U2 V Coldplay

[johno11]

Just saw Coldplay's latest tour over the weekend. I must admit I was very impressed, and reading the reviews people in the Australian press seem to think they are ready to steal U2's crown (I have attached part of a review below which mentions U2).

So what's everyone think ?, has anyone else on the forum been to see Coldplay on current tour.

Bono and U2, be scared. Be very scared. Because every time I see Coldplay (the band who idolise you) live, they take another step towards snatching your crown as the biggest band in the world. Based on the magic they created last night, consider this a giant one.

[acr0bat]

No.
I recently saw coldplay at the Hollywood Bowl in May this year, and while yes, I do like coldplay and thought they put on an amazing show, it didn't come close to the feeling of pure magic a U2 show has.
Coldplay is a great band and definitely one of the best around right now, they have a really long way to go and some pretty damn good songs to write to even come close. 

[briscoetheque]

Well, I'm no fan of Coldplay's but I can see why people would say they'd gone past U2 in a live sense. They've got more energy, are younger and have probably connected with this generation of fans better (ie, the fans on the floor who give the shows energy).

Their songs however, are largely sh**.

This will hold them back in my mind 

[The Exile]

I like their early stuff, especially Parachutes and ROB. But with the exception of becoming more poppy, have they really altered their sound in any significant way? In other words, have they really put out a TUF or AB?

[Joe90usa]

I like their early stuff, especially Parachutes and ROB. But with the exception of becoming more poppy, have they really altered their sound in any significant way? In other words, have they really put out a TUF or AB?

I totally understand where this comes from and mostly agree with it, but is it a fair thing to expect in today's music business? I think the era of reinvention of bands may have come to an end with branding being so prevalent. If that is the case, it would be career suicide for a band to go down that path unless their present course had already proven to be a disaster. Clearly Coldplay has not seen that happen...at least to this point.

[NotFadeAway]

I think U2 and Coldplay are something completely different, cause they were born into two completely different periods. Coldplay are very young, they were founded in the late 90s, and being a newborn rock band in the 00s is different from being a newborn rock band in the 80s. I don't know if you see what I mean, but I think that we can't compare them, it would be the same if we made a comparison between U2 and Rolling Stones, they're from two different eras, the second inspired the first and so on...you wouldn't think of saying U2 stole RS crown or something like that, not because that's not true (this is not the point) but just because you don't dare to compare them, there's no need.

[Aqua]

I asked myself this question last night when I saw them. Definitely, for my generation, Coldplay is the defining band that really goes across all different personality types and music tastes. The crowd energy was more than at U2 and there was a greater sense of awe among the audience. But the thing is, their fans are younger. A good deal of them are going to one of their first concerts. So perhaps those things are to be expected. They're the biggest pop band around, and having made an album with several rather tacky hits hasn't hurt them. When I go around my university campus, I get the sense that this generation really treasures Coldplay as their band. For people who never saw Live Aid, or U2s superbowl performance, for people who weren't at Zoo Tv Sydney, for people who only listen to the radio (which is a fair few people) Coldplay and their tour connect in an unprecedented way. They're about as "relevant" as any band could be, and certainly more relevant than U2. We can argue about the definition of "relevant" but it's pretty indisputable that U2 want what Coldplay has. My generation barely know U2 and have no where near the emotional connection to them that they do to Coldplay. So if that's the basis on which the "crown" is supposed to be stolen- it already has been stolen.

I just think that U2 have better songs and are better live. 

[Chargedvt]

I saw Coldplay's show last week in Melbourne and I have to say it was a LOT better than I was expecting.  They haven't quite got the pulling power of U2 in this country in terms of tickets sold but they aren't far off.  But I have to say the audience (which was made up mostly of people about 20 years old!) was more lively and louder than the last U2 gigs I went to, and after the show everyone had this feeling of happiness and satisfaction.  Chris Martin is an expert at winning the audience over by joking around, revving us up and getting us all to sing those anthems at the top of our lungs.  I think interaction with the audience is very important and they seem to be putting in more of an effort than U2.  And yes, they are more relevant to the general public these days.  Hell, most of the crowd was singing along with songs from their new album - I didn't really see people doing that with the songs from NLOTH.
Don't get me wrong, the recent 360 gigs were amazing, and for me to say the Coldplay concert was just as good is saying something.

[imedi]

there is no doubt u2 have come back to the chasing pack but having seen coldplay im not sure  they are next in line im sure pj or muse fans might think those acts are far superior live . i like coldplay but for me they have always sounded like u2 lite  while u get songs that might match with or without you or beautiful day ie u2 lighter stuff.. they will never match u2s edger (excuse the pun)songs ie out of control or new years day and comparing coldplay to the u2 of zoo tv era would be an insult to u2 (any u2 fan who thinks the u2 of today can match the passion and energy of zoo are kidding themselves).. as for the younger crowds ..yes in north america  united kingdom and australia i do think u2s crowd is on average older hence the energy at a u2 concert is not as great however for whatever reason in continental  europe and latin america the crowds seem much younger and a better concert energy ... is this because more of the youths in america and the uk have bought into the anti bono rubbish i cant say

[imedi]

I like their early stuff, especially Parachutes and ROB. But with the exception of becoming more poppy, have they really altered their sound in any significant way? In other words, have they really put out a TUF or AB?

the answer is no they have always sounded the same im not sure martin has the vocal range to take them anywhere else..that said in fairness  they do make great music they are great at what they do

[So Cruel]

Apples and Oranges

U2 is basically a rock band with an experimental aspect to it
Coldplay is basically a pop/ soft rock band

U2 are in their 50's and release an album once every 4-5 years now; they aren't competing against anyone. Their legacy is already cemented.

[imaginary friend]

Coldplay fell down the crapper after 2 albums. 

U2 still haven't after 13 (yes, I'm counting Passengers  ).

Bottom line: no valid basis for comparison exists.

[paddyattitude]

how do you dare?!

[Nanda360]

Chris Martin is young and gorgeous

[@lmighty DS]

no Chris Martins lyrics/vocals will NEVER come close to Bono in his prime. i like Cp <MX was an amazing tour and i love AROB/VLV> but no. and i for one think the U2 comparisons are WAY overblown. Yea, some of X&Y, most of VLV are U2-esque, but is anything of the first 2 and MX really U2esque? Nope