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:

The blurriness (and graininess) of this video that you're seeing is a product of the cameras being used and the post-production processing that's being applied to the finished product. A DVD has a native resolution of 480p, which your DVD player and/or HDTV is likely upscaling to 720p, 1080i, or 1080p, depending on your player or display. I'm viewing the film via a Blu-ray player (a Playstation 3 Slim) and a Sharp LC-60LE640U display and it looks blurry at times, and grainy most of the time. Honestly, I would swear that I'm looking at an upscaled 480p DVD instead of a 1080p Blue-ray. My guess is that if were to compare what you're looking at on your system to what you'd see on a Blu-ray, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Look at the bright side, you saved the $7 to $8 price difference between the DVD and Blu-ray and didn't lose any significant difference in quality in the process ;) [EDIT]... Just noticed Lard's post while I was composing mine --- I sound a bit like an echo :)

There's a portion of it... an "airy" (light dynamic range) version used as background music during part of Will's narrative.

I'm really feeling empathy for you guys that have placed pre-orders and still don't have them yet. :( I almost placed and advanced order the week before the release with Amazon.com, but then I realized I was going to be off the past Monday and remembered my local Best Buy's track record for getting new releases in stock. I walked in Monday morning at 11:00 AM, and they already had them out in the "New Release" section. Anyway, I really hope you all get your copies soon... I've been on the other side of this equation a few times myself and it's not a pleasant place to be if you're eagerly anticipating something.

I completely relate to your thoughts here LARD! It is overproduced, but the studio album and the live audio have been overproduced during the MX era also. I would have preferred that they separate the band member musings as a tour diary and have a fllowing live concert like they did for the superb Live 2003 DVD. I'm amazed at how short this production is in comparison. They've got some great camera angles in Live 2012, but your characterization of it as a long trailer of itself sums it up quite well. It's a film, not the "live"concert I was hoping for. And you're right, the prerecorded strings, synths, and even vocals (really auspicious during Hurts Like Heaven) don't help with the live atmosphere. I'd rather have them take a 5th member onboard to play keyboards for the sampled strings and synths. At least then there would be a visible musician contributing that part of the show as opposed to an invisible sound engineer. Coldplay are still a great band and I do find some great moments in this latest DVD, I'd just prefer to see and hear them in a less processed form.

I agree the Live 2003 DVD is clearly superior to this one in just about every way possible. I think it's more due to just how brilliantly crafted and performed Live 2003 was, compared to Live 2012. The sharpest criticism I can level against Coldplay at the moment is they seem to err on the side of "overproduction". The purer productions of the 2003 era come across sounding a lot more like the band. This experience makes me appreciate what a timeless treasure we have in Live 2003, more than anything else. I listened to 2003 in its entirety yesterday and marveled at its brilliance :o I would say that it's not the Blu-ray itself that looks like crap, it's the film method. It looks to me like the Director (Paul Dugdale) wanted to build on the same grainy film look of the "Princess of China" video. I found this snippet from a story that ran about the Princess of China video at Creative Planet Network http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/2-pop/feature/%E2%80%9Cprincess-china-harbor-picture-company-travels-back-time-coldplay-and-rihanna/60232 "Directors Adria Petty and Alan Bibby “wanted a grainy film look to the video to help capture the storyline,” explains Gawler. “My past experience coupled with Resolve’s features helped us create that look by using proper gamma curves, crosstalk, colors, shadows and highlights." It doesn't sit well with me either, but I can write-off the look of the end product a little better knowing that it wasn't the result of shoddy production work, rather it was a concious, 'artistic' choice.... one of which most of us - me included - apparently don't have the cultural pedigree to appreciate ;)

Yes, they are two of the individual three selections in "Extras" menu, along with "Photos", which is a slideshow of photographs that runs for a few minutes. I wish there was a way that you could put together a custom playlist, and include DLIBYH and The Scientist into the main "film", where there actually fit in the order of play from the tour.

Blu-ray or DVD? ;)

Yes, it would be nice to have them on the CD. I guess the publisher felt like they had to do something to entice buyers to spring for the Blu-ray version. As for Clocks, yeah... I'd say that musically, this is the weakest of all the live versions I've heard. The Live 2003 version runs laps around it. I don't like the oddly distorted instrumental break in the middle, versus the pared-down reprise of the haunting piano intro of the 2003 Live and studio versions. It also sounds like they prematurely bail out on the wind-down of Clocks. It loses so much of its character in that it doesn't reach its deserved conclusion, IMO.

I'm pretty sure the native resolution is 480p since it's advertised as a "DVD". What will happen is that many DVD players will upscale it to anywhere from 720p to 1080p, but there's usually a significant difference between the quality of upscaled 1080p versus native 1080p.

DLIBYH is in the "Extras" section of the Blu-ray, along with The Scientist. I shared your hope for Warning Sign; it was my favorite song from the concert I attended in Charlotte, NC! I really wish they'd thrown DLIBYH and The Scientist in their proper slot in the main 'film'. It breaks the flow of the songs that are included to have to go into another menu to play them!? At least they're there and each is quite well done, BTW.