Coldplay X&Y: Best U2 record U2 never made. I miss U2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
ImOuttaControl said:


Agree completely. I even, dare say, that I hear much more of progression between those two albums than "Boy" and "October," or even "Boy" to "War." :reject:

Agreed. U2 took much more time to 'grow' than Coldplay has. Coldplay has done in two albums what U2 took 3-4 to do (change their sound considerably).
 
zwervers2 said:
I don;t see how Coldplay can be compared to U2 for a couple of reasons.....

1)
U2 released their first 5 records in +- 7 years
Coldplay has released 2 albums plus the new one in 5 years...give it 3 years for the next one so 4 records in 8 years.

2)
Bono vs Chris Martin (songwriter)

at the age of 26 bono has penned down boy, october, war, uf, the joshua tree....if you look at the classics of those albums: i will follow, unforgettable fire, sbs, new yearsday, pride, bad, streets, with or without, still haven't found it's unbelievable...and those are classics for the non diehards...

Coldplay classics up till this point: yellow, in my place, clocks, trouble...a very mediocre speed of light is not a instant classic like in my place which when I first heared it struck me like a lightningstorm(very impressive first single)

Let's remember that the music scene was much different in the early 80s than it was today. Look at any band today and there are much larger gaps between records than there were 25 years ago. Up until probably the last 15 years it was customary for an artist to release albums fairly quickly. Now, each album is such a huge marketing production that it's an EVENT and there is much more pressure on the artist to make every album THE album.

October was released a year after Boy. It shows. It's a weak album. If Coldplay released an 'October'-like album after Parachutes, in this music environment, they would never have the chance to release a third. The music industry is much more fickle today. Bono has said that in speeches - he has said, 'A band like U2 could never exist today.' And he's absolutely right. Coldplay, nor any other band, could release an album every single year and maintain the quality necessary to compete in today's market.

Also, keep in mind that U2 did not achieve 'Coldplay-like' fame until roughly 1984-1985. Since they were mostly an indie act up until War/Unforgettable Fire they had much more time to focus on album writing and much less pressure for every album to be huge. What happened after Unforgettable Fire? Albums were spaced much further apart (with the exceptions of JT-R & H and AB-Zooropa, but in both cases the second albums in these pairings were semi-throwaways.) A typical U2 album takes about 4 years to gestate these days.

Cut Coldplay some slack. This isn't 1980. Times have changed.

-Miggy
 
Miggy D said:


Let's remember that the music scene was much different in the early 80s than it was today. Look at any band today and there are much larger gaps between records than there were 25 years ago. Up until probably the last 15 years it was customary for an artist to release albums fairly quickly. Now, each album is such a huge marketing production that it's an EVENT and there is much more pressure on the artist to make every album THE album.

October was released a year after Boy. It shows. It's a weak album. If Coldplay released an 'October'-like album after Parachutes, in this music environment, they would never have the chance to release a third. The music industry is much more fickle today. Bono has said that in speeches - he has said, 'A band like U2 could never exist today.' And he's absolutely right. Coldplay, nor any other band, could release an album every single year and maintain the quality necessary to compete in today's market.

Also, keep in mind that U2 did not achieve 'Coldplay-like' fame until roughly 1984-1985. Since they were mostly an indie act up until War/Unforgettable Fire they had much more time to focus on album writing and much less pressure for every album to be huge. What happened after Unforgettable Fire? Albums were spaced much further apart (with the exceptions of JT-R & H and AB-Zooropa, but in both cases the second albums in these pairings were semi-throwaways.) A typical U2 album takes about 4 years to gestate these days.

Cut Coldplay some slack. This isn't 1980. Times have changed.

-Miggy

You are absolutely right Miggy when you say times have changed.that's why it's almost impossible to compare. I only wanted to indicate that u2 showed great strenth at a very young age. something that has nothing to do with how the state of music is or was....sbs,nyd pride, uf etc were all written at or before the age of 23, an age when coldplay's first album was released....so in that perspective etc etc...

Coldplay are good but not great, radiohead are great...and I'm wearing a coldplayshirt now.....:wink:
 
Look, love or loathe Coldplay, you have to admit they are writing some music that is enchanting many people in the world.

People are enjoying it, and one only needs to look into the eyes of the fans on the official Coldplay DVD. They aren't fans of Coldplay because it is a fashionable thing to be, they truly love this band and the sound they are producing.

Like U2, Coldplay are not necessarily a fashionable band. People don't buy their records or see them live based on a desire to be identified as a Coldplay fan.

This pathetic form of fandom is reserved for modern "punk" bands such as Simple Plan, for manufactured artists such as Jesse McCartney, and for "nu-metal" bands such as Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit. (This is not a criticism of Linkin Park, just a criticism of some of the "fans" at their gigs.)

Not many current bands have an album thathas been as eagerly anticipated as X & Y.

Coldplay must be doing something right, and in a world where "image is (almost) everything", I applaud them for being in a band that doesn't necessary conform to a certain sub-genre.

If you don't like their music, that's all ok. I can't say I have much time for the Dave Matthews Band or even the Rolling Stones, yet I could be subjected to the wrath of some interferencers based on my taste in rock and roll.

I, for one, find Coldplay's prescence refreshing in the cruel and bland world of "noughties" music.
 
Having not heard the new Coldplay album, i'm not in a position to say whether or not it's better than HTDAAB, but is it really that hard to admit that Coldplay might be capable of producing a better album that U2 this time round? This doesn't make HTDAAB a bad album by default.
In my mind, Coldplay deseve recognition here in their own right for what the material they've put out in the past, the material they're putting out now, and whatever the hell they put out in the future. Every band draws influence from somewhere - better from a band like U2 than someone else who we all don't care for :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I have to say, having heard most of X&Y, that Speed of Sound is about the best song from the album. I don't think they can follow In My Place or Clocks. Quite surprised at the dislike towards HTDAAB. Imho it's the best album along with Joshua Tree. beau2ifulday, i'll be at the June 19th Twickenham show. Lucky ur going to both!
 
teebee said:
well, as much as I have poo-pooed the new U2 album, it's certainly better than what Coldplay would turn out at 45 years old. And I love Coldplay ... but you have to keep in mind it's not a fair fight anymore.

I loved UF... not JT.

I love HTDAAB.

If the new Coldplay is like JT, sorry, probably won't like it.

In fact, I haven't liked much Coldplay at all. Loved "Clocks" - bought the CD. Hated everything but "Clocks".

Maybe Coldplay is the "new U2", but as of this moment, they haven't inspired me.
 
am22884 said:
I have to say, having heard most of X&Y, that Speed of Sound is about the best song from the album. I don't think they can follow In My Place or Clocks.

Have you heard the live shows or actual studio songs? I've heard some of the live stuff and it's pretty unfair to judge the album on those not-so good recordings.

Speed of Sound the best from the album? Every review I've read so far said that "Speed of Sound" is the bridge track between AROBTTH and X & Y. They have also said the album isn't as immediate at previous Coldplay albums. I personally hope this is the case, because I often find my favorite music takes time to get into. Achtung Baby took a long time for me to really get into, and now it's my favorite album. Pop took a REALLY long time to get into, and it's now my 2nd favorite album. Joshua Tree, on the other hand, was so easy to get into and I very rarely listen to it.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


Have you heard the live shows or actual studio songs? I've heard some of the live stuff and it's pretty unfair to judge the album on those not-so good recordings.

Speed of Sound the best from the album? Every review I've read so far said that "Speed of Sound" is the bridge track between AROBTTH and X & Y. They have also said the album isn't as immediate at previous Coldplay albums. I personally hope this is the case, because I often find my favorite music takes time to get into. Achtung Baby took a long time for me to really get into, and now it's my favorite album. Pop took a REALLY long time to get into, and it's now my 2nd favorite album. Joshua Tree, on the other hand, was so easy to get into and I very rarely listen to it.

Excuses, Excuses I have heard four tracks from the new Album(the non live tracks) and it does sound pretty similar to Rush Of Blood...
People are aloud to have an opinion man, you can't change everyone's view if that be negative to what you are thinking. Your very defensive when it comes to people criticising Coldplay. Coldplay make some good music but I don't find there music inspiring as compared to U2 and I think alot of U2 fans can see that.. not that all do. I actually like Coldplay, but at the same time the music doesn't inspire me like U2's does!


Cheers
 
LuvandPeace1980 said:


Excuses, Excuses I have heard four tracks from the new Album(the non live tracks) and it does sound pretty similar to Rush Of Blood...
People are aloud to have an opinion man, you can't change everyone's view if that be negative to what you are thinking. Your very defensive when it comes to people criticising Coldplay. Coldplay make some good music but I don't find there music inspiring as compared to U2 and I think alot of U2 fans can see that.. not that all do. I actually like Coldplay, but at the same time the music doesn't inspire me like U2's does!


Cheers

LOL.

Did I make an excuse for Coldplay? No. I was simply asking if they'd heard the studio or the live tracks. Because it would be unfair to judge on the widely circulated live tracks out there (for example, even with U2 I HATED ABOY and COBL when I heard the first live tracks last fall) Then I went on to say that I'd prefer an album that is less immediate than AROBTTH because I enjoy that type of album more.

How is that being defensive again? ahh, it wasn't; that's right. Judging from your reaction to my innocent question, you're the one who is pretty defensive IMO.

I criticize Coldplay all the time on Coldplaying.com and Coldplay.com. I think Martin needs to try some new vocal approaches and if they want to be "the biggest band in the world" they'll have to learn how to rock out; because I admit I tire of the slower songs. It's just the criticms of Coldplay on this site are mainly out of defensiveness; like people are so afraid that a band might become more popular than U2 or something--which WILL happen someday. So many have already replied to this topic with posts like "U2 was much bigger at this point in their career" (which if you look at sales and critical acclaim is just plain incorrect) and stuff like "Coldplay is nothing compared to U2 and never will be!" Now how dumb is that? I want to take a ride in that time machine. Like them or not, they are a big band. If this album and maybe another one after that are good, maybe they will add "great band" along with being a big band. I'm curious. If U2 were to retire at the end of the Vertigo Tour, who would you consider the biggest band in the world to be? Taking critical acclaim, popularity, actually being relevant?
 
Last edited:
Have to agree that Coldplay doesn't inspire like U2, although they are very good. I have heard 2 or 3 from the album and the other live recordings you mentioned, but in my opinion music becomes something else live. Many of U2's songs are even better live, im thinking Streets, Bloody Sunday etc. I do hope it's a great album for as Bono said "it will be really borring if in 5 years we are still the best band" I could live with it though....
 
am22884 said:
I have heard 2 or 3 from the album and the other live recordings you mentioned, but in my opinion music becomes something else live. Many of U2's songs are even better live, im thinking Streets, Bloody Sunday etc. I do hope it's a great album for as Bono said "it will be really borring if in 5 years we are still the best band" I could live with it though....

I guess time will tell, the album comes out in only a couple weeks. I'll be the first one to say if it's shit after all this hype. As for Coldplay live: I've never seen them live and hope to this fall. If their DVD is any indication, they seem like a pretty awesome live band where their songs really do take off.
 
ImOuttaControl, if you mean the coldplay: live from sydney DVD, is it any good??. Keep meaning to pick it up, but i've heard mixed reviews about it. Agree that you can't really compare Coldplay to U2. They both come from different times & perspectives. I think the amazing thing is U2 are still going that strongly that they compete with bands some 20 odd years after they began. Throw in some Stereophonics and Embrace along with Coldplay and U2 and you'll have me doing some bad karaoke ;)
 
am22884 said:
ImOuttaControl, if you mean the coldplay: live from sydney DVD, is it any good??. Keep meaning to pick it up, but i've heard mixed reviews about it. Agree that you can't really compare Coldplay to U2. They both come from different times & perspectives. I think the amazing thing is U2 are still going that strongly that they compete with bands some 20 odd years after they began. Throw in some Stereophonics and Embrace along with Coldplay and U2 and you'll have me doing some bad karaoke ;)

Yep, the dvd is called simply "Coldplay Live 2003," but it was filmed over 2 nights in Sydney I think. It comes with a live CD which is also cool. I would definitely pick it up, it has absolutely awesome versions of Don't Panic, Amsterdam, Politik, Moses, and all their hits like Clocks, Yellow, The Scientist...ect sound awesome also. They also comes across as much more "rocking" live than on CD. It's got some cool documentary stuff too. Definitely worth the money.
 
Coldplays new album im certain will sell well but its much easier to sell records and stay "relevent" when you are young like Coldplay is because the majority of the world unfairly says that rock music is a young man or womans game. The real test will be in 10 years when Coldplay are no longer "the in thing".

Coldplay will in the end be considered a great band for the time period the test for them is if they will be considered a great band of all time periods like U2 has become.
 
ImOuttaControl said:
I guess time will tell, the album comes out in only a couple weeks. I'll be the first one to say if it's shit after all this hype. As for Coldplay live: I've never seen them live and hope to this fall. If their DVD is any indication, they seem like a pretty awesome live band where their songs really do take off.

I think I was more offensive in that last post :p
I have seen that DVD and I think that Coldplay are great musicians and they play very well, even more precise than alot of U2 concerts. However it bored me, it wasn't inspiring like a U2 concert or DVD and there was very little crowd interaction, Chris Martin has no leadership vibe.
The good thing about a U2 concert is that you could go there or watch it on DVD and not know one song ie: never heard one ever(in theory I mean) and have the night of your life with Bono commanding centre stage jumping around like a cat and a bull or throwing a few witty comments and some inspiring stories, or just random shit. Whatever he does it keeps you looking at him, it's inspiring and most of all entertaining.
Most other concerts, including Coldplay's you need to know the songs or a few of them to have a really great time. I liked their DVD, but I don't get after watching it and feel like I have just witnessed something special.

Cheers
 
I'm a big Coldplay fan in addition to being a U2 fan, and I have to say, I'm getting kinda tired of these "Coldplay vs. U2" threads. I see them on both the Coldplay and U2 message boards... just excuses for fans of one band to rant out the other band.

That said, I've had an absolutely amazing past two nights. I was lucky enough to be able to see Coldplay in their small buzz gig at the Beacon Theatre two nights ago, the night before I saw U2 at CAA. Coldplay can't compare to what U2 has to offer live. BUT, they do have some pretty damn good songs. The new songs sound absolutely amazing, and I'm looking more forward to X&Y than ever. I can tell they've taken a leap forward... a couple of the songs were heavily electronica-leaning that's a bit of a departure from what we know from them, but they still sounded great.

I feel like they're really taking off now, which is really exciting. It's a different kind of excitement from what we might experience with U2 in this day and age, but nonetheless, you have to admit it's exciting.
 
COLDPLAY is the most overrated band on the planet. the sound is too much polished. i just don't like this. the same as the sound of U2 for their last two albums, too much polished...:sad:
 
I take it you've never heard 'The Joshua Tree' or 'The Unforgettable Fire' then? :wink: come on, a perfect, 'polished' sound never hurt, anyone!
 
I'm a big Coldplay band and saw them live last tour. They have nothing on U2 live. 90% of the crowd sat and watched. It felt like I was at a Rod Stewart concert or even a opera. There music is so hard to dance and jump around too. On top of that, Chris Martin is a very overated singer. His voice is nothing compared to Bono. Speed of Sound is nothing but B-side material compared to there previous material. That song does nothing for me.
 
zoopop said:
I'm a big Coldplay band and saw them live last tour. They have nothing on U2 live. 90% of the crowd sat and watched. It felt like I was at a Rod Stewart concert or even a opera. There music is so hard to dance and jump around too. On top of that, Chris Martin is a very overated singer. His voice is nothing compared to Bono. Speed of Sound is nothing but B-side material compared to there previous material. That song does nothing for me.

pretty fair assessment. i saw coldplay live as well and was not too overwhelmed. the songs were played nearly identical to the album and there was little interaction with martin to the crowd. i mean, it was an alright show, but nothing to really go bonkers about. the songs were fine, but i'd prefer listening to the album version of the songs. live, they didn't do anything for me.

and i hate speed of sound.
 
zoopop said:
I'm a big Coldplay band and saw them live last tour. They have nothing on U2 live. 90% of the crowd sat and watched. It felt like I was at a Rod Stewart concert or even a opera. There music is so hard to dance and jump around too. On top of that, Chris Martin is a very overated singer. His voice is nothing compared to Bono. Speed of Sound is nothing but B-side material compared to there previous material. That song does nothing for me.

That sucks that so much of the crowd was sitting down. I couldn't imagine sitting down at a concert. :| I guess that's what they get for having so many slower songs though.

I don't think the Chris Martin is overrated though. Yeah he doesn't have the range that Bono has, but in the last 5 years it's pretty safe to say he has one of the most easily recognizable voices out there.
 
jacobus said:
COLDPLAY is the most overrated band on the planet. the sound is too much polished. i just don't like this. the same as the sound of U2 for their last two albums, too much polished...:sad:


then go listen to ornette coleman.
 
LOL... don't most Coldplay fans at Coldplay concerts sit down. I remember Martin telling the people in the audience on the Coldplay live CD to stand up. Slow songs will do that.


Sngs sounding just like they do on the CD is neither a bad thing or good thing. Part of Coldplay's appeal to me is the fact that they truly represent "minimalist" music.
 
A day or so ago, I was going on a trip to the Memorial University of Newfoundland with some of my fellow graduates. "Speed of Sound" came on the radio while we were on the bus, and a couple people turned to me and asked what the song's name was. So I told them what it was and who it was by and some of them looked surprised. I asked them why they automatically turned to me, and one guy said, "Because it sounded a lot like U2." The others agreed with him.

That says it all. :| Don't get me wrong, I really like Coldplay, but there are times when I feel like they're nothing more than a watered down imitation of U2. And, judging by the episode on the bus, people who aren't even fans of both bands feel the same way too.
 
I don't care about Coldplay becoming bigger than U2, I just don't want to see Chris Martin in leather trousers:|
 
ZeroDude said:
I don't care about Coldplay becoming bigger than U2, I just don't want to see Chris Martin in leather trousers:|

Finally someone got it right :up:
 
Back
Top Bottom