ghost Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Why does Linkin Park get so much hate for their change? I just don't understand it. Many people think that once a band puts out a record, that's it, that's who they are but that isn't true. From day one Linkin Park has said that they aren't about once specific style. They like to experiment and change. For the fans who don't like the new music, it's okay to not like something. The problem is, these people never end with the "well it's not HT! fucking liars!" and "well its better than ats but still sux" remarks on Youtube. Who gives a shit if it isn't Hybrid Theory? Nickelback is a band that gets constantly shitted on because they don't change! I mean I hate the band personally but if they released an album with electro influence and a bit of dubstep i'd be downloading that album so quickly you'd think I was a fan. Pink Floyd is a band that had changes in their sound and they are one of the greatest bands of all time. If you think of a famous band and look all throughout their career you can some change whether it be Pink Floyd, Green Day, Metallica, or Linkin Park. I don't see how a band that is considered a one-trick pony gets constantly shitted on, and Linkin Park does too. This time around with LIVING THINGS there is traces of all of the styles/ideas that they've done in the past, PLUS some folk influence. So not only are you getting a hybrid fusion of old/new, but you're getting something a little bit more! Some fans, and thankfully not you guys are ungrateful and mentally insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geki Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Because people still think Hybrid Theory is a good album 12 years later, and seem to think that somehow MTM, ATS and LIVING THINGS suck compared to it. I'm not counting Meteora because you mind as well call it an add-on to Hybrid Theory. These same people lack understanding of complex song structures and actually making something creative and unique. These same people want to see an album full of songs that sound just like OSC, ITE and Crawling, with the same kind of lyrics as well. Making a song about the war? Forget it. Making a song about nuclear destruction and the inevitable death of humanity as a whole? No, not as cool as a song about telling your parents to shut up. /Endrant. Edited June 20, 2012 by Geki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VavourasLP Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Because people still think Hybrid Theory is a good album 12 years later, and seem to think that somehow MTM, ATS and LIVING THINGS suck compared to it. I'm not counting Meteora because you mind as well call it an add-on to Hybrid Theory. These same people lack understanding of complex song structures and actually making something creative and unique. These same people want to see an album full of songs that sound just like OSC, ITE and Crawling, with the same kind of lyrics as well. Making a song about the war? Forget it. Making a song about nuclear destruction and the inevitable death of humanity as a whole? No, not as cool as a song about telling your parents to shut up. /Endrant. I think that's just one way to see it. Linkin Park's change for me was not so succesful on M2M and ATS because they forced themselves into it, and I think this was obvious on those albums. They would imeddiately throw away everything that sounded like Hybrid Theory in the writing proccess, and that's what forced them into trying new things that they were not familiar with and ended up delivering 2 albums that seemed out of the water for them and didn't reach the high Hybrid Theory standards (M2M is way better than ATS imo though). What they should have done is evolve their sound from what they had already built and add new elements, as they did in Living Things, which for me sounds like what should have come after Meteora. Edited June 20, 2012 by VavourasLP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakolp Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I think that's just one way to see it. Linkin Park's change for me was not so succesful on M2M and ATS because they forced themselves into it, and I think this was obvious on those albums. They would imeddiately throw away everything that sounded like Hybrid Theory in the writing proccess, and that's what forced them into trying new things that they were not familiar with and ended up delivering 2 albums that seemed out of the water for them and didn't reach the high Hybrid Theory standards (M2M is way better than ATS imo though). What they should have done is evolve their sound from what they had already built and add new elements, as they did in Living Things, which for me sounds like what should have come after Meteora. I pretty much agree with everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorast Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The problem, I think, lies with the fact that Meteora exists. We all know what it is - the exact same style with a flute loop thrown in and some rapping taken out. When a band makes an album, I believe they have exactly one shot to not get pigeonholed into the genre of their first album - and that's to make their second album sufficiently different so that it doesn't happen. It doesn't have to be like what LP did with MTM - all they would've had to do was, perhaps, throw in more electronics, pull out the teenage angst, and bam. But no, we got Hybrid Theory Part II instead. And that's when the music critics - and the people that follow them - gave up. You make the same album twice, you'll be crawling out of that hole for the rest of your career. One thing I found interesting is Antiquiet's review of LIVING THINGS, where it actually wasn't a scathing condemnation, but rather an acknowledgement that the band was growing out of their nu-metal loop in a natural, unforced way. And it only took nine years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geki Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 MTM was an epic album, it's my favorite album by LP, and if it didn't sound the way it did, I would probably have lost all interest in LP. MTM was arguably their most important album, to break away from that disgusting ''nu-metal'' tag and prove that they could do something different, and then ATS came, which further proved that the band can do whatever they want and that they are very talented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgr Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I do like that LP changes, I'm glad they're not like AC/DC, christ... but I agree that it was a big thing to make Meteora so similar to HT. but then again, they did that because they had to - there were alot of "manufactured band"/"they didn't write those songs themselves" rumours going around during HT's cycle, so they went and wrote Meteora to prove they could do it again and it was their own work. it is bad luck that Meteora carved out this nu-metal (ugh) niche, but at the time, they sort of had to do it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geki Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I do like that LP changes, I'm glad they're not like AC/DC, christ... but I agree that it was a big thing to make Meteora so similar to HT. but then again, they did that because they had to - there were alot of "manufactured band"/"they didn't write those songs themselves" rumours going around during HT's cycle, so they went and wrote Meteora to prove they could do it again and it was their own work. it is bad luck that Meteora carved out this nu-metal (ugh) niche, but at the time, they sort of had to do it... I actually don't care that Meteora sounds like Hybrid Theory. I actually love the album. I just think it's stupid when people don't understand that LP needed to make exactly what MTM was after Meteora. If they made another album that sounded like Meteora or HT, they wouldn't even be a band anymore probably. It needed to happen. And also, that was in 2007. It's now 2012 and LP made an album with some of the original HT sounds. People should get over it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorast Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I do like that LP changes, I'm glad they're not like AC/DC, christ... but I agree that it was a big thing to make Meteora so similar to HT. but then again, they did that because they had to - there were alot of "manufactured band"/"they didn't write those songs themselves" rumours going around during HT's cycle, so they went and wrote Meteora to prove they could do it again and it was their own work. it is bad luck that Meteora carved out this nu-metal (ugh) niche, but at the time, they sort of had to do it... And that's one of the problems with hitting the ball out of the park on the first try - LP literally burst onto the scene, six kids that nobody had any idea about, and sold, what, 5 million copies in two years? Ridiculous for a band that hadn't existed four years prior. So people called bullshit. Just like Mike rapped about on "Get Me Gone": "Then the humor faded when some magazines printed that our label made us / we were to good to be true / some were sayin' ghostwriters were writin' all that we do / so we had to disprove it / spell it out to the detail how we're makin' this music" Like LGraham said, they were stuck. Either ignore the rumors and make an album that sounded different (thus implying that the label really did make Hybrid Theory, especially if Album Two flopped), or do exactly what they didn't want to: make the same album again, have the same level of success again, and get everyone to shut the fuck up. Of course, though, you can't get critics to shut the fuck up. They'll just find other shit to pick at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgr Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I'm not saying I dislike Meteora, it's got some thumping good sings on it, but it landed them a tag that I don't think the band ever intended, but still, they had to make that album to stick it to their critics. Somedude's right that if album #2 was different it would only prove their detractors to be correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero21 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Sorry, but I don't think the argument that "Linkin Park had to make Meteora to disprove they were manufactured" makes ANY sense. In fact, I think it's the opposite. Making a second album exactly the same as the first wouldn't prove their label wasn't manufacturing their music, it would just prove that their label did it twice in a row. It would just prove that all Linkin Park was was a machine for churning out pop nu-metal hits. And as SomedudeRemix said, when they ended up making Meteora, the critics made up their minds right then and there. Making a second album that sounded DIFFERENT but also had success would have been the best way to prove they weren't a manufactured band, because then they could show everyone that they weren't a one trick pony. They could show that they could do whatever they wanted and do it well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgr Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Sorry, but I don't think the argument that "Linkin Park had to make Meteora to disprove they were manufactured" makes ANY sense. In fact, I think it's the opposite. I'm sure Mike's said this somewhere... I think it was on BBC Radio1's "The Story of Linkin Park". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorast Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Sorry, but I don't think the argument that "Linkin Park had to make Meteora to disprove they were manufactured" makes ANY sense. In fact, I think it's the opposite. Making a second album exactly the same as the first wouldn't prove their label wasn't manufacturing their music, it would just prove that their label did it twice in a row. It would just prove that all Linkin Park was was a machine for churning out pop nu-metal hits. And as SomedudeRemix said, when they ended up making Meteora, the critics made up their minds right then and there. Making a second album that sounded DIFFERENT but also had success would have been the best way to prove they weren't a manufactured band, because then they could show everyone that they weren't a one trick pony. They could show that they could do whatever they wanted and do it well. Well I don't think I ever said that I thought making the same album twice was a GOOD idea (and if I did I didn't mean that and I'm also not saying you were implying that I did, Xero, if that made any sense), I was just pointing out that the band was probably stressed and irritated beyond belief and said "FUCK THEM WE DID THIS OURSELVES AND WE'LL FUCKING DO IT AGAIN" without thinking about the consequences of that action. And yeah, making an album that sounded different but successful would've been the way out - speaking of that, isn't that exactly what MTM was? It went Gold in one week, didn't it? If Meteora hadn't happened (and if MTM had happened instead, but with a bit more familiar sound), I think we'd be in a hugely different situation now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_lp Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Easy... cuz HT IS a great album... I personally dont like ATS but i still love LP. That's why they're one of the best bands, they're unique, they're not stuck in some thing over and over. Not everything is perfect like some fans think. Cuz there are a lot fans who likes to suck lp's dick. They improve their status everytime they release an album. At the end of the day it matters what i feel about the album, my thoughts, feelings, not everyone else's. That's the way i enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.