fakfak

I'm not so sure they promised that per se. One of the reasons I think people have a tendency to get so worked up on here is they take everything about the band reported in The Sun (which may or may not be accurate) as the gospel truth, only to get upset when it doesn't pan out.

----

Why?

All of their albums were top 40 moneymakers. Every label executive in the world wants a coldplay soundalike on their label. (and there have been a fair few over the years) They are the sound of today's top 40 like it or not and have been going on a decade now. I'm sorry, but I guess why I can't see how they've become mainstream is that I honestly can't picture what could be more mainstream than their previous work. People here are talking about a massive pop/rock colossus as if it were some hip underground indie band and it just confuses me.

This is what I don't get about the whole "Coldplay's gone mainstream" arguement. Coldplay already had a Massive audience. There sound already appealed to more people than virtually any other current act. (if you judge by record sales and tour grosses.) Other artists who want to sound commercial are advised to sound LIKE THEM! The most commercial/mainstream/sell-out thing they could have done was what they were already doing. When you have such a winning commercial formula, there is NO commercially minded reason to change ANYTHING. The only logical reason they would adopt a new sound, is that they genuinely like the new one better. Note that nowhere I said that you aren't allowed to not like the new songs, but I'm sorry the argument that Coldplay are somehow changing "for commercial reasons" makes not the least bit of sense IMHO.

FWIW, I would still like Paradise. It does have some neat bits in it IMHO (I especially like the bass part. That said, it's probably more interesting to me because it's coldplay, in short I'm keen to see where they're going with this. One of the reasons I like the band's new stuff is that they actually sound like a proper band now as opposed to just the Chris Martin show. If they did start incorporating some of their old ideas again, it would be neat to see how Jonny and Guy's stepped up roles would fit in.

Fair Enough. Personally, I do like AROBTTH on the whole more than anything they've done since. (although I could've listened to a whole album worth of Chinese Sleep Chant-esque songs gladly,), but for whatever reason a lot of these new tracks have intriguing elements to me. The only thing that gets me is the fact that some people (not you FWIW) seem 110% sure that the band are sitting in a studio somewhere twirling their waxed mustaches like Snidley Whiplash and plotting on how to make their music more "mainstream". That's not the vibe I get from them at all.

But what if making pop music that simply makes people happy is what the band want? What if the sound of these new songs is exactly the kind of music the band finds interesting, inspiring or stimulating? There old sound was so commercially successful, I simply can't see any motive for changing it, unless it's something they genuinely wanted to do. You say the band should'nt feel obligated to make music a certain way and then turn around and basically say they're obligated to operate in another certain way. As far as I'm concerned any band has every right to make whatever kind of music interests them (which may change from time to time.) If I like that music or otherwise find it interesting, I'll listen, if not, I won't.

I just don't get that though. I mean no matter how I look at it, I just can't see how Paradise could possibly be considered more accessible than say, clocks or fix you. ETIAWF maybe, but nothing else in the new material seems more populist than their classic songs. It just leaves me scratching my head TBH.

I can respect that (although I'm not really sure what "generic sounding" means.) Either the new songs sound good to you or they don't , that's a matter of personal opinion. Just out of curiosity, do you think that all of the band's previous singles meet their "high standards"? I love the band, but IMHO they've put out plenty of bum songs mixed in with the greats over their career. (as is true of any band.)

Fair Enough. If people would just say that, I think that's a perfectly reasonable answer. Although, I would point out that the band's many detractors have been using similar language to describe all of the band's output.

I think so. (the heartfelt part to me is in the way Chris sings it, not in the lyrics themselves.)

Thanks, That post is a modified version of something I posted on another thread in the context of another discussion and I'm really gratified by all the nice responses I've gotten to it. :D

Wow, I never expected to get applause!:smug:

Ok. I wasn't going to weigh in on this mainstream vs. non-mainstream bulls&^t, but I just can't resist. It's one thing if you don't like the new music, saying so doesn't make you a "hater" (as long as it's new music you've actually heard.) However, IMHO there are a couple things about this "coldplay going mainstream" argument that make absolutely no sense to me. If someone on the other side can answer some of these questions, I'd be genuinely interested in their perspective. Here goes: 1. First and foremost how on earth can "old coldplay" not be considered "mainstream" or "made for radio" I'll grant you that perhaps parachutes wasn't a pop record by any stretch (though yellow was the definition of a made for radio 3 minute pop song IMHO), but pretty much everything from AROBTTH was. In My Place, Clocks, The Scientist, Fix You, The Hardest Part, Speed of Sound all of these songs came from the "old" (and thus apparently good) era of coldplay music and ALL of them seem more structurally simple and radio ready than ANY of the tracks on VLVODAAHF. I'm really curious as to the specifics of what makes the old material "not poppy" I love coldplay but they are the most mainstream sounding band in the world and have been for 10 years. 2. Seeing as the majority of the live songs played at the summer festivals have been well received, how is all the new material judged by a few polarizing songs? By my count, only ETDIAWF and maybe Paradise have gotten what seems to be a mixed response with the general consensus on the other tracks being fairly well received. Heck, even Princess of China got good reviews from the people who actually heard the sole live performance BEFORE it was discovered that Rhianna was on the studio track. 3. Why do people feel they can assume the motives of the band? Chris especially has always had an interest in pop music/pop artists and has collaborated with many of them as a solo artist going back almost to the band's inception. how is that not an organic change? Why do some people apparently feel that there is absolutely no chance the difference in the band's music is primarily due to the fact that this is the type of music they're genuinely interested in now? Like I said, I'm NOT one of those people who thinks you're not a "real fan" if you don't like the new music, but I'm seriously having trouble understanding the main arguments people use on here for why they don't like the new songs. I agree with people who say that this whole direction change thing is Coldplay's version of 80's u2 vs. 90's u2 (also spurred by Eno BTW) I think the band are just interested in different things now than they were before, and people can either be interested along with them or not, neither choice is better or worse than the other, it's just a matter of personal preference, After hearing songs like Christmas Lights and UATW, I think it's clear the band can (and does) still write songs in their "old style", it's just not their primary interest at this moment in time. I'm really curious if anyone who's on "the other side" of this whole thing can explain their thinking, I'd like to be able to see where you're coming from.

Ok. I wasn't going to weigh in on this mainstream vs. non-mainstream bulls&^t, but I just can't resist. It's one thing if you don't like the new music, saying so doesn't make you a "hater" (as long as it's new music you've actually heard.) However, IMHO there are a couple things about this "coldplay going mainstream" argument that make absolutely no sense to me. If someone on the other side can answer some of these questions, I'd be genuinely interested in their perspective. Here goes: 1. First and foremost how on earth can "old coldplay" not be considered "mainstream" or "made for radio" I'll grant you that perhaps parachutes wasn't a pop record by any stretch (though yellow was the definition of a made for radio 3 minute pop song IMHO), but pretty much everything from AROBTTH was. In My Place, Clocks, The Scientist, Fix You, The Hardest Part, Speed of Sound all of these songs came from the "old" (and thus apparently good) era of coldplay music and ALL of them seem more structurally simple and radio ready than ANY of the tracks on VLVODAAHF. I'm really curious as to the specifics of what makes the old material "not poppy" I love coldplay but they are the most mainstream sounding band in the world and have been for 10 years. 2. Seeing as the majority of the live songs played at the summer festivals have been well received, how is all the new material judged by a few polarizing songs? By my count, only ETDIAWF and maybe Paradise have gotten what seems to be a mixed response with the general consensus on the other tracks being fairly well received. Heck, even Princess of China got good reviews from the people who actually heard the sole live performance BEFORE it was discovered that Rhianna was on the studio track. 3. Why do people feel they can assume the motives of the band? Chris especially has always had an interest in pop music/pop artists and has collaborated with many of them as a solo artist going back almost to the band's inception. how is that not an organic change? Why do some people apparently feel that there is absolutely no chance the difference in the band's music is primarily due to the fact that this is the type of music they're genuinely interested in now? Like I said, I'm NOT one of those people who thinks you're not a "real fan" if you don't like the new music, but I'm seriously having trouble understanding the main arguments people use on here for why they don't like the new songs. I agree with people who say that this whole direction change thing is Coldplay's version of 80's u2 vs. 90's u2 (also spurred by Eno BTW) I think the band are just interested in different things now than they were before, and people can either be interested along with them or not, neither choice is better or worse than the other, it's just a matter of personal preference, After hearing songs like Christmas Lights and UATW, I think it's clear the band can (and does) still write songs in their "old style", it's just not their primary interest at this moment in time.

Here are the ones that stand out to me (in no particular order) Clocks: The bassline here is really the propulsive element of the song. Everything's not Lost: He has some nice little moments in the breaks between verses. Cemeteries of London: I just think this is a cool line Sparks: The softer acoustic nature of this song really brings the bass to the front of the mix. A very "jazzy" sounding line. Death and all his friends: The bass holds the whole song together in the first portion while the guitar part is waiting to come in. 42: I like the octave jumps the bass does in this one. Guy is very much a "play for the song" sort of bass player who avoids showing off and spends most of his time in the pocket, but he's also a pretty solid player IMHO. Live he's very consistent and all the times I've seen them play, he and will are super tight together as a rhythm section. Also from what I've seen and read, he seems to be the most highly regarded member of the group musically speaking. (I've never seen any of the other guys listed on something like a "best of" list for their respective positions, but have seen Guy's name come up several times.)

Hoppy's a very distinctive looking guy, He'd probably be easy to spot somewhere else if you do see him working with another band.

Not sure how far along you are in Roadie, he does talk a bit about the CV's of some of the longstanding crew members, but I can't remember at the moment if Hoppy's one of them. I did read somewhere that he worked for both Keneckie and Spacehog at some point the mid to late 90's but I have no idea if that's accurate.

Ok this thread's been dead for ages, but I just have to put my two cents in on a couple things. Regarding the bell: Whether it's midi triggered or not, Will's still playing live. The triggering simply amplifies and/or enhances the sound so that it can be heard at a level needed to fill a venue. It's really no different than plugging a guitar into an amplifier. (or for that matter running dry guitar signal through an effects loop to alter the sound.) If the bell is triggered, it's pretty likely that the triggered sound is the bell itself recorded in a studio or other sterile environment. Regarding the live nature of LiT performances: Most of the song is indeed played live. The only real pre-recorded bits are the intro and the santoor part. Any indication otherwise you get from videos is more than likely a result of the video being out of synch Most bands whose sound is based around effects to the extent of Coldplay's (and that includes U2, Radiohead and Muse among others), make extensive use of prerecording in live performances. Heck, Muse has an additional touring musician and his primary job on stage is to initiate and monitor pre-recorded elements. Same with Jonny Greenwood in radiohead (you can see his macbook set up by his gear in a ton of live videos.) Virtually all U2 songs from Achtung Baby thru ATYCLB have extensive pre-recorded bits. (as well as a fair number of their songs from before and after that period) Sure there are bands that go the other direction (with a notable example being the Rolling Stones, whose current touring band has about 15 or 16 musicians despite having only 4 "official" band members these days.) Which style of performance you prefer is strictly a matter of personal preference, but IMHO using pre-recorded elements in live performance is in no way "cheating" (and the successful use of said actually takes a great deal of skill on the part of the band.) Climbs off soapbox...

While I agree it is frustrating that any and all criticism (and anything that could be remotely interpreted as criticism) is met here with accusations of jealousy, I can also see where such accusations come from. It's not hard to imagine that a large percentage of the musicians/pundits/people who deride coldplay the loudest for being to "mainstream", would also turn around and join them in a minute if given the chance. Not everyone who dislikes or criticizes Coldplay is jealous of them, but massive success does have a tendency to breed jealousy just the same. I like Coldplay although I do think they are not as musically complex or innovative as some other bands (and that's not altogether a bad thing.-writing a good simple pop song is harder than people think). That said, if I could be in any modern band, it would probably be them. Why? Because they get to travel the world doing some of the most massive gigs anyone's playing these days, make loads of cash, have legions of adoring fans (especially women :wink3:), have access to anything they want in multiple colors etc. I can totally see how that kind of success could cause hard feelings among a musician (or civilian) who's busted their ass for years with very little to show for it in today's really tough professional music marketplace. Just my two cents...

The thing of it is, I'm not sure I would go that far about either band as far as being political. Sure they campaign for stuff, but why is trying to help the aids crisis or improve living conditions considered "political". That's kind of sad if that's really the state of politics today. Both bands also seem to at least try to be non partisan in their political stuff. Chris makes no secret of his personal political views, but he doesn't really seem that intent in pushing them on others and the rest of the CP boys are dead quiet on that front. Bono has also staunchly resisted any effort by others to identify him with a specific political movement or leaders. IMHO, most of what these two bands get called "political" over are in reality, more aptly described as charitable issues, which aren't really political at all except to people who wish to make them so. Lastly, U2 have made 2 great albums in the last ten years.

Noel Is a friend/fan of the band, I think. There are pictures of him attending some of their gigs (I think he was spotted at the itunes fest gig as well). There are also really old pictures (from around the ROBTTH era) of Guy with Noel, Andy and Gem in New York. I think Liam is the only one who doesn't like them.

They can't. They're under contract until after their sixth album. Radiohead were able to leave because they had fulfilled their deal.

No, it's not that one, but it is similar. Thanks for the reply. :)