No.
:moved:
A few clip-by-clip comparisons.
1. Echo And The Bunnymen's "Ripeness" (1983) vs "Two Hearts Beat As One" (1983)
2. Echo And The Bunnymen's "With A Hip" (1982) vs "Indian Summer Sky" (1984) - please note the fact that the bass lines are interchangeable
3. Echo And The Bunnymen's "Back Of Love" (1983) vs "In God's Country" (1987)
4. Echo And The Bunnymen's "Angels and Devils" (1984) vs "Angel of Harlem" (1988)
5. Pink Floyd's "Eclipse" (1973) vs "Walk On" (2000)
Those are just a few examples. There are many more.
The songs in item one contain very general similarities - rather like the ones that people accuse Coldplay of when it comes to U2. The songs in items two and three contain identical notes/chord progressions (kind of like the example you just brought up with Lovers in Japan/Reign Of Love.) The songs in items four and five contain eerily similar vocal deliveries and lyrical content (remember "the banks became cathedrals"?)
As Bono so aptly sums it up, "every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
I should also note that Echo And The Bunnymen fans used to accuse U2 of being wannabe-Bunnymen back in the 80s. Bono (or was it Adam?) even admitted that the bass line in Vertigo was a homage to the Bunnymen. On a semi-related note, Coldplay are also big fans of Echo And The Bunnymen. Goodness me, could it be that their sweeping atmospherics and delayed guitars aren't ONLY influenced by U2?
Don't get me wrong - I used to be like you. I thought Coldplay were nothing more than pointless U2/Radiohead rip-offs who should not be allowed to exist. Ask Phanan. Then I found out a little bit more about U2's history and discovered that, gasp, they weren't quite as original as I thought they were.
It's okay to be strongly influenced by a band. Really, it is. If you don't like Coldplay's songs, that's fine. But to constantly bring up the comparisons between their sound and U2's sound...it gets tiring, honestly. There are very few truly original bands and artists on this planet. Even U2 are guilty of a bit of heavy influence.
Bring on the Martin-bashing, though. Even though I really like Viva La Vida, I still think he's a colossal twat.
That's a good point. What GG is sharing just doesn't say very much. Many bands take inspiration or elements from others. But aside from those examples, U2 doesn't have much in common with Echo and the Bunnymen, certainly not after the mid-80's.
Coldplay, as Rob pointed out, seems to be following U2 like a blueprint, and Martin even has the gall to talk about it in public! It's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. What Coldplay will never have is a singer with the personal issues giving dark shadings to the positivity, the raw natural talent, and the energy that pushes one into the stratosphere. He's vanilla, a blank, a fucking zero.
He's vanilla, a blank, a fucking zero.
What Coldplay will never have is a singer with the personal issues giving dark shadings to the positivity, the raw natural talent, and the energy that pushes one into the stratosphere.
But aside from those examples, U2 doesn't have much in common with Echo and the Bunnymen, certainly not after the mid-80's.
Coldplay, as Rob pointed out, seems to be following U2 like a blueprint, and Martin even has the gall to talk about it in public! It's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. What Coldplay will never have is a singer with the personal issues giving dark shadings to the positivity, the raw natural talent, and the energy that pushes one into the stratosphere. He's vanilla, a blank, a fucking zero.
That's a good point. What GG is sharing just doesn't say very much. Many bands take inspiration or elements from others. But aside from those examples, U2 doesn't have much in common with Echo and the Bunnymen, certainly not after the mid-80's.
Coldplay, as Rob pointed out, seems to be following U2 like a blueprint, and Martin even has the gall to talk about it in public! It's ridiculous and pathetic at the same time. What Coldplay will never have is a singer with the personal issues giving dark shadings to the positivity, the raw natural talent, and the energy that pushes one into the stratosphere. He's vanilla, a blank, a fucking zero.
Yes! What a fucking blank! Great husband. Great father. Great musician. Great dreamer. Great friend. Great humanitarian. God! What a fucking blank. You'd have to be a blank to be all those things.
I don't think anyone's questioning his status as a father, dreamer, husband, friend, or neighborhood milkman, it doesn't change the fact that his musical talent just isn't there yet or ever will be there - of course, this is subjective, but hey, we're only talking about music here.
The problem I have is that the standouts are fewer than on the first two; there aren't any brilliant singles here like Yellow, Shiver, or Clocks
Yes! What a fucking blank! Great husband. Great father. Great musician. Great dreamer. Great friend. Great humanitarian. God! What a fucking blank. You'd have to be a blank to be all those things.
Sure, not anymore. But they did have quite a bit in common with them at one point in time. Prior to Live Aid, they were both being touted as the Next Best Thing. The Joshua Tree changed all that. Maybe Coldplay will surprise us all by releasing their own masterpiece that surpasses that of their idols. I'm not saying it'll happen (actually, I'm fairly confident it won't), but there's always that possibility.
I guess I just don't understand why it was acceptable for U2 to borrow heavily from other bands in the early 80s, when it's not acceptable for Coldplay to do the same now.
The title track seems to be doing quite well.
Yep, that's a good measure of quality alright.
It appears most of the general public disagrees with you.
I may be wrong but I think it goes beyond music when you call someone a blank or a zero.
Well you said it yourself. The Joshua Tree changed all that, and while it was their 5th studio album, they also put all of those out within a 7 year span. Coldplay may only be on their fourth album, but they've had the same 7 years to develop their OWN style, their own masterpiece. If you believe Martin's bullshit, that VLV is their Unforgettable Fire, and that some Eternal Classic is on the horizon, more power to you.
But I think it's foolish to expect. Martin just doesn't have the same kind of wandering spirit that Bono does. Bono was married with kids, too, but him and Ali were getting hardcore, humbling experiences in Central America and Africa around the same time in his career. He had still not reconciled his issues with his parents (and arguably still hasn't). Martin putting colored band-aids on his finger, writing "fair trade" on his hand and marrying a posh American movie star ain't the same thing. There also isn't a briliant dynamo in his band like The Edge (or Jonny Greenwood). So where exactly is this future masterpiece supposed to come from?
Come ON, Phanan. You know so much better than to make that argument. I'm not arguing with some dumbass on myspace here.
Don't be biased. Ask yourself: would I defend Hinder in this manner? Because you can transpose this argument to any shit artist who had a hit. "Brilliant single" does not mean "song that reached #1".
I'm talking about most of the reviews I've seen for the song. It appears that a lot of people genuinely like it. Your fellow musketeer LMP seems to agree.
With any other band, I'd agree. The thing with Coldplay is -- and I am a fan, mind you -- they are SO obviously HUGE U2 fans that it affects almost everything they do. I think it's part of their charm. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Coldplay is like a little puppy that tags at U2's heels, and makes great songs as a result.
The title track seems to be doing quite well.
Rob33, a dead horse cannot be made any deader by repeated beatings. It's already dead.