Funny enough a lot of people consider Nirvana groundbreaking, but that's a discussion too. They were they best at what they did, they popularized grunge, but far from the first or most experimental.
The most obvious example is Pearl Jam's 'X' came out nine months before Teen Spirit. It only started selling after. Of course, Nirvana themselves had a short play before that.
Shoot, it could be argued Courtney Love was singing grunge far before she met Cobain or they even hit it big.
Music history can be interesting.
Yeah, "groundbreaking" is such a tough term in music. I mean, when you really start analyzing artists/styles/albums etc, you can run down the list and dismiss almost every artist/band as being groundbreaking by pointing to others who did something similar, but not quite the same, etc.
But I'd say the biggest confusion tends to be the difference between being groubdbreaking and being the band/artist who made something popular and became the poster child for the "birth" of something. In that respect you look at Nirvana. Where they the first? No. Are they who everyone thinks of when they think of the grunge? Yes. Did they blow up and make grunge the most popular style of music for awhile? Yes.
Music is so interesting to discuss, imo. I just wish more people could discuss it rationally. Instead it tends to get discussed like sports, where everyone takes a side and battles with bias and a desire to "win" in support of their favorite styles/artists.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
So the full version of "Wastelands" was just leaked via the band as they gave out CDs with the full length track at their latest show at Rock in Rio.
I quite like it, especially Chester's little melody in the bridge.
But they can still do better. Though I think there will be some gems in this album, as there seem to be one or two in even their later albums. Pumped about the new sound, though!
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
Nirvana isn't ground breaking because Cobain had admitted consistently that they were just ripping off the Pixies style with the soft verse/loud chorus dynamic. The Pixies are a ground breaking group because they more or less invented modern alternative rock (along with Sonic Youth), so that's to me a clear example of breaking new ground. Nine Inch Nails is a more interesting case. They certainly weren't the first industrial band (Ministry and KMFDM pre-date them), but they were the first industrial band to have a more human approach to the music, making it more accessible. In that regard Linkin Park can be considered somewhat similar, though Korn and Limp Bizkit did far more to bring nu-metal/alternative metal to the masses. Would Linkin Park really have been as successful without Korn and Limp Bizkit coming first? I doubt it.
Maybe we just need a generally music discussion thread, or a music reviews thread to flesh out some conversatons. I really don't think this thread was a true pissing match, there wasn't really a lot of outright mocking of Linkin Park (I think I mocked Nickelback more than Linkin Park), just an acknowledgement that they really aren't that ground breaking based on the literal definition of the word.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
To add to SCD's point, there was a whole lot of "music snob" and "music nazi" phrases being thrown around.
I'm going to go gifless on this one, but you keep using that phrase... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Let's use the silly phrases properly shall we? Nothing in this thread has even remotely approached music snobbery or nazism in the very slightest.
"Someone told me they don't like a band I like! MUSIC NAZI!!"
This was/is a good discussion on the merits of Linkin Park's effect on the musical landscape and how one might measure that, almost never did their actual quality as a band come up unless as simply a passive opinion.
so you get the chance to work with Daron Malakhian and you don't let him sing? Ugh. Opportunity wasted. But maybe they just needed him to play guitar because they forgot how to do it during their "electro years"
seriously though, the new material sounds good. Not on a "Hybrid Theory" or even "Meteora" level, but better than 95 % of the stuff they've released over the last 10 years.
I liked their first album, one of the bands that got me into heavier sounding stuff. Not a fan at all of generic alt rock or whatever they have made since then. Whoever was the producer of the first album did a good job turning loud angry noise into catchy rhythms but now it's all just meh, like too much color on a canvas it's just bland and brown.
^That song rebellion is the perfect example, not enough fidelity and clarity. No real punctuation just uninspired power chords and standard as it gets 4/4 rock drumming.
Agreed. This is a notch below HT and Meteora. Those albums were something else, lightning in a bottle if you will. But this is a step up from their past two albums (minus a couple tracks) and has some real raw energy again. If they can keep that energy going and focus on making the music itself a little more creative and out there, maybe they can become something again (if they build off this album). But it's an improvement on the overall sound.
It would've been nice to at least have some backing vocals or a scream from Daron, but these two sound awesome together and this is my favorite track to this point. It definitely has the best chorus of any so far, much more inspired.
Groundbreaking is a bit of stretch, but being in high school when Hybrid Theory came out, I can tell you the way they burst onto the scene was absolutely incredible.
In my three years in high school I can't remember another album that was talked about as much as it. Linkin Park just came out of nowhere and dominated teenage music listening back then.
this. I was 14 when Hybrid Theory came out and I remember that during breaks, either Hybrid Theory or Infest by Papa Roach blasted from the CD players in nearly every classroom in our school. Never experienced anything like that during my time at school. It may have not been "groundbreaking", if you want to get fussy about definitions and stuff, but it was definitely highly influential.
that's probably why I was so disappointed with nearly everything that they made after "Meteora". That whole electro BS was a huge slap to the face for me.
The Following User Says Thank You to devo22 For This Useful Post:
It's insanely different for Linkin Park. Maybe 3-4 of the 12 tracks have the signature LP sound. The rest pushes new boundaries for them. A LOT more rock than electronic, though. I found myself at points wanting to hear more synths, which is funny considering I was a large advocate of the rock movement.
What's most interesting is how Chester's vocals are used through the album. It's a punk rock version of Chester that we've never heard before (a lot of screaming and standalone high notes without Mike's layering). Perhaps it's just the way he overlays the harder, punk sound. The thing is while the new overall sound works on a couple tracks - and works BRILLIANTLY - but on a couple others I think it was a little much, and sounded heavy for the sake of being heavy.
Keys to the Kingdom and Mark the Graves were huge treats, though. Just awesome. I'm as hooked to both of those tracks as I was to every track on HT and Meteora. They feel really fresh for LP, and MTG I think borrows some inspiration from the Foo Fighters, while forging its own sound. Meanwhile some tracks I think I need to get used to, as they didn't connect with me initially. Namely War and A Line in the Sand. Maybe i'll get into them with a few more listens..
Weird, cool album. People who bash them for their techno pop stuff wouldn't even recognize them in most of these tracks. Thus I think it's worth taking a listen to for anybody who enjoys rock and punk in general.
this. I was 14 when Hybrid Theory came out and I remember that during breaks, either Hybrid Theory or Infest by Papa Roach blasted from the CD players in nearly every classroom in our school. Never experienced anything like that during my time at school. It may have not been "groundbreaking", if you want to get fussy about definitions and stuff, but it was definitely highly influential.
that's probably why I was so disappointed with nearly everything that they made after "Meteora". That whole electro BS was a huge slap to the face for me.
I remember that too, what made them popular was that LP and PR had clarity and punctuation to their sound so you could actually hear the distinction between different chords and the chorus hit like a truck. I would happily go back and listen to those 2 albums simply because they were unique instead of blended and bland. Will give the new one a listen and hope to be pleasantly surprised
