I actually loved the song on the first listen. It seems as though most people needed it to grow on them. Not my case. I actually thought it was my favorite early on (it's not now but it's still 9/10 material).
From Wikipedia: "Linkin Park is an American rock band from Agoura Hills, California." Just sayin' What was this thread about? Oh yeah! Burning in the Skies. Um...BADASS SOLO!
i don't think a song is that good. with all their promises in mind about refusing conventional song structures this song is a disappointment. it's basically shadow of the day II. the solo isn't even a solo in my opinion. the lyrics are very strong though.
Well personally I don't think it's SOTD-esque at all. As a high schooler I discovered prog rock (note: prog rock, not prog metal), and admittedly BITS reminds me of something those acts might've put out. They have heavy tracks, but the opening usually is not.
If anything, Iridescent is a Shadow of the Day II. Burning in the Skies isn't remotely close to Shadow of the Day.
your opinion. however, the first thought i had while listening to BITS was: "shadow of the day". the heartbeats in the intro are similar to the intro of sotd. in both songs there is an "ohhooh"/"ahhaah" part before the chorus. both songs have a pseudo-solo and the choruses themselves sound similar. Iridescent has a slightly different structure. dont get me wrong, I like both songs. but there are far from being progressive. they are solid pop-songs.
Differences though: -In Shadow of the Day, the 'heartbeats' are an integral part of the song. In Burning in the Skies, the heartbeat is just a section of The Radiance bleeding over. -The ooooohs/aahaahhs serve completely different purposes. -Shadow of the Day's second chorus isn't a double chorus. -The bridge solo of Shadow of the Day carries over into the next chorus. It doesn't in Burning in the Skies. -Shadow of the Day doesn't end with a verse. -Completely different tempo. I'd go on, but I'm going to move to structure since you said Iridescent has a completely different structure. BITS: Verse - Chorus - Verse - Double Chorus - Bridge - Double Chorus - Half Verse Iridescent: Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Bridge - Double Chorus Shadow of the Day: Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Bridge - Double Chorus I rest my case.
I just realized that sotd, bits AND iridescent are very similar, however: BITS: Intro - Verse - Ohh-Part - Chorus - 1xVerse without Vocals - Verse - Double Chorus - Pseudo Solo - Chorus - Random singing - verse SOTD Intro- Verse- Ahh-Part - Chorus - 1xVerse without Vocals - Verse - Chorus- Pseudo Solo - Double Chorus These are two conventional structers, iridescent is similar. what pisses me off is that we got we have 9 songs on ATS. And 4 1/2 of them are conventional songs when it comes to their structure (BITS, wretches and kings, iridescent, messenger and to some extend waiting for the end). this is not what I expected.
Yeah, way to ignore my whole argument on structure. YES, BITS, Iridescent, and SotD are similar in structure, but the argument was that Iridescent has more in common with SotD, which you can't seem to accept. Also, wah wah you got new music. Stop being pissed. Structure my ass, every song of the album varies greatly from normal Linkin Park at every turn.
so we finally reached a consensus on that. they're all similar. arguing which one has more in common is redundant. i mean it's subjective, isn't it? and I'm not ignoring your argument. you kind of convinced me actually. I like the new album, I went to 2 concerts and I dig every album of LP. But in my opinion(!!) a lot of the songs could have been on MtM. The songs aren't that experimental to me.
No, it's not subjective. And arguing which one is more similar proves which one is least like Shadow of the Day, which was the whole point of your initial post.
in my first post I didn't even mention Iridescent. I didn't want to prove which one is less similar therefore. I just said that bits IS very similar. At that point I didn't even think about Iridescent. If it's not subjective, it has to be objective, right? Arguing about two songs claiming one is better/ worse/ similar/ whatever and relying on objectivity by doing so is ridiculous. Music isn't science. The thread is about our THOUGHTS on the song. And I just posted them. If anyone thinks differently, I'm fine with that. I always felt like the song is much like sotd. This is just an opinion, so keep chillin.
Regardless I still don't see any correlation between Shadow of the Day and Burning in the Skies. Aside of the fact I fell in love with Burning in the Skies right off the bat, and Shadow of the Day took me weeks to enjoy, they simply sound like different songs-- And almost from different bands. The guitar sounds nothing like the song on the previous album. In fact, the first time I listened to it I thought the guitar pieces were some variation of electronics or synth. And so the structure isn't anything to write home about. Big deal. It's a solid song and it's unlike anything the band has done before. Sure, others have tackled it, but the fact that Linkin Park can take on similar material and make it sound great proves their worth. Favorite song on the album.