Great post @Christøffer ! You can tell the dedication and work you put into this. "One More Light" is a super emotional tune, and not an easy one to listen to - not to mention the music video. The guitar work is simple yet on point, the vocal performance is strong. I don’t listen to it often, because of how emotionally heavy it is, but really good track nonetheless, and a LP classic. One last thing, is that I am relieved the band is not playing it in their current setlists. I think this is a song so special that it is best to keep it for special occasions, and also to avoid bringing the mood down during the shows.
I realize the significance of this track in the discography, but... I don't particularly care for it as a song. The wobbly synth and the guitar have never been my favorites, and even the vocal performance is kind of weird. As mentioned above, I'm glad it's not in the new set, and I hope it stays that way.
This is one of the few songs that makes me tear up, especially after the tragedy of Chester's passing. However, despite its emotional impact, I wouldn't place it among their best work as many others do. It still feels overproduced for a song meant to have a stripped-down, raw quality.
The audible gasp from the crowd when Mike started the track in the UK replays in my mind whenever this songs starts, and it's one of the few pieces of music that takes me to a very specific place, time and feeling. For that reason alone, I choose not to listen to this when I'm having a good day, because it will most certainly bring my day down
I think this is their best stripped down piece. At release I immediately connected with it after a friend from high school had passed a few months prior (when OML dropped I was a college freshman, so high school was very fresh still), but now it's inseparable from Chester. It has such a symbolism to it now that it almost has a spiritual role in their catalog. I like that it doesn't take a layered approach like much of OML does to add weight and climactic energy. There are no large chords or pads here, just the fingerpicked guitar, a light synth loop, a barely-there bass, and that piano figure at the end. I always find that the synth loop, combined with the title, evokes an imagery of shimmering or twinkling for me, and I really like that. I think the delicate simplicity of this song is its strongest suit. These days when I hear the song, rather than recalling the confused inward-facing pain I felt in 2017, I feel more sadness for what that time must have been like for the band, their friends, and family. But I think One More Light has a place in their story. It has become a song that we use to remember Chester, and I think that's important. I tend toward being melancholic on occasion, so sometimes I just like to sit with all those emotions. There are also some times where this song reminds me of our late friend here on LPA, Tony. I really miss that guy and texting him about all sorts of things. I also agree in keeping this song off setlists. It would be weird to me having it played with the new lineup, even if Mike sang it, unless it's for a very specific occasion.
10/10. I liked this song from day one, but as others have already said, after Chester died it took on a new meaning. I found it difficult to listen to for the first year or so after his passing although it's become easier since then. The song still hits me in the feels, however; and not just the vocals, but right from the beginning of the song. The opening synth and guitar lines are both done really tastefully in my opinion, and Chester sings in a way that fits hits voice well in my opinion. Love the unstated harmonies in the 2nd verse and choruses as well. I do sorta wish that the vocals in the bridge section weren't buried in the mix and were instead at the forefront like in the live versions, though.
One More Light is a gift. I'm fortunate I haven't had to rely on it in all these years since Chester's passing, but I know I have it in my back pocket when I need it and I'm grateful for that. It's one of Linkin Park's transcendental songs. It's something to hold onto and cherish. It's the ballad in my opinion.
Definitely the highlight of the album but also for a lot of sad reasons. The song itself is beautiful sad and has a emotional atmosphere which just a few LP songs give me. While the passing of Chester hitted hard with the song already released, i think the passing of Tony gave me a lot more problems when i know listen to the song as it hits way more personally. Who cares if one more light goes out? I fucking do, i miss you Tony So yeah, its really hard for me to listen to the song at all. Its beatiful painfull. And i agree with the others here that the song really shouldnt be played anymore beside special events. ___________________________________________________________________________ While never mentioned anywhere, i think the song also kinda influenced Deryck (Sum 41) to write Catching Fire. He doesnt mentioned the song itself here, but for me the thematic and atmosphere of the song hit on a similar personal level.
One More Light is such an amazing tune that really stands apart from the rest of the record as being more honest and raw in a way the rest of it isn't. The sparseness in its production is its biggest strength, and you can really feel the passion behind Chester's vocal performance. The only real issue I have with the song is the muffled "I do" towards the end of the track. Maybe having a more raw vocal take would've clashed a bit with the more ambient production, but I really would've liked to hear the power of Chester's voice there. One thing I will always associate with the track is the Jimmy Kimmel performance following Chris Cornell's death. The pain in Chester's voice there is something that just isn't easy to forget. At the time the album came out, I thought it was a bit of a missed opportunity to not end the album on such a powerful note with the song, but in hindsight I'm so happy they didn't make that choice. It's impossible to separate what happened with him with the subject matter of the song. Maybe I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here by discussing the next song as well, but despite how real a lot of the lyrical subject matter of the album turned out to be, ultimately Chester's final message he left with Sharp Edges is that we are capable of overcoming our demons. "We all fall down We live somehow We learn what doesn't kill us makes us stronger"
I’ve always been a sucker for the more stripped ballads of LP, especially on MTM and the title track definitely feels like it could have been from the MTM sessions imo. The melody is beautiful, the sentiment is a perfect representation of a more mature LP focusing on the aspects of life that affect everyone no matter how old you are: losing people close to you. Even before July 2017, this was a strong track and I definitely think naming the album after this song was a good way to encapsulate the feelings they wanted to evoke from listening to this project. However, after July 2017, this ballad has become a really important staple in their discography. Is it hard to listen to for me personally? Yes, it’s a bit too raw and I do feel sad about how this and Sharp Edges are the two last Chester songs to be released before his passing, but damn, when I do have the courage to give it a spin, it makes me feel things that a lot of LP songs since LT don’t. And that is the connection to the lyrics and the singing that evokes the emotional aspects.
So, why do you think Living Things and The Hunting Party are weak? Surely it is not just because you don't enjoy the aesthetic? Surely you could adduce something about those albums that makes them weak? You would agree, presumably, that there are such things as good, better and worse songwriting, good, better and worse production, lyricism, etc. We can agree or disagree on how good something is, but to somehow presume that the only reason someone could dislike One More Light is because they don't jive with the aesthetic is an odd take. It's not like I'm the only one. Look at the reviews. I also fail to see how considering that something has no lasting artistic value, and saying so, could be meaningless or ridiculous. It seems like a relevant thing to say when we are discussing the merits of the music. Not just in my opinion, but yes, in my opinion; it would be redundant to add that phrase to the end of each post. Although, to be frank, I am not quite ready to negate the concept of good taste (to use an extreme example, there's a reason WAP is WAP and the 9th symphony is the 9th symphony), but that's another discussion. It's great that you enjoy the album. Honestly. But that doesn't preclude others from giving their own thoughts about it. The reason I care to comment about the album at all is that I am still just incredulous at the fact that the band genuinely enjoyed this music and was excited to put it out. And to be clear, I hardly listen to Linkin Park at all at this point in my life. Their music mostly has nostalgic value for me. It's not like I think Hybrid Theory and Meteora are the height of musical achievement, and compare all other releases to them, as you sort of implied. As for "One More Light": easily one of the best songs on the record. Unfortunately though, the sickly sweet "flickers, flickers" bit has always rubbed me the wrong way. It sounds like they tried to add a hook to an otherwise understated ballad. Still, because of the meaning that's become attached to it, the song will remain a milestone for the band. Some dark serendipity caused the band to have this song on this album.
My two cents: "Good" songwriting, production, etc is still just a matter of personal preference for certain aesthetics. It's wholly subjective, and just because a large group of people share an opinion does not make it a truth. Critics are just people that large numbers of people like hearing the opinions of. Fantano is no more of an "objective" music listener than the next person; he just has more knowledge and context that allows him to create engaging content. But his reviews reflect his preferences and biases. Music is an art form and every art piece is an innately unique artistic expression. Something's "artistic value" is still a subjective view, even if it's shared among people. Large numbers of people have thought of huayno music in the Andes as "provincial" or bluegrass music in the Appalachians as "backwater music" with less merit than commercialized music due to their perception of "simplicity," which ignores the cultural and emotional depth these styles of music have for many. The English thought the raga melodic modes of Indian Carnatic or Hindustani classical music were indicative of the Indian peoples having a bad ear for music because they didn't conform to the European scales. These opinions don't make those musical styles less artistically valid or poorly written just because a significant population deems them unattractive. I disagree with a lot of production choices on OML (the album), but it's clear that the band wanted to make this music and that it was special to them. I'm all for critical or more intellectual discussion of music, but we don't need to try to make lofty statements about the inherent value of a piece of music. It just reduces it to something to be consumed, rated, and sent through the production line rather than human expression through art.
Great post @Christøffer, couldn't agree more. Really cool you brought in examples from other cultures as well. It strikes me that a lot of debates about artistic merits and the objectivity of good taste are (often) carried through the lenses of western music only, and that, in the end, offers a very narrow definition of what music can be. Music can take an infinite multitude of forms - melodic/rhythmic, long/short, simple/complex, layered/raw, digital/analog, fast/slow, harmonic/dissonant, you name it - and each of those forms will appeal more to specific tastes/ moods/ backgrounds/etc. In my opinion, trying to sort out what's "objectively better" between all that is vain. It's like, orange and apples. For real. Sure. Some pieces will require (a lot) more mastery to compose and to perform. Sure, you can always take up "the best" among what's considered "the best", and "the worst" among what's considered "the worst", and make a point by comparing the two. Yet, at the end of the day, the odds are high that "the worst" will offer something to someone, that "the good" couldn't offer. For that reason, it's a great reminder that, beyond the technicalities, music is mainly a tool to communicate emotions. Maybe it'll look a bit like a broken tool to some, but to some others, it will be the exact one they were looking for. It's fun to discuss music and explain why we connect more with certain songs, and why some others don't work for us. But I am sure we can do it without going onto the "Look, I know better" territory
Thank you @Christøffer and @Qwerty19. The point about folk/traditional music is a great illustration of what I was trying to get at. I'm Irish, and we have a similar history with Irish traditional music (and Irish traditional culture in general, a story that is no doubt echoed by traditional cultures around the world). As another illustrative example, I would recommend anyone who hasn't to watch Adam Neely's video on Music Theory and White Supremacy. The relevant point here is the deeply problematic consequences that arise from trying to create "objective" frameworks for what is considered "good" and what is considered "bad". Of course I could articulate why. But I would not be so presumptuous to assume that the aesthetic choices which do not appeal to me are objective issues with the record. I would not, no. Why so? I don't think it's hard to find the flaws with this line of reasoning. See @Christøffer's post for example. Because it's an ill-defined concept. I know which one I'd rather hear in a club, which illustrates my point that any notion of "quality" is inherently linked to the aesthetics one chooses to value. If that's the most extreme example you can construct, then surely you can see the issue with saying things like "needless to say, this record has no lasting artistic value" (paraphrasing). Of course, I didn't say otherwise. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult or smug. But when I hear music I dislike, my immediate goal is to understand why people like it. And it's usually not hard. I can't think of a single piece of music where I fail to understand how someone could like it. That doesn't mean I like every piece of music - it simply means that I can set aside my biases and dissect what makes music appealing to others, even if it is not appealing to me. I don't believe I implied that. It certainly wasn't the intention. I do believe my points stand regardless. Apologies all for derailing the thread! I'll shut up if this is getting too annoying.
I think this kind of discussion was bound to come up eventually discussing this album. Surprised it took this long honestly. As long as all in good faith and not trying to be spiteful I think it's good and fair @Iopia
Thanks everybody for the input, and especially for the goodwill. This is an interesting issue that I would like to read/learn more about, so I won't try to make some kind of definitive case here, because first I'd have to do that with myself. I'd like to make it clear that if anyone ascribed a "colonial" connotation to my posts, that was not the intention at all. I'm not from a country with a colonial past anyway. What I will say, and responding to this quote in particular, is that I do think it comes down to values. I do think that at bottom, perhaps unfortunately, this is an ideological liberal–conservative issue. Or even a modern–postmodern issue. But it's not limited to that. I mean, if there is an album that has fallen victim to the "loudness wars," for example, discerning listeners will know that this is a badly mixed album. I could keep citing examples of bad production, bad lyrics, etc., but I don't think I'm likely to convince you of anything if I haven't up until now. Just to clarify my point though, I don't think it's just about which aesthetics someone values, as you say; I think it's also about the quality of the execution. For example, someone buying tomatoes, but not well-versed in them, may believe that they have bought a good tomato just because it has a unique, striking shape. Whereas a tomato cultivator will know that there is more to look out for than just the shape (the level of ripeness, the nuances of the taste, etc.). So it's not just about the aesthetic of the tomato, it's about all that goes into producing it and making sure it's a good tomato. People who know something about tomatoes will be able to discern those characteristics; others won't. That's why professional wine tasting exists, for example. You can claim that that's all bullshit at the end of the day, but I wouldn't be inclined to agree with you. And I think worse examples could be constructed, to respond to that point. One could record a succession of farts, for instance, and claim it as an avant-garde piece of music. Some people would say: "Not my style, but sure, if it works for you." Others would say: "this is just a bunch of farts." Again, I'm not really expecting us to agree, but I hope that I've clarified my point.
The issue here is that you are equating art as something to be consumed like a tomato rather than something to be learned from and experienced. You bring up the point about how any albums mixed loudly as a victim of the “loudness war” are of course bad, but I don’t think I would ever listen to anything else but the original (very loud) masters of the first few Oasis records, because any subsequent master erases the uniquness and charm that came with that sound. If you see something in a piece of work, and think something is bad and in poor taste, maybe stop and consider that the decision was made with a purpose beyond your lived understanding. We’re all just a collection of our different tastes and learned experiences. Trying to dictate which one is best folly.
Spoiler: More on the Music Discussion No colonial connotation, sorry if it came across that way. I think pulling the lens back is just the easiest way to illustrate the way I consider objectivity in art to be an extremely hard concept to define. There are surely baseline concepts that make music what it is - most ethnographers and musicologists agree that it has to be a human organization of sound. But outside of that, I feel you can only really make statements about what cultures agree they like in majority, rather than objective facts about the quality of a music. Music cultures can be as small as a town's local folk circuit or as large as Eurodance. I would disagree with this comparison because you are comparing an art form to a science. A tomato ripens and decays and has objective qualities that respond to the scientific method. Wine similarly. Music, by nature of being art, doesn't have this same kind of scientific approach. The measurable indicators of "quality" are just agreed-upon standard, which again, vary depending on who you ask. To entertain this example, as noted in my first response, I would say it depends on intention. If there's a clear organizational quality of sound, then it would probably fall under "music." Sure, it would be a novelty piece, but all music is not created for the same reasons, or for the intention of being the grandest most elaborate expression. There are several anecdotes and recountings of music cultures clashing over what is considered great (I was looking for the Armenian folk musician story, but I found this article had several others worth noting and made some interesting points). I think it illustrates my point that objective value is near-impossible to define. It's obviously an extreme example since I'm using ethnomusicological examples in a thread discussing a Western rock band making a pop record, but I think even within Western music culture you can probably find variations in what someone considers compelling or "good." I find more merit or beauty in bluegrass music recorded prior to the 1970s because the recording quality gives it a more human character that appeals to my sensibilities and emotions. If you remove the emotional aspect of art, then I think you've basically become Suno AI. I will be posting Sharp Edges tomorrow, so if anyone else has thoughts on the song One More Light, now is the time.
It's not mutually exclusive. When you consume music, you experience it and learn from it (if at least what makes a bad song). Sure, maybe a controversial part of a piece of music is there deliberately. But maybe it isn't. Maybe it's just bad and/or in poor taste. The thing is, we don't even seem to agree on whether those things (low quality, poor taste) exist. Apparently I am supposed to accept that there is no difference in merit between a year's batch of Eurovision performers and the Vienna Philharmonic. I wouldn't call what I'm doing dictating. I wouldn't attribute so much power to myself. Thanks for the link. Did you study ethnomusicology? To reference your first post, it may be of note (just for anyone curious) to point out that there have been opposite stories as well. Like the 20th-century English composer Benjamin Britten, who was incredibly inspired by Balinese gamelan music. So, this is the Armenian folk musician: "The rock and pop styles then and now sound like music produced by machinery, and rarely have I heard a melody worth repeating. The same with “country” and “folk” and other more traditional styles. These musics, while making more sense with their melody (of the most undeveloped type), have killed off any sense of gracefulness with their monotonous droning and machine-like sense of rhythm." It seems to me like he wouldn't like One More Light, either. Sure, he also didn't seem to like classical music, but I'm inclined to attribute this to the fact that classical music is often not immediately accessible. Also, I assume that if the Armenian got more accustomed to pop, he would be able to tell which pop is better, and which is worse (and I enjoy both of these songs). Well, who are we going to ask? I suppose this is a good place to share Roger Scruton on the topic, for anyone interested. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but this is one articulation of the sort of view I lean towards. By the way, you'll find that he doesn't consider the emotional aspect of music irrelevant, quite the contrary. And neither do I. Analogies only go a certain length towards clarifying things, and I appreciate that tomatoes aren't the perfect stand-in for music, haha. The bottom line is, I can agree that standards can be hard to define, but I cannot agree that there are, or should be, no standards at all. I think this is the closest we can come to agreeing on this topic. And sure, I may have been too harsh on One More Light from this perspective. But the standards by which I judge Linkin Park are those that the band have set themselves with their best music. I suggest that we start wrapping it up with this discussion because we'll just end up going in circles, and this is not technically the thread for it. But I'm glad we've had it.