How childish you have to be in order to wish that your favorite band fails because you disliked the new record? It doens't matter how bad you thought it was, to wish for them to flop is pretty selfish and immature.
That's a different argument to me. My points were 1) OML is 100% not bubblegum pop and 2) not only is that kind of music not the zeitgeist but it's dead - you basically only ever hear it in a throwback context now. The terminology isn't irrelevant, it's the root of this discussion. I've seen people bash LP's more electronic- or hip-hop-leaning songs by claiming that they're "techno", or that Shinoda tries to sound "gangsta" in the more aggressive rapping parts - equally ridiculous. This is like that. As an aside, you're talking about a wide variety of pop subgenres, and other genres, all at once if you discuss the album because it's much more diverse than any of its detractors (the same ones who don't check the labels they use) will ever admit. The modern pop landscape as a whole is much the same in that sense, very diverse, even if you narrow it down to just top-tier mainstream acts. This variety will only grow as time goes on, in my opinion.
@Blackee Dammet, have you honestly ever looked at the variety of a Now That's What I Call Music tracklist? Let me provide some examples of bands and songs that have been featured on those albums: Now That's What I Call Music! Release Date: 1998 Tonic - If You Could Only See Radiohead - Karma Police Everclear - I Will Buy You A New Life Lenny Kravitz - Fly Away Now That's What I Call Music 2! Release Date: 1999 Semisonic - Closing Time U2 - Sweetest Thing Garbage - I Think I'm Paranoid Sublime - What I Got Everclear - Father Of Mine Now That's What I Call Music 3! Release Date: 1999 Blink-182 - What's My Age Again Limp Bizkit - Nookie Garbage - Special Now That's What I Call Music 4! Release Date: 2000 Blink-182 - All The Small Things Now That's What I Call Music 5! Release Date: 2000 3 Doors Down - Kryptonite Everclear - Wonderful Bon Jovi - It's My Life Now That's What I Call Music 6! Release Date: 2001 Coldplay - Yellow Incubus - Drive U2 - Beautiful Day Fuel - Hemorrhage Creed - With Arms Wide Open Some of the biggest bands during those years were included on these compilations alongside Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, Sisqo, etc. You're talking Coldplay, Blink-182, Garbage, and Incubus. Bands with careers pretty much as long as Linkin Park's. Are these bands also bubble gum pop, sell outs because their songs were so popular they made it to these albums? I mean, come on. Radiohead is included on the first one ever. If OML is comparable to a compilation album of radio hits. I'll take it. Just my two cents.
I mean I'd really love to hear how OML is somehow so much more than your average radio music, it's just that nobody can seem to articulate as much. Ever. Why did you stop at 2001? There are 62 albums in the Now catalog. Of course music released in 2017 sounds different than 3 Doors Down and Everclear, that's not the point. It's that the music they made in 2017 sounds like... a lot of the rest of the music made in 2017. The songs could all fit on an album in a series that's based entirely on "This is the hit music of this time period". Are you merely assuming I meant "those are albums full of bad music"? At no point did I use that post to call them "sell outs", just to argue that nothing on this album is dramatically different from what you're going to find elsewhere on the radio. Because it isn't. The band made music that sounds a lot like music already being made. This should not only not be a controversial statement, the fact that they were pretty openly pleased with themselves for bringing in hit pop music songwriters for the album should make that a given.
I find it funny immediately after this post, 2 other people come in with comments that can't believe how I could consider the album as sounding similar to anything else being made right now. Ok, it's not "that kind" of pop, let's work from there. Do you really think there's anything on this album that's going to sound like a dramatic departure to your average Top 40 listener? Don't put it in terms of the Linkin Park discography or someone mad that it isn't rock music, do you think any song from OML could be played on the radio, and it would catch your average pop music station listener completely off guard with sounds and a style they've never heard before? Because I'm betting it wouldn't. Whether or not that makes the songs bad in and of itself is irrelevant (and at no point in my numerous negative critiques did I ever lay the blame on that, I guess I have to state outright), but, again, I don't hear a single thing on this album that's going to sound dramatically out of place right before after a Chainsmokers song and right before the latest Bruno Mars single.
Mainly because I'm at work and had spent enough time going through the first few albums to make a point that the artists that have been featured on the compilation present a varied range of sounds and talent. I figured I'd come across enough bands that are as big as Linkin Park with the same longevity to express that being on a compilation like that one isn't necessarily a bad thing. Who's your average Top 40 listener? Earlier in the thread I jokingly posted about someone saying, "You still listen to the radio?" However, the truth is that it's a legitimate question. Much of radio has become a dinosaur. Pre-2017 Linkin Park is now played on classic rock stations. My kids mostly find music through either satellite radio or YouTube. I tried throwing on FM recently and found that the Top 40 FM stations actually have a different rotation than the satellite stations. There are some similarities, but they're not 100% the same. That being said, when my son first heard "Heavy" he personally thought it was cool because to him, the listener, it didn't sound like other things he'd been hearing on the radio. Once we sat down and I pointed out it was Linkin Park who he's been listening to since he was a baby because of me, his mind was blown. He was impressed because he had this singular idea of how the band sounds and to him the evolution to this sound better aligned with what kids his age are listening to. When it comes down to it, we've all got our opinions and I respect yours. Coming from someone (me) who grew up living and breathing Top 40, I think it was a good move. Is it their best album? No. Does it make sense? I think so. IMO, the sales numbers solidify that decision.
Since when did chart success gauge whether or not an album was good? Because there are a lot of albums that I absolutely love that didn't chart at all. I don't gauge whether or not music is good based off of how an album does in the charts. EDIT: I also wanted to add one more thing. It's funny to me to see people saying they're no longer a fan of the band, etc. because of this album. So just because you didn't like this album, you're no longer a fan of the band at all? I wasn't a fan of A Thousand Suns, Living Things, The Hunting Party or One More Light, and yet I still consider myself a Linkin Park fan. And I still enjoy browsing the fansites and social media for the band. I mean very rarely do I find someone who is a fan of music that likes every single release by a band or artist. Not saying it's a bad thing if someone does, but cmon. Just because you don't like one of their albums, you're no longer a fan of the band at all?
Nobody Can Save Me is a freaking amazing song Such a good song. Production took this song, its great. The instrument layering after 1:18 when the beat drops is dope. The guitars from 2:03 are the icing on the cake. And these are not some lowered down guitars, they are fucking audible (if you have the ears to listen) If you call this song pop/bland pop/generic pop/radio pop, bruh get some good headphones and experience the production and instrument layering, and if you still find it bland either you're deaf af, blaming just for the sake of it or you really got a bad sense of music.
If I listened to the reviews I would listen to or watch half of music or movies. Those are such individual things.
Actually, I wanted to say I wouldn't but this is what happens when you listen to TV and write here. Anyway, this album is still a big surprise for me because initially I never thought I'd listen to it as much as I do now and always find something new. It's been on repeat nearly every day. There are only two songs I skip: BS and OML. Hope to hear SE, TTT or HR at the concert in June.
I never tried to argue any of this in my earlier posts. Yes, "One More Light" is an out-and-out pop album and, yes, a good amount of it could work next to what you hear in mainstream pop today (which, in and of itself, isn't necessarily monotonous, as I said). And, indeed, that isn't any real indicator of quality. But that's all irrelevant. Again, I seriously never raised any of these points, and I'd appreciate people not acting as if I did. It's basically an entirely different topic from what you were asking to be clarified earlier.
I don't think he's saying you did, but then he brings up legitimate points and articulates in a meaningful manner, but then another user can just degrade it and say "I thought I've read everything until I read this shit post" and it's easy to understand from my view and others view that people are defending the album for the sake of defending the album without ever seeing the other viewpoint for its merits. Again, it's not a knock on you, but it is a knock on others on this forum.
Why are you going on about this "the songs belong in Top 40" argument when the original argument was about OML being cheesy bubblegum pop (which many of us have proved its not). Then you fabricated this argument and are getting mad that people are talking about OML and bubblegum pop and not OML and Top 40.
It's almost two weeks over and the popular opinion about this album is: 50% it's good, 50% it sucks and it's the worst album they ever made
see; Literally the first thing I said was "If 'that style' no longer exists', whatever it's modern equivalent would be referred to as is very close to what the band put out, and proceeded to cite things which would be the modern version of said music. "Bubblegum pop" doesn't exist, but clearly some form of 'cheaper, generic' pop music is being discussed, so what would be a good benchmark for what that is? Historically, the Top 40, and emphasized by these music compilation CDs. This wording; is especially useful, since my initial remark is literally nothing more than "what brought you to this conclusion?". This makes @minuteforce 's response a bit irrelevant, since it seems like mere nitpicking of the first guys choice of words , who I don't actually think knew that 'bubblegum pop' was actually considered a genre, and was just trying to think up a derogatory name for music he didn't like, not that he was actually trying to lay out a textbook case for why Linkin Park made mid-60's formulaic music (further evidenced by the fact the words 'cheesy' and 'radio pop' are used, making it readily apparent that's what's specifically being talked about). This makes the further "please don't put words in my mouth" comments even stranger, since i not only didn't initially ask him the question to begin with, but reiterated what I meant as to avoid confusion to begin with. Allow me to reword the first post; what is now being considered generic pop music, and what is this album doing to set itself apart from that? Now allow me to emphasize why I feel the need to ask that question; based on what's currently thought of as 'mindless pop' (as based on popularity via the Billboard Top 40 hits chart and a widely popular album compilation series), the band could fit snuggly alongside artists who would generally not garner a lot of respect as 'innovators' or 'trendsetters'. You are a grown mad, do not dismiss message board comments as "getting mad". Are you confusing the length of comments with anger? Initially that was done to avoid any confusion as to what I could mean, though I see that was done in vain. Allow me to wrap everything up with a tl;dr: Guys they totally made radio pop, but that's ok because a lot of you are far too dismissive of radio pop in the first place. It's cool if some of you acknowledge that but if you do I'm likely not talking about or to you. if you don't think they made radio pop you're wrong, and if you don't think any part of this doesn't sound like other popular music you're wrong, if you disagree I'd like to hear your thoughts, but you'll almost certainly be wrong.
The original pushback was towards the comment that OML was cheesy bubblegum pop. Maybe OP didn't mean "cheesy bubblegum pop" literally but hey, that's what they said and we're not mind readers. Plus, with the outlandish hate people have been throwing at this album, you can't blame one for taking it literally. Then you came in with the argument that OML sounds like most of what you'd hear on the Top 40 today. Which sure, that's true, but that's also a different sentiment.