TMN A Thousand Suns Review

Here I get the impression that, for the reviewer, songs need rigid structure and he's marking them down for having "not so obvious structures"

... he says without actually hearing them.

ATS is 47 minutes long. That makes it their longest studio album. [& see below]

Once again, those 9 songs together are 40 minutes long, which is longer than both HT & Meteora.

 

you mean: o great finally somebody who also likes justin bieber like me
you suck muerto

 

Take your head out of your ass kid, and start behaving, or I'll give you a virtual bitchslap.

 

you need ask mommy for permission first, BTW she say hi son!!!

 

well, we knew there would be someone who didn't like linkin park!
lets focus on that his review was lame and broken and that all other reviews were positive!

 

All right, I feel a bit schooled. Not going to lie. I am huge on hip-hop myself and usually love Mike's raps, but I just wasn't clicking with the Wretches and Kings lyrics. Perhaps I would have over time, but thanks for breaking it down like that. That really helps open my eyes to it. Yep. I feel a bit embarrassed, but w/e I've liked the song since I heard it, I just wasn't getting it yet. Hahah

 

guys, absolute chill! take it on msn or something!!!

 

Really bad review. Sometimes it was almost painful to read.
I like how he just ignores interludes like "Yeah, another interlude, I don't care, next song, please".
That's not a review. That a BS written by a strange person who makes necrophiliac love with HT and Meteora.

 

Haha, certainly didn't mean to embarrass. In truth it took me a couple of listens to get it too. Instead of waiting to learn the lyrics through enough listens I just found the lyrics online and I saw what was going on pretty early. I think it's pretty clever. He's rapping in an early 90's style to a pretty thumpin Dre-ish beat (and even borrows a line from Public Enemy) but what he's talking about is in line with the album.

I love Mike's rapping too. He's not the best rapper who ever walked the earth but he's solid in every area: performing, delivery, wordplay, rhyme scheme. Anyone that's got the respect of legends like Jay-Z and Blackthought definitely has rapping chops. He's definitely the best rapper in a "rock group." The only guy that comes close is Mike Busse of Chronic Future. If you haven't heard of em you should definitely check them out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vZOC177Eu4

 

The band is wrong though.

If they want us to listen to it from start to finish because it is a "journey" and if they claim it has a common thread (which by the song titles it does), then it is a concept album: plain and simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_album

 

Calm down guys. All this over one bad review???

I actually werent that offended by it that much really. It could be much worse, at least he said a few positive things about a couple of songs, so it isnt totally a waste. The only bit that bothers me is what he said about the messenger. As well as contradicting himselfs he goes out to say "chester over sings the song". :S .... just, what??
Contrast to all the other reviews that say chester really throws so much passion into his voice on this track.

 

I never understood why people use wikipedia as a source to prove their point

 

I think the reason they're not calling ATS a concept album is that they don't want anything they do to have a label on it, similar to how they don't want to be labelled a "nu-metal", "rock", or even "alternative" band. Their only "label" is Linkin Park.

 

Not this again.

 

Tell me what's wrong with that article

 

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=concept album

Is that better for you???

There are arguments that Wikipedia is usually more accurate than vetted encyclopedias because it uses the power of the collective. It has become so popular and so well moderated that inaccuracies rarely slip by for more than a few minutes.

Besides, this is a Linkin Park forum, not a scholarly paper.

 

With that logic every good review of this album is dishonest and nothing more than a suck-up-a-thon. Why and how does that make any sense? Why would people want to do that when critics are used to giving the band such harsh reviews? You fail to address why this is honest and the others aren't. Is it because it's poorly written? Is it the overused piano joke written to keep the reader's attention? Is it the condescending tone the entire review? Conversely, what makes the other reviews dishonest? The decent grammar? The praise on the band's change of sound? The applauded reform of listening to a record all the way through? Why is a dishonest review written by someone risking the wrath of snobby Radiohead fans (and other critics) and comparing it to their "Earth shattering" masterpiece? That takes some heavy balls and I believe such bold comment deserves your "honest" award.

It's a shame that you don't like the two new tracks. Personally I think it's some the band's best work-- But then I think the same of NIN's Year Zero. The noise and electronics appeal to me and frankly I don't understand a lot of people who don't see that as a masterpiece. But to condemn Linkin Park as a band that is incapable of creating some high art is probably more damning than boxing them in nu-metal or claiming they should return to that sound. (Not saying you've done either. Just an example.) I don't understand why it's so easy to believe "they can't pull it off," but I've felt they, in fact, can for the last several years. If The Catalyst and Wretches and Kings is any indication they may have. But the beautiful thing about this band is they're constantly changing themselves up-- Making themselves available to completely different music lovers all around. So I suppose if this isn't your cup of tea they may make yours to your liking years down the road. But to say "they can't pull it off," I simply do not believe or take seriously for a moment. They may make some mediocre stuff here and there, but they're not inept and creating great music throughout. Whether we've seen an example of that or not from them is where anyone's head is I suppose.

 

Nothing wrong with it. Just asking that why would you use wikipedia to back up an argument, Not disagreeing in any way shape or form

 

And there's nothing wrong with using a Wikipedia article that has a load of sources and whose definition matches what other sites say.