Really in agreement with both of you here, on just about everything said. AkirraKrylon's cake reference was probably better than my sports analogy lol. Iopia, seems we agree on a lot of stuff (other than Numb being a top song so I kind of hate you... (just kidding)). I agree it's pretty silly to say you don't like Heavy because it's pop, then say you like In the End and Numb "because they're not pop", but not just because of the pop elements of Numb and In the End. For one, it's because that's just too simple and narrow-minded a response for me, with little backing or support for it, and for two, I've never been a fan of genres and labels in general. So to then take genre/labels and actually kind of... use it against a song... quite literally, in saying something like "Heavy is bad because it's pop"... it doesn't work for me, on any level. It feels like overlooking everything else about the song, lyrics, melody, instrumentals, etc and just solely zeroing in on "It's pop omg no!" and not getting past that or being blinded by it, which is why it feels like a shallow or hollow response in deciding whether you like or don't like a song. To me, mood/atmosphere (apologies if I'm not really finding the best word for that) is a key component to music in general, not just Linkin Park. If I feel a song is able to capture something like that well, i'm more likely to not only like a song, but keep listening to it long after its release. Not to make it sound like it's a hard-and-fast rule for me, but at the end of the day I'd say the songs I consider to be Linkin Park's most timeless stuff - Numb, Powerless, Leave Out All the Rest, In Pieces, Final Masquerade to name a few - to be that moody, somewhat sad or somewhat dark style, vibe, feel, etc. or have captured mood well in one way or another. But as examples of songs I consider timeless that aren't necessarily sad/sombre, I'd look to Faint and In the End as examples, or Castle of Glass, which while I feel it's not completely without "sad" undertone, it's generally not in the vein of some of their sadder stuff. It's funny how they've done it a few times where a song can feel a little sad but feel slightly uplifting at the same time, or at least it mixes in moments of being upbeat, like Shadow of the Day kind of does. Heavy kind of has that going for it, where despite fairly negative lyrics that represent personal problems, the vibe can feel upbeat at the same time, or feel a little bit lighter, with the instrumentation and the way the vocals are sung. I like that style as well. I agree more that Heavy, if under the circumstances you mentioned, could easily fit on Living Things, moreso than on Hybrid Theory. Though I totally get what you mean.
Totally agree, and that's certainly the wider issue a lot of the time haha. So many people go focus on genre and genre alone. It's always irked me when people write off music based on perceptions and don't give it a chance, even if you end up not liking it. Especially when people try to shoehorn everything they don't like into genres they've decided are "bad" ("The Catalyst is techno" etc.), while furiously denying that they might actually like something in those genres "[X] couldn't possibly be pop because I like it!"). Basically, I think we're agreeing on most points.
Couldn't agree more with all of this. I was literally smiling and kind of nodding the entire time I was reading it haha. To the point I don't even have anything to add onto it, you basically said it all. Focusing on genre and shoehorning has always irked me too. I think some just feel the need to "have an answer" for everything, in this case meaning everything has to fall under some category or another for them. I've never been that way, and it's like ok, if that's how somebody else is, fine... but don't, like you said, not even give something a chance because you've (often prematurely) stuck a label on it, and a label that you've pre-determined to be negative for you. Remember when a few people freaked out when Linkin Park talked about a "folk vibe" before Living Things, referring to Castle of Glass? I'd say that turned out pretty well...
Don't forget In My Remains, I'll Be Gone, Roads Untraveled, and Skin to Bone. I love RU, Primo, and I wish they had an acoustic version of STB.
This that's all they real are and will always be, an alternative rock band. I consider MTM-LT alternative rock and that's half of their albums. This new album will make it 4/7 which is the majority. But to be fair a lot of bands can easily just be lumped in Alternative Rock. I definitely think they fit though Edit: Also, when it comes to In the End being Pop, I disagree. A song can have pop elements and not be a pop song. All their albums to me but MTM and THP have pop influences but none of them consist of pop songs. The big issue is genre labels. While Linkin Park has never made pop music, they have always been Poppy.
I absolutely love In My Remains, and I like Roads Untraveled and I'll be Gone a lot. As much as I do like the studio/abum version of I'll be Gone, I love Primo so much that I keep asking myself if that should've been the final version instead. That final couple of minutes in the Primo demo version is amazing to me. And I actually wouldn't be surprised if somewhere along the lines LP surprises with an acoustic of "less heralded" songs, like Skin to Bone. Maybe on tour, maybe on an underground album, etc.
I think that the Meteora era actually had the best music videos. But that was also the era that music videos were actually getting big budgets and production sfinancially supported by labels. Today is a different story. A lot of those music video directors went on to become Hollywood directors (David Fincher, Mark Romanek, Marc Webb).
This is pretty much the point! By the time he did "Faint", I thought Romanek was a filmmaker already Might be wrong, though
I find it interesting how the band actually states they are not "picking a fight" with fans of their heavier music. I wonder if this is an indication that LP is not finished with making generally heavier music, and may plan to do so in the (near) future?
I read that more as just hey, if you like our heavier stuff that's cool, so do we at times, we're not saying if that's what you like you can go to hell lol or you can stuff it because it's gone forever, or are trying to tell or convince you that softer is better, etc. Perhaps also a nod to how they'll still play your favourites at concerts or have a taste of heavier stuff on Underground albums. Or even mix it in here and there on studio albums that otherwise don't really represent it.
This and I also see it as the band trying to reiterate that these kind of wild turns are the norm. That it's not them waging war on their heavier selves...but moreso that they just didn't feel creating another Hunting Party this time around. That the album that presented itself just didn't need to be that way.
These are both great points. I'm not fully convinced that LP has just decided to stop making heavier music altogether, given their inclination towards albums with songs that have more punch, aggression, and intensity (most of HT, M, and THP, with a little bit of MTM and LT, too). Besides, we may end up being pleasantly surprised once we hear the other songs on OML. Both Mike and Chester tend to give us misleading impressions about how a given album will sound, with THP maybe being the only real exception, as it was as heavy as they made it out to be during that album cycle. I wouldn't be at all surprised if OML has at least one "heavier" song than the rest, and by that I mean louder guitars, more aggressive vocals (not screaming, as that is apparently sitting out this time around), more energetic drumming, and so on.
I doubt OML will be 'aggressive' or 'heavy', but that shouldn't be confused as the album having no energy. There could quite possibly be a song or two (or three or whatever ) that has high energy, but just doesn't have a metal or hard rock sound to it.
I just thought about that the other day. When they hear the new song and look up some of their older stuff that's much heavier how are they going to react.
Nah! you act like they were Death Metal or something. I don't see any BIG difference between "Heavy" and LP's mainstream songs (ITE, Numb or Crawling). Boring powerchords don't make a song heavy!
Not for me. Pop with powerchords = Pop with electronic beats, imo. They all have: Verse/chorus structure + catchy vocals + simple instrumentaion + simple lyrics.... So what is exactly the difference?
Heavy is absolutely a huge shift genre wise coming off of THP, but I think Sasuke was more referring to the band's biggest hits (ITE, Numb, WID). Which doesn't really constitute a "huge difference in genres" in and of itself. If I play a jazz standard on five different instruments with no other edits, it's still going to sound like jazz.