Fix42YellowClocks

Je suis le martyr. Bon débarras tous. Vive la France napoléonienne

Really? I've seen interviews where Chris says he does listen to people's criticisms of the band. In Viva la Vida interviews, he specifically talks about "The Case Against Coldplay" article which scathingly criticizes his supposed 'cliche' and 'untalented' writing as bringing down the band. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, you can see a stark difference to the songwriting between the first 3 albums and Viva, where the lyrics in the later are much more abstract, colorful, and developed. You're saying he just conveniently changed his lyrical style and put a much larger focus on the lyrics and just happened to mention that article's impact on him for no reason? I also read where someone visiting the band had listened to 42 and said it sounded like Radiohead. Chris went back and changed parts of the song. It seems like they DO care about what people say. They're not Oasis, they're not made of stone and if anything Chris's sensitivity shines through his lyrics and should be a very clear indicator. If you can't find support in your fans, where can you find it?

They're not tolerating Coldplay's right to make whatever music they want. I'm referring specifically to the people who say they shouldn't make any more music/retire, not a blanket negativity that people are making it out to be. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't be making this argument in the first place. You're saying I'm intolerant and saying nope, you have no right to say this. But they're being JUST AS intolerant and you do NOTHING ABOUT IT. Nothing. Why is it FINE for them to be intolerant of Coldplay but NOT for me to be intolerant of them. Double. Standard. Everyone thinks others being intolerant is fine, but for me to do so is wrong. Logic? None. They're trying to restrict Coldplay's expression on no valid basis. Why should people be allowed to do that? I have a basis. That it's immoral to restrict others without reason. If everyone can just curb other's rights just because they feel like it, how can everyone's right to speak be preserved? It's tyrannical abuse. IF HAVE NO VALID REASON= NO RIGHT TO RESTRICT (FANS TELLING COLDPLAY NOT TO MAKE MUSIC). IF HAVE VALID REASON = RIGHT TO RESTRICT (THEY ARE ABUSING THEIR FREEDOMS AND OTHERS' WITHOUT CAUSE, SHOULDN'T BE TOLERATED). It's not contradictory.

Yes, you do make a good point. The question now is why would I want to? Disagreeing with popular consensus on negativity and having my own form of logic makes me a loon. Clearly a sign of a receptive place I would think. Everyone has a right to be outlandish and bitterly critical but when I offer some kind of objection, no. There's no place for that. So everyone can speak their mind, but not really Thank you. No, I don't. I meant new level as beyond superficial argument. It's always fun to assume things as if you have no fallibility. I'll try to simplify my language. Clearly I'm in the wrong for having payed attention in high school English class. I'll keep that in mind. Of course, everyone has a right to be negative without justification but can I try to use logic to prove a point people disagree with? Nope. I don't know what I was thinking trying to be an individual and not conforming with everyone else. Indeed, indeed. You treat my argument like it's so worthless, pitiful and funny. Clearly I'm the one saying others are below me... right. No hypocrisy here. I did mean it to be a joke. However, they're still more objective than a Coldplay fansite, or at least should be... Private industry and organizations have no duty in protecting rights and freedoms, a good point. But that doesn't justify not doing so just because it "doesn't have to". If a person or group's morality refuses to act on the simple premise that 'it's not bound to', that's some kind of ethics. What can I say? Sue me for being an idealist. If the reference to Kant doesn't illuminate that, nothing will. I would like to thank for criticizing my argument, not attacking me on ad hominem fallacy. The comments suggest I can't expect such civility from everyone... Thank you for attacking me on a personal level. That's a really convincing and legitimate way to get your point across. Don't use logic, just spew insults. Cool. Make yourself feel better by putting down others. Always laudable. Precisely. People's intolerance of my opinion is irrational. We can justify people who attack Coldplay on no concrete grounds, but my right to opinion? haha! What a fool to think I should have a right to speak my mind. Somehow their opinions are tolerable and not mine. Much logic. I'm glad I can be in a community where respect for unorthodox ideas is nominal and I can't express an argument or opinion without being dehumanized and verbally abused. When I criticized others for being negative, I wasn't a jerk about it. I tried to explain it logically, not with insults and put downs. Even if you think I failed, I didn't go out of my way to disrespect or be rude to anyone. I wanted this to be logical, not personal. Vitriol remains.

I'm explaining my response to Cobalt about the logic of my statement. This is a lounge forum, almost anything is allowed including natural rights discussion. I cannot argue my point of the seemingly conflicting idea of why I have the right to argue people shouldn't be allowed to tell Coldplay to stop expressing themselves without a fundamental argument to the freedoms we enjoy. I'm not averse to deep intellectual conversations anywhere at any time. They should be encouraged and if you want to criticize my logic I'll take it to another level to get my point across.

When one's freedom of expression seeks to prohibit others', it is immoral and not justified. As a caveat to that, there is an exception. If someone seeks to abuse free speech by curtailing the rights of others without moral justification, you have the right of restricting them in return. Coldplay is harming no one, they are not abusing others' rights and are not denying anyone free speech, so the people who are saying they shouldn't put out music have no valid justification to inhibit them, regardless of their criticisms. However, we have a right as moral agents to sequester those who look to abuse their freedoms to quiet Coldplay's expression. The right to expression is not unquantifiable or limitless. If people seek to quiet others on no moral basis, as some members here have, we have a moral obligation to check their abuses of speech freedoms to uphold the sanctity of expression for all. We are not violating their rights because they are using speech immorally and beyond its reasonable and practical bounds. To argue that members here have a right to free speech to stop Coldplay from expressing free speech is completely irrational and contradictory. To not allow any exceptions in this libertarian idealism will prove the downfall of free speech as a whole, as any can restrict others on no reasonable basis whatsoever in a lawless system of chaos. By allowing people the ability to restrict freedoms against another who is usurping and denying others' freedoms by quelling without justifiable cause, that is the only way we can ensure free speech is preserved. This is not a simplistic problem and cannot be understood or argued as such. There are complexities. Not that negative opinions shouldn't be allowed. That the proliferation of a large majority of negative opinions should be juxtaposed with the so-called idea of a fansite. If there is an overwhelming population arduously and incessantly providing negative and vitriolic remarks, how does that quantify as the definition as a fansite? Individuals should not be mislead in what they are dedicating irredeemable time to be apart of. This is not a question of the right to express opinion; if you're a fan of something and the topics you read are overwhelming negative, does this not contradict the idea of what it means to be a fan (someone constantly assailed by a subjective bias in favor of something, against would be quite the opposite)? It shouldn't be called a fansite but an objective criticism site. Fansite implies appeal to pathos and a particular subjective (not objective) understanding of a topic, i.e. one positively slanted in the subject described. An overwhelming population of negativity does not qualify the idea of a fansite and people have a right to know what they're being involved in without being misled by monikers. If they want an objective criticism site they will read reviews by Pitchfork and NME, not join a community called coldplaying which implies an inherent bias they connect with favoring the band in choosing to invest viable time. You're simplifying the argument to a superficial rights one, I'm questioning the structure of what a fansite should be and how, by claiming that misnomer, you could be wasting people's time who are mislead by the supposed intent of the site material. In this scenario, one cannot find a haven to provide positively biased ideals on a topic, then you are providing an environment for an objective, not subjective understanding (which is the opposite of what a fansite intrinsically implies). To say that everyone should have to listen to objective remarks is absurd, especiallyif someone should seek a place that will nurture their biases, not criticize every facet of every detail. If they can't share their slanted positive ideals in a fansite, where can they possibly go?

Hello. :) And I'm glad to hear that. That's the way it should be. And that's fair enough. I do think it's another generic song in some ways but it has nothing to do with Rihanna. She was a lot better than I thought she would be. The lyrics and melody just aren't there for me. I can definitely see that. And it's not that I'm taking their opinions to heart. I'll speak to more to that in a moment. And nothing wrong with that. Always good to be an individual! Okay. Just wondering. And thanks [: I appreciate your suggestion and you may be right. But it's not the opinion that bothers me. I've been called gay for years (not sure how that would even be a negative thing) for being a guy who likes Coldplay and any meaningful/emotional music but doesn't bother me. When people say they made an awful album, I completely disagree but they have every right."I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." It's when they say that they shouldn't have put out the album, that they should've retired after Viva. That bothers me. Because the bands has a right to free speech and expression as much as we do. If we can say how we feel about the music, but because you don't like it they shouldn't have made it? I can't stand double standards. Because they made one supposedly bad album they should quit? It just. It's beyond criticism. It's illogical and senseless and tommyrot spewing from the mouth. If Coldplay don't deserve freedom of expression, neither do you! Also, when you're mind is being constantly bombarded by negative upon negative upon negative- it's not healthy, for anyone regardless of what it's about. Whether it's daily reading pages of negative Coldplay remarks or pages of negative whatever, natural gas drilling remarks I don't know. It weighs on the vulnerable nature of the mind. Criticism is important and has an crucial place in society but when it's nonstop and unrelenting, when does it cease to lending to the idea of a. Coldplay. Fansite? I know where to go to read a proliferation of negative Coldplay remarks (Satriani and some Radiohead fansites), why should it be here as well?

I'm wondering because I haven't been on the site generally for almost a year now due to the prevalent and overwhelming nihilist attitudes. It would ruin my moods to the point I just couldn't come on and post anymore. I understand the right to criticize music, even if you're a fan of the band, but it went way past that. It was made out to be a sin to put out MX, almost like it should be illegal to make such music. I agree that Paradise and Princess of China (of Coldplay's fault not Rihanna's) are definitely subpar but people were letting it mire all the good work they had ever put out. When you listen to Coldplay, the first thing that comes to mind shouldn't be how bad Paradise is. It should be how great songs like Clocks, Talk, Viva la Vida, Warning Sign, Us Against the World, and others are. All I ever heard was Paradise was so bad so that must make the whole album horrible. Wrong. And for all of those people who talk about how we need the old Coldplay back, I'd argue that songs like Us Against the World and U.F.O. are more like Parachutes than anything we've seen on the previous albums. It is their worst album? I'd say yes. But not by a large margin and it's still a great one by any standard and we don't have to act like it's an abomination. There's a difference between critics and reactionaries, and I was witnessing the latter. Is it better? Can I read about the new album without hearing everywhere that Paradise is a demon child now? Honestly.

R1: Square One R2: In My Place R3: Lost! R4: The Scientist R5: Clocks R6: Yes R7: Viva la Vida R8: Warning Sign R9: Strawberry Swing R10: Everything's Not Lost R11: Amsterdam R12: Moving to Mars R13: Crests of Waves Parachutes: 1 ARoBttH : 6 X&Y: 1 VlVoDaAHF: 4 MX: 1 I don't think it's hard to see what my two favorite albums are. lol

It is devoid of hip-hop elements, but in other ways it does. All of the songs i hear are built on heavy synth-sounds and that's exactly what this song is like. And they have a featured popular artist, which is also very common in the mainstream today. And it's as if there's no guitar sounds and a very noticeable bass. Again- common sir.

Pop or not, the two songs do sound different. Charlie brown is a guitar-laden pop song with creative and unique lyrics. Princess of China is a synth-heavy pop song with semi-generic lyrics. The former sounds like something you'd hear on the charts in the late 90's-early 00's, the latter something you'd hear today. Of course PoC is going to do better; as if that's a surprise. It sounds like every single other song on the radio. That's so hard to accomplish...

How is there not more for Us Against the World? It's the most lyrically impressive thing they've done since Viva la Vida, if not the Scientist and Clocks. As long as Paradise isn't the one most voted for.

1. Us Against the World 2. Up with the Birds 3. Don't Let it Break Your Heart

I was going to do my own but I went through and saw yours exactly matched mine. :D 9-2 ARoBttH! I really like this thread. It's interesting to see everyone's opinion and nice how they both (technically and really) have the same number of songs.

Alright sir. We good. [: :P

Didn't say idiots sir. Where do you see that phrase in thre? People can believe in things whether or not they make "logical sense." Love doesn't make logical sense but people still feel it all the time. I'm trying to make someone feel better. And so is my point then.

Agnostic Lory you shouldn't feel bad. Christianity doesn't make sense at it's core. The only thing you can't be forgiven for is not believing. The true purpose of it isn't to provide guiding morals as everyone says, it's just to control you. Why else is it okay for a man to kill and steal and be saved if he believes in God, yet another man who could be the most kind and generous in the world is banished to Hell for not believing? A truly benevolent God wouldn't send his children to such a place and encourage belief in him as the 'utmost moral'. And honestly that kind of a fear tactic is no better than what Hitler used. "Believe in and follow me and you live. You can do all the bad things you want. The only thing you have to do is pledge allegiance to me." I mean really- to those who put you down I say...rationally! Such a new concept. Would you use a 2,000 year old book on horse-drawn vehicles to fix your car? Of course not. Things from then don't translate to now. Just saying. And people didn't exactly have ipods and laptops to entertain themselves with all day. What do you think they did? Maybe wrote a lot? Created some intricate stories in their head? Perhaps all that free time is where the Bible came from...

Apparatjik World-less I may be one of very few who listens to them here, but I am a big fan of Apparatjik's first album. Frankly, I just don't understand. Why. WHY is the new album (Apparatjik World) only available on an app to people who have ipads. Is this legal? (metaphorically speaking of course). I really want this new album but I don't have an ipad. I can't imagine a band releasing to such a narrow demographic. Any ideas on what us Apparatjik fans can do to get the album besides buying an ipad for one album? This may or may not qualify for it's own thread. I'm not completely sure. But I figured I'd go for it because the band is worth the potential wrongness of my thread.

I don't haven any exact numbers. :P But I'd have to say it goes something like this. 1. Up in Flames 2. Us Against the World 3. Up with the Birds My 3 favorite songs from the album after all.

Same here. Makes the song more interesting. And reminds me of a heart beat thudding hard and irregularly because of the pain.

Side one: Us Against the World Side two: Don't Let it Break Your Heart

A RUSH OF BLOOD TO THE HEAD!!! Best physical thing ever. I think it IS the greatest! :P

You're watching the movie "Halloween" for the first time and you always pretend to jam on a piano during some parts because the music sounds a lot like your favorite song ("Clocks") just creepier. :P

Exactly the same for me. :| I don't think there's anything wrong with our order. I'm betting anything we won't get it until tomorrow. If there's anything I've learned from the U.S. and capitalism, it's that corporations care about profit and not costumer satisfaction. Why else would they complain on classified documents that not enough of their employees have died and thus the life insurance policies they took out on the employees aren't giving them back enough revenue from their deaths? Despicable. Thank you Michael Moore.

THIS^^^ :laugh3: I'd have to agree I'm veryyy surprised that she's the first to get it on here (far as I know). Lore seems fairly critical of the new album. Doesn't mean she can't buy it though, of course. :thinking: