Coldplay: Chris Martin And His Xylo Toes - Part 2

[PhilsFan]

What? It has 14 tracks. They release an album with a track listing of 14. You expect something in the ballpark. I acknowledged the fact that it's an opinion, but said opinion has all the world to do with the number of songs.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

There's 14 songs. Yeah? Three of them aren't actually songs, but transitions to other songs. So now we're down to 11. And then there's (and here's the opinion) some crap songs that aren't worthy of making their album. So when you first see the album and there's 14 songs and then in reality there's only about 7 or so individual songs that are quality and worthy of being there.

 

[intedomine]

But if they were to include 3 full songs (say Don Quixote, Moving To Mars and Car Kids) instead of the transitions, and you didn't like any of those three songs, you'd still only get 7 songs worth listening to.

I enjoy all 11 songs on some level, so I'm doing alright, and don't feel shortchanged.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I don't even get what you're saying. There are "14" songs, two (three?) Are transitions, and great ones, imo, at that, but you don't count them, so you think you're getting gyped because only 5 or 6 songs out of 14 are "notable"? If you're not counting them, then 5 or 6 out of 11 songs are "notable", which isn't bad.

I'm confusing myself, I find this to be a pretty stupid thing to be up in arms about.

The transitions are quality, yes. But they are, in a sense, all part of another song. They're hardly transitions, even. They're intros, just given a separate track listing and title. I was expecting a normal track length album and hoping for a quality repeat from their last album. Unfortunately, this album is filled in with intros and lack of quality, topped with some high quality songs.

 

[PhilsFan]

Length of the album and whether or not the songs are shitty are literally two different arguments. You're really complaining that the album has filler. That's got nothing to do with album length. Only the transitions thing is, and even then, you're at 11, which you have no issue with.

 

[Utoo]

This was my review to some friends after my very first listen. I actually think it sounds better played from speakers than it does through nice headphones...the production is much foggier than I expected (granted, I wasn't playing through a great sound system, but still).

Here were my thoughts immediately after the first run-through:

So I just had my very first listen to Mylo Xyloto. Since I lack any impressive sound system, I plugged my bitchin' Sennheiser HD555's into the MacBook Pro, and while [my wife] and the kids were napping, I sat down, closed my eyes, and dove in. First impression? 7/10. I actually wavered on maybe saying 6.9/10, but I think 7 is ok.

Back when I saw the first promo images for the album several months ago (all the colorful graffiti, etc.), I called that they were aiming for their own Coldplay version of Achtung Baby. I think that that holds true for the album. However, I think they didn't quite hit the mark. It's definitely the farthest departure yet from Parachutes & A Rush of Blood to the Head in a few senses, and it is a step forward from Viva La Vida. Much like Achtung, there is a clear intention to obtain more of a street/club/dance feel; a few songs have whomping beats & electronic (-sounding, at least) percussion. Yet rather than a radical departure from the past, there are many, many times when MX seems to simply be a natural progression from VLV.

Musically, the album relies on "wall of sound" choruses with Eno-esque atmosphere, something they've done on all three albums from X&Y onward (perhaps even earlier with "Clocks"). Other, "smaller" songs rely on the classic Coldplay combination of Chris Martin's voice plus minimal arrangement behind him (i.e., "Us Against the World"). What grabs you on the "big" songs isn't a riff or a groove, but rather an onslaught guitars, synths, and drums, combined with trademark Chris Martin "ooh ooh ooh's," all positioned in the right moments of each song to lift you up into it. The flaw, perhaps, is that the repetitive use of the same technique without any distinctive groove makes many of the songs blend together. This may, of course, change on further listens---we'll see.

There was a story after VLV that when Eno first met Coldplay, the first thing he told them was that Chris Martin's lyrics were shit. Apparently, Martin has been joking around on Mylo Xyloto promo interviews that his lyrics suck. I don't think that they suck, but I feel obliged to say that there's nothing at all remarkable about them. They tend to fit their respective songs very well, but often lack much depth in and of themselves. I've always been a lyrics guy, though this issue may not matter much to many others.

It may be unfair to compare MX to Achtung, as this is only Coldplay's 5th album (their Joshua Tree...is that even more unfair?). However, they've been together as long as U2 were when they made Achtung, and it does seem as if they were going for kind of a street art, danceable feel & image that U2 had moved toward with Achtung. Comparing the two, MX pales considerably (yet seems to be causing the same sort of divide among Coldplay fans as Achtung did among U2 fans, according to a glimpse at the coldplaying.com forum, with many "I don't know where this band is going anymore" posts). Taken on its own, however, the album is enjoyable and pretty good....just not great. But does it need to be great?

 

[LemonMelon]

But does it need to be great?

After an album like Viva La Vida, yes.

I've heard this argument a bunch of times in the past couple of weeks, and I'm not sure what Coldplay did to make themselves the joke of industry. I suppose MX wouldn't kill me if it's not great, but I probably won't listen to it in full again. I guess that's all that's at risk with it not being awesome.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Length of the album and whether or not the songs are shitty are literally two different arguments. You're really complaining that the album has filler. That's got nothing to do with album length. Only the transitions thing is, and even then, you're at 11, which you have no issue with.

Well then we're arguing semantics. I'm just saying seeing 14 tracks gets your hopes up, and when only around half of them turn out to be legitimate tracks (for whatever reason, three for the fact that they're not really tracks), it's upsetting. It's a combination of both.

 

[bono_212]

Not a regular track length album? Wait...what?

 

[LemonMelon]

I wish Teardrop, Princess of China and Paradise weren't legitimate, but they are all too real.

 

[nielsgov]

They could have made a very good EP out of the songs on the album + Moving To Mars.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Not a regular track length album? Wait...what?

Those are your words and your words alone.

 

[PhilsFan]

Well then we're arguing semantics. I'm just saying seeing 14 tracks gets your hopes up, and when only around half of them turn out to be legitimate tracks (for whatever reason, three for the fact that they're not really tracks), it's upsetting. It's a combination of both.

You are very inarticulate. I know what you're trying to say and you're doing it totally wrong.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Thanks.

 

[LyricalDrug]

There was a story after VLV that when Eno first met Coldplay, the first thing he told them was that Chris Martin's lyrics were shit. Apparently, Martin has been joking around on Mylo Xyloto promo interviews that his lyrics suck. I don't think that they suck, but I feel obliged to say that there's nothing at all remarkable about them. They tend to fit their respective songs very well, but often lack much depth in and of themselves. I've always been a lyrics guy, though this issue may not matter much to many others.

Despite my username, I don't pay much attention to rock lyrics, for several reasons:

1) more than ever in this global era, people listening to albums do now know English as their first language. Therefore, finely-wrought lyrics are perhaps less useful in getting a message across than bright, bold, basic colors

2) some of the best bands were known for not caring about lyrics - look at Led Zeppelin: a classic example of a band being too cool to worry about lyrics. Robert Plant's vocals are arguably the best in rock history, but lyrically, those songs are often just gibberish. And there's nothing wrong with it.

3) if I want great writing, I'll open a novel or go read some poetry. Lyrics are made to be sung, and are just a vehicle for the vocalist. Vocals are extremely important to me, but I don't really care whether the lyrics are Sigur Ros-style made-up words, or Dylan-level stuff.

...after having listened to MX a lot over the last week, I'm upgrading my earlier rating from a 7 to a 8. The best tracks (1-2, 4, 5, 6-7, 10, 12-13) are outstanding ones.

 

[corianderstem]

Listened to it this morning. I really enjoyed about the first half, pretty much everything up to the Rihanna song. I didn't think much of that track - it doesn't seem to fit.

Everything afterwards, I liked less than the first half.

Was very disappointed that the opening track sounded so distorted. I didn't notice it as much the rest of the album, but it's getting to the point where I actually get angry to hear something mixed so poorly.

Aren't we at the point in this loudness war bullshit that artists want to DO something about it? Do they not have a say in it? Do they actually think it sounds good? I do not understand why it continues to be an issue.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Cori has questions, and is demanding the answers.

 

[corianderstem]

I'm going to occupy the record companies until they fix it.

ALL the record companies.

 

[nirniva]

Yeah, the digital version is pretty badly mixed. Damn loudness war...
I've heard reports that the vinyl version sounds a bit better, though. My copy is on pre-order, so it should be nice to compare!

 

[corianderstem]

I have the CD and ripped it. Granted, I know it's not going to sound as good on an iPod, but there should not be obvious distortion when I don't even have the EQ on.

 

[bono_212]

Those are your words and your words alone.

normal track length album

my apologies.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Right. It's abnormal. Three of the tracks are a part of another track, one of them is a very short track, and four of them don't fit/are filler, and don't really add to the album. When listening to this album, you can literally cut it down/reshape it into about 7 songs that appropriately fit the album. The rest doesn't belong for one reason or another. I never implied that 11 or 14 tracks isn't regular.

 

[corianderstem]

I didn't mind the transitions.

..... I know you were all totally waiting for me to chime in, because I'm so important and shit.

 

[bono_212]

Can someone explain to me the difference between regular and normal?

You know, there's this album I like, it's called The Unforgettable Fire, but man, that album really pisses me off. It promises to be ten tracks long, but when you listen to it, two of the tracks are so short they don't even matter, one is really an intro for another song and shouldn't really count as a track at all, one is just 7 minutes of experimenting and one sounds almost identical to another track on the album. So really, you're only getting a 5 song album. What a rip-off!

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Can someone explain to me the difference between regular and normal?

How about some context?

You know, there's this album I like, it's called The Unforgettable Fire, but man, that album really pisses me off. It promises to be ten tracks long, but when you listen to it, two of the tracks are so short they don't even matter, one is really an intro for another song and shouldn't really count as a track at all, one is just 7 minutes of experimenting and one sounds almost identical to another track on the album. So really, you're only getting a 5 song album. What a rip-off!

Yeah except 4th of July is it's own piece of work, not 3 introduction pieces given their own track number and title. MLK and Promenade are also significant pieces of work, not just some random crap throw in like U.F.O.. I don't know what song you'd be referring to as an introduction for another song. What Coldplay has done is like the equivalent of taking the first 35 seconds of Streets, giving it it's own track listing, and giving it a title.

Another discussion for another day, but Elvis Presley and America does not 'sound exactly like another track on the album'. Whoop whoop, it's A Sort of Homecoming's drums slowed down and backing tracks reversed. That doesn't make it sound exactly like it. Other than hearing the same drum beat (for one listening), both songs are very distinctive.

 

[bono_212]

I love that you got almost none of those right.

Context? Why on earth do you need context? are we not literally having this conversation right now?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I love that you got almost none of those right.

Context? Why on earth do you need context? are we not literally having this conversation right now?

Oh, clearly I am also quite uneducated with U2's music. Enlighten me. What have I gotten so wrong, your majesty?

Why would you need context? Because you're quoting me and manipulating words. There's so many other ways you could go about this, but instead you choose to act the way you're acting.

 

[BoMac]

I'm sorry. It seems like I make have walked into EYKIW or something. I'll just walk out now.

 

[bono_212]

One, I was joking. It made me laugh that one person can ambiguously talk about one thing and someone else think they were talking about the other.

As for context, I never twisted your words. I accidentally used the word regular instead of normal, because honestly they mean almost the same damn thing. I then satirically asked for someone to explain to me the difference between the two words and you asked for context as if we had not just literally been having the exact conversation that gives the context only moments before.

 

[corianderstem]

I believe you need this gif, BoMac: