fakfak

If I may ask, why do you say it was dishonest? That seems a rather peculiar criticism for a pop album.

It does seem to have provoked a small, but quite vocal group of people to anger. There have been some fairly nasty posts/tweets etc. on the subject since this thing broke.

Debs typically gets confirmation from whoever would know before she posts a response but I guess that could be possible. It's also possible though that she took down the response as they want to downplay the (minor) controversy this whole thing seems to have sparked.

As I understand it, the band do (did?) have a partial stake in Regler's company. As you say though that the band has no authority to delete his twitter account, though a few of his latest post are verging on the sort of thing that can get you a cease and desist order if you are dealing with someone who wants to play hardball. I would guess he deleted it himself for reasons unknown.

It appears his account has been deactivated now. Curious.

I disagree, to me the band probably became a bit too gimmick based for their own good over the last couple tours. They're an excellent live band, they don't need all the tricks if they just play hard every night (which for the most part they do).

I would've thought that went without saying. The bands were part of the MX production, I'm not really sure why so many assumed they'd be around in perpetuity when the production elements have always changed when the band mounts a new tour.

That would be kind of cool actually. I wonder if he can slap?

In the case of Coldplay, I'd absolutely agree, but to say it's never a factor is untrue. I can think of numerous solo projects that were born in part or in whole as a direct result of band members needing some professional outlet while their main band was on hiatus, or to give themselves a commercial bulwark against said band's eventual demise. We've had similar conversations before, and I know you approach the matter from a different angle than I do but the fact is for a great many professional musicians the ability to keep generating an income from their musical endeavors does weigh heavy in the creative and decision making process, especially if it's how they've made their living for a good while. Ironically, it's bands who are the most commercial that become the most immune as at a certain point you've earned enough money that it becomes a total non factor. I guess my point was, in a band like Coldplay, where all the guys have as much material success as they could want, there's really no reason to embark on a solo project (or indeed make any music) unless they felt led to do so, which they obviously don't. In a way, I think that explains why Guy has been the most active one outside the band, as when you hear him talk about his influences, he seems into a lot of stuff that the other band members (probably) aren't, and which would never fit well within the Coldplay framework. For a long time I felt that way about Chris and his attraction to pop music forms, but the band seems to have encouraged him to bring some of those influences into the Coldplay tent so I think as long as they seem willing to try stuff like that, the band will likely keep all the guys creatively satisfied.

True, but I was thinking more of bands who are successful, yet not successful enough for the members to spend large amounts of time doing nothing if the band goes on a lengthy hiatus. Only the most commercially successful musicians in the world can afford to take years off from gigging/recording at a time.

I don't really follow the Killers post Hot Fuss, but IMHO Thom Yorke's solo album honestly sounds a lot more like the couple albums Radiohead made prior to it than it does the ones they've made since IMHO. I'm actually of the opinion that it kind of helped Thom work out some of his electronic influences that the rest of the band wasn't as into. Sometimes that's the benefit of solo work.

I thought it was well established that Lohan likes Guy...:wink3:

In fairness, Guy does seem to have a full plate of non Coldplay projects, and Chris has written for a lot of other artists (though he hasn't in a while), so it's not as if there's a total absence of outside projects going on. I think the guys all just enjoy their downtime. It makes sense, they've all got young families and they don't need the money so why not?

It probably wouldn't be out of the question for the song to snag a nomination, if only because there are so few films that actually contain original songs. It might be worth noting that the song Arcade Fire did for the first Hunger Games film didn't receive any notice from any sort of awards granting body. (but, it was an absolutely awesome song.)

Already have. ;)

Both of those guitars are rare quality instruments, of far better quality (generally speaking) than a modern era run of the mill P Bass. I'm not saying it's not possible, just a bit peculiar.

I'm pretty sure the chords on the rhythm part are the same as they are in the regular version, as it's only that guitar that's playing chords and the other is playing a lead part that sounds largely identical (to my ear) to what Jonny plays in the electric version of the song. Aside from being fully acoustic, the structure of the arrangement isn't much (if at all) different.

Ok... So I know this thread's been dead for ages, but I've been trying to figure out something that's been bothering me for awhile. Has anyone ever read/seen any information on the year of Guy's red P-Bass? He seems to have had it since the very, very early days of the band, so it doesn't seem like it would be a high end vintage bass, but it's also a color that wasn't in production at that time on new Fender basses. It just strikes me as really odd that he would be playing a low end P-Bass when he could have any instrument he wanted, especially since he seems to have a preference for 60's P-Basses otherwise. As a bass player, it kind of intrigues me that he could be playing massive festival gigs with the same MIM P-Bass you could walk into any guitar store and buy, while at the same time a high end vintage instrument is sitting unused in his touring rack. I've looked all over the internet and can't find ANYTHING to shed light on this, any help would be appreciated. :)

Not only that, he's been photographed with fans outside the Bakery quite recently, I'm pretty sure he's not even in New York at the moment.

I've seen a picture with at least 3 together, so there were at least that many. The great advantage to a fender is that if the neck goes out, you can unbolt it and swap it, which likely limited the number needed somewhat though.

There are almost certainly more. A guitar can't survive that kind of abuse without substantial rebuilding, or at least parts-swapping. It has also been mentioned a couple places that Hoppy rebuilt the guitar several times over the course of the tour. Doesn't mean your particular example wasn't a stage used guitar or anything like that though. Whether the remaining examples will ever surface publicly or not though is anyone's guess.

Chris' is the only one out of those that approximates an actual signature. A kind of like Guy's though. He just made a wavy line. :laugh3: The man's a boss! :cool:

' In general, if you receive goods or services as a direct result of your donation, it renders it a sale and not charitable giving for tax purposes, though one can receive gifts in appreciation of said donation. It all gets a bit complicated. But yeah, a UK based charity without a recognized US analog would be wholly ineligible anyway, so the point is moot.

What "backlash?" :rolleyes: To the extent that people took issue with you, it was mostly about you're not knowing about the band and posting here. It had nothing to do with the fact that you bought a shirt in the charity auction. Collectables are a horrid investment, but if you were going to do it, the only items in this auction that have a reasonable chance of increasing or even retaining value were the instruments (though the vintage instrument market is a bubble market right now as well.) At least you'd have something of a chance to sell a guitar a few years down the line. I honestly don't care what you do, but I doubt you are any kind of serious investor based on your posts here. So...bid in the future or don't bid, but I hardly think the auction will miss you if you choose to go, and frankly, if you are in it for the money, your money will be working a lot harder for you elsewhere.

It's not even good capitalism though. With the money you spent, you could've bought some sort of real investment, that would give you some sort of tangible asset growth. Instead, you got a shirt that may or may not be worth more than you bought it for someday provided you can actually find the right fan to sell it to. Collectables (in general) are one of the very worst things you can invest in (from a ROI standpoint).