Linkin Park as legends ?

[rahulsethi]

"Steve Hyden (Grantland) has written a series of articles called The Winners' History of Rock and Roll , which analyses the bands that were panned and dismissed by critics and rock journalists in their time , but became so huge that they turned into cultrul phenomena. Hyden analyses Led Zeppelin , Kiss , Bon Jovi , Aerosmith , Metallica , Linkin Park and The Black Keys."

- Source : The Times Of India

 

They say in terms of album sales LP is the biggest rock act out there in the world . Considering the above statement what do you think - Is LP worth of being considered among LEGENDS being "newer" than all the bands mentioned above?

[[AndOne]]

The Black Keys? I dont think I know even one song by them and they are even younger than LP.

[rahulsethi]

The Black Keys? I dont think I know even one song by them and they are even younger than LP.

neither do i

[gorast]

Steve Hyden has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

[[AndOne]]

LOL

[ThatGirl]

Interesting, even if a little misguided sounding. Where are these articles?

[Pez]

Black Keys aernt legends...yet. They a cool unquie band but no where near legendary status right now.

[Dave-Stone55]

Linkin Park has potential to have "legendary" status in terms of rock, just due to their vast variety of music styles. But, they definitely haven't been around anywhere NEAR long enough yet, same with Black Keys. They're definitely huge and have potential, but wayyy too young.

[Astat]

It blows my mind to see The Black Keys mentioned in the same sentence as bands like the rest of the ones on that list. It wasn't all that long ago that they were a little garage rock band from Akron with no money that was playing the same kind of venues my old band was playing. Never crossed paths with them though, even though we were from the same area.

 

LP are legends in my eyes. The only reason they're not widely regarded as such is just because of the die-hard music industry snobs who think older is automatically superior. There are still plenty of people out there that love to hate on 80s bands, and it's really only within the last few years that 90s bands have finally started to get the credit they deserve by historians. All in due time.

[rahulsethi]

LP are legends in my eyes. The only reason they're not widely regarded as such is just because of the die-hard music industry snobs who think older is automatically superior. There are still plenty of people out there that love to hate on 80s bands, and it's really only within the last few years that 90s bands have finally started to get the credit they deserve by historians. All in due time.

yeah people even think that LP being a mainstream band is just nowhere near being as legends.

[Geki]

LP is definitely one of the biggest bands in the world. There's no doubt about it. I'm surprised a lot of you guys didn't know that.

[gorast]

That doesn't allow them to be classified as legends in 2013. Give them twenty years and see if people still care to the extent that they care about The Rolling Stones, or Aerosmith, or the Beastie Boys. Legends are legends because of the absurd level of influence and impact they've had on music, not because their first album sold 10 million copies and everyone thought they were a band for emo middle schoolers.

[ChuckCheese]

I think LP definitely has their place in the history of not just rock, but music in general. Shit, weren't they like the best selling rock band of the decade? And there are dozens of new bands out there now that cite LP as inspirations. They'll be recognized eventually.

[Geki]

That doesn't allow them to be classified as legends in 2013. Give them twenty years and see if people still care to the extent that they care about The Rolling Stones, or Aerosmith, or the Beastie Boys. Legends are legends because of the absurd level of influence and impact they've had on music, not because their first album sold 10 million copies and everyone thought they were a band for emo middle schoolers.

I would reply to this, but I have too many things I want to say that it wouldn't even be worth it.

[gorast]

I would reply to this, but I have too many things I want to say that it wouldn't even be worth it.

No, come on, throw down. Give me reasons why I'm wrong. I'm not saying LP isn't a great band (I wouldn't be here if I thought that). What I don't like is when I perceive people as overstating LP's influence, an influence that we won't be able to see anytime soon. What I see right now is a band that had three huge successes and has been moving towards marginalization for the past six years. Moving towards does not mean it has happened in any huge fashion yet, but ATS and LT definitely have not had the reach or impact that the previous three did. The singles dropped off the charts ridiculously quick. Warner doesn't seem to give a shit about promotion. Hell, they barely even toured their fucking home country this year (which I'm bringing up more for personal reasons, so feel free to strike this from my argument). I have yet to see a major player in the music industry that specifically lists LP as one of their influences in interviews.

 

The reason I don't see LP as a legendary band is simply because you don't become legendary in 13 years, not in our era of music. They're not Pink Floyd in the 70s. They're not Aerosmith in...well, the 70s. They're not Springsteen in the 80s. They're just not. They weren't, and never were, at that level of ridiculous sales and almost unrealistically universal praise. I think we still have to wait and see what LP becomes in the timeline of music history. Will they be considered a major influence in the overall sound of rock music? Or will they become a gimmick, a footnote in textbooks when talking about the nu-metal "movement" of the late 90s and early 2000s? We don't know yet.

[RogueSoul]

^^SHITS GOIN' DOWN!

[Joe_lp]

LP as legends? that's a joke. They're great but not to be considered as a legend. Music is pretty shitty nowadays, What makes it legend? Selling, live performances?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Joe_lp

[Skipees]

"Steve Hyden (Grantland) has written a series of articles called The Winners' History of Rock and Roll, which analyses the bands that were panned and dismissed by critics and rock journalists in their time, but became so huge that they turned into cultrul phenomena.

exept from RahulSethi nobody said the word Legends. you arguing about nothing.

 

The reason I don't see LP as a legendary band is simply because you don't become legendary in 13 years, not in our era of music.

Nirvana did it in 7 years. but i agree with the most of you said.

 

-----------

 

right now LP are not a legend. but it can change - i say let's recycle this thread after the 10th studio album.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Skipees

[gorast]

Nirvana is "legendary" because Kurt Cobain blew his fucking face off, don't go there.

[Skipees]

Nirvana is "legendary" because Kurt Cobain blew his fucking face off, don't go there.

 

so? history doesn't care why. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison - i believe more then 50% that know their name/music don't know they live only 27 years. and as the years progress, so does the percentage.

 

you are going to tell me if Mike was taking AK-47 and blow up Chester's head in the recording of MTM, then devotes him the song "Hands Held High" LP was became a Legend? i don't think so.

 

nobody gonna remember PSY (Gangnam Style) with all his breaking records. but Nirvana, The Doors, ect.. will stay forever in the history. sometimes when Ongoing-Phenomenon meet special event it adds more "aura" to the story but like i said before - history doesn't care.

[gorast]

But that's precisely the point I'm making - Nirvana's cultural impact was significantly helped by Kurt's suicide. It took a huge band of the grunge movement that might've otherwise fizzled into obscurity after In Utero and made it immortal, because there's an allure to the idea of Cobain killing himself because he couldn't handle the fame. Kurt Cobain became a martyr and ensured that Nirvana would never be forgotten as a result.

 

You took what I said and twisted it in a way that doesn't make sense and also completely muddles what I was saying. All of those examples? They remain in the public eye primarily because of how they ended. That's not the entirety of why they became part of history, but it remains a big part.

 

It further helps that those musicians went out, for the most part, at the height of their fame. If something horrible had happened to Chester or Mike that caused the band to dissolve during the HT/Meteora days, then music critics would start preaching that the band is legendary and hugely influential. Because that's our culture. That's what we glorify. That's what we make immortal.

 

I'd suggest that Mike Shinoda will become a big figure in music history separately from LP because of everything he does outside of the band. This isn't the topic for that, though, so I won't go into that.

[rahulsethi]

Will they be considered a major influence in the overall sound of rock music? Or will they become a gimmick, a footnote in textbooks when talking about the nu-metal "movement" of the late 90s and early 2000s? We don't know yet.

Well everytime nu-metal is talked there is always reference of Linkin Park alongside it in 90% of articles.

[Skipees]

Well everytime nu-metal is talked there is always reference of Linkin Park alongside it in 90% of articles.

you right, but when was the last time you read an article about nu-metal?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Skipees

[ChuckCheese]

Nirvana is an extreme example of how our culture glorifies things....the other bands listed didn't become legends off of suicides or anything like that. I truly believe that LP will have a place in music history, and an important place at that.

[[AndOne]]

The guy in the OP is talking about legends but doesn't mention a band like the Beatles? I kinda grew up listening to the beatles and they are far more legendary in my opinion than Kiss, Aerosmith and Bon Jovi together.