U2start.com | Coldplay

Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:Coldplay plays a 95 minute set, Chris runs around like a maniac and ~~gives you an absolutely thrilling show as usual~~ pretty much fucks up his vocals by doing so.

vs.

Coldplay plays a 120 minute set, Chris doesn't really throw himself into it like usual and you're left going, ~~"last time I saw them was better"~~ "Well, thanks to the 24 songs setlist, they have performed the songs #X$% and &#@ which I was craving to hear! Oh, and Chris' voice was mint".

I took the liberty to modify slightly your scenarios

Mr_Trek

13 years

Originally posted by LikeASong[..]
I took the liberty to modify slightly your scenarios

If you think Coldplay are that bad, you can always send me those tickets you had to Madrid.

KieranU2

13 years

Paradise just got number 1 on the UK singles chart. That's really surprising considering how long it has been out.

LikeASong

13 years

Originally posted by Mr_Trek[..]

If you think Coldplay are that bad, you can always send me those tickets you had to Madrid.

Wrong argument. Just because you criticize something it doesn't mean you can't like or even love it. U2 are the band of my life, but I can hold severe critics against some of their music and facts

loftarasa

13 years

I don't get where the problem of Coldplay is not playing 90 - 120 minutes. It can't be because of Chris' sporty activities during the show.

ahn1991

13 years

Originally posted by loftarasaI don't get where the problem of Coldplay is not playing 90 - 120 minutes. It can't be because of Chris' sporty activities during the show.

While this is all speculative, I know for a fact that Chris's vocals start to suffer during the latter part of a 90 min+ set. I personally think it's due to his antics. I think this video is a fair example of that.

While this performance is quite good, you can hear notable points where his vocals seem a tad off. Also, Chris loves to run around for this song. While I haven't been to a Coldplay concert myself, the general consensus I have seen is that Chris's vocals tend to falter towards the end of a long set.

MattG

13 years

The MAJORITY of live acts don't sound half as good as they do on the album. Just the way it goes. There's a good 10 or 12 powerhouse bands still around nowadays that do things the old fashioned way and just rock the fuck out of the show. Coldplay doesn't need to sound identical to the albums (in terms of Chris' voice) in order for me to have a good time. I'd RATHER he run around like that, because it gives ME more energy watching the show. It makes up for the slight lack in vocals tenfold.

dylbagz

13 years

Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3Of the two Coldplay scenarios below, I'll take the one in bold.

Coldplay plays a 95 minute set, Chris runs around like a maniac and gives you an absolutely thrilling show as usual.
vs.
Coldplay plays a 120 minute set, Chris doesn't really throw himself into it like usual and you're left going, "last time I saw them was better".

Coldplay just isn't one of those bands for me that has a SHOW show like U2. There isn't a lot of theater to it- it's conceptual, but at the end its just a lot of really great music. Arrangements are always neat and the effects during the songs are nice, but a U2 show threads itself together based on themes of music, emotions, and personas of the band. It's not that Coldplay's MUSIC doesn't do that...it's that that's not the band that they are. They aren't those people. That thread of their music into a setlist format is possible, but it's not the way they carry on a show in a way that works for them. They're slightly more on the "artsy-fartsy" side (and that's a good thing for them), and Chris runs around like a maniac nowadays. Just what they do.

If I need a long show with plenty of "wow" moments, I see U2.
If I need a long show with the absolute standard of rock and nothing more, I see Foo Fighters or Pearl Jam.

clearly chris martin needs to get fitter then.

AidanFormigoni

13 years

In my opinion, Chris behaviours will be the same in a 90 min set or in a 130 min set. He will sing, jump, run, his voice will sound a little weird (it's been that way since a few years). So, why not play longer set?

loftarasa

13 years

I've seen them on the last 3 tours and to me his running, jumping etc was at his "highest" during the Viva la Vida Tour. When I saw him in Frankfurt in December I didn't think he ran around too much to let him "lose" his voice. If it's due to his sporty activities then he should consider a kind of compromise that legitimates the ticket price for the length of the show. I don't want to spend 90 Euro for 80-85 minutes (this was the length of their concert in Frankfurt) where I think after the show "Great concert, great songs, but they could have played 4-5 songs more to make it a real concert". I'm curious how the open air shows will be like setlist-wise. After all I'm seeing them 2 more times in later summer!

LikeASong

13 years

^ I agree with the 100% of what Mss. Sigur Ros wrote.

Slight change of topic:

2011-12-31 - Abu Dhabi

Mylo Xyloto
Hurts Like Heaven
Yellow
In My Place
Major Minus
Lost!
The Scientist
Violet Hill
God Put A Smile Upon Your Face
-
Up in Flames
Us Against the World
-
Politik
Viva La Vida
Charlie Brown
Fix You
Clocks
Paradise (Followed by New Year's countdown)
Every Teardrop is a Waterfall

"The concert was shortened. They played no encore. Everything was very straightforward as if they wanted to soon get out of the stage to enjoy their new year with their families. Entirely different from the previous concert in Abu Dhabi, which was just amazing."

I'm sure the post-Paradise New Year's Countdown must have been really epic. Although not as good as Streets opening the 90s at the Point Depot

fabian

13 years

They should have played God Put A Smile Upon Your Face, with the climax at exactly twelve o' clock.

Coldplay

what they said

did you know

you

forums

U2start