fakfak

<P>I've seen them live at least once every tour since AROBTTH (including last summer)., Mostly in Chicago, but once at Alpine Valley as well. In total about 6 or 7 times. Obviously, I really like going to their gigs, but they do have a mixed reputation as a live act. (I'm not going to rehash all the common complaints, but it should be easy to find them on other theads). Personally, I think the band is quite different live than on record. They sound rock-ier in person and they're one of the tightest bands I've ever seen live, especially the rythm section. I also think you get a better sense of how the songs from the different albums fit together live. I'd go at least once and make up your own mind about them live as opinions on their live show seem to run the full spectrum.</P>

Innocent? :thinking: I've seen the Guy thread, you can't fool me!:laugh3:

There's a sane thread now?:laugh3:

That seems to be the way a lot of big acts are going these days. Muse have that sort of deal with Warner's. It seems like a good compromise to me, going totally alone does mean you give up a ton of logistical support and whatnot. It's on a much smaller scale, but Travis attempted to self release after leaving Independiente (or whatever it's called) and lost pretty much all commercial steam they had left. They've not done much since, which is a shame because they're a really solid band. I'd hate to see that happen to Coldplay, and I'm not sure they've got the right advisor's around them to guide them though something like that right now.

I could see them ending up with a vanity label though. That's probably the best we can hope for.

I'll be very surprised if they don't resign with a major. They're one of the last few acts in the world that labels will throw oodles of cash at, and it would require them doing things a lot more "indie" than they've shown the inclination to in a long while, in order to go it alone. They can basically dictate the terms of their own deal to any label at this point, and they'd still have the apparatus of a multi-national company at their back when it came time to launch their next campaign. It would be cool if they'd pull a radiohead on this one, but frankly Coldplay have essentially become the anti-radiohead and I don't see them changing that on this issue.

:clap:

It's been variously reported that they have either a 5 or 6 album deal, so depending on which number is actually correct it might be. I suspect the moment they are actually free of their contract, it will be public knowledge as they'd undoubtedly be the biggest free agents in music. There's not a label in the world that wouldn't want them at this moment.

By most objective measures (tv viewership, revenue) the olympics have been decreasing in popularity for some time now.

That segment of the audience is really tiny compared to the causual concert goers though. In the numbers game, you just can't compete. :(

Yes, but there are also regions of the U.S. as big, if not bigger, than some of those countries that they band have never played, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison. I have friends in Europe that have an easier time getting to gigs in neighboring countries than some of my friends here do getting to a gig.

It's as yet unknown how permanant that is though. The first several shows of the VLV tour featured similar substitutions. I think it just takes them awhile to lock down a set they like. We can hope though...

AROBTTH was the commercial peak. It's something like 4 or 5x platinum in the U.S. now.

Heck even UK bands (at least at the arena level) that don't approach the worldwide popularity of Coldplay don't mount UK tours with that many more gigs than they do.

That assumes that the organizers even requested they appear at the olympics, which is nothing more than rumor at this point.

They're just following a common commercial career arc. When that video was made they were only truly big in the UK and some (but not all) parts of Europe. Depending on your perspective, a band at that level can be more enjoyable (like seeing U2 during the War Tour as opposed to seeing them today.), but I'm not sure it says anything about the band's state of mind, only the state of their career.

It will get there eventually, it just may take awhile. ;)

Blur were fairly popular over here in the late 90's. I think Song 2 had some fairly big commercial impact over here, and Coffee and TV got a lot of airplay as I remember, certainly much more than most of their contemporaries. I just always thought they were one of those bands that tried so hard to be "important" that they forgot that people listen to music to have a good time. And no one will EVER convince me that parklife is in any way a good song.:P

I've never liked blur at all (except for Graham Coxon's playing), but their set at the brits was one of the worst things I've ever seen. Damon was clearly wasted, and if I didn't know Graham was off the bottle, I'd have sworn he was too. They looked like s^&t and sounded worse.

Yes, but they're completely different kinds of bands. Radiohead have (since after OK computer) been actively trying to avoid becoming a "big band". Coldplay have totally embraced that role at this point. The two bands are 180 degrees apart from each other these days, and I'm not sure coldplay could successfully switch gears and go the radiohead route if they wanted to (and I don't think they do.) It would be cool, but it's never gonna happen.:cry:

I could be wrong, but I think that's a string part. EDIT: didn't see your above comment before I posted, I stand corrected.

Wait...she's not the one on the left?:laugh3: Still better than the photo of Violet Buckland that was identified in the caption as Apple.:rolleyes:

In my place doesn't have a synth part.

Again true. The problem is there's nothing really lighting a fire under the band's ass to change things. They're one of the most successful live acts in the world doing what they do, and I have a feeling the may not even really be that aware of certain critisisms (length of set, repetetiveness of set etc.) all that much. I can see how being in the middle of the circus, so to speak, they may lack perspective on the degree to which change may be needed.

They won't. That said, they way they do it works for them. Unlike most of the people who are active here, the bulk of their live audience, goes to 1 (or maybe 2) gig(s) per tour and doesn't spend hours on the internet reading about every show they play. It's harder to be disappointed by the repitition if you're not aware it's being repeated. Coldplay (for better or worse) plays to an audience of mostly casual fans, and the format of their shows is probably the best way to meet the expectations of that audience.