Interesting thing written, talks a lot about U2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-08-2005, 05:16 PM   #1
War Child
 
labell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 632
Local Time: 12:15 AM
Interesting thing written, talks a lot about U2

From coldplaying.com fourm

Quote:



why is it that a lot of coldplay fans love radiohead and never say anything bad about them...but a lot of radiohead fans (and readiohead themselves!) arn't the biggest fans of coldplay? I've heard it's because the radiohead crowd believes coldplay is just a "wannabe". I don't believe that for a second. But I still like radiohead. I just wish they would all stop being such asses about coldplay.



Now this is a myth. Taste is taste. Thom has not really been into guitar rock much, except his own band, since the Pixies broke up. Phil even likes Athlete, so I'm sure he's at least a Parachutes fan, and Ed loves U2 and anthemic rock n roll. I would not be surprised if that half of the band appreciates Coldplay's first two albums, maybe even this one.

Musical taste aside, reporters try to provoke people in interviews. They try to get Chris to say he hates Thom, and they try to get Thom to say he hates Chris. They want a Gallagher style feud, but it's not gonna happen. Still, we all know Thom Yorke is a bit unpredictable in interviews sometimes. (Fans of Chris Martin's mood swings don't have a leg to stand on in criticizing Thom for mental health, though, so please don't).

What he said, in response to a leading question, was about like this: "You become lifestyle music whether you want to or not. Coldplay is an example right now."

Is he criticizing Coldplay? No, he's not passing any sort of judgment on their songs, he's just saying it's sad the way the marketing campaign has grown so big the intentions of the music itself are obscured. The only time when Thom specifically had a go at another band for sounding so much like him it made him sick, was a few years ago. And it wasn't Coldplay, it was Muse. Who don't sound like Radiohead now, but around Showbiz, Matt Bellamy was basically Thom crossed with Jeff Buckley.

One reason he made his voice sound strange on Kid A was he was sick of turning on the radio and hearing his disembodied self singing about things he didn't care about. He was once depressed by "fridge buzz" radio, but imagine feeling like he'd become a part of it, just due to other bands' music.

But Coldplay hadn't even released their first single until Kid A was done. Most likely it was Travis' popularity that inspired the voice change. And while I doubt he's a fan of Travis' music, he can't hate them personally too much, or he wouldn't work with the same producer. Thom just could not sing like that, write that kind of song anymore, because his territory had been pulled out from under him and appropriated by other people. But not Coldplay. Coldplay was a new band, so the territory was new for them, and as I said, they came around too late to have any impact on Radiohead's evolution.

I don't know what Chris is really about yet. But let's look at Bono. Bono would not be phased by the idea that his work has become "lifestyle music," he would love it. Bono has a completely opposite philosophy from Thom. I think both of their views (if not recent actual music by U2, or Radiohead for that matter) have lots of integrity. Bono wants U2 to be primarily a communal experience, inclusive of everyone. How good an album is is determined by how popular it is, but not popular in a monetary sense, something purer. Bono is serious, he doesn't write albums JUST to pander (even if they now sound like it), but he's a populist at heart.

It's not that Thom intentionally excludes people, but Thom is an outsider, anyone can see that. He looks at the things the media doesn't tell you, that don't get on TV, and he makes them personal. He writes music outsiders appreciate. If U2 does this at times, or has in the past, they've made it easy for everyone-- Art Rock for Dummies. When Radiohead writes complex songs, they aren't that hard because the band still has plenty of melodic sense, but you have to puzzle them out for yourself.

Radiohead's music is a much more personal thing for them than U2's is-- U2 has given up ownership of their music to the world, because for them it's only as good as the number of people who GET it. Thom and Radiohead do not hate popularity. They've said how much they love "Hey Ya," the Beatles, tons of popular stuff! In fact, with the exception of the Cure and Echo & the Bunnymen, they've namedropped every older artist Coldplay has namedropped. And they aren't like Nirvana. They don't feel guilty about being successful, at least not anymore.

But the difference is, Radiohead do not particularly enjoy being successful either, because to them success is in the music itself, not the number of people who appreciate it. They want it out there, they want people getting it, but they NEVER compromise what they want it to sound like in order to have more people hear it. What they want it to sound like isn't always necessarily good, either, but it always ends up sounding how they wanted it, if they release it. They would never have released an album like Pop which they didn't feel was done. They would have taken the million dollar tour losses instead, or gone into bankruptcy.

Bono described songs as "parents," who tell you what to do. Once the song is there, you have to find a way to present it to get it to the most number of people. And sadly in recent years, if that means gutting the lyrics or pointlessly overproducing it, or appearing in an iPod ad or at the Super Bowl, fine.

Thom has described his songs as children-- to be protected and allowed to grow up and finally put into the schools/albums where they really fit. That's why there are so many brilliant Radiohead songs that have been recorded in many failed attempts, but never released, because they didn't get things just right.

I'm not sure what kind of band Coldplay is in terms of backing philosophy, more the U2 or more the Radiohead. To be honest, I'm getting very bad vibes from Chris right now. He used to be the most humble man in rock, awkward like Thom, yet no hard edge (okay, defect of the music, definite plus for personality), but I really think fame has changed him. He's still completely insecure, but he has a harder shell, and he's intentionally making a play for power. Maybe it's because the indie rockers he always wanted to be like have not taken him into their ranks, and the pop people have. When people like you, you become influenced by them, and you naturally want to please them. X&Y is not such a contrived thing. A band's own tastes can change as they try more smoothed over commercial styles.

But if/when this was what Bono was doing in the '80s, he was able to make it seem so much deeper than that. When I see the "Speed of Sound" video, it simply looks like a true "television commercial." Bono hawks iPods on TV now, but on their third album's first video, which musically was not that far from "Speed of Sound," he was out there in the snow, singing about WAR. Bono is right: U2 has WEIGHT, and so whatever their flaws, its understandable they are a candidate for the biggest band in the world. Radiohead has WEIGHT, and they get a special award for being humble enough never to throw it around at everyone (the critics do that, not them).

Coldplay has been a very pretty, a very moving band at times. Their first two albums are amazingly great for a new band, if not quite earth shatteringly creative yet accessible like The Bends. But Coldplay for all its heavy production doesn't have the kind of weight either U2 or Radiohead has, certainly not on X&Y. How can they aspire to be the biggest band in the world in any meaningful sense, without being a band that's ABOUT anything? How can they hope their music, with those lyrics, could possibly define the lives of everyone on the globe the way U2's best songs do, or define the state of the world for their fans the way Radiohead's songs do?

It sounds like when they say they want to compete with U2, all they mean is they want to sell more albums than U2. There's absolutely no honor in that alone.

So Thom Yorke has not said anything bad about Coldplay, besides stating the obvious (they became successful despite themselves), and he probably never will, because he's not the type to slag anyone off or put himself into the tabloids. He has a family and kids just like Chris, and that's what matters to him now, aside from music. But maybe one of these days when Coldplay's popularity is not so "despite themselves" anymore, he will say something nasty, and maybe they will deserve it.

__________________

labell is offline  
Old 06-08-2005, 07:14 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
AtomicBono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 10,486
Local Time: 10:15 PM
"But if/when this was what Bono was doing in the '80s, he was able to make it seem so much deeper than that. When I see the "Speed of Sound" video, it simply looks like a true "television commercial." Bono hawks iPods on TV now, but on their third album's first video, which musically was not that far from "Speed of Sound," he was out there in the snow, singing about WAR. Bono is right: U2 has WEIGHT, and so whatever their flaws, its understandable they are a candidate for the biggest band in the world. "

"It sounds like when they say they want to compete with U2, all they mean is they want to sell more albums than U2. There's absolutely no honor in that alone."



I like, even love Coldplay, but I'm growing rather sick of them...
__________________

AtomicBono is offline  
Old 06-08-2005, 08:04 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Pretty good little piece, I guess. I dunno, I suppose I agree about Coldplay, but I just ignore em unless I happen to like the song

Even though they were generally very positive towards U2, I still thought some of it had sort of a condescending tone to it, but maybe I'm being defensive
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 06-08-2005, 08:37 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
the tourist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 27,763
Local Time: 09:15 PM
I definitely agree about the lyrics thing. Chris' current lyrics remind me of Bono's current lyrics. Maybe if Chris had the profound lyrics of U2 in the 80s and early 90s. Maybe if Chris didn't rely on his falsetto. *shrugs*
the tourist is offline  
Old 06-08-2005, 08:44 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the late 70s, early 80's...
Posts: 8,465
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Very good post. It's probably the most coherent and well thought out response to Coldplay currently. And while this is yet another Coldplay thread - it's definatly the most interesting and digestable.

When I watch Live 2003 or anything from Rush Of Blood... I do really think Coldplay were onto somthing - they knew what they were on about and had a special vibe going.... but I really do think with this album, at least lyrically, they tried to make somthing waaaaay before they were ready to make it.
timothius is offline  
Old 06-08-2005, 08:51 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
the tourist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 27,763
Local Time: 09:15 PM
Even with the silly lyrics, I love the atmospheres and sounds Coldplay uses on their new album.
the tourist is offline  
Old 06-08-2005, 08:58 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the late 70s, early 80's...
Posts: 8,465
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by the tourist
Even with the silly lyrics, I love the atmospheres and sounds Coldplay uses on their new album.
It's funny, I think they overkilled it way too much. I don't think it so much the amount but the similarity to the Clocks atmospherics used.

But on the U2 side of things now that this is where the thread is sitting. I honestly believe it is incredibly, incredibly difficult to make a etheral record like JT or AB in only you're third album. Rush imo is every bit as good as War, and clearly better than October, and they probably instead of aiming to create there reinvention masterpiece (ala Achtung) they should've stuck to trying to continue figuring out who they are where they are coming from.

I think Coldplay underestimate how much influence the first 4 U2 records had on the 5th.
timothius is offline  
Old 06-09-2005, 06:45 AM   #8
Refugee
 
Rafiennes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,069
Local Time: 11:15 PM
I’m sitting here at work, listening to the new Coldplay album on repeat on the iPod.

I’m trying to “get it”.

I haven’t really connected with the album yet and that bugs me. Maybe I bought too much in to the hype and glowing reviews leading up to this album’s release (“Up on par with The Joshua Tree and OK Computer”, “This is THE album to own for the year”, “If you were to take this album to Iraq, you could solve all of the Middle Eastern Problems”, “This album will help us discover life on other planets”)

It’s a good album with two or three really, really good songs. The new Oasis album stands out to me more than this one right now.

How does this relate to U2 for me? I haven’t gotten into a U2 album right off the bat since Achtung, Baby.

Zooropa took some time, POP definitely took some time (and is now one of my favorites). ATYCLB still meanders a bit for me, but I get most of it. HTDAAB took a few listens but I really attached myself to it.

Maybe some of the best albums should be enigmatic and mysterious. We all need to find the baby Jesus under the trash sometimes.
Rafiennes is offline  
Old 06-09-2005, 06:59 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,689
Local Time: 11:15 PM
That was an incredibly well written and relevent post that person wrote. A few things.

I really like the whole "Weight" thing that person was talking about. That's really key. While U2 may be making a few mistakes now a days (iPod ads, Bono's in-tour Africa speeches, sounding too much like themselves [which is bullshit by the way]). Anyway, no matter what U2 does next in their career, the have all the credability in the world to back it up. If Coldplay releases a bad album, they're knee-high in shit, because they really have the history to sae themselves. Same thing with Radiohead. They've already released what may have been 3 of the best albums of the 90's, even ever. They could release a fucking radio-friendly pop boy-band album and totally embarass themselves. But you know what? They still made Kid A.
Lancemc is offline  
Old 06-09-2005, 07:11 AM   #10
War Child
 
MumblingBono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The State Good Bands Skip Over
Posts: 566
Local Time: 04:15 AM
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *reminded of how fucking cool u2 was in New Years Day* blah blah blah blah blah
MumblingBono is offline  
Old 06-09-2005, 07:14 AM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,689
Local Time: 11:15 PM
Lancemc is offline  
Old 06-12-2005, 07:36 PM   #12
Acrobat
 
Acrobat_Al's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 432
Local Time: 11:15 PM
I totally love HTDAAB, but that guy have a good point beneath all that speech, and that is that U2 are repeating what they were doing a long time ago (C'mon Edge, we KNOW that you can reinvent your sound, and not doing the same stuff all over again, examples: intro in crumbs, intro in MD, the same effect over and over again in the entire album)

I think that The Edge is the reason that the albums sounds repetitive; OK, he invented that guitar sound, but one of the things that made me love U2 is that they don't have two albums in a row that have similar sounds- until now with ATYCLB and HTDAAB...

Don't get me wrong, like I said, I love the new album, the lyrics are amazing (at least I can identify with it in a deep level) but U2 it's moving in a very, very safe direction; you want to sell albums?? Made another HTDAAB and it's going to happen; or, in the other hand you want to change the music world again?? You need to explore new directions, I don't mind if take U2 four or five years, but I need "new sounds, new colors" like Bono said in Pop Mart...

They have shown that they can be not only the greatest band in the world, but also the BEST band in the world, and I believe that they can do it again, if they take a chance...

Cheers.
Acrobat_Al is offline  
Old 06-13-2005, 01:08 AM   #13
Refugee
 
thrillme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: <---over that'a way
Posts: 1,947
Local Time: 08:15 PM
At least with U2 it isn't Bono and those other 3 guys.

Read a review of Coldplay, and the author mentioned that's how it is becoming with Coldplay, Chris Martin and those other guys.

Edge gets a lot of attention, U2 fans know who he is.

Larry gets noticed a bit.

Adam gets the least amount of notice, but even a casual U2 fan might know his name. Now that he's taking strolls into the audience, getting more attention.

I don't think ATYCLB and "How to" are that similar.

Adam almost "owns" How to, some songs on ATYCLB his work seems kinda buried. I had to hear a live version of "New York" to really hear his lines, so when I play that album, gotta turn the bass up higher. Don't care for the drum machine either, "New York" really kicks in when Larry's drums come in.

ATYCLB, is a darker record than "How To." Lyrically anyway.

"How to" is more personal.
__________________

thrillme is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×