fakfak

Radiohead can certainly fill arenas here, but they're not as big of a draw as some other bands. They certainly couldn't fill stadiums, but as others have said very few bands can.

At the post brits press conference, Chris was making loads of comments indicating he/the band is in this for the long haul. I wouldn't worry too much.

That's mostly by choice. After ok computer, they had the chance to become the next truly massive commercial band, and have spent their entire careers since actively avoiding that. Coldplay had a similar fork in their career around x and y and chose the opposite direction.

Guy-April 1978 Will-July 1978

Will's actually the youngest (but only by a few months) Guy's always been the "party" member of the group though, he is to Coldplay what Adam Clayton is to U2 in more ways than just his instrument.

They've all spoken about how they're off the bottle now (or at least have cut way back). I'm sure that helps.

Radiohead are like the anti-stadium band though.

I think I understand the point, I'm just confused as to what people think they're going to prove. The quality of Chris' current songwriting vs. his prior songwriting is entirely subjective. You're right when you say it's worse because to you, it is. Others are equally right when they say it's just as good/better because from their perspective, it is. It's not a factual debate where you can use evidence to conclusively "proove" your side, only to support your opinion. At this point, the whole thing is degenerating into a big circular arguement.

You know he's bald under that hat, yes?:laugh3:

U2 are actually the band I was most thinking of when I wrote that. U2 are also a good example of how different measures of a band's popularity yeild different results. On the one hand, U2 is no longer an act that's that commercially popular, their singles haven't charted well in a long time, and their last album sold very poorly for an act of their stature. On the other hand, they're the most commercially successful live act ever, and can probably tour with unlimeted success for as long as they want. No one in the music industry can post numbers that compete with the U2360 tour.

All true. I guess what I meant by Paradise being successful is that it was charting highly in the formats that have traditionally been strong for Coldplay here. Triple A, small though it may be, tends to be where Coldplay does better than anywhere else. It's also highly regarded (relative to it's audience size) within the industry as it tends to draw an older audience who still buy physical copies of music at a greater percentage than the general public.

The reverse is also true. Rock stars (especially bass players for some reason) take the best girls:laugh3:

-squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-

Forgive me, as a straight male, I'm not qualified to judge the cuteness of men's butts.:P

The squee is the most important part.;)

You'd think someone that critical, could at least get the simple things right. LOL!:laugh3:

There are ways to voice your opinion without going out of your way to insult others...and then there's what you did. :thinking: Nonetheless, the fact that the band is still capable of winning a fan voted award shoots holes in the theory that no one likes the new material. Also, for the record, it's Guy whose the cute one.:P

That's pretty much the trajectory of every band that reaches the stadium level though. I'm not sure that such a career dynamic is unique to Coldplay, as I've heard similar statements made about a ton of "big" bands.

I guess I meant that Guy is the most stereotypically "rockstar-y" of the band, and this is somewhat in keeping with that perception.

To be fair, it is possible to still be phenominally popular while at the same time being less popular than before, but I don't think even that situation describes Coldplay in the U.S. at this moment. In terms of raw sales Coldplay hit their U.S. peak with AROBTTH, but I don't think anyone would say that was the peak of their total popularity.

To be fair, it is possible to still be phenominally popular while at the same time being less popular than before, but I don't think even that situation describes Coldplay in the U.S. at this moment. In terms of raw sales Coldplay hit their U.S. peak with AROBTTH, but I don't think anyone would say that was the peak of their total popularity.

To be fair, it is possible to still be phenominally popular while at the same time being less popular than before, but I don't think even that situation describes Coldplay in the U.S. at this moment. In terms of raw sales Coldplay hit their U.S. peak with AROBTTH, but I don't think anyone would say that was the peak of their total popularity.

Hey, it's what I'd be doing if I were in his position. :wink3:

Comparing it to their only true hit single in the U.S. is a bit unfair. I don't listen to any of the formats it was a hit on, but they are important formats (especially triple A, which historically is Coldplay's strongest format in the U.S.) Nonetheless, it reached #1 in something like 2 or 3 formats, recieved strong support from several key stations and is an RIAA certified platinum single. Coldplay have never been a strong singles band, especially in the U.S. Paradise may not have lit the top 100 on fire, but it did chart higher than most of their other singles, including many of the songs that are considered their major hits, did in the U.S.

I'm not sure what that article was talking about as far as paradise, as it's actually been one of their more successful singles in the US. It reached #1 in something like 2 or 3 formats. Total sales of MX are below VLV but still very good, and live ticket demand for the upcoming shows is very strong. I think they're doing fine, some wags just jump on any sign of negativity to make dire statements.