At least using Linkin Park as a candidate, here's my full treatment for and against. For: 1. The music scene Linkin Park entered was on the decline at the time, and nu-metal in particularly was growing stagnant (for reference, view the average nu-metal music video between 1999-2001). The root of the problem was a lack of new developments in the sound of the genre itself: it was all this dropped D guitar that sounds so morose and brooding, and vocalists that tried to imitate either Jonathan Davis or Aaron Lewis, and hardly a band strayed from that. Granted my knowledge of pre-LP nu-metal is limited because I didn't seriously begin listening to music until Reanimation had been long released and recording sessions for Meteora had begun. One Step Closer's music video sees Linkin Park bringing new blood to the genre, adding an element that I can't even describe because it's deep in the structure of their sound (I've often entertained the notion that it may be due to the fact that their sound emphasizes hip-hop over metal, as opposed to their contemporaries). Rather than sounding dismal, it was full of energy and movement. This is evident even visually. The Beatles had a similar experience coming into the rock 'n' roll scene of the Sixties. The big rockers all stuck to the rockabilly formula (Hound Dog, for example), or there were all those American one-hit wonders (I would love to give an example, but unfortunately I don't know of any because they dropped off the face of history). Thus the first commonality in the Beatles and Linkin Park is that their early material revitalized a stagnating genre. 2. The second big commonality is the direction in which they took their work, namely that they quickly set out to write music that pushed the boundaries of the acceptable "rules" of popular music of the day. More importantly, and a tremendous accomplishment on both accounts, they did so without compromising the accessibility of the music. What the Beatles wrote in for Sgt. Pepper and the White Album are still considered "experimental," and though easy to replicate today, they're not what you'd call antiquated. What's more, given all this, those songs are still considered pop at their best, and at worst proto-prog. The same applies to Linkin Park, although to a lesser degree. Their music is challenging to the dogma of contemporary popular music (which I say because their music challenges only current standards, which I would venture to say have regressed since the cerebral rockers of the 70s), all the while maintaining their catchy hooks and singable melodies, all the requisites of mainstream success. What's more, and the thing that ties them that much more closely to the Beatles, they've done so without leaving the realm of popular music. Yes, there are bands today that do so much more revolutionary things with music, such as the post-rockers Godspeed You! Black Emperor; these however have been relegated to sub- and countercultures of music. Indie is all good and well, but the Beatles are renowned for having brought innovation to popular music. So, hopefully, will Linkin Park. 3. This is more of a coincidence, but the ups and downs of the two careers are about parallel. The first two albums (HT and Meteora; PPM and With the Beatles) established the two groups' position as being a source of great potential, which brought them very much into the public eye. All the fanfare given Linkin Park's releases is not often seen with other alternative (especially alternative metal) bands, save a very famous few. The third release of each respectively (MTM; A Hard Day's Night) represent a turning point in their careers; A Hard Day's Night contains some of the Beatles' most famous songs, and was the first record ever to consist entirely of songs written solely by the band. Minutes to Midnight is notable for being a drastic change of style being widely accepted by the media at large, even though it soured some of the fanbase. Finally, A Thousand Suns, the black sheep. Indeed, Beatles For Sale was just that: a little too much Bob Dylan for everyone's tastes at a time when they wanted to hear the Beatles. Like the Beatles, A Thousand Suns is very much a product of animosity towards the music biz (in the case of the Beatles, weariness with the process of touring and recording itself). Hopefully ATS will be unlike Beatles For Sale in its being a critical and commercial failure. Against: 1. As I said, Linkin Park is innovative by the standards of current popular music dogma, but not nearly as much as the Beatles were by the standards of their day. In fact, in terms of "raw" experimentation, the things the Beatles tried are still more revolutionary than anything Linkin Park has tried. As far as I know, Linkin Park has not dabbled in production or mixing, and the Beatles are famous for that (all those funny sounds at the beginning of I Feel Fine, for example). Indeed, most indie bands are trying things lightyears beyond Linkin Park, but again what matters is if Linkin Park, like the Beatles, can bring a significant amount of innovation to the popular (widely disseminated) music scene. Of course, Linkin Park has plenty of time to do this; if we go by the LP-Beatles parallel, the Beatles hadn't tried anything really risky for another three albums. 2. Both bands emerged in a time that, although we didn't know it yet, were the beginnings of a cultural and political upheaval. The Sixties require no introduction, and the changes of our own time will only really be visible at the end of this decade or the next. That being said, Linkin Park's hiatus prevented them from taking advantage of being involved in the changes going on in this country. The Beatles, by contrast, were at the forefront of them, even from across the Atlantic Ocean at the very time those changes were gaining momentum. This is one component that people forget is such a big reason the Beatles became as big as they were; they were as much a part of the Sixties as the Sixties were a part of them. Even today, Americans look back on their decade as the one in which the world was turned upside down; the Beatles are greatly revered not just because their music of such calibre (and enduring calibre at that), but because their role in the times is as much inseparable as the other way 'round. 3. This one's the last one and it's a quickie: Linkin Park is really famous, even worldwide, but not in an inkling of the magnitude felt by the Beatles (Hell, not even close to an inkling, as my parents will tell you). Conversely, the Beatles had their low points, but never were they also so reviled. And while the love for Linkin Park is arguably more than the hate, the world opinion of them (even within this country) is mixed in a way the Beatles never dealt with. tl;dr version: Linkin Park: it could go either way.
Oh God, why would you taint this perfectly valid discussion thread with such trash, even in jest. EDIT: I think I just puked in my mouth a little.
If I can say this, but I reckon U2 should be up there somewhere near The Beatles as the greatest bands of all time. I still think you cannot replace The Beatles no matter how hard you try.
Mr Duffy, no . . . . just no. As for Linkin Park being this generation's The Beatles, I don't want them to be that. I want them to be this generation's Linkin Park, and be their own entity.
Hmm...now that I think about it, NO one can take over The Beatles. But as for biggest band of the century, LP should definitely be in the running for the best 21st century band ever since The Beatles took the 20th century by storm.
Well I said "as far as I know," so yeah, they might've, but hey. U2 I'm sure is probably way up there. I don't know because I've heard only a handful of their songs and hated all of them. But they certainly do have the longevity and the worldwide popularity. Not so sure about the other criteria I listed under my analysis.
As far as production goes, Mike has been producing professional tracks for a long time. I think the earliest I can think of is Styles Of Beyond's Marco Polo off of their album 2000 Fold which was made in 1998. Chester also produced Julien-K's debut album Death to Analog, I think. As far as mixing goes, I don't have an answer for that, since I really don't know.
LP started out as a hodge-podge of the popular genres at that time. It's no surprise they will be reviled by purists of those genres. Casual listeners didn't like the screaming, and metalheads didn't like the simple riffs and the mainstream appeal of the band. In short, Linkin Park started out good in terms of commercial success but their type of music had dealt a heavy blow on their cred. If only the 'nu-metal' tag weren't attached to them...
Radiohead can't possibly be the Beatles of this era, they don't have nearly enough #1 hits and are not as widely known in the average listeners' minds. That's what the Beatles are famous for, is transcending the boundaries of musicality or something. Radiohead hasn't done that since "Creep," really. I would go out on a limb and say Metallica is the closest were going to get. They have had a good number of album sales, #1 hits, blahblah. I realize I accused Radiohead of basically maybe not being creative. They are creative, but not very many people "get it." Kid A/Amnesiac are virtually unknown and unlistenable for many people out there from what I've seen. The Beatles were able to push the boundaries of accepted popular music. That's the difference. My argument for Metallica is merely as a defining point of the 80s/90s/Today. Millions of people around the world are familiar with many of their songs, they pushed the envelope and perfected the genre of thrash, combining heavy metal influences with the punk speed, and then pushed it further into the realm of heavy hard rock/alternative. They've connected with a far wider audience than Radiohead has.
Kid A by Radiohead was a big hit. All their albums from maybe either that or OK Computer onwards have been, but in that case it was despite having no singles released from it and being arguably their least commercial album, and definitely less commercial than the average number one album. If that's not transcendental I don't know what is.
I kinda agree with Metallica. They're the only band of today that can even get close to the cult status Beatles had. And Nothing Else Matters is Yesterday.
Didn't The Beatles basically jumpstart the music interest in the average citizen? What else was there to listen to before they came around? There are so many more outlets for people to vent their musical needs these days that having a band praised by like 99% of the world just seems totally impossible.
No bullshit.... If someone put a gun to my head and said name one Beatle song, I would die. I cant name one. I really cant stand 70,80,90's music.
The older the worse Now I really wanna go listen to a song on youtube but then ill never be able to say again I cant name a song by them.
I'm not a huge fan of the Beatles either, but some of their songs really are extraordinary. Try these for a start: Yesterday, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Eleanor Rigby, Hey Jude.