Do you guys think LP has/ever will have a large impact on the cultural face of America? As y'all probably know by now, the Beatles are always on my mind, and I was thinking about how in a way, they and their contemporaries but especially they have become inseparable from looking at the decade they came together in. I'm not going to suggest LP will be the Beatles for this decade or the last (already had that thread ), but do you think they'll ever be significant to Americans culturally, like the way Nirvana was for the 90s or KISS was for the 70s? Or are we forever doomed to be drowned under a sea of mediocrity and that's what everyone remembers the '10s for forevermore?
They were big enough where an entire genre was and sometimes still is called "Linkin Park music", so there's something. But no, I imagine they'll be like The Offspring, huge at one point, still pretty big now, but pretty much considered a novelty act.
The two albums were only like four or five years apart, and Ixnay on the Hombre wasn't exactly a bomb, so it's pretty much the same period in time.
They'll probably be remembered on some level as a band who were very well-known during that time period, but I don't see them defining it in that way.
I think at this point, they've lasted in the limelight long enough to not be filed in with the likes of The Offspring. Reviewers and critics have been toting the band as one of the biggest in the world since at least the Meteora days. The thing everyone seems to forget when it comes to "I wish music was like the 90s" or "70s music was freaking amazing" and comparing it to now is that those eras also had their share of bad bands. They also had mediocrity flooding the airwaves. Why do you not hear about them? Because they were mediocre. I think that we'll have to wait 10 years or so to be able to say, but that's not the point of this thread. So I'll say that while they won't be considered the cultural icons that The Beatles or Elvis are, they'll still be considered an important part of the music scene of the time.
I think in terms of popular music the last decade will be remembered for stuff like Radiohead and the wave of popular indie bands, and popular rappers such as Kanye West and Eminem, and the big rock bands that are more critically acclaimed such as Green Day and Coldplay. On the other hand, the stuff that gets the most hate but is still huge will probably be remembered too, like say Nickelback and the Disney starlets. With Linkin Park it's not as clear-cut, so they could probably go either way. I don't think they'll end up completely forgotten though, because if nothing else they've been huge commercially.
I wasn't saying 70s music is better (although that and late 60s rock definitely is ) or that current music is not as good, my question was more along the lines of what you and others have been saying, will they be part of the musical face of their respective decades, as RHCP and Green Day probably will be for the last one.
I wouldn't consider Linkin Park culturally significant at all. But, they're far too popular (or were far too popular) to be completely forgotten. In other words, they're closer to, say, the Smashing Pumpkins than Nirvana: too big to ignore, but not exactly icons. With that said, Linkin Park are still chugging along. So, who knows? They might have some surprises in store.
Yeah. I think Benny Hill often beat the crap out of Monty Python in terms of ratings, but now the latter is one of the most popular and influential comedies ever, and the former is mostly remembered for sped up footage of people chasing each other with silly music playing. Both are still well-known in some way though. I'm not equating Linkin Park with Benny Hill btw, I just think it's a good analogy for how being remembered isn't the same as having cultural significance.
I'm not sure I follow; after all, it's that significance that'll be the reason something is remembered, isn't it? Acts such as the Beatles and Hendrix are perfect examples.
I think they have revolutionized how bands make albums and how people that come from different backgrounds can take their albums in many different ways. I have a feeling with the feedback with ATS, that thier fifth album will be mind-blowing. They have definitley changed the face of rock, metal, and rock-rap(nu-metal). LP will go down as one of the great bands of our time. Mayeb even all time if they keep their amazing success up. LP FOREVER
Not really. Maybe they acheived SOME of that in mainstream rock music, but progressive rock has produced mind blowing music that defies conventionalism, song structures and the way albums are created for decades. There's tons of artists out there releasing risky, beautiful music. You just don't get to hear it on the radio.
They'll definitely be remembered, their fanbase is fucking ridiculous huge. Don't know how in the musical cultural sense due to critics bashing them especially their early stuff. but definitely at least in all in fans minds. Plus I think they'll be making music for a long time, so I think it's still to early to tell.
This. Linkin Park, while they have a huge fan-base, aren't at the cutting edge of music like The Beatles or groups like that were. They were paving the way to something that hadn't necessarily been done yet. Those are the artists that have cultural impact. Linkin Park, while definitely having a unique sound, isn't doing anything particularly new. Contrary to the beliefs of some, LP did not start nu-metal. They came into the music scene at the peak of nu-metal. But who knows? Sometimes I forget we only have 4 official studio albums from them. I know this isn't the *Is the Linkin Park this generation's Beatles thread*, but someone in this thread talked about how critics have bashed LP's music. I think at this point, since The Beatles are so beloved now-a-days, people forget that when they first came out, the critics hated them. They called them a boy band and said the music was for the kiddies. Then the band started to experiment and move away from their initial sound, throwing away the "Beatles blueprint." Sgt. Pepper's was Paul's idea of making music under a new band name so that the band didn't have to worry about peoples' expectations of what their music should sound like. Does any of that sound kind of like another band we know? I don't think LP are this generation's Beatles, but what I am saying is that it takes years and hindsight to truly figure out which artists were great. If a critic called The Beatles an immature boy band today, their credibility would go flying out the window. Hindsight is 20/20. So we'll see.
To me, the biggest thing that hurts them is the lack of music. 4 albums in a decade isn't going to cut it if you even want to be in the same discussion as the Beatles. With that said, you could say Hybrid Theory as an album made a big impact and may be remembered 10 years from now. And no kidding, it was one of the highest selling albums of last decade.
Pretty much all of that, but that's partly why I'd respond to your comment that LP isn't on the cutting edge with the same retrospection. Did anyone expect the Beatles would? The Beatles themselves entered the music scene at the height of the skiffle and rockabilly fads in England, and at just around the time rock 'n' roll was dying in America. They and their British Invasion cohorts rejuvenated it, far from inventing it. Then there's second part of that: maybe LP isn't doing any serious experimentation, and maybe they've yet to put out their Sgt. Pepper. But maybe that's just it: maybe in another album or two, Linkin Park will be reaching that point in their career, just as the Beatles did. After all the Beatles' fourth album, Beatles for Sale, was something of a black sheep, and then they came out with Help! and after that, Rubber Soul, the first real bending of the rules. I've thought this for a while now, that maybe we're approaching the point in their career where they'll surprise everyone and really try to throw out the old mold and do something spectacular. And hey, I'm not saying they definitely will or that they even have the writing or performing clout to put out something truly revolutionary, but again, they may just surprise us yet.
People also seem to compare sales... like "The Beatles sold 500+ million records" but they don't consider the change in circumstance I do think the fact that they've only released 4 studio albums in 12 years (2000-2011) is a major factor as to why they're not as 'significant'
I was just saying that being remembered doesn't necessarily equate to being culturally significant and influential. Both Monty Python and Benny Hill are remembered in some way, but one has a much more substantial legacy than the other. There's probably a musical example I could use, but this one is a lot fresher in my mind because it was discussed in a podcast I was listening to the other day.