Actually, I like both of these songs.

[quote="Marekenshin"]Good artists borrow...

Viva la Vida is still a good song, and as we've all discussed before, the same chord progression doesn't make for a ripoff. Having the same melody for one of the verse phrases is a bit suspect, and they could have in fact ripped it off of Satriani, but either way the differences and lyrics make it a good song.[/quote]

Yeah, and if I were Chris Martin and wanted to steal Satriani's melody, I'd at least have the sense to change the key. You know, just to add one more thin layer between my work and the work I'm stealing.

Either way, Viva la Vida rocks, and Satriani's sort of a hack. That's all I really care about, when it's all said and done.

I hate it when bands over produce and hire studio musicians to add strings and add all this extra crap on their albums. That's why I hate coldplay. Particularly the new album. It's hard to imagine anybody actually playing the music. I can never feel or get into music that sounds like layer upon meaningless layer and strings that they payed somebody to arrange (which is always the case) that was crafted in some studio.

And the song Viva La Vida sucks. Not only are there cheesy strings, but it never really goes anywhere. I got really bored with the song a quarter of the way through it because there's only the one musical idea and it fails to offer anything fresh. I don't know how anybody can sit through the same four measures over and over again for four minutes. They're called chord changes, not chord loops because they're supposed to take the song in a new direction and give it a fulfilling idea. They took one simple idea and didn't expand upon it. It's crap. And if that's the sound or idea they were going for, it's still really boring.

At least someone agrees with me.

[quote="StevenB130"]They took one simple idea and didn't expand upon it.[/quote]

I'll give you that, but do bands really NEED to have multiple, evolutionary ideas in every song they write? I'm not trying to back up the band itself, just the song. I definitely see how the chord looping might get kinda stale to you...But hey, [b]this isn't jazz[/b]. This is mass-appeal "indie rock."

Do you like the song Runners High? Maybe not, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about how it "never really goes anywhere." There are so many different bands/songs people could be harshly critical, but for some reason Coldplay seems to take an unfairly large amount of it. Well, yeah, the lyrics are totally bland, boring song writing, whatever, I'm talking about the song here.

I dunno, man. It's four minutes of this one musical idea, combined with sort of new lyrics that fit the somewhat, uh "soaring" tone of the song. The steady, simple bass drum is a nice touch. Sure it's one simple idea, but it's a nice package.

I think your criticism makes sense, but is hardly justification for the song being "bad." You think it's bad, fine, that's your choice, but...I think you're applying ideas from the wrong genre.

edit:
[quote="StevenB130"]It's hard to imagine anybody actually playing the music.[/quote]

So do you also have problems with music that uses sampling? Do you dislike all electronica? How did being able to play a song completely matched to the studio version [b]right in front of you with real instruments[/b] become a requirement for good music?
And with the big arenas that are probably Coldplay's venue of choice, and since they have the money, I don't doubt they'd get pay some musicians to play their string bits of Viva la Vida for them during live shows.

Haha I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. Those are just some problems I have with it.

While I do listen to several hip hop and electronica artists, I do have a pretty major problem with the genres themselves. It's not possible for a groove to find it's pocket with a computer lining up the rhythms perfectly. What rhythms make a song groove and feel good isn't exactly on the beat like a programmed drum part. Computers don't have ears that can find the pocket. Imagine if earth wind and fire or the gap band or something had programmed drums. It would be the stupidest thing because it just wouldn't groove. That's what makes those bands so great is that they can find the pocket.

And back to coldplay, I still think it's a boring song. Music shouldn't be boring and I think that can be applied to any genre.

I think that the disagreement over what pillows songs are the best/worst on here shows us how varied musical tastes can be. Boring to one person may be interesting to another person for entirely different reasons.

Agreed.

...or is it?

[quote="Marekenshin"]I think that the disagreement over what pillows songs are the best/worst on here shows us how varied musical tastes can be. Boring to one person may be interesting to another person for entirely different reasons.[/quote]

I recognize that. I'm just throwing my opinion out there.

And for the record, it is my opinion that Coldplay is very, very boring. And that Chris Martin is the most annoying vocalist since Tiny Tim.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]And for the record, it is my opinion that Coldplay is very, very boring. And that Chris Martin is the most annoying vocalist since Tiny Tim.[/quote]

That's [b]damn[/b] harsh. http://ttifc.ytmnd.com/

I think one of the best things about Viva la Vida was him singing in a normal register, to be honest.

GR, since Coldplay is a world-famous stadium-rock band, I think it's seriously mangling the term to call them "indie-rock."

I totally agree with Steven on the subject of electronics and stuff in music. I also shy away from stuff that's all studio trickery; my general rule of thumb is that if it can't be reproduced live, than it's going to be pretty boring. I find it incredibly irritating that just about anyone can bang out music on their laptop; it's far more captivating and personal to see and hear people actually playing their instruments. This is why I find generally find hip-hop and electronica boring: it's all computerized. I know, I'm super old-fashioned.

I thought this album was a lot better than their previous ones, though, because there was a lot less overblown string nonsense.

A) Electronically programmed drums and instruments do not necessarily perfectly line up beats.

B) The whole point of the studio is to do things that cannot be done live. Otherwise, there would only be live albums.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]A) Electronically programmed drums and instruments do not necessarily perfectly line up beats.

B) The whole point of the studio is to do things that cannot be done live. Otherwise, there would only be live albums.[/quote]

A) They are unable to react is the point that I was making.

B) I believe the point of a studio is to achieve a pure sound, not to add a bunch of extra meaningless textures that have no significance and that won't be there when the piece of music is actually being expressed. I think studios are there to capture music being expressed and make it sound good instead of piling shit over shit.

Haha I just don't like it when people pile shit.