fakfak

Yes, but when you imply (as many here have done) that such immersion is automatically a bad thing, "selling out" etc., and then compare them to "real" bands who would never commit such heinous actions, that pretty much amounts to the same thing. Personally, I find such arguments tedious when bands actually have changed radically, when applied to a band like Coldplay who at most have gone from making one kind of mainstream pop music to another kind of the same music, it's downright laughable. The only point I was trying to make is that the Coldplay from 2000 (or 2002, 2005 or 2008) wouldn't have been out of place playing X-Factor, and might very well have done so if the show had existed back then and they had an offer.

No, I got that. It's just that I don't agree with this notion that at some mythical point in the past Coldplay had some sort of indie credibility they somehow gave up. I mean it's not like The Cribs playing X Factor or something. For better or worse, Coldplay have always slotted in with the type of acts that play shows like X Factor.

It's not like all the old songs, clips, footage etc. are erased from history when a band makes new stuff. If you like the older stuff but not the new stuff, listen to the stuff you like, it will still be there.

Oasis' biggest hit, wonderwall, is very much a pop song.

U2 probably would if they were touring around the time of the show. They've certainly played similar types of shows in the past. The others probably wouldn't, but their audience was never the same as Coldplay's audience to it's not a reasonable comparison really.

As opposed to the hipster indie kid audience they normally appeal to? The pop audience is their audience and has been since Yellow.

I really don't get how they could've ever been considered anything but a pop group. Nothing in and of itself wrong with that, essentially the beatles were a pop group.

Where do you get that from? I looked everywhere and couldn't find a straight answer as to total copies. :confused:

I'm not a big fan of Muse, I only picked them because they have a reputation for being one of the best live acts in the world right now. Plus, I'm hard pressed to think of a band with a more similar profile to Coldplay (in terms of catalog size, popularity, style of live production etc.) At their last show here in Chicago (which was an arena show, not when they played at lolla in August), I think they did like 15 songs.

It's simple numbers. When a band gets as popular as Coldplay, their "core audience" as you put it is simply not as big as the other group. Sad as it may be, from a business perspective, if you have to alienate one group,it has to be the smaller one. Is it a s***ty deal for long term fans? Yeah, but that's the way Arena shows go, which is one of the big reasons some people don't like acts once they get so massive.

Yeah, but at most dates, they began with LiT, which was more like intro music than a proper song, and included things like Postcards from far Away/the Escapist as well, so I'm not sure they were ever doing more actual songs. Song number doesn't really effect length that much anyway. Muse often does fewer songs, yet the show is longer because the songs are longer. Personally, I'd go with total time played as opposed to an arbitrary number of songs.

That's the thing though. Even though they're massive now, they still play to a lot of casual fans who want to hear the hits and not much else. I think there's even something to be said for this way of structuring a set, as I've been to concerts where bands played almost nothing but obscure deep cuts and b sides much to the delight of 5 hardcore fans in the front while the rest of the audience was confused and disappointed. One of the big reasons I can't really get into jam bands is that it always seems like unless you devote every waking hour to listening to countless bootlegs to learn the massive repertoire, you're on the outside looking in. I wonder how much of Coldplay's current audience is truly familiar with the non single tracks off their early albums.

Except for the stadium shows though. almost all the Viva shows were in the 90 minutes range. There were a couple back during twisted logic, where they barely played over an hour, which is pushing it IMHO. Most of the acts I've seen go over 2 hours are veteran acts with decades of material to draw from. I am pleasently surprised that the boys seem to have dusted off a couple older deep cuts for yesterday's gig though.

Well, there are other bands who do have complex stage shows which also manage to change up their sets. It could be done if the band wanted to, but apparently they don't. Like I said above, doesn't really bother me, but if it bothers others, that's cool. You pay your money, you're entitled to your opinion. I certainly think Colplay's sets could be longer, but having seen at least one show on every tour since AROBTTH, I still think their shows are pretty satisfying generally, and I've certainly seen other arena show from big acts with shorter headline sets. Of the top of my head, I've been to shows by both Oasis and Aerosmith in the last several years which both barely cracked the 70 minute mark.

I'm not necessarily defending them though. In my view it's perfectly alright if people find the shows unacceptably short or whatever else (and frankly I've never bought the tech excuse.) My only point was, that whatever shortcomings their shows may have, I doubt anyone who follows the band enough to actually post on here can't have heard these same criticisms since at least the Twisted Logic tour. Should the band play longer? Probably. Will they ever? Probably not. (almost 10 years of evidence to back me up on that) Armed with that knowledge, people have to decide if paying to go to the shows is worth it to them, but it should hardly be a surprise that this tour is like the other two before it.

Without passing judgment one way or the other, it's just how the band do things. There are certain criticisms that get leveled at the band every tour (short shows, unchanging setlist being the two most prominent.) and although I personally am not bothered by either of these things, it's clear a lot of people are. That said, it's pretty clear that that's what a Coldplay show is like, and since they've been playing that way for 10 years now, it's probably how their shows are going to stay. If either of these things ruin the concert for you (or make it not worth the money to you), you probably shouldn't go as you're just going to end up disappointed as well as out the money. I don't mean this as a criticism, just an observation. There are certain bands I won't see live, because I find things about their shows disappointing, maybe for some of you Coldplay is one of those bands.

RIAA has officially certified MX platinum in the U.S. (that's at least 1 million copies) http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Mylo+Xyloto%22

I'm not sure they even can come to China. They got banned or something because of the song Spies.

It's hard to get really accurate information on this, but a few hits on my google search seem to indicate it's somewhere around 1.5-2 million worldwide. No idea how accurate that is but it seems feasible given the data we do have on various individual countries.

There are large areas of the United States where touring acts almost never go. I grew up in such a region in fact. It's not like they come and play in every fans local market. It would be nice if bands could play everywhere they have fans, but often it's just impracticable to do so. The band always seem to have nothing but nice things to say about their tours in South America, so I'm sure they'd love to do more places there, but there's a limited amount of time and a lot of places to squeeze into the schedule and some places always get dropped through the cracks. Sucks, but it's a fact of touring.

I really don't care except for the fact that bands who do share things equally do tend to last longer and have more line-up stability, both things I hope hold true for Coldplay. So in a sense I do care. Plus, in fairness, I don't rate Chris as highly in terms of relative importance to the band as a whole as most others would. That said, it's still confusing to me, as Chris has done other interviews this year where he still claims an equal split. He also has a history of saying things in interviews that are either tongue in cheek or just plain never materialize. (like when he said in that radio interview that they would be giving away tracks from VLVODAAHF, or his many, many pronouncements of retirement.) You can never really tell with him. It also strikes me as odd that they would change this now, as IMHO Chris was much more central to the band's music in the early days (ie Parachutes) then he is now. I also don't think it's wise to discount the musical contributions of the other 3 guys. Jonny, Guy and Will are all better musicians than they generally get credit for, and I think it's a mistake to say they're really any less important to the band than Chris. Also, absolutely no disrespect intended to Chris, but a substantial portion of the dislike some people have for the band (not musical dislike, mind) stems from their perception of Chris' personality and quirkiness. That said, none of the other 3 strike me as pushovers and considering the fact that they could all do other projects at this point if they wanted, I highly suspect they all agreed to whatever arrangement they've got. Really, however they want to divide their money is IMHO their business and none of mine (or anyone else's), I just hope it's mutual.

Maybe "sources" was the wrong word. It's just when people comment about him, there frequently seem to be a few people who claim he is. I saw it a lot during the flap over their website linking to that Palestinian music video earlier this summer. I suspect people are stereotyping him based on his appearance.

He's been fairly enthusiastic in singing backing vocals live lately. He sings live more than Jonny at any rate.

I wouldn't know. I've just seen several people on various websites claim he's Jewish. They're probably just making it up. It doesn't matter one way or the other, like I said, I'm just curious.

Is Guy Jewish? I'm just curious, as some sources say he is, others that he's not.