U2 live vs. Coldplay live

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Of all the live gigs I've seen, only Pearl Jam can even approach U2. I did see Live in a club, touring for the Mental Jewelry record, and they kicked ass...but not on the U2 or even PJ level.

Nirvana live was also incredible, but more for the crowd...the band was pretty subdued onstage I though.
 
ScooterXX7 said:
Fuck that, Coldplay sucks. Pearl Jam live is awesome.

first things first. kudos to the above person for exercizing maturity & tact. i think i speak for most people when i say that we really appreciate these kind of opinions....

with that out of the way, i just got back from my first coldplay show. this was my first concert since seeing U2 several times last year and i was kind of worried that it was going to be a bit of a let down compared to the vertigo tour. while i'll confess that the show didn't compare to U2's in the scope or depth, it was in it's own right a damn good show. considering coldplay has only been around for a few years they've got a pretty decent following, a decent stage presence, and put together a fantastic (if only 90 minute) set list. my only real gripe was the crowd--pretty lame group. virtually everyone was just sitting and watching the show like they were at a cabaret act. oh well...what can you expect in NH, right? :shrug:
 
Coldplay vs U2 live...

The question should rather be what we think of Coldplay copying U2's style of life performance...

Pearl Jam live rulez by the way!!
 
Saw U2 last year twice. Saw Coldplay once. both were good, but Coldplay really doesn't move me the way U2 does. I think part of it has to do with I don't know WTF Coldplay are singing about half the time. Its either cryptic or a bunch of words thrown together to melodies, that don't make sense. At least the most recent album is like that. Parachutes and A Rush of Blood to the Head, were great.

But U2 is an experience. Coldplay is just a concert. I think I'd put the Green Day concert I saw, above Coldplay. All 3 were great though.
 
I have to agree that when I saw them a couple of months ago Coldplay did not impresss me. Chris Martin really doesn't know how to play to a stadium crowd. It seemed like they would be better at a theatre. At first I thought it was just that I like U2 better but then I remembered seeing Peter Gabriel in the same venue and remembered how moving that show was, so it really is something that certain artists have that others don't.
 
Coldplay is a moderately good live show with a large screen.
U2 is a fucking cult gathering with 20,000 equally obsessed crazies.

There is nothing like a U2 show. I mean let's face it, people either really like U2 or really hate them. Guess which category the crowd live is.
 
It is an experience, I saw U2 once in twickenham, and the funny thing is I don't remember any of it. I rocked out during SBS and Pride though. It was just overwhelming.
 
I saw Coldplay for the third time this past summer. My brother and I turned to each other during each song and virtually in-sync said thing such as, "Popmart," "Zoo TV," "Elevation" etc. Every effect - save the weird spot light/tiger thing - during a vast majority of the songs were "borrowed" from previous U2 tours. I know that all concerts are going to have some similar elements (bands, music, lights, maybe a jumpy singer etc) but this was a bit too much. Plus, Chris needs to grow some balls. He said something totally inoffensive about Capital Records but then later he apologized hoping that no one had thought he was criticizing their label.
They are one of the better bands, but they're not going to be better than U2 (which is their stated goal) if they just copy U2.
 
cypress said:


What worries me most was their performance at the grammy's. I didn't like the singer going out into the crowd ala Bono when they have already been accused of trying to "copy" U2's sound. If they ever want to escape that accusation then they need to blaze their own path a little more.

Yes, once Chris Martin and Johnny Buckland stop overly trying being Bono and Edge...they could have something going on.
 
Just saw Coldplay for the second time two weeks ago here in NJ... great show, but too short, then again they only have three albums. Chris Martin is a good showman, but it does seem he is channeling Bono a bit when he walks around the stage. I must say though, he does have his own quirky style when he plays the piano. He also likes to skip around... interesting. Plus, for all our bickering on this forum about setlists being the same... I saw them in September at MSG, and aside from Chris Martin's hair being longer, and the bassist having a bit of a beard... it was the same show last week, except for one song. I saw U2 six times over the tour, I would say that 12-14 songs were the same each time, while I heard probably 10-12 were rotated, or were unique.
 
MissMoo said:
I have to agree that when I saw them a couple of months ago Coldplay did not impresss me. Chris Martin really doesn't know how to play to a stadium crowd. It seemed like they would be better at a theatre. At first I thought it was just that I like U2 better but then I remembered seeing Peter Gabriel in the same venue and remembered how moving that show was, so it really is something that certain artists have that others don't.

Last 4 concerts I've seen:

U2 (well 2x)
Bruce Springsteen
Coldplay
Peter Gabriel

Coldplay live just doesn't cut it ... I really enjoy their music, BUT the cult of personality runs flat.

Other three are experiences! Of course, especially U2. Nothing had compared to seeing Gabriel live for me, until Zoo TV (first time I got tix for long time U2 fan). Now nothing compares.

It's just not really even fair to compare Coldplay to the boys.
 
Hey I'm ready for this to not be U2, but does anyone have any idea what time they actually go on? the ticket is for 8, and i'm assuming that's when Richard Ashcroft comes on. I am opening up my own business this Saturday, and I have been working 12-15 hours a day, and I was hoping to sneak out for the show, so i'm trying to plan accordingly. any good words?

can you email me?

northwalesrc@yahoo.com
 
scottyT said:
Hey I'm ready for this to not be U2, but does anyone have any idea what time they actually go on? the ticket is for 8, and i'm assuming that's when Richard Ashcroft comes on. I am opening up my own business this Saturday, and I have been working 12-15 hours a day, and I was hoping to sneak out for the show, so i'm trying to plan accordingly. any good words?

can you email me?

northwalesrc@yahoo.com

pretty much the same setup as U2: Ashcroft from 7:30-8:15, band on the stage by 9pm. if you can, though, catch richard...he's a pretty talented guy.
 
scottyT said:
Hey I'm ready for this to not be U2, but does anyone have any idea what time they actually go on? the ticket is for 8, and i'm assuming that's when Richard Ashcroft comes on. I am opening up my own business this Saturday, and I have been working 12-15 hours a day, and I was hoping to sneak out for the show, so i'm trying to plan accordingly. any good words?

can you email me?

northwalesrc@yahoo.com

If the ticket start says 8, then Ashcroft will come on precisely at 8 (not 7:30 like the previous poster said). The ticket time for the NJ show was 8 and that was when he came on. Coldplay came on 9:25-9:30.
 
i'd like to catch Ashcroft, i was a big verve fan, but i don't know if i'll be able to get down in time. It's my goal, but we'll see.... lots of running shoes, socks and apparel to put into inventory, and a store to make pretty.

Thanks so much guys for your info!
 
yes, agreed, we all love u2. they are excellent live, but i tell you what, i saw janes addiction in '91 and they put on the best live show i've ever seen. the energy surpassed u2 on the vertigo tour. maybe not the energy on the joshua tree tour, but definately on the vertigo tour
 
U2 does know something, never book openers better than them (even if they rock, ie: the arcade fire, the killers, franz...).

Coldplay has/had Richard Ashcroft and Fiona Apple, so that's not really a good idea.
 
I've seen Coldplay once, last Summer early on their XYZ tour and in some ways, their set reminded me a bit at least superficially of U2 during the Unforgettable Fire tour.

Really though, the show was alright but nothing nearly as good as even the worst U2 show I've witnessed in the 25 years of seeing them.

Now bear in mind, while I like much of their music and have all 3 albums, I wouldn't call myself a serious fan of the band so my perspective is completely unbiased and a bit uninformed when it comes to the specifics of the band.

The show started off strong but after the second tune "Yellow," things kinda settled into monotony for the next 45 minutes or so. At one point halfway through the show playing to a packed but really listless amphitheater, singer Chris Martin almost apologetically said that his band is as "soft rock as it gets" and went on to say the next few songs would be so soft, it could be called "feather rock." The show picked up a bit late in the set when they played an acoustic version of some song they claimed to have written for Johnny Cash who died before he could record it along with a decent version of Cash's "Ring of Fire."

While there's some indication listening to their albums that Coldplay wanna be the next U2 at least superficially, it's in parts of their live show where that point becomes crystal clear. Problem is, Coldplay is to U2 what Journey is to Led Zeppelin. When they closed their main set with an extended, almost "Where The Streets Have No Name" style epic version of "Clocks,"the audience really came alive, but unlike U2, Coldplay really only have maybe 3 songs that really are decent classics to the casual listener like myself while the rest are similar sounding, uplifting/whiner tunes so if you're a casual fan like my wife and I are as well as what appeared to be a large portion of the audience, it's slooooow going most of the show. Everyone seated around us came and went several times for beer and liquor runs and many people were heading back to their cars before the encore.

And Martin's stage presence and shtick is probably among the lamest stuff I've seen a singer pull off on a stage in a long time. Sometimes he'd do this awkward one-legged hop/dance thing that he must have learned from Ashley Simpson. When he plays the piano, he either hunches over it like he's suffering from some kind of skeletal disease or he dry humps it on the seat like he's either a dog with worms dragging ass on the carpet or he's cornholing the keyboard like a rabbit. The rest of the band are nondescript players who look like Starbucks regulars.

The stage and visual production was pretty sparse, mostly just a large curved video wall behind the band that displayed abstract images of star fields and mostly b/w images of the band.

All in all, one of the more disappointingly boring shows I've seen in years.

T.B.
 
drbrian said:
yes, agreed, we all love u2. they are excellent live, but i tell you what, i saw janes addiction in '91 and they put on the best live show i've ever seen. the energy surpassed u2 on the vertigo tour. maybe not the energy on the joshua tree tour, but definately on the vertigo tour

Janes Addicition were an amazing live act. I was lucky enough to see them a few times
 
Bah, of course U2 is superior cause Ilike them and Coldplay is just whatever to me.
Still, just because they have more experience doesn't mean their live shows automatically are better. Plenty of young, fresh acts who blow away older experienced acts. Just look at the original Live Aid, when with the exception of Queen, it were the new bands who outperformed the old ones.

But why has it always have to be U2 vs. Coldplay? Surely their are other more exciting matchups. How about U2 vs. System of a Down live?
 
I think Coldplay is great live but the one thing that will hold them back is that Chris Martin has a bad voice and he's a fucking tool in concert and I love Coldplay.
 
I refuse to get drawn into this U2 vs Coldplay argument (which has to be the lamest excuse for an argument ever put forth on this board) but I will take exception with this hypothesis of "oh the audience was unfamilar with the material so they didnt' get into it" or "they didn't know the songs so the audience just sat there" yada yada.

I know from my own experience I have seen acts where I have been unfamiliar with the majority of their work, outside of say their singles: case in point recently: PJ Harvey, Hothouse Flowers, Daniel Lanois. I have been transfixed by all these shows and really got into the music, whether that means bopping around or not.

I think a lame audience is a lame audience, let's not use this excuse that people can't judge a song the first time they hear it.

Or maybe American audiences are dumber than most :shrug:
 
blueeyedgirl said:
Or maybe American audiences are dumber than most :shrug:

Well...the US does have an idiot for a president, and he was elected*, so.... :|





(well...once)
 
Back
Top Bottom