Linkin Park new album "The Hunting Party"

[djsFlames]

Trolls and music snobs please heed the warning in the first post.

You don't like the band and have nothing valuable to contribute? Great for you and your taste, trudge on.

[Engine09]

Yeah, stating that they were groundbreaking is a weird and inaccurate statement. Sorry if a few people are going to call you out on it, just a strange thread in the first place.

After Rage Against The Machine's debut album in '92 there were a flood of bands doing the rap/rock thing. If anything Linkin Park were part of the 2nd tier of that scene and their 1st album was released 8 years later. They just did a good job of making that style palatable for the radio, had catchy hooks and slick production.

[djsFlames]

So there's nothing against "influential" but when I say "groundbreaking" you completely lose your ####?

They were influential because the music was groundbreaking. It tried something new. The elements it was comprised of were well known, but had never been used in such a fashion, and in the process it created a new sound that was fresh and well received. It spawned many imitations in mainstream music. It's gained them one of the largest followings in the world of any band, to this day. I call that groundbreaking. You can #### about the wordplay, but unless your specific definition of the words appears under it in the dictionary, I'm not gonna take it back.

RATM sound nothing like LP. Yes they did rap/rock before, but they sound nothing alike. Zack de la Rocha's "rap" and Shinoda's can't really be compared. RATM had no electronics. And definitely didn't have the same production value. I'd call their instrumental style punk more than metal too. Anyways, you can keep your definition of what that means to you, but I'll keep mine. Don't care to argue semantics. The point is to discuss the album and the music.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Trolls and music snobs please heed the warning in the first post.

You don't like the band and have nothing valuable to contribute? Great for you and your taste, trudge on.

Fact of the matter is, a Linkin Park album doesn't need it's own thread with multiple other threads dedicated to upcoming albums for this year.

Making a Linkin Park thread that's "fans only"? Yeah, good luck with that man. Ain't no way that would ever stand a chance of happening.

Personally, I think the conversation about what does/doesn't not constitute enough of a contribution to be considered ground breaking or significant is MUCH more valuable than "Linkin Park has a new album, everyone respond with 'yay!'".

At least this thread has managed to inspire interesting conversation instead of quickly disappearing without anything of value being said.

[djsFlames]

There have been threads devoted to individual albums before with no issues. There shouldn't be one here. I thought it was significant as it was LP's return to rock music and wanted to discuss it with others when it came out.

I don't expect nor want to avoid critics and negativity, so long as it is about the new music. If you come in and say "they suck" then it's not a discussion of the music being released, but a general statement based on your general/past opinion of the band. That's what I was hoping to avoid here, more or less.

Great if it's spawned a greater discussion of music, but there is still a purpose here that should be reminded. And just like a thread about something you don't care for, if you don't like it, you don't have to be a part of it. If you want to make a music thread titled "what makes an artist groundbreaking?" then go ahead, but this is still discussing LP.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

So there's nothing against "influential" but when I say "groundbreaking" you completely lose your ####?

They were influential because the music was groundbreaking. It tried something new. The elements it was comprised of was well known, but was never used in such a fashion, and in the process it created a new sound that was fresh and well received. It spawned many imitations in mainstream music. It's gained them one of the largest followings in the world of any band, to this day. I call that groundbreaking. You can #### about the wordplay, but unless your specific definition of the words appears under it in the dictionary, I'm not gonna take it back.

RATM sound nothing like LP. Yes they did it before, but they sound nothing alike. Zack de la Rocha's "rap" and Shinoda's can't really be compared. RATM had no electronics. And definitely didn't have the same production value. I'd call their instrumental style punk more than metal too. Anyways, you can keep your definition of what that means to you, but I'll keep mine. Don't care to argue semantics. The point is to discuss the album and the music.

But this is the point: Musically speaking, Linkin Park brought absolutely nothing new to the table. Every element of their band has been done, often substantially better, by other bands. The term ground breaking, as per Websters is

introducing new ideas or methods

With that definition, you cannot call them ground breaking. The ideas they had have been done by many bands before. Their method is the same as well. The only "ground breaking" thing I can discern from what you believe makes Linkin Park ground breaking is that they have clean, less harsh production than most nu metal, and higher production values with more hooks. But that's not ground breaking at all. It's lovely studio editing, but the fundamentals of Linkin Park have been done to death by many nu metal bands.

There actually haven't been many threads for a band making a specific album, going back 10 pages (which goes back into October last year) in the Entertainment subforum. There's one album thread for the Marshall Mathers LP II, and that's it. When you made this thread, and then refered to Linkin Park as ground breaking, did you really think it wouldn't illicit a response?

[Northendzone]

i skip the hyperbole and leave it up to others to figure out LP place in the musical pecking order.

I really liked song 1, I liked song two a little less, and song three a little less than two.....the song sounds like Linkin Park and I think that is a good thing.......

[bluejays]

Wow, a whole lot of music Nazis in this thread. Who gives a damn if he thinks it's groundbreaking or not, or if this deserves its own thread. CP gets up in arms when it comes to Rock vs everything else. If somebody likes a band for X reason, who cares? Music didn't die in the 90's guys - it continues to evolve.

[rubecube]

I have nothing to add other than the fact that ad hominem fallacies can now just generally be referred to as the Nickleback fallacy.

[19Yzerman19]

I honestly came in here to see if this was serious and Linkin Park was still making music as I had no idea, but having now read them compared to Radiohead in terms of their impact on music I seem to be bleeding from my eyes.

Thanks, Igster and djsFlames. Thanks a lot.

EDIT: Incidentally, through the blood I seem to have made out that some people think Linkin Park, Korn and Limp Bizkit were somehow the same thing? How do you come to that conclusion? In particular, I don't know that I can think of anything that sounded remotely like Korn - one can form their own conclusions as to whether that's a good or bad thing.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by fleury

Wow, a whole lot of music Nazis in this thread. Who gives a damn if he thinks it's groundbreaking or not, or if this deserves its own thread. CP gets up in arms when it comes to Rock vs everything else. If somebody likes a band for X reason, who cares? Music didn't die in the 90's guys - it continues to evolve.

You're correct, it ACTUALLY died in 1959.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Thanks, Igster and djsFlames. Thanks a lot.

Well, to be fair, nobody made you read our comments.

[Erick Estrada]

IMO Hyrbid Theory really was a brilliant album (don't want to get in the ground breaking debate as everything has been done more than once and IMO now it's simply all about making good music) and like a lot of bands Linkin Park simply hasn't been able to find the magic of the first as every album released after has got progressively worse to the point where they should probably call it quits and have the members go their own separate ways as there just seems to be too many cooks in the kitchen as their direction seems aimless. Are they a pop band? A rock band? A metal band? IMO they are just a band that lost their way and their new music is totally irrelevant.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

EDIT: Incidentally, through the blood I seem to have made out that some people think Linkin Park, Korn and Limp Bizkit were somehow the same thing? How do you come to that conclusion? In particular, I don't know that I can think of anything that sounded remotely like Korn - one can form their own conclusions as to whether that's a good or bad thing.

I think if anything Korn stands out on their own for delivering a fairly consistent product for a long period of time. They are IMO one of the best bands of the last 20 years that's still together.

[Daradon]

I have no problem with a thread for the album. I don't understand a lot of the hate surrounding LP. Some people may be excited about it.

I will admit I enjoyed Hybrid Theory and Meteora. They were solid albums. Definitely radio albums, but good stuff.

I haven't listened to much since. A bunch of reruns in my opinion. And they're sound watered down, and it wasn't super hard to begin with.

Perhaps influential, but definitely not groundbreaking. They were good at what they did and had some music that people should know, fans or not.

No need to be a snob though, you like it or you don't. Disagree with groundbreaking for sure and there is a discussion there, but no need to crap on the band or the poster.

Chesters vocals have some real talent. Makes you wonder what he coulda done with a Swedish or Norwegian style metal band.

Really wish they coulda made some longer songs.

[jayswin]

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.

[Daradon]

^^^ Guess you were too young for Nirvana...

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Daradon

^^^ Guess you were too young for Nirvana...

Haha, missed that by a few years lol. Although when I got my first discman, Nevermind and Dookie were my first two CD's, and I listened to them one after the other probably 50 times, before buying more CD's.

[Daradon]

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.

[Daradon]

Same way Reznor popularized industrial, or Metallica popularized metal.

Did LP popularize nu metal/rap metal? In this specific circumstance I would not put them in the same breath as NIN, Metallica, or Nirvana. As has been mentioned, there were successful and popular nu metal bands already.

However it doesn't make them bad, or undeserving of their spot in music history.