Is this a joke? I would say Coldplay have recorded about 5 decent songs. They are a very average act, with a poor singer and produce some interesting tunes, but overall they are quite boring. There is nothing distinct about them, they lack charisma and I feel that's reflected in their music.
They may be more prolific songwriters, but just because they have written a large quantity of tracks, doesn't necessarily mean they are all quality.
I remember seeing an interview that George Michael was giving about Prince and how he had no filter. I think Prince was amazing and one of my favourite artists, but he recorded too much material and it varied in quality, which may have watered down his overall output to an extent. He was capable of reaching genous levels, but other times the songs I heard erre just extended jams not going anywhere.
Coldplay appeal to a certain market and they have obviously been a commercial success over a long period of time. However, the question of how meaningful, inspiring and influential their music is, would to a totally different one.
U2 in my view, are miles ahead and Coldplay will never reach them, in terms of songwriting, quality of music catalogue, live performances, emotional connection, influence and lots more..
Oof. Like the honesty, disagree with your view on Coldplay though. I'd say they'd have about 3 or 4 really decent songs per album (bar Head Full Of Dreams), and they are definitely up there as one of my favourite bands. Btw, I'm really hard to please music-wise, so 3 or 4 great songs per album is nothing to be sniffed at. Agree with your assessment of them as going down the mainstream pop path. Personally I was really happy with basically everything they did up until A Head Full Of Dreams, but from there it didn't go so well. They mainstreamed their sound, and as a result earned the scorn of many longtime Coldplay fans such as myself. But there's no denying that they are a great band. I think the most disturbing thing was that A Head Full Of Dreams was still better than so much of the stuff put out these days, despite its plainness.
Regarding lyrics, meaning, political messages, and so forth, U2 are streets ahead. U2 are meaningful with their lyrics and like to make a statement through their songs, and I don't think I'll ever find such profound lyrics in a song as I did in Running To Stand Still (the cry without weeping bit made me cry through its sheer power). Chris Martin so often just spouts metaphorical, cryptic stuff, and he often comes back to the same themes in his lyrics. Not to mention that the Edge is just about the greatest guitarist that has ever lived. He sure knows how to create a sound that man.
I think the main thing for me about Coldplay is they can write one hell of a tune, and they complement each other extraordinarily well. There is nothing that special about Chris Martin's voice, nor Will Champion's drumming, but when you hear them, it just... works. It works so goddamn well. And about live performances, well that's a debatable one. Coldplay put out shows that are just as amazing as U2, their live performances are something to behold.
So yeah, sorry if I've gone on a bit, but to see a fellow U2 fan denounce Coldplay, who are so obviously influenced by U2, I just felt like I had to say something (if only to justify my own Coldplay passion). As far as bands go, U2 are better in my opinion, but not by a whole lot. They're both incredible bands in their own right, and that in itself is something to celebrate.
