MTV: Chester Discusses New Single "Burn It Down"

Did you even read Mark's post? It's true. The band themselves have written off Meteora as Hybrid Theory Part Two. And they've also gone on record as saying that they made Meteora the way it is because they wanted to show that they could write another album like Hybrid Theory. Hence why we're all saying that Meteora is creatively lacking. Which translates to a low point in any artist's career.

For any musician, artist, painter, or anyone immersed in creating art, retreading on something you've already done isn't something to be proud of.

In a musically objective sense - not regarding sales or any other factor that could be considered 'success' - Meteora is their worst.

 

when i read the lyrics of this fake burn it down clip, i couldnt stop laughing,especially the last line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQw0IlXvObE

 

There's no such thing as musical objectivity - and that is the only fact in this discussion. Not even Linkin Park are musically objective. Their opinions don't decide that Meteora is their worst album.
Creatively lacking does not directly translate to a low point. Re-doing something isn't necessarily bad.

But I still agree with the opinion that Meteora is the least good LP album...

 

Same here. But i kinda liked the beginning.

 

I'm tempted to agree here, it is a cool name. The general CD packaging artwork is also cool (e.g. Delta's graffiti work and the photography such as the spray cans from the Somewhere I Belong single), although that might just be my nostalgia...

 

Mike stop trolling and give us a cilp

 

There's two things I hate about Linkin Park releasing a new album:

1: Fanboys
2: Meteora-"PLEASE MAKE ANOTHER LIKE IT"-Fanboys

 

Theres not really any objectivity in music (iv'e been in a big argument about this, there were a bunch of saying thers no objectivity in music and the other side saying the oppsite and it lasted for like 50+ pages). I think there's not really any objectivity in music

 

The only thing I understand about musical objectivity is by looking at the measurable attributes of music like rhythm, pitch, intensity, the key signature, number of accidentals, bpm, the length of the composition, the structure, etc. If the artist claims (and he's free to claim anything about his own work) that his work is terrible because he was not satisfied, he wasn't creative enough, or he simply didn't like it, that's obviously his own judgment, and that's subjective.


I don't like Meteora but while Somewhere I Belong, Don't Stay, and Numb might be creatively lacking, it's hard to say the same about Session, Nobody's Listening, and Breaking the Habit.

 

My exact thoughts.

 

well im expecting a skin change of the ATS ish lp site before they start posting the snippets(maybe or maybe not).

 

Liking music is still an opinion last time I checked.

 

+1

 

You could also say shit is delicious and it would be your opinion.

Opinions can be wrong, you know.

 

popular opinion does not = right opinion

 

I'm against objectivity in music. The whole argument: " A good record is creative, has complexe non-pop songs structures, uses original instruments, ect..." is subjective to me. We can objectively say a record is more creative and more complex than a other. But we cannot say objectively that this fact makes this record better.

What really makes a record good? I've some friends which hates ATS but are fans of the "nu-metal" LP. They really think Meteora is a better album. They judge an album on different criterias than those used in this forum. For them a good record is: more catchy ( M: 1 / ATS:0) and more energetic ( M:2 / ATS:0). They also prefer the raw chester vocals on M than its soft vocals on ATS (the feel like they're more interesting/hard to do -> M:3 - ATS:0). And finally, they prefer the melodies on M than those on ATS (M:4/ ATS:0). So for them, Meteora is definitely a better record than ATS. They really don't care about the creativity in their judgement...can you objectively say they're wrong and should use other criteria to judge a record?

Also, for another person I know, music with screaming is not music. So Blackout, for example, is a shitty song to this person. For another person, if you cannot dance to a music, then this music is not good. Those people use different criterias than creativity to decide if a song/record is good or not.

Another point I wished to make: let's say creativity and musical complexity is the most important thing to judge a record. OK, so basically......WHY are you still listening to Linkin Park? Because honestly, they're tons and tons of bands which are really better than LP on this aspect. If I were to judge music only on its creativy, I personnaly wouldn't listen to Linkin Park, but only to Radiohead, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, NIN, Led Zeppelin, ect....

Saying Meteora is their worst record is not objective. Saying it's their least creative is. But when you go "creative = good", and "not creative = bad", we're stepping into subjective territory. That was all I had to say. Have a nice day! ........[sorry for the big geeky post ]