X & Y could have almost been a good album if...

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

Lancemc

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
17,691
Location
Ba Sing Se
Chris Martin never used his falsetto...

...and he wrote decent lyrics...

...and the band played better music...

...and the weren't obsessed with sounding like U2...

...and they grew some balls...

But not, I'm just joking (sorta) will all that. But seriously, at least half the songs on this album would have sounded much better if he hadn't sung in his weak, grating falsetto. Christ, even Micheal Stipe has a better falsetto (if you don't get this, go listen to 'Tongue' off Monster and you'll undrestand that Micheal Stipe really doesn't have a good falsetto).

But really, I mean, Martin has proven in the past to have a decently strong and interesting voice...when he actually sings like a real rock frontman should. So that's my theory. X & Y might actually be an enjoyable listen if it was ridden of Chris Martin's horrid falsetto.

...and all the shitty lyrics.
 
Lancemc said:


So do I. Just not Chris Martin's. At least not when he uses it on nearly every song on a 12-song album. :no:

:up:

I will try to fix you.

That album's failure was a combination of the ridiculous hype, vocals, lyrics, arrogance, and overall blandness.

Coldplay took a play out of the Oasis playbook called "Be Here Now."
 
I don't mind the falsetto or the poppy music

they peaked and made a fantastic record with A rush of blood....:drool:

the way I see it they felt pressure and were pressured into making X&Y....

they tried to "reinvent the wheel "and failed miserably ......

Anyway....two good albums and one shitty one

I think we can forgive them for X&Y :wink:...


I can't wait for whats next.... :drool:


the good thing is the band too knows that X&Y didn't live up to expectations
 
Another good thing is that Brian Eno is producing their next album.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


:up:

I will try to fix you.

That album's failure was a combination of the ridiculous hype, vocals, lyrics, arrogance, and overall blandness.

Coldplay took a play out of the Oasis playbook called "Be Here Now."

All of this is very true. If the band weren't complete posers that might help as well, but they have made two other albums that were more enjoyable than X&Y, so :down: to it.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
Another good thing is that Brian Eno is producing their next album.

It'd be even better of Brian Eno were producing U2's next album. :drool:
 
Lancemc said:
Or Nigel...:combust:

That would be very interesting. I loved his work on McCartney's last album moreso than the last 2 Radiohead albums.

Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac were terribly produced albums compared to Kid A and OK Computer.
 
Lancemc said:


It'd be even better of Brian Eno were producing U2's next album. :drool:

:crack:

I almost wish that U2 would make one really crappy record with Eno (ATYCLB was crappy by U2 standards, but it obviously wasn't crappy enough for people to take notice of it) just so everyone here could see that Eno doesn't make U2. With Rubin, U2 will make an album that we can all be proud of, at the very least. U2's supposed "final masterpiece" (according to interference members) was Pop, an album not recorded with Eno, so can we all just give it a rest?
 
LemonMelon said:


Can you tell me why not? :wink:

Every album after Pop has been called a masterpiece....when none of them have
been...... at least IMO

plus if U2 keeps going on their "adult contemporary route"...then :yawn:
 
xaviMF22 said:


Every album after Pop has been called a masterpiece....when none of them have
been...... at least IMO

plus if U2 keeps going on their "adult contemporary route"...then :yawn:

At least it's a new direction. Every phase U2 has been in is indicative of where they are in their lives; as they get older, I expect them to make music that fits their current beliefs, skills, etc...

(that could be the first time a semicolon was used in this forum. :wink: )
 
xaviMF22 said:


Every album after Pop has been called a masterpiece....when none of them have
been...... at least IMO

plus if U2 keeps going on their "adult contemporary route"...then :yawn:

The adult contemporary thing is a bunch of crap. They have dipped their toes in such waters before, but they have also pulled some experiments since then that negate that direction. It makes about as much sense as calling Radiohead IDM because of Backdrifts, The Gloaming, and Sit Down Stand Up.
 
anyway back on topic

X&Y could have been good if:

  • They hadn't overproduced some songs
  • Got rid of "What if"
  • trashed "Fix you"
  • "A message" should have been canned
  • Had never written "swallowed in the
    sea":yuck:
  • Chris could write better lyrics
  • Mr. Buckland didn't try to sound like The Edge
 
Last edited:
I agree with pretty much everything said about X&Y here. I actually think it gets bashed a little bit too often here (it wasn't THAT bad), but I really feel no need to defend it. It was a dud.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:

Every phase U2 has been in is indicative of where they are in their lives; as they get older, I expect them to make music that fits their current beliefs, skills, etc...

Nice point; they cannot be expected to make the equivalent of Achtung Baby everytime that they enter a studio.
As for X&Y, I tend to enjoy it.:reject: It is certainly formulaic, and, in places, horrifically saccharine, but it is certainly not terrible. Then again, I have never been one to acclaim A Rush of Blood to the Head as a masterpiece either, so the disparity for me between the two is not very large.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


At least it's a new direction. Every phase U2 has been in is indicative of where they are in their lives; as they get older, I expect them to make music that fits their current beliefs, skills, etc...


well this "new direction" got old :wink:

anyway to me it seems they want to make radio friendly music....
and I don't see them changing because they have been very successful at it

anyway whateva :wink:
 
This is also why X&Y failed:

Parachutes - great debut record, tons of well-made pop songs; nothing too musically interesting though.

A Rush of Blood... - A step in a new direction; the songwriting of Parachutes with more advanced music to support it.

X&Y - Uhm... basically a sidestep/step in the wrong direction. Where's the evolution from A Rush of Blood...? Ripping off City of Blinding Lights and a Kraftwerk song and marketing it as your next big singles isn't a good thing.
 
cdisantis83 said:


\A Rush of Blood to the Head as a masterpiece either, so the disparity for me between the two is not very large.

I really think its a masterpiece:yes:

politik----> Amsterdam
An epic opener to a fantastic closer

from start to finish with 1 weak track [A Whisper]..:wink:..but other than that they peaked
during this era:drool:
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


Ripping off City of Blinding Lights and a Kraftwerk song and marketing it as your next big singles isn't a good thing.

yea the whole plagiarism thing is :mad:

they really want to be Oasis :lol:

don't they??
 
I think a point to be made here is that not every band evolves throughout their careers. U2, Radiohead, and Pink Floyd fans tend to take progressive development through experimentation for granted; in my mind, however, Coldplay simply does not have that type of potential. I believe that they are likely to languish in Rush of Blood to the Head type material for the rest of their career.
 
Here's some SAT Practice:

The Beatles are to Oasis
as
U2 is to:

A) Coldplay
B) Coldplay
C) Coldplay
D) Tone Loc

What? She like to do da Wild Thang. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom