I loved the interview. Glad to see Mike open up and not give a shit about what people think anymore. Kind of reminds me of Trent Reznor dare I say.
Dude, calm down, I was just making an alternative because I want to, not because I was trying to make a statement.
I get it's their vision. Doesn't mean I have to be happy with it. I personally don't like the cover, get over it. It doesn't change the fact that I'll still buy and probably enjoy the hell out of the album itself. But for me (and I think I speak for a lot of people here), album art, and art direction is such an integral part of the experience of an album. Just imagine if these bands didn't have these covers: Yes, the music would still remain, but these covers are iconic as hell. Album art is SO IMPORTANT. Being dissatisfied with a band's album art isn't rude in the slightest. I shouldn't have to be completely fucking happy with every little thing a band does. Behind every fantastic album, is a fantastic cover.
It is though. It's ridiculous how much of an improvement it is. Whether you want to chalk it up to actual skill of the poster or the lack of it on the part of Ghost Town or whoever it is, it's better. I disagree. And go listen to Recharged vs Reliving Things. The one LPA essentially threw together was better than the one Mike Shinoda actually brought guests in to work on. As before, whether or not that's a testament to the talent of the fanbase or lack thereof from the band is up to your discretion, but I personally seem to notice unofficial fan projects have the weirdest habit of appealing to me more.
What exactly makes this new cover any less or great an artistic statement? The album will clearly define the art as Mike and the band have always worked hard to accomplish. The art is striking and could certainly represent (potentially) LP's strongest album to date, so why judge it without the music? You do realize that most of the covers you posted are from an era where you see the art and hear the music at the same time, a staple of older albums from the bye-gone vinyl era, yet we judge musicians artistic vision without the sonic landscape to accompany/support it and that's rude result of the modern age of music.
Are people really arguing about the album artwork? I for one, really enjoy the artwork. It brings a whole lot of meanings to it.
That's the thing, The Hunting Party art isn't much of an artistic statement to me. It doesn't work, because it literally does nothing for me. When I look at it, no emotions are evoked in me. It looks cheaply made, the colors doesn't suggest any kind of mood or tone for the album at all; it looks like a tired rehash of the art direction of the LT cycle. The cover is supposed to evoke a sense of anger, unsatisfaction, and heaviness, yet the only part of the art that even suggests that is the presence of a bow and arrow.
But who are you to judge which one is better and which one is not? Isn't it just preference? And let's take a look at the work that went into the two pictures. Linkin Park put (most likely) days of work into the artwork, trying to get every detail perfect, while Zombie Jeff just throws a preset filter and frame onto the original photo. Who really deserves the credit for the better picture?
It all begins... Yeah, it doesn't matter what the art is, you're going to get a bunch of people making an alternate one. It's inevitable. You can't satisfy everyone. I love the art, myself, and now i'm curious as to when the tracklist might come up. Not interested in reading the rumoured track titles; I think it spoils a fundamental part of it.
I'm not hyped yet, I'll be hyped for the album if more music comes out and it's good, with Living Things I was staying optimistic after Burn It Down, I was disappointed with Lies Greed Misery. It isn't that those aren't good songs, they just don't compare to Papercut, When they come for me, The little things give you away, Leave Out all the Rest, The Messenger. I hated a Light that Never comes at first, then I sorta liked it, but it got boring. I knew Guilty All the Same was going to get old pretty fast. Mike's comments aren't douchey because of what he was saying, it's just that I heard harder rock music than Guilty all the same from the Pretty Reckless this year. I'm not trying to be a typically nit-picky linkin park fan, but for someone disappointed in today's softened rock music, you wouldn't expect their lead single to be much softer than other rock artists, and the Pretty Reckless isn't exactly the most hardcore rock band.
Justin Bieber's Believe was recorded over the course of two years, while The Beatles' Revolver was recorded in three months. With your logic, Believe is better than Revolver, which it is clearly not. Just because LP spent more time on the cover, doesn't make fan made ones obsolete , and not better.
It's the failings of this stupid instagram generation, with all their colors and filters and those people not putting in any real artistic effort just using apps or programs that change another's vision out of arrogance.
How the fuck did you come up with that? Revolver isn't a slightly edited version of Believe. Zombie Jeff's edited photo literally is him taking the original photo and putting a a filter and frame onto it. And I'll say this again, who really deserves the credit for the better photo: the person who spent days on perfecting a piece of artwork that would represent and display their album and its theme, or the person who took the original photo and just threw some filter on there to make it look cooler?
This doesn't even apply because Justin Beiber was just to busy on tour and or lazy whereas the Beatles were as busy on tour and recorded around 10 albums in about 7 years time, and a majority of them are considered classics. The big difference is that if "Revolver" came out in this day and age the cover would be just as redesigned out of arrogance without any respect for an artist vision, just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you know how to improve it.