U2 or PJ. Whose legacy is ruined more by continuing...

[MemoFromTurner]

the problem is The Edge has two words in his name. He can't compete with Bono's single

The key is to be in the band with the better musician who is a bigger dork than you are. Then you get all the attention and he writes all the music. And you force him to have an even more cringeworthy nickname. Victory Bono.

[broken iris]

Jeez.

Coldplay has written some great songs. It's nothing earth-shattering (or in Stip-ese: challenging), but I've always found their records to be enjoyable and an easy listen. My first day in Sydney several years back I spent a few hours just walking around the city in the early morning with "Viva la Vida" on the ipod and it was great background for the journey. I don't think they are getting any better or worse with age, they just aren't progressing in any new or interesting directions.

Gn'R has probably done the most damage to their legacy of any of the late 20th century bands.

[evenslow]

Jeez.

Coldplay has written some great songs. It's nothing earth-shattering (or in Stip-ese: challenging), but I've always found their records to be enjoyable and an easy listen. My first day in Sydney several years back I spent a few hours just walking around the city in the early morning with "Viva la Vida" on the ipod and it was great background for the journey. I don't think they are getting any better or worse with age, they just aren't progressing in any new or interesting directions.

Gn'R has probably done the most damage to their legacy of any of the late 20th century bands.

Yes, Coldplay gets waaaay too much shit. There are so many worse bands than them, so it's far out of proportion and lazy to just say 'Coldplay sucks' every single time their name is brought up. And to say they're just remaking the Bends is the laziest of the lazy. That was just their first record. They started aping U2 after that, to varying degrees of success.

[MemoFromTurner]

Jeez.

Coldplay has written some great songs. It's nothing earth-shattering (or in Stip-ese: challenging), but I've always found their records to be enjoyable and an easy listen. My first day in Sydney several years back I spent a few hours just walking around the city in the early morning with "Viva la Vida" on the ipod and it was great background for the journey. I don't think they are getting any better or worse with age, they just aren't progressing in any new or interesting directions.

Gn'R has probably done the most damage to their legacy of any of the late 20th century bands.

Yes, Coldplay gets waaaay too much shit. There are so many worse bands than them, so it's far out of proportion and lazy to just say 'Coldplay sucks' every single time their name is brought up. And to say they're just remaking the Bends is the laziest of the lazy. That was just their first record. They started aping U2 after that, to varying degrees of success.

Coldplay gets mess because they are grouped in the rock genre and compared to Radiohead.

Place Coldplay in the Bruno Mars category of gifted pop singer-songwriter than we're getting somewhere. Or if Coldplay is never categorized as a rock band. In fact, as an experiment can someone point me to a Coldplay song that you'd classify as rock? I'm pretty sure I can find a couple Radiohead and U2 songs that are definitely in the rock genre.

[evenslow]

Jeez.

Coldplay has written some great songs. It's nothing earth-shattering (or in Stip-ese: challenging), but I've always found their records to be enjoyable and an easy listen. My first day in Sydney several years back I spent a few hours just walking around the city in the early morning with "Viva la Vida" on the ipod and it was great background for the journey. I don't think they are getting any better or worse with age, they just aren't progressing in any new or interesting directions.

Gn'R has probably done the most damage to their legacy of any of the late 20th century bands.

Yes, Coldplay gets waaaay too much shit. There are so many worse bands than them, so it's far out of proportion and lazy to just say 'Coldplay sucks' every single time their name is brought up. And to say they're just remaking the Bends is the laziest of the lazy. That was just their first record. They started aping U2 after that, to varying degrees of success.

Coldplay gets mess because they are grouped in the rock genre and compared to Radiohead.

Place Coldplay in the Bruno Mars category of gifted pop singer-songwriter than we're getting somewhere. Or if Coldplay is never categorized as a rock band. In fact, as an experiment can someone point me to a Coldplay song that you'd classify as rock? I'm pretty sure I can find a couple Radiohead and U2 songs that are definitely in the rock genre.

Anyone with half a brain hasn't compared them to radiohead in years. Who cares how they're categorized anyway? Like 'em or don't.

[broken iris]

Radiohead is a more interesting case to me than PJ or U2. I have disliked nearly everything I have heard from Radiohead post-OK Computer. BUT I don't think they have tarnished their legacy, they just successfully became a different band operating in a different sub-genre of rock. If PJ is trying to do something similar by transforming from an arena-rock act into a punk act, they are failing where Radiohead succeeded.

[evenslow]

If PJ is trying to do something similar by transforming from an arena-rock act into a punk act, they are failing where Radiohead succeeded.

I don't think this is what PJ is trying to do. They certainly tried to scale back in 95, 96 to something more manageable, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they were trying to "transform."

Pearl Jam is an arena rock act that wants their punk and eat it too.

First person to decipher that gets a 10 Club sticker.

[McParadigm]

Bands, like Pearl Jam, that opt to try and maintain the remaining popularity levels that continues to feed their concerts and merch sales rather than explore their music freely, tend to have very distinct needs.

1. They need to not sound too much like their age.
2. They need to not sound too much like they're trying to deny their age.
3. They need the new songs to not sound too far removed from the old ones.
4. They need the new songs to not sound so similar to the old ones that casual listeners don't just go "well, really, I've already got that song, and it was better the first time."
5. They need at least one song they can take out to radio and convince casual listeners they've "still got it."
6. They need at least one surprise (preferably minor) for hardcore fans who will never, ever not believe they've "still got it," but who are fully capable of convincing themselves that doing something old in a very slightly new way is the same as continued artistic growth.

It doesn't tend to make for great records...but it tends to be safe enough that a lot of people can mistake them as such for a couple of years.

[Mine]

Bands, like Pearl Jam, that opt to try and maintain the remaining popularity levels that continues to feed their concerts and merch sales rather than explore their music freely, tend to have very distinct needs.

1. They need to not sound too much like their age.
2. They need to not sound too much like they're trying to deny their age.
3. They need the new songs to not sound too far removed from the old ones.
4. They need the new songs to not sound so similar to the old ones that casual listeners don't just go "well, really, I've already got that song, and it was better the first time."
5. They need at least one song they can take out to radio and convince casual listeners they've "still got it."
6. They need at least one surprise (preferably minor) for hardcore fans who will never, ever not believe they've "still got it," but who are fully capable of convincing themselves that doing something old in a very slightly new way is the same as continued artistic growth.

It doesn't tend to make for great records...but it tends to be safe enough that a lot of people can mistake them as such for a couple of years.

With them in particular you have to take in consideration that they made great records when the music they were writing was creating conflicts within the band. I think that they grew out of that and do records the easy way now but i don't think it's a popularity thing. If it is they aren't particularly good at it.

[stip]

Bands, like Pearl Jam, that opt to try and maintain the remaining popularity levels that continues to feed their concerts and merch sales rather than explore their music freely, tend to have very distinct needs.

1. They need to not sound too much like their age.
2. They need to not sound too much like they're trying to deny their age.
3. They need the new songs to not sound too far removed from the old ones.
4. They need the new songs to not sound so similar to the old ones that casual listeners don't just go "well, really, I've already got that song, and it was better the first time."
5. They need at least one song they can take out to radio and convince casual listeners they've "still got it."
6. They need at least one surprise (preferably minor) for hardcore fans who will never, ever not believe they've "still got it," but who are fully capable of convincing themselves that doing something old in a very slightly new way is the same as continued artistic growth.

It doesn't tend to make for great records...but it tends to be safe enough that a lot of people can mistake them as such for a couple of years.

granted you have the word tends in here, which makes this hard to argue with, but I'd contend that exploration, or growth, or what have you, in a lot of cases tends to have its importance overinflated.

For me, at least, what always matters first and foremost is whether or not the songs are good. Do they strike a chord? Are they compelling? Do they articulate what you've always known but could not express. It is entirely possible an artist could tap a very deep well and spend the vast majority of their time drawing water from that one source. Or they could flit about, exploring different facets of their music, but never really saying much of consequence anywhere.

Exploration does become important if a well has run dry since you'll need to move on (although there is no guarantee that any new place you end up is worthwhile), but it really only matter if you are out of inspiration.

Otherwise that list above could apply to almost any artist, including ones I know you respect. Bracketing the age thing, because he sounded 60 when he was 30, I could make the argument that Tom Waits' last two records fall right into what you describe at 3-5. And I'm not sure the records were surprising. I guess they were surprising in that you didn't quite know what to expect, but once you got it it sounded just like Tom Waits. Maybe he is trapped by his expectations, in the same way that PJ is paradoxically trapped by the 'if you play everything you wrote nothing is a surprise' complaint that gets tossed around here.

The point being, in the end the only variable that really matters is whether or not the songs crafted are worth your time. And 1-6 are not particularly relevant on that score.

[stip]

Two of U2's last three albums (AYCLB and HTDAAB) sounded in many places like classical U2. Apeing the old sound. The same could be said of most of REM's final album. But that's not a problem if it's done well. Discoverer did it poorly. Uberline or It Happened Today or Mine Smell Like Honey did it well. Walk On or Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out of sounded redundant to me. City of Blinding Lights did not. They all sounded familiar, but familiarity is not a problem if it goes to a familiar place and illuminates it in a slightly different way

[evenslow]

Discoverer did it poorly.

thought that was easily one of the best songs on the album.

[Lament]

Discoverer did it poorly.

thought that was easily one of the best songs on the album.

I'm in this camp. I loved the album, and Discoverer was one of my favorite tracks. It definitely had a strong Turn You Inside-Out vibe to it, but it worked for me.

[stip]

Discoverer did it poorly.

thought that was easily one of the best songs on the album.

I'm in this camp. I loved the album, and Discoverer was one of my favorite tracks. It definitely had a strong Turn You Inside-Out vibe to it, but it worked for me.

I really like the riff and the 'discoverer' part, but the rest of the song felt clumsy to me.

Nevertheless, that's kind of my point. that discoverer was familiar was not the issue. it was whether or not it spoke to you.

[matt reeder]

We're supposed to give Coldplay credit for writing and arranging their songs? How does writing their music set them apart from the 50,000 other bands/ songwriters out there? They aren't good songs. Coldplay is catchy. They are popular. More power to them. And maybe they even work hard. But my gawd, that music is rough on the ears and the soul. I mean, Billy Joel was catchy. Really, really catchy. But he didn't try to front himself as a rock band. I'm actually doing Billy Joel a disservice because his lyrics were stronger than Chris Martin lyrics. Now, you can look at the comparison to Billy Joel as a horrible affront. Billy Joel sold gobs of records and was a pop genius (whatever that's worth). Ditto Chris Martin. Coldplay only becomes a joke when someone wants to have the conversation where Coldplay, Radiohead, and U2 are in the same sentence. Coldplay are Billy Joel if he were British and he told himself his future was in a rock band a la Radiohead and U2. Piano player. Check. Catchy tune savant. Check. Horrible, embarrassing, instantly forgettable and nausea inducing music. Check.

Coldplay aren't Billy Joel - they're what happens when you take U2, R.E.M. and later-era Genesis and mix them together. They embody the worst qualities of all three bands - take "Invisible Touch", "Beautiful Day" and "Stand" together and you basically have the Coldplay formula.

Actually, I like Coldplay - and at times, I like them quite a bit. I'm really, really tired of most of their radio singles, but buried in their albums are a lot of really good songs, like "Strawberry Swing", "Shiver" and "Amsterdam".

There are far worse bands out there - like, for example, Mumford and Sons.

[Rangi Guy]

Discoverer did it poorly.

thought that was easily one of the best songs on the album.

I have to say that I'm in this camp too. Whenever this comes on I still find myself turning it up

[dimejinky99]

Bruce Springsteen has been exploring the same territories his whole career and always(or almost) found a new way to 'illuminate it', I think.
Coldplay are good for what they are, and they have some great songs. Their Speed of sound, is a great song. They're far less deserving of hate or derision than say, Dave Matthews. That guy holds focus groups before his records get released.
Lowest possible common denominator turgid pap.

U2 are far too full of their own self importance to ever throw in the towel.
They'll be making records when they're hobbling about in Zimmer frames.
They still have a couple of great songs per record. I guess I don't mind them keeping on.

Pj, I think will bow out gracefully. Probably after this one or the next one.

[Strat]

Bruce Springsteen has been exploring the same territories his whole career and always(or almost) found a new way to 'illuminate it', I think.
Coldplay are good for what they are, and they have some great songs. Their Speed of sound, is a great song. They're far less deserving of hate or derision than say, Dave Matthews. That guy holds focus groups before his records get released.
Lowest possible common denominator turgid pap.

U2 are far too full of their own self importance to ever throw in the towel.
They'll be making records when they're hobbling about in Zimmer frames.
They still have a couple of great songs per record. I guess I don't mind them keeping on.

Pj, I think will bow out gracefully. Probably after this one or the next one.

I hope PJ continues releasing records until they are physically unable to do so.

Bands cant ruin legacies for me. Poor choices or sub par releases dont ruin the greatness of the past.

How about this guy?

http://boingboing.net/2013/06/28/gentle ... riest.html

[VinylGuy]

We're supposed to give Coldplay credit for writing and arranging their songs? How does writing their music set them apart from the 50,000 other bands/ songwriters out there? They aren't good songs. Coldplay is catchy. They are popular. More power to them. And maybe they even work hard. But my gawd, that music is rough on the ears and the soul. I mean, Billy Joel was catchy. Really, really catchy. But he didn't try to front himself as a rock band. I'm actually doing Billy Joel a disservice because his lyrics were stronger than Chris Martin lyrics. Now, you can look at the comparison to Billy Joel as a horrible affront. Billy Joel sold gobs of records and was a pop genius (whatever that's worth). Ditto Chris Martin. Coldplay only becomes a joke when someone wants to have the conversation where Coldplay, Radiohead, and U2 are in the same sentence. Coldplay are Billy Joel if he were British and he told himself his future was in a rock band a la Radiohead and U2. Piano player. Check. Catchy tune savant. Check. Horrible, embarrassing, instantly forgettable and nausea inducing music. Check.

Coldplay aren't Billy Joel - they're what happens when you take U2, R.E.M. and later-era Genesis and mix them together. They embody the worst qualities of all three bands - take "Invisible Touch", "Beautiful Day" and "Stand" together and you basically have the Coldplay formula.

Actually, I like Coldplay - and at times, I like them quite a bit. I'm really, really tired of most of their radio singles, but buried in their albums are a lot of really good songs, like "Strawberry Swing", "Shiver" and "Amsterdam".

There are far worse bands out there - like, for example, Mumford and Sons.

Shit, i listened to some of their show in Glastonbury this year and it was hideous and boring.

[Kevin Davis]

I didn't love like bon jovi when I lived in NJ

Don't feel bad--he's a rock star, he's probably had a lot more experience.