[sonick]

God this album sucked HARD... I mean, Hybrid Theory and even Meteora to an extent had at least SOME original sounding stuff.

This new album, one over-produced, boring track after another.

Horrible.

 

[AFEnlistee]

As I sat here listening to this boring album, I was wondering if it was even them. They sounded like every other generic band out there. I wouldn't have even known it was them if I hadn't been able to read. People warned me it was bad, but wasn't expecting this. Talk about selling out... this is biggest sell out I have seen.

 

[Gnus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not to continue MarkL's thread crap, but anyone who is disappointed in the new one should go back and listen to their earlier efforts. RedLeader was completely accurate on all accounts, for everything they have ever released. To say Linkin Park sold out is ridiculous. You can sell what you don't have. What I suggest is that they haven;t changed, but you have. Over the years you have grown up and your music listening skills and tastes have evolved and matured. I remember when I thought a new Limp Bizkit album was disappointing, then I realized ALL of their albums were disappointing. Go put Hybrid Theory on and pay close attention, you just might be surprised by what you (dont) hear.

Your post is confusing to read, proof read much? Sorry, but no. The music they put out back then is WAY different than the music in their latest release.

I still enjoy Hybrid Theory and Meteora, but I only like TWO tracks from the new album (What I've Done, Leave Out All The Rest), the rest are just.... wow, what were they trying to do.

I was a fan from the beginning, but I admit this album is VERY disappointing. That's not to say I won't purchase it, because I'm still a fan.

And I find it funny how people love to come into threads with nothing to say but to bash the artist. Too much time on your hands? Perhaps you should read the rules of the music forums.

 

[Ace o' Spades]

Am I the only one who doesn't think this album was a complete train wreck? Some of the songs were pretty good IMO.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your post is confusing to read, proof read much? Sorry, but no. The music they put out back then is WAY different than the music in their latest release. I still enjoy Hybrid Theory and Meteora, but I only like TWO tracks from the new album (What I've Done, Leave Out All The Rest), the rest are just.... wow, what were they trying to do. I was a fan from the beginning, but I admit this album is VERY disappointing. That's not to say I won't purchase it, because I'm still a fan. And I find it funny how people love to come into threads with nothing to say but to bash the artist. Too much time on your hands? Perhaps you should read the rules of the music forums.

I had no trouble reading Coltrane's post. I actually consider him one of the more literate people on this board. As far as Linkin Park goes, their music has been absolutely the same since day one - over-exaggerated, pseudo-emotional, pseudo-artistic. There's not one ounce of innovation in them, and they are popular because of typical music biz promotion. Do you really think that, in the entire universe of music, the three albums they released have sounded unique to one another? The same basic song structures are used, the same pathetic vocals and lyrics, the same pathetic production -- I bet more than half of the latest album was made by a producer on his Mac and ProTools. And yes, I have heard it -- we listened to it during a workshop on modern rock music. It sucks hard.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Like I said in previous threads, I think we can all agree on one thing about this band: the music of sorts they produce is way too repetitive.

 

[AFEnlistee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I had no trouble reading Coltrane's post. I actually consider him one of the more literate people on this board. As far as Linkin Park goes, their music has been absolutely the same since day one - over-exaggerated, pseudo-emotional, pseudo-artistic. There's not one ounce of innovation in them, and they are popular because of typical music biz promotion. Do you really think that, in the entire universe of music, the three albums they released have sounded unique to one another? The same basic song structures are used, the same pathetic vocals and lyrics, the same pathetic production -- I bet more than half of the latest album was made by a producer on his Mac and ProTools. And yes, I have heard it -- we listened to it during a workshop on modern rock music. It sucks hard.

The same "pathetic" song structures and vocals and lyrics are what makes linkin park linkin park. It's fine that you don't like their music and not a fan, but to the people who are fans, this album is totally disappointing. Doesnt sound like them in the least. Its like they totally moved away from what made them linkin park in the first place. So if they are trying for a new audience, all they have done so far is piss off the fans they all ready had.

 

[Gnus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I had no trouble reading Coltrane's post. I actually consider him one of the more literate people on this board. As far as Linkin Park goes, their music has been absolutely the same since day one - over-exaggerated, pseudo-emotional, pseudo-artistic. There's not one ounce of innovation in them, and they are popular because of typical music biz promotion. Do you really think that, in the entire universe of music, the three albums they released have sounded unique to one another? The same basic song structures are used, the same pathetic vocals and lyrics, the same pathetic production -- I bet more than half of the latest album was made by a producer on his Mac and ProTools. And yes, I have heard it -- we listened to it during a workshop on modern rock music. It sucks hard.

It's obvious if you don't like their music that it will all sound the same to you, or "repetitive", as someone else keeps stating

. Not really sure where you are going with the whole "entire universe of music" rant... but yes there is a difference in the 3 albums they have put out. The first two were more similar, but his one is a completely different direction. If you don't feel like it is, it's because you didn't even like them to begin with, so it's easy to just lump it all together as crap.

Same structures, same vocals, same lyrics... why wouldn't it be the same? Linkin Park is Linkin Park. I'm sure whatever artists you like all have a certain style of music, structure, vocals (duh!?) so that arguement is again just you lumping it all together because you obviously don't like them.

Not even going to touch the "Macbook" arguement. I'm sure you were there the entire time they were recording.

Typical crap LP fans deal with, nothing new.

 

[Gnus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like I said in previous threads, I think we can all agree on one thing about this band: the music of sorts they produce is way too repetitive.

Just what I love, nice arbitrary comments with no basis or explanation and therefore, is just yet another threadcrap.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

I have you guys beat. I have to hear this song about 5 times a day due to working retail. I never liked LP, but this song was a waste of a .WAV file on some producer's Mac...

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnus /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's obvious if you don't like their music that it will all sound the same to you, or "repetitive", as someone else keeps stating . Not really sure where you are going with the whole "entire universe of music" rant... but yes there is a difference in the 3 albums they have put out. The first two were more similar, but his one is a completely different direction. If you don't feel like it is, it's because you didn't even like them to begin with, so it's easy to just lump it all together as crap. Same structures, same vocals, same lyrics... why wouldn't it be the same? Linkin Park is Linkin Park. I'm sure whatever artists you like all have a certain style of music, structure, vocals (duh!?) so that arguement is again just you lumping it all together because you obviously don't like them. Not even going to touch the "Macbook" arguement. I'm sure you were there the entire time they were recording. Typical crap LP fans deal with, nothing new.

No, the music is repetitive and sounds the same because it uses the same basic verse-chorus-verse structure, the same pick-and-choose chord progressions, very non-inventive chord changes, and the same lame production. What I was getting at with the "whole entire history of music" bit was that there's a LOT of music out there - do you really think that, in the grand scheme of things, this band's three albums are going to sound that much varied? Then you can have a look at the extremely dynamic and interesting artists of our time, such as John Zorn (who puts out a good 2-3 albums A YEAR), and they will often release albums with wholly different GENRES compared to the previous. Take, for example, Zorn's current metal works with Mike Patton, and compare them to the upcoming release due out next month, which is a collection of newly-composed chamber works (one of which is composed for two bass clarinets). Again, do you REALLY think that, in the scheme of all music, Linkin Park's albums will sound that different from one another, whether or not you like the new album? To say so would be ridiculous - it would clearly display your unsophisticated and ignorant knowledge of the art of music.

You think the music I listen to is as repetitive as Linkin Park? HAH! Even IF some of the music I listen to could be argued as being repetitive, this particular phrase here really gets me...
Quote:

I'm sure whatever artists you like all have a certain style of music, structure, vocals (duh!?) so that arguement is again just you lumping it all together because you obviously don't like them.

Good musicians have variable outputs. Part of what makes a band or musician legendary is their ability to improve upon themselves and build upon what they've already made. Just look at Anthony Braxton - he started writing brilliant improvisational structures and quirky compositions, and now, 30 years later, he's completed a system by which an ensemble can play any one of his 350+ compositions simultaneously with a limitless number of other things going on in the background, all the while making complete musical sense. He's still innovating to this day. Look at Mozart, who put out EXTREMELY varied works from beginning to end - his symphonies all had the same "Mozart" style, but they drew from radically different influences (due to the man's fondness of traveling) to produce sounds unheard of before. You could draw 12 Linkin Park songs from a hat, and more likely than not, they're all going to have the same song structure, the same verse-chorus-verse format, and perhaps even some of them will have the same chord progressions, key signatures, and/or notation intervals (if you can even hear it at all, what with all of the noise and static caused by the group's awful production style). Not unvaried, eh?

If you won't touch the MacBook argument, then I will touch it again. It's true. Big-name bands like this manufacture their music by help of a producer with all of the formulas down and the technical knowledge to complete the task. I'm a senior at the most prestigious Music Production department in the world - I probably have a great deal more knowledge on this topic than you do. And, realistically, not many people in the industry lack the right mind to realize the shallowness and artlessness exhibited by this band.

In the end, whether or not you ENJOY a band comes down to taste. But there are elements of this band which cannot be argued. I like plenty of bad artists, and I hate plenty of good artists. It's how it goes - but I NEVER misrepresent a musical act's talent or inventiveness. And neither should you; it's unfair to them. Linkin Park doesn't deserve the fame they have, like most corporate top 40 acts in existence today (while there are exceptions). All that matters is whether or not you enjoy it, but you have to learn how to draw the line between what is good/bad, and what you like/don't like.

 

[Gnus]

Firstly, why get into the "whole history of music" discussion in the first place? This topic was not to compare LP to Mozart or to "the scheme of all music", it was a discussion about their latest CD which, to most of their fans, was different from their OTHER albums.

Secondly, I knew this was going to turn into an arguement about who's taste in music is more "superior"

This belittling attitude always appears in a music discussion, so it's frankly a waste of time to argue.

Does that mean anyone who doesn't listen to certain types of artists are steered in the "wrong" path of music?

Anthony Braxton, Zorn, if they are considered "good" musicians, then EVERYONE must like them, right?

I'm not denying their talent, but even with all that talent, would they still be considered "good" if NOBODY enjoyed their music?? So who makes the decision that they are to be considered "good" artists? Is it not people like you and me?

By your logic, as long as an artist keeps changing their "sound" they will be considered "good" and you will be respected for liking them.

Music is just too varied and limitless that people lumping artists as "good" or "bad", that's the problem.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does that mean anyone who doesn't listen to certain types of artists are steered in the "wrong" path of music?

Absolutely not. You can dig whatever you want - it's when you start making subjective claims about objective characteristics when you start looking questionable.

Quote:

Anthony Braxton, Zorn, if they are considered "good" musicians, then EVERYONE must like them, right?

Nope.

Quote:

I'm not denying their talent, but even with all that talent, would they still be considered "good" if NOBODY enjoyed their music?? So who makes the decision that they are to be considered "good" artists? Is it not people like you and me?

Nope.

Quote:

By your logic, as long as an artist keeps changing their "sound" they will be considered "good" and you will be respected for liking them.

Nope. There's more to it than that. Good musicians are made of many things, and growth is just one way to analyze one's career from the greater picture. That's taking a snapshot of an entire career, and not one particular song or album.

 

[SR-71Panorama]

I don't feel qualified to judge weather or not Linkin Park sold out, but I for one am most disappointed with their current evolution of style. For me, LP has become the new Rage Against the Machine (though nowhere near as good). Subjectivley speaking, I feel that like RATM, LP had a phenomenally refreshing and/or listenable debut album, followed by a mediocre second album, and finally a let down of an album at best for the 3rd release. In addition, like RATM, I REALLY wanted to like all the releases.
As for the differences, for LP's new 3rd release, I can barley get through the album more than twice as a whole. I truly have no desire to listen to it, plain and simple. It is such a shame, because I have been waiting for this album with immense anticipation for an agonizing length of time.
I agree about the warning signs; Jay Z mash up and side projects.
The second song is the only song that even approaches old LP in terms of attitude or intensity. And for god's sake, what is with the clap-along percussion tracks?! What?! Compared to previous albums, this is just a snooze fest, full of soft-minded liberal feel-good nonsense. Perhaps they felt the need to address the war in Iraq, etc. But that forgoes all the self-absorbed tendencies and nihilism that they started out with. Most good metal/rock songs tend to be self involved in my experience. This new album just feels like a half-assed speech.

 

[Thelonious Monk]

i don't have to compare linkin park to any single other musician to know i don't like it. to even the playing field, i also dislike anthony "diagrams" braxton.