Why is Linkin Park considered "mainstream"?

This is something I have been wondering for a while. I understand that when LP made a splash with HT in 2000, nu-metal was considered popular then and was labeled "mainstream". However, the band members said that they did not want to be labeled and instead wanted to create a new listening experience by blending together established sounds. Just to clarify, the band was never nu-metal to begin with, right? Fast forward to the present and the band does not really have a huge presence on mainstream radio stations these days. I know that Recharged can be seen as an effort to become a bit more relevant in the mainstream but the songs on there were mostly remixes. I just don't understand how the band can be viewed as mainstream despite its philosophy on the music it makes. Can someone please explain what it truly means to be a "mainstream" artist and how this applies to LP?

P. S. Please keep this thread/discussion on the level. No bashing, insulting, or starting flamewars. Thank you.

 

"Mainstream" isn't always a synonym for "pop music", it's used for when a kind of music is easily accessible and widely available.

Ignoring the fact that they were doing a very, very popular genre of music at the time they started (whether or not they "intended to" is irrelevant), their very first album sold millions. Millions. Worldwide. Whether ot not they even wanted to, they came out of the gate as THE rock band of the time.

 

They were kinda lumped into the same band catagory because critics needed to call the little gimmick something. Nu metal isn't actually a genre, it also isn't new nor metal. So they can't really not be something that is actually a pretty broad and vague term.

LP is the most liked band on facebook and also the most veiwed rock band on youtube, sounds pretty mainstream to me.
They aren't commonly played on mainstream radio because right now pop and dance is big right now, so they'll play the most popular of those genres.
But lesser played stations are specializing in the less popular genres, on rock stations Linkin Park always gets played at some point, and New Divide, What I've Done, Leave Out all The Rest, Iridescent, The Catalyst, and Burn it Down were on pretty heavy rotation on mainstream radio.
Right now A Light that Never Comes is on heavy rotation.

 

To me if they're popular, they're mainstream. There's no such thing as a -worldwide- popular underground band. And also, look at the number of sponsorships and partnerships they're getting, that's not exactly something of a "non-mainstream" band. LP can still reach the masses and that's why they are mainstream. They've always been (like BD say, whether they intended to or not).

Also.. Biggest band of Facebook. Jeez.

 

lol

 

Yes.

 

I don't know, man... no idea...


























































...156,511,031
...58,548,074

No fucking idea.

 

I see where a lot of you are coming from. You are using the band's popularity on social media (Facebook, YouTube) as a gauge for how mainstream the band currently is. I did not consider these factors, as I am not really involved in social media. I also didn't realize that some of their older songs are still in rotation on the radio. I have honestly only heard songs like In the End, What I've Done, Iridescent, Waiting for the End, and Burn It Down a handful of times on mainstream stations, ITE more so than the others. Then again, I don't listen to the radio that often, so I haven't been keeping up with the latest radio hits. I should have considered how much the band reaches out to wider audiences with all of their non-album projects, as Andreina mentioned.

When I made this thread, I only had the band's music in mind and how they approach making music. Despite it being mainstream in terms of Facebook and YouTube popularity, I still don't see how LP is mainstream musically. We all know that they have made rather interesting decisions with their more recent albums, especially ATS. I will still stand by my view that ATS is almost as far from the mainstream as you can get if you look at the album in its entirety. I can say with confidence that I had never heard an album with such a diverse soundscape and atmosphere before listening to ATS. It's true that several songs on this album follow the typical structure but then there are songs that aren't so structured. It's the songs that don't follow the typical structure (WTCFM, The Catalyst, and W&K to a lesser extent) that really stand out from other more structured songs. I know many of LP's songs follow the established pop structure (VCVCBC) but what I'm mainly getting at is that their songs aren't always made to be easily accessible to a mainstream audience. Just look at some of the excessively harsh lyrics on LT. Lyrically, this album was not designed to please mainstream listeners, as harsh, angry music really isn't "in" at the moment.

 

Because once you have a song that gets played on Top 40 radio, you're a bunch of corporate sellouts and will never be capable of redeeming yourself.

/typical Internet music geek attitude

 

ATS still debuted #1 in many countries. As I see it you're trying to paint a picture where LP is a mainstream band that doesn't make mainstream music and that doesn't make any sense.

 

I did not intend to express a seemingly contradictory statement like that. I just don't see how LP is 100% mainstream when it crafts songs such as Victimized, Until It Breaks, Roads Untraveled, and Skin to Bone, which clearly weren't made directly for the mainstream. Perhaps I have the impression that LP was once a mainstream band due to the music that was popular when they debuted but just don't how they still are completely mainstream. This band has changed tremendously since its beginnings and has always attempted to bring something new to the table with each subsequent album. I find it strange that LP can experiment extensively yet still make songs that can be easily played on radio stations. This is why I believe that the band is not truly mainstream but only partially. Lastly, I don't want to give the impression that I automatically dislike something if it is associated in any way with the mainstream. It's just I am very dissatisfied with what popular music has become, especially with the often times degrading lyrics. To me, Linkin Park continues to remain a breath of fresh air in a music industry saturated with songs about clubbing, dirty dancing, and promiscuity. Linkin Park, in my opinion, incorporates much more meaningful and mature lyrical themes.

 

Most artists have a couple songs that aren't radio-ready singles. Like, even the biggest pop artists you can think of usually have one or two "different" songs on their albums. Roads Untraveled doesn't have a clear cut chorus, but it's hardly experimental.

People often mistake "changing their sound" for "experimentation." They are not the same thing. I would not say they have experimented "extensively" at all.

Linkin Park lyrics aren't more mature, they're more introverted. Again, most pop artists have more *meaningful* lyrics on their albums, I'm guessing you just haven't heard them because you're so turned off by that artist's singles or public persona. On the flip side, you go through every Linkin Park album top to bottom because you're a fan. That gives you a lot of bias. There are plenty of people like you out there who just think of the Transformers songs or In The End or Burn It Down when they think of Linkin Park.

 

Because.

 

Aside from popularity, Linkin Park is mainstream because they have a sound that is very broad and appeals to a wide group of people. Their songs are, for the most part, relatively inoffensive and are a pretty easy listen, even for people who might not dig some of their more aggressive stuff. Victimized might be harsher than other songs on the radio, but that song was clearly never meant to be played on the radio. It's an album track. Burn It Down, however, was made for the explicit purpose of being played on the radio. Rappers do this same shit all the time. The only difference is, most rappers are pretty transparent about making songs that appeal to a broader audience so they can make more money. Linkin Park want people to think all their songs are, like, so deep and meaningful with lyrics that touch your soul, bro.

 

NOW TO BE FAIR


A band that makes computer games and shoes isn't exactly going to be the posterboys for artistic integrity.

 

Linkin Park will probably never make an album without at least one radio-friendly song. And if you get airplay on mainstream radio stations, then you're by defintion a mainstream band, I'd say.

 

I'm impressed tbh. Didn't know it was that much.

 

Because my roomie likes them. Nuff said.

 

Youtube:

"Castle of Glass": 64,683,255 Views
"Burn it Down": 66,096,807 Views
"Numb": 137,150,833 Views
"New Divide": 156,565,477 Views
"The Catalyst": 52,705,957 Views

The list could go on and on.

Mainstream = Popularity

If Popularity determines the level of Mainstream, then Linkin Park's level is over 9000! Hell, even Living Things has six million views on Youtube. That's even more views than Hybrid Theory, even this late into their career. If that doesn't make Linkin Park Mainstream, I guess I don't even know what Mainstream means.

 

Thanks again, everyone, for providing insight from perspectives outside my own. It seems I don't really have a firm understanding of how mainstream music works but this thread is starting to help change that. I thought your breakdown of my last response was really interesting, Xero21. I understand what you're saying for the most part except the bit on LP's lyrics being more introverted instead of mature. What do you mean by introverted? I can only think that means more personal and directed at the self but I'm not sure about that as an interpretation