ok let me just end this comparison of coldplay and radiohead because they are really not similar.
radiohead has consistently put out new albums, each one being in its own way different and fantastic. coldplay put out aone awesome album and one pretty friggin good album before they began to water down their sound, loose any sense of experimentation, and become (more or less) ****
radiohead's lead thom yorke is humble and genuine.
here is a huge list of his quotes. read through a couple and you'll find it impossible to dislike the guy. chris martin on the other hand? he has a history of
walking out of interviews not to say that he's a bad guy, but still...
here is a great list of annoying musicians. chris martin is at the bottom and you will see many of the same points only articulated far better than i ever could.
radiohead seems to stick to the idea that they are making music because they love to make music, for example, introducing the world to the first major release on a "you pay what you want basis." with
In Rainbows in 2007. one might argue that they have the fan base and the money to do that to which I would have to say "yes, and so does coldplay." now coldplay, on the other hand, made
Viva la Vida to sell, this is a matter of opinion of course but, to me, one can find their new music to be boring, easily digestible, radio-friendly and overwhelmingly average, all of which are characteristics of music that is designed for the mainstream or made to sell. and, of course, there is still that question of "did coldplay steal viva la vida from joe satriani?" which lingers and puts them in a further negative light whether the allegation is true or not
musically (and i guess what really matters) they WERE similar. they were both British, they both wrote pop, or pop inspired rock, etc. and
parachutes is really the only album that applies to. so please, stop comparing the two.