OnlookerDelay

That's a nice version, but it still falls well short of what is now my favorite live performance of a song of all time - Moses from the Live 2003 DVD. That is without a doubt the tightest live version of a song I've ever heard. I don't think a studio version could sniff it, to be honest.

I gave it a "5", because it pretty much leaves me unaffected. I'm not a fan of overproduced, electronic drums, and overly used synths. The guys in Coldplay are great musicians; I want to hear what they can play naturally. I'm hearing less and less of that in their music as they age. I think this is why I prefer the live versions of every song from MX over the studio versions; they're more natural. I could have probably gone 6, or possibly 7 on Magic if the lyrics didn't sound like they were written by a middle schooler. Chris is usually a lot stronger lyrically and I'm surprised these lyrics passed Will's inspection :stunned:

Great analysis of Atlas, Kalex! I've listened to the song about a dozen more times after reading your review, and I think you really hit the nail on the head about how they reeled in the "Enoxification"of Atlas with a balance of instruments and sounds as the song builds momentum. The end result is a song that while dabbling in something trippy, still sounds musical... and most importantly - like Coldplay! Nice to see another Carolinian on the Forum :cool:

It had fallen from #10 to #11 when I looked at it about six hours ago, but it was back to #10 when I checked 30 minutes ago. It's amazing that it seems to be holding at this position when I listen to the samples of some of the drek that's ahead of it on the chart :stunned:

I'm glad you mentioned this because it made me realize I need to clarify something I said about MX. It's not that I didn't like most of the material on MX (Priness of China not withstanding), rather it was the heavy-handed production of the recording that didn't sit well with me. I strongly prefer the live version of every song on MX to the studio version, because the natural character of the band is far more evident in the live recordings.

It took me a couple of listens, but after that it's a solid 9/10 for me. I approached from the perspective that since it's written for a movie soundtrack, it has to have context and mood faithful to the needs of the movie. From what I saw in the first Hunger Games movie, Atlas fits the bill lyrically and in terms of its anthemic soundscape. The chorus may be simple, but it is powerful and Will's backing vocal in the final 45 seconds demonstrates his amazing range spectacularly! I thought MX was overproduced and it's good to hear that a lot of the studio excesses of MX are absent in Atlas, although it gets a little bit too lavish in the final minute. The subtle opening of this song reminds me of For You, working toward Moving to Mars. It builds anticipation for the wind-up to a sensual eargasm that leaves me wanting more. I think Coldplay has hit the mark with this one. I have no doubt it will resonate with Hunger Games fans who haven't heard of or paid attention to Coldplay. This song will whave two life cycles because of its tie to the movie.

For You... suddenly I realized what a wonderful sonic soundscape this song creates. It figuratively creates its own world!

As a matter of personal preference, I like Coldplay's 2003 live music more than what they're doing in 2012, in general. There's no contest as to in which year was the stage 'show' better though... 2012 is as much a feast for the eyes as it is ears! :)

I can relate to your thoughts on this. I’m not plussed by the blurry, grainy production technique used in this film. At first I thought it was a production/editing quality issue, but then I learned it was a conscious, artistic decision to go with that video style. It’s not one that I personally “get”, but I’ll admit that I’m not the hippest member of today’s culture. The complaints about this are common enough to where I don’t feel like I’m in this camp by myself though. To be honest, Coldplay Live 2012 has at least made me appreciate the majesty of the Coldplay Live 2003 even more. I prefer its live concert approach along with its video and audio production to 2012. This is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison; however, in that Live 2003 was a live concert video whereas 2012 bills itself as a concert tour film. I also thought Violet Hill seemed out of place, even in the context of this “film”. It was a shot in a small, more intimate concert hall while the rest of the songs are from arenas. I’m pretty pleased with the audio on the 2012 Blu-ray, but I must say that to my ears, Coldplay Live 2003’s DTS audio sounds a wee bit better than 2012. I think what separates them is that 2003’s audio is mixed with a more live, wider dynamic range, while 2012’s is mixed with the idea that this is a film and not a concert video.

Hmmm... in this case (your receiver showing the DTS logo), your receiver might be able to do DTS, but not DTS-HD. If that's true, you'd still be better off using DTS over Dolby Digital. I'm not at home right now, so I can't check the menu on the 2012 Live Blu-ray. Does it call the menu selection "DTS-HD" or "DTS 5.1" in the set up menu? Try selecting whatever the DTS selection option is called on the Coldplay Live 2012 disc, and then see if your receiver displays "DTS" in its LED display, or illuminates the DTS indicator light (not sure how your receiver might show its current playback mode). I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to be DTS-HD for you to reap the benefits of its forerunner - DTS. If you've selected 'DTS-HD' (or however they list the DTS option) in the Coldplay Live 2012 menu, and you get either no sound, or it reverts to stereo, direct stereo, or something like that, you'll know for sure that your receiver won't support DTS, or at least the DTS codec offered on the Coldplay Live 2012 disc.

Sure, in order preference you want: 1.) DTS 5.1 or sometimes called DTS-HD Master is lossless audio format that carries bit rates up to 24.5 Mbit/s on Blu-ray. If your listening on Blu-ray and your home theater receiver supports it, this is the way to go! 2.) Dolby Digital 5.1 would be your second choice *if* your system supports it. Most systems do since 2001. It is not as good as DTS-HS, IMO, because it is lossy and it rolls off frequencies above 14Khz. It does deliver a more pure surround sound than PL II or Neo 6, which are derived from stereo, but it takes a back seat to the pure musical spectrum that DT-HD delivers. 3.) This would be your least desirable option. It's universal, but it's also more one dimensional sounding. This film comes alive in DTS-HD, so my recommendation is to play it back in that mode if your system supports it. Your receiver will display "DTS-HD" or "DTS-HD MSTR" if it supports it when you've selected it. You may have to change your Blu-ray player's audio stream setting from "PCM" or "LPCM" to "Bitstream" to get your receiver to recognize the DTS-HD signal though. I know I did on my Playstation 3, which I use as a Blu-ray player mostly. Good luck and I'd love to read a report after you've experimented with this :)

If you buy the Blu-ray version, you only get the Blu-ray video disk and the 15 track audio CD.

Just noticed a peculiar omission on the Blu-ray; the two extra tracks - "Don't Let it Break Your Heart" and "The Scientist" aren't recorded in Dolby 5.1 or DTS-HD audio. They'll only play back in two channel PCM audio modes. Yes, I can configure my home theater receiver to play it back in a synthesized surround mode like Pro Logic II Music or Neo Music, but it's a disappointing drop-off from the aural splendor of DTS-HD :(

Yes, that would complicate matters, but sadly, getting the right version isn't going to cure *all* that ails this video production. However, it should help appreciably with the degree of blurriness you're seeing.

No problem mate... it just shows that we're the charter members of the "Got It Right" club :cool: