubt they care if they're on the radio or not.

They know exactly what they're doing. CB is the third single from this campaign and was NEVER going to have the impact of the pre-release singles. People here expect WAY, WAY to much out of things sometimes.

It's not really such a weird pattern for bands big enough to not need the album/tour in close proximity to each other in order to cross promote. It's the album/touring pattern that U2 have used for the last decade. There are just very few bands left big enough to get away with that anymore, so it seems more unusual. Coldplay, with over a decade as a band and in their mid 30's has moved beyond the phase where they will ever be the hip, young band. They're now entering the "elder statesmen" phase of their career.