Look what I stumbled upon. This guy has a video series where he dissects rock songs and explains what makes them great. He apparently has many producer connections because he owns the master tracks and shows what cool things are hidden in the song. This is a must watch for every LP fan. He also has videos like this for blink-182 and many classic rock bands if you would like to check out more stuff like this. This totally sounds like a plug but this video just really blew my mind.
If you consider using the Rock Band multitracks everyone can find online "owning the master tracks," okay I guess... I have a couple very big issues with stuff this guy says. He calls the clearly partially live/partially programmed drum track completely programmed (which indicates to me he's woefully inexperienced in triggered drum sounds), he thinks the blended DI/amp track is chorused when it isn't (which tells me he's used to bass tracks being exclusively mono - also this sounds NOTHING like the "symphonic" setting on an SPX90, which tells me the guy's talking out of his ass/grasping at straws based on a piece of gear he just happens to know Andy Wallace uses), and the "reversed keyboard" going into the chorus he talks about is clearly a reversed sample of the chorus vocal part. Also, he amusingly plays the chorus guitar part wrong, but just about everyone does.
Fascinating video. Numb was my gateway drug to Linkin Park in 2004 or 2005 I was completely mesmerized by it. Over the years I thought I had outgrown it but since Chester's passing, I've gained an entirely new appreciation for the song. Chester's vocals are just so powerful and passionate, the song is just SO wide and cinematic, not to mention I'm a sucker for that keyboard intro/outro (which for the longest time I thought were synths...).
Notwithstanding what Astat said, this is still a fascinating look into the anatomy of a Linkin Park song. When you listen to the song, you know all those elements are there (at least you're half-aware), but hearing them isolated makes quite the difference. I think I've regained some of my respect for "Numb," a song easy to dismiss due to its somewhat being overplayed over the years, but the reason it can still impress today is precisely this layered, elaborate production.
Even though Numb is Pushing Me Away Part 2, It's still the better song of the two imo. The layered vocals, pop sensibility, the intro, and instrumental still hold up well even 15 years (Jeez. Can't believe it's 15) later. Also I'm a sucker for Mike's whispered "Caught in the undertow" moment for some reason.
The songs are very different to me though I can get why they are similar to another person. I guess they’re both about bad relationships.
Yeah, they don't sound completely similar but I can definitely see the structural similarities when they are pointed out.
I think Chester’s performance in this song is what really makes it, at the end of the day. You could have someone else sing the same words and melody but it wouldn’t have the feeling and emotional impact that Chester’s performance has. It’s outstanding because it has power but also sensitivity.
This. The entire band was tight and made a great sounding song, but Chester just took it home. It's one hell of a dynamic performance and showed all of Chester's best qualities.
I think that applies to many other Linkin Park songs. I think most of them wouldn't have been as impactful if they had been played by a different band with a different vocalist. Even if there are different versions of some songs, it's impossible to compare because everyone makes their own interpretation, but I'd say it would be almost impossible for anyone to do a cover of Numb, for example, and sound as powerful and sensitive.
This was proven at the Hollywood Bowl show. Linkin Park tasked some of the most talented rock vocalists in the business to sing Chester's parts, and not one did it as well as Chester. Some came close, but nobody completely did it the way Chester did. That just goes to show how special and unique he was.
I still have to watch the full show, but I liked In The End with Oliver Sykes. What makes me a bit confused every time is how at least the first three albums, because of their worldwide popularity didn't get that much attention years later in the same way as Radiohead (at least critically), The Beatles, Nirvana, RHCP, U2, even Queen (that sold more on the Greatest Hits than on studio albums) and some others. It seems like those albums hadn't aged all that well until Chester's passing. Probably people having got mad at ATS in 2010 didn't help, or even the fact that the band hasn't been nominated for a Grammy in ages. I don't even remember who won the Best Rock Album in 2017.