Excellent and tongue-in-cheek hilarious review of Coldplay and their new album. I pretty much echo Mr. Pareles sentiments..... basically, Coldplay is half decent, but there's something off about them--it's too polished and ends up sounding like a mash between elevator music and basic rock and roll. They're talented--but they're sanitized, corporatized (look at what the late release did to EMI's profits...), and well, where's the art? Musical talent? Yes. Soaring, operatic rock? Yes. But look at the quality of the lyrics or the void of creativity. It's all emo-whining mixed with borrowed everything from bands that have blazed pathways before them. What has Coldplay ADDED to modern music? I admit, I have plenty of their music on my computer and iPod. I usually gloss over it, but that's not to say I don't enjoy it. But it's a bit frightening to see the tight grip they have on the world music scene when they aren't that far removed from basic hacks.
I'm coming off harsh, I welcome challenges and further insight in to where they HAVE added real value besides sounding pretty on the ears.... I'm sure many an instance exists....but read the article, it's a good one.
The Case Against Coldplay - New York Times: "THERE'S nothing wrong with self-pity. As a spur to songwriting, it's right up there with lust, anger and greed, and probably better than the remaining deadly sins. There's nothing wrong, either, with striving for musical grandeur, using every bit of skill and studio illusion to create a sound large enough to get lost in. Male sensitivity, a quality that's under siege in a pop culture full of unrepentant bullying and machismo, shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, no matter how risible it can be in practice. And building a sound on the lessons of past bands is virtually unavoidable.
But put them all together and they add up to Coldplay, the most insufferable band of the decade."
1 year ago
1 comment:
My biggest grief with Coldplay is that they're taking too much advantage of their corporate connections. I was reading some USA Today (bleh) article about how they're aiming to be the new U2. Two problems: one, USA Today is writing about them; two, they're aiming to be U2, the stadium-corporate pop-rockers who aim to be politely political and patently unoffensive. I feel like they're being too market oriented here, too willing to bend to the wills of the customer - one of the best parts about music is matching very well with an artist who refuses to compromise their artistry. The act of fitting with an artist is turned upside down when they're just aiming to fit with you, in a demographic sense.
Not to sound like a hipster-tool, but I liked (somewhat) before they were this cool. Those were the days.
Post a Comment