Music > Music
The case for Coldplay
After the release of Coldplay’s third album, X & Y, in 2005, New York Times reviewer Jon Pareles called the British quartet “the most insufferable band of the decade.” In case you missed it, folks, the most odious band in the world to this erudite asshole is not Chumbawamba, nor is it Aqua, nor even Puddle of Mudd. After trudging through the Times’ review, and virtually every other bad review I could find of Coldplay, I was able to sum up why the band is, apparently, just plain awful.
1. Chris Martin uses a falsetto, girly voice.
2. Chris Martin is a bad songwriter.
3. The band isn’t original.
4. The
band sells a lot of records.
5. The band is predictable.
In my daytime job working in the arts field, I have come across some brilliant people. Top among them is a Juilliard professor named Eric Booth who wrote a book called The Everyday Work of Art. The premise behind the book is that every waking moment is rich and full in artistic creation, from the way we tell a story to the PowerPoint presentation we must craft for work. The magnificence of art can’t just be confined to Mozart and Michelangelo, because, as Booth puts it, “When we assume that the work of art exists only in these isolated peaks, we shrug off our birthright.” What Booth means by “our birthright” is that we were born to be creative individuals, and this takes various shapes, forms, and processes.
If you were to take the myriad reasons that critics clean the floor with Coldplay and evaluate those claims independently, they might have a point. Maybe Coldplay isn’t original. Maybe they are predictable. But Coldplay, like any band, works through various tools. Every single tool might be bad or wrong, but together it works.
Take, for instance, the aggrandized dismissal of Martin’s songwriting. Martin isn’t a lyricist equal to Neil Young or Bob Dylan. In fact, his lyrics sound like a freshman’s first assignment in poetry class. In Coldplay’s hit song “The Scientist,” Martin laments “Nobody said it was easy/No one ever said it would be so hard.” His meaning is simple, the preceding rhyme (“It’s a shame for us to part”) is predictable, and it reeks of love-sick sentimentality. But, combined with Martin’s convincing gentleness, the doo-wop-reminiscent coos in the background, and haunting, constant backing of piano bangs, the parts synthesize into a poignant, moving whole. The work itself, evaluated and picked apart like a Thanksgiving turkey, is bad. But heard as an everyday work of art, it’s beautiful.
There’s something laudable and, contrary to belief, original about Coldplay’s desire to not only express their creativity and their oft-mocked bleeding hearts, but to improve the process and revel in the music. After the New York Times’ scathing review, Coldplay ditched producer Ken Nelson and recruited the über-cool Brian Eno to produce Viva La Vida. Of the Times review, Martin said “I agreed with a lot of the points ... so, in a way, it was liberating to see that someone else realized that also. And there is something glamorous to me in taking a bit of a beating and keeping on going.”
And keep going they did. Viva La Vida was an artistic creation in part because it was a drastic improvement from X & Y, and a return to the quality of their first two albums, Parachutes and A Rush of Blood to the Head. Viva La Vida is Coldplay after a shower, cleaned of the day’s dried sweat and smelling sweet and rife with potential. And nothing could bother the critics more. As the Wordsworth Media Blog explains, “To critics, the idea of a band like Coldplay becoming successful is troubling because it destroys their roles as gatekeepers.”
Music critics are disgusted and aghast that anyone who isn’t creating high-art — whatever the hell that means — is well-liked. But if we go back to the “Why Coldplay sucks” list above, you’ll notice that only two of the complaints are about music at all. The predominant indictments of Coldplay are that they are too similar to everyone else; predictable sound-alikes with the capacity to sell out a stadium, despite the bad lyrics and feminine vocals. (Don’t get me started on the blatant sexism/homophobia of that criticism.)
Music criticism has become a filthy, disgusting monster that tells you what is art and when it’s art and eats your face if you disagree. The criticism has gone from discussing what is good and bad about a band to creating two categories of bands — good and bad. Groups like Coldplay, working artists who are defining and perfecting their craft as they go, have become fodder for any jerk with a PC and a keyboard to condescend to the masses. Except here’s the secret that Booth taught me: There is an innate, natural desire for us to cling to and seek out others who are creating consistently and bravely, constantly seeking to change themselves and the world around them. Something about Coldplay resonates with people, as evidenced by the nearly 20 million records they’ve sold. Though I seriously doubt that Coldplay will etch a place for themselves in history as music Gods, I hardly find them to be insufferable. I guess that makes me out of step with the New York Times and in step with just about everyone else.
LIVE MUSIC
Coldplay
$49.50-$97.50
7pm Wed, Jun 10
AT&T Center
ticketmaster.com
On 6/11/2009 2:57:42 PM, Anonymous said:50$ to see coldplay, lol! what a rip! i saw animal collective for 30$.
On 6/12/2009 4:38:01 AM, Anonymous said:What a load of bull. Coldplay are amazing. Predictable? The first album was soft rock and relaxed songs, second album was ballads, third album was rock and a classic mix of great lyrics to create great songs, fourth album was a mix of all different things nobody would dare to try and the fifth album was a follow on of that; calling that predictable? They are in the studio creating a sixth album of jazz and new rave apparently. May I repeat: HOW IS THAT PREDICTABLE? You need to get your facts sorted mate. My favourite Coldplay album is Viva La Vida as it is different, but everyne goes for X&Y; yet you basically say it's the worst one? All their classic songs that everyone knows are on there tbh, a few on A Rush Of Blood To The Head, a couple on Parachutes; but it's mostly X&Y. You know, you need to do your research. Coldplay are an amazing band: Chris Martin has a unique and amazing voice and they never fail to come up with something new. I could write an essay about this, but I haven't got the time and also, why would I waste my time on someone who can't even do their research for an article? Once again, what a load of bull.
On 6/12/2009 3:18:13 PM, Anonymous said:such a bold rhetorical coup, kopf.
i just wasted eight minutes of my life reading a pointless stunt piece that could easily apply to any pop phenomenon, from the jonas brothers to creed.
all that and id bet youre not even going to the concert bc clearly you dont even like the band youre pretending to defend. next time try writing something you actually care about.
On 6/14/2009 2:22:30 PM, Anonymous said:It will be interesting to see where the copyright infringement suit against them ends up. Just goes to show, yoiu have to do your researxh before using a rif......
On 6/15/2009 7:27:18 PM, Anonymous said:Wow - talk about a poorly written screed against music criticism. Your confused "thesis" takes umbrage at attacks on Coldplay for being "insufferable," but in the *very first paragraph* you level the same attacks on Chumbawumba, Aqua, and Puddle of Mudd. Aren't they also "working artists who are defining and perfecting their craft as they go"? Hypocritical much? Furthermore, you never cite a specific example/quote of someone disparaging Chris Martin's voice as "feminine" -- you come up with some vague aggregate -- and then you have the nerve to play the "sexism/homphobia" card. It rings hollow, which is why you didn't "get started" on following up that point; you just made it and then ran away from it. That's pure cowardice, and, as someone commented earlier, nothing more than a "stunt." Your "discussion of Coldplay's music is also cowardly -- you essentially try to level the same criticisms that the "haters" do, but you don't have the courage of your convictions so you backpedal and make excuses and pull punches and try to make some asinine point that even if all of the elements of their music are lame, put together it creates "magic." What a load of bunk!
Yes, music criticism embodies an opinion -- in Pareles's case, typically an informed, well-considered, and well-written opinion -- with which you're always welcome to disagree. But your notion that "every waking moment is art" and therefore no one dare be critical of art -- especially if someone "works hard at their art" -- is completely ludicrous. If your strongest defense of Coldplay is that they've sold 20 million albums, well, I'm sure you also think McDonalds is the height of cuisine because they've served billions and billions.
Please try to figure out how to write a strong, convincing argument the next time you attempt a takedown such as this, because in this case you come off foolish and weak.
Coldplay is the best hater!!