On this... "fansite review" comes off as a bit dickish, but it does push a bit into "thought process" style of explaining songs than your average review. Great for people who are already fans or are interested, however reading it, I didn't really get a feel like what they did right or wrong. I have a great idea on what story the lyrics are telling, but what songs were better than others? I remember in shout-box, you straight up say you didn't mention one song due to being pretty mediocre. That, unless the article has been updated since then, never mentions as much. It would have been great to see what experimentation soared and which ones tanked. That never really comes up in the write-up. And while "fansite review" is a really backhanded way to explain it... a mediocre song did "just happened" to not get mentioned in what seemed to be a very impressed review. Had I not just happened to be in the shoutbox when you said that, I'd have never known those were your sentiments on that particular song. You detail most of the songs very well. You don't really touch one which ones are significantly better than others. Reading it, it sounds like I'm in for a mindblowing listening experience where I can be expected to be amazed at every turn. Listening to well over half of the album already, I can already expect that not to be the case. I think that was more what he was getting at.
And that's far better worded than what he said and far less backhanded. I do agree that in hindsight I could've mentioned more about how two songs sounded similar, as some people would view that as a detracting part of the album. It's not exactly a mediocre song though. It's just once you've heard it, you've heard Battle Symphony.
Conspiracy time: I think the band made THP because fans wouldn't stop bitching about not having enough guitars, but then they realized it was just a vocal minority of their fans because no one else bought the damn thing. Now they're in their early 40s with families and kids, so they decided it's about time they write songs about their actual lives and current perspectives on life, and in a way that is more accessible to more people, because nothing is more rewarding than knowing you've reached as many people as possible and made them feel something when they heard your stories.
To be fair though, and remember this is coming from someone who thinks THP sucks, THP's touring cycle was easily their most financially successful. And as we all know, bands make their money touring, not through album sales. So they weren't exactly fucked or anything because of the record.
The thing is, I'll never get it when people say they don't think a pop record is risky. Have those fans been suffering from collective amnesia? Are they forgetting the thrashing the band got when Heavy came out, and are they ignoring the hate the band is getting in some places for going pop (hate they are sometimes perpetuating themselves)? The band didn't have to do a pop record. They could've just made another THP or rock album and feel comfortable that most of their fans would probably be okay with it. But no, they decided to do a genre that ran the risk of alienating many of their hard rock fans thus opening them potentially to hateful comments. There's nothing safe about this record at all. They're taking a big gamble with the fanbase.
@Mario007 Just because Derek is the founder of an LP fansite does not discredit him nor delegitimize his review at all. He is more of a credible writer than other music critics out there and even "journalists" who work for companies like the WSJ. His review is as professional as its gonna get. And yeah sure, Derek spent a bit of time talking about popism and rockism, yada yada, but this only added to the review, not distracted it. It's more akin to Mark from Spectrum Pulse's 2 minute preambles he does at the beginning of every review.
ATS might have been well receveid here on LPA, but the places I used to go on that time weren't that nice. It was both online and offline, but maybe it was something with the brazilian fanbase? For a few years people would dismiss the fans who said they liked ATS by saying "you're only saying this to try to be different". Only recently I got in touch with fans that actually liked it and saw multiple posts about how good the album is. Edit: I remember getting out of the concert just to listen people making jokes about their new album saying things like "hahaha I thought that DJ started his concert earlier hahaha" and stuff like that. When it leaked, most fans were asking "THERE ARE ANY SCREAMS ON IT??????". I only saw bad reactions about ATS.
Honestly the prospect of new fans excite me. I remember that a lot of people got bewildered that they got a lot of new fans when Burn It Down blew up back in 2012. It's kinda weird that Heavy's blowing up not only in pop charts, but also in younger areas like Radio Disney (it's like In the End all over again hahaha). The prospect of young teen fans in this generation listening to Linkin Park just like teens used to be years ago? The idea is promising and exciting (and sometimes funny because that means teens will have Linkin Park phases again, and I'm not sure if that's the best idea hahaha). It's more or less the same with this current OML phase. Heck, even during their Living Things concert here some people who went there straight up said ATS sucks and was glad only Waiting for the End and Iridescent stayed, and was pumped that several Hybrid Theory tracks were kept. Rock/punk has a huge following here (a lot of local music were rooted in rock, pop rock, or other band-based material) and almost all of my friends had emo/metal phases, so they now view Linkin Park's new stuff the same way they see Fall Out Boy's new music, as is Paramore's and Maroon 5's. I remember during a radio interview, the host straight-up asked Mike if they were still playing old songs. That says something.
Yeah...I dunno about this Derek. I know Mike has used this logic a couple times this cycle, but it seems like a backwards way of saving face. Using this logic, I could say the most creative risk Linkin Park could have taken in their career would have been to stay nu-metal and never change. This likely would have gotten the band trashed by critics even more than they have been, risked falling down the artistic black hole most bands from that era fell into, losing fans' interest, all for the sake of sticking to, perfecting, and advancing one singular creative vision.
I think the most impressive thing about this album cycle thus far is that the band has actually managed to brainwash some of you into thinking there's anything "risky" about this album.
It's both risky and safe. It's risky because they finally embrace what they've built towards from the past fifteen or so years - that they're really rooted in pop - and alienate their fans in the process, while exploring more creative endeavors. They're universally associated with nu metal and rap metal and yet they're going to something they seem super passionate about. It's safe because it's music that'll definitely hit big on radio. Every song is Top 40 material. The guitars are in the background. It's not as ambitious or weird as A Thousand Suns or The Hunting Party. I kinda see them similar to Maroon 5 when they ditch pop rock and funk rock and went full pop. They sounded less like a band. All their songs had less guitar and more synths. Their aging funk pop was updated to commercial gains. And yet that rejuvenated their band and became something they genuinely love. A lot of them were mediocre, and yet they churn out great stuff like "Sugar" and "It Was Always You" (and even to an extent, their new song "Cold").
Completely agree with that redditor btw. Random praise from a random reader from New Mexico too (☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞
The album isn't risky in the writing of the music. It's risky because Linkin Park is realising a Pop album and has a RISK of losing fans.
That's right. But when people talk about taking risks with art, it's *supposed* to be in terms of the art itself. What you're describing is more like career planning/PR risk. And if we're gonna go down that road, you could literally make the case that anything the band could do is risky.
Like I said, first album cycle here and I'm already in the middle of the heaviest (heh) debate for where the band is going musically and creatively.... I like this. *eats popcorn*
As much as I love Pop music, I hope LP8 is like MTM. Doesn't have to be heavy like THP, just give me MTM rock vibe. Edit: an ATS part 2 would be cool too.
This is Linkin Park, people...any album they'll ever make for the rest of their career that isn't another Hybrid Theory/Meteora is risky. It shouldn't be that way, but they've never shaken off being portrayed as a nu metal band by the media, and they've never shaken off the expectation of another nu metal album from their "fans" who bitch about everything they do but inexplicably stick around anyway as if they have some musical equivalent of battered wife syndrome.
It's funny. It's almost like there is more than one way of looking at Linkin Park's decision to make a pop album right after their heaviest album in a decade. Like there is a more nuanced opinion than "it's safe 'cause it's pop" and "it's risky 'cause rock fans suck or are easily alienated" "This is not black and white.. " (although it sometimes seems to be with this fanbase).
I will say that regardless of how much I end up liking the album, I hope it sells well and does better than expectations. Random question on that subject, the two tickets I bought for my Linkin Park show came with two copies of the album to be shipped come release date. I'm assuming those count toward the charts? And how do they make sure to track that correctly? P.S. anyone who bought tickets to see LP, check your junk folder on your email as that's where mine was to claim your album.