The song structure in A Thousand Suns is hardly "experimental"

A Thousand Suns is an incredible, ambitious record, and in my humble opinion, objectively the best Linkin Park record. I wish to be adamantly clear on this opinion before I am torn apart with pitchforks and knives for what I wish to express.

In light of recent studio news on LP7, several fans remain pessimistically cautious, arguing for the highly-regarded, divine "experimental" song structure. The problem is - Linkin Park has never been incredibly experimental when it comes to song structure. A Thousand Suns is unanimously praised by hardcore fans for the ambitious "experimentation" that occurs, however they seem to be oblivious to the subjective argument that rather than due to boasting revolutionary (for Linkin Park) song structures, A Thousand Suns is largely experimental thanks to the radical sonic departure and the multitude of interludes. One by one, I will examine each full track featured on A Thousand Suns, and attempt to objectively identify each song's "experimental" structure (spoilers: or lack thereof).

BURNING IN THE SKIES: [Intro/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Bridge/Chorus]

Apart from Shinoda's graceful verses, which were jarring in 2010 but pedestrian in 2016 and do nothing to affect the song's structure, this is some "What I've Done Shit"


WHEN THEY COME FOR ME: [Intro/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Bridge/Chorus/Outro]

Although featuring a lyric-less melody in the chorus was revolutionary for the band, it still did nothing to impact the structure. Same for the outro, which preceded the typical cookie-cutter structure, much like an extended live outro.


ROBOT BOY: [Intro/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Bridge/Chorus

The line between verse and chorus is stretched thin, but there's clear repetition and a predetermined structure until the atypical synth solo bridge followed by Chester's extended wailing over what can only be perceived as a final chorus.


WAITING FOR THE END: [Intro/Rap Verse/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Rap Verse/Bridge/Chorus (ft. Rap Verse)]

Here's where an argument could possible be made. The first rap verse is certainly miles apart from the sung verse that follows, but it really doesn't radically alter the song as much as it merely extends the song with an extended opening verse. The rap verse at the bridge has been done before with Points Of Authority way back in 2000 with Hybrid Theory (albeit, without the ensuing instrumental solo), and the final chorus that features Shinoda's verses has been beaten to death in their nu-metal days.


BLACKOUT: [Intro/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Bridge/Outro]

Once again, although the soundscape and scatting by Chester is radically revolutionary in Linkin Park's discography, the structure is not altered until after the bridge when the song transitions into an extended outro. It could definitely be argued however, that the outro features a verse and a chorus, making Blackout easily the most "experimental" in song structure on the album for this reason alone.


WRETCHES AND KINGS [Intro/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Bridge/Outro]

Featuring Savio's speeches, the song includes unexpected vocal samples, however they do not impact structure. The second chorus is a double chorus (gasp!) or perhaps the first chorus is merely a half chorus. The song does however defiantly remove a final chorus and simply moves into the extended outro.


IRIDESCENT [Intro/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Bridge/Chorus]

The track Linkin Park has been quoted to say they could make 1000 carbon copies of features no changes to song structure, just Shinoda singing verses for people to swoon over and gang vocals in the bridge.


THE CATALYST [Intro/Verse/Chorus (Ft. Verse)/Verse/Chorus (Ft. Verse)/Bridge/Half Chorus/Outro (Ft. Verse)]

The supposed mother of all "experimental" songs on the album actually borrows an idea from Papercut. Using a brand new infectious hook (Lift me up/let Me Go = The sun goes down, I feel the light betray me) while interspersing previously heard vocals into the mix, The Catalyst is an imposter. The chorus weaves in pieces of the previous verses, but this effect is hardly experimental.


THE MESSENGER [Intro/Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus/Outro]

The song merely forgets about the bridge and final chorus, moving directly into the outro.

Concluding the analysis, we can see that most of the full tracks on A Thousand Suns actually feature simple song structures found on previous Linkin Park material. They may include radically new sounds for the band, but they rarely escape the boundaries of "What I've Done Shit". Blackout and The Catalyst are certainly arguable, and contain overly extended outros that feature radical changes in soundscape, and brand new melodies and lyrics, however they still follow the same "verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge" structure that Linkin Park has maintained and perfected for nearly two decades. When They Come For Me simply features a glorified extended outro, akin to a guitar solo in The Hunting Party, and Waiting For The End just extends its length with the inclusion of two identical rap verses. As for the rest of the album, removing pieces of choruses has been something Linkin Park has done all along. The cosmic interludes help define the experimentation found on A Thousand Suns more than the song structures ever do, as even then they serve as extended intros for the most part.

I hope some people will actually take the time to think about this, because the idea of A Thousand Suns featuring an ocean of mind-bending song structures is far from accurate, as the album arguably features equal experimentation in song structure to that found in Living Things and The Hunting Party. Please prove me wrong otherwise.

 

Bro, what the hell are you going on about?
Reading your post and it seems like you're trying to make the songs conform to your wants.

BITS - A/B/A/B/C/B Structure
WTCFM - A/B/A/B/C/B/D structure
Robot Boy - A+B << setprecision(x)/C/A+B structure :nokappa:
WFTE - A/B/C/B/C/A/C structure
Blackout - A/B/A/B/C/D/E structure
W&K - A/B/C/B/C/D/A
Iridescent - A/B/A/B/C/A
The Catalyst - A/B/C/B/D
The Messenger - A/B/A/C

The structures are certainly as diverse as it comes for many mainstream bands (not to discredit any of LP's other songs). As far as experimentation goes, sure, this isn't LP's first time playing around with song structures, but its the first time they did it in a large collective manner. Simple as that.

 

Ok.

 

When will this shit pass over?

 

As long as LP post another video, for a new thread which can esqulate in some other topic

 

I haven't even read through both of your posts and I can already spot a mistake.
--> After looking through FIP full post, it is easy to see how most of his analyze isn't actually grounded in musical theory but more "his perception of thing".
--> I guess in your opinion all bands follow a similar structure until they reach a certain point in which the rest of the song is just an "Outro" (doesn't matter if it's 10 seconds or 1-5 minutes long)

BITS ENDS with a shortened A(repeated verse with a different instrumentation).
So the correct description would be:

(Intro)/A/B/A(2)/B/C/B/A(3)("outro").

Ending on a verse isn't super typical so it is worth noting.

And labeling the ending of WTCFM as just an "outro" is stupid(and Blackout for that manner). It's like 50 seconds long, and is more of a extended or alternative version of B(arguable a D).
Making sections seem different while actually following the same template is IMO much more impressive and cohesive than just connecting a completely new section(looking at you prog-genres).

What I love about ATS is the way in which they change/diversify/modify/alter the different sections of the songs in order for them to feel fresh.
The ending of WTCFM or verses of WFTETC being clear examples of that.

 

This again? Jesus Christ. #LetItGo

 

This. I didn't want to come stomping in with music theory stuff, but this is how song structures actually work in terms of theory.

 

Obviously this was a subjective opinion. I'm not trying to say I'm some genius in music theory. I did forget the half-verse that finishes Burning In The Skies, but I fail to see how that radically changes the structure and suddenly makes it experimental.

Same with When They Come For Me. While simply calling it an outro may seem ridiculous, it still follows the same old A/B/A/B structure. Blackout and The Catalyst are radical enough changes, as they nearly become entirely new songs, I accept them as experimental in structure.

My point is I fail to see why this is so highly-regarded when there's examples of these structure changes in the band's subsequent releases. Of course instead I get the same old "lol ok u so stupid" comments.

 

lol ok

u so stupid

 

Great......Album still amazing.

And One is really the only track I can think of off the top that had a drastically different structure but that could be because it was one of a few (only?) tracks like that from the nu metal days....

 

Uhm but didn't you start out by saying:

"I will examine each full track featured on A Thousand Suns, and attempt to objectively identify each song'"

If you admit that this is just your own subjective perception of the songs then I have no problems with it.

I do agree with some of your points. Like I said many of the songs aren't really that different structurally but somehow manages to make the music remain interesting.

 

I'm not so sure that many people on here would describe the song structures featured on ATS as "experimental". In the context of Linkin Park's music, the structures are far more experimental than any other album they've put out, but overall, they're not particularly out there. What I'm trying to say is that I agree with you (which is exactly why I had a rant in the other thread about how more unusual structures are the one aspect that I still think the band haven't pushed themselves hard enough in), but I'm not so sure that people are so much saying that ATS has extremely experimental song structures, so much as they're saying that it has more experimental song structures than most LP albums. If people do think that, and I've just forgotten, then I agree with you. If this is in response to what I said in the other thread, then I apologise for not making myself clear with my opinion.

Even with all that said, I still don't think you give the song structures on ATS enough credit. I won't go into specifics seeing as I largely agree with your point (I'll leave that for the others ), but I do disagree with this:

I feel that this isn't particularly true. On LT, the only song that springs to mind is UIB. Similar in structure to, say, blackout, the song features a standard ABA structure, before drastically changing direction and featuring a verse that's alien to the song's first half. Victimized, somewhat ironically considering its length, is the only other song that mixes it up somewhat signicicantly. Even though there's a distinct Verse/Chorus structure, the second verse is again so drastically different to the first that the song cannot be accused of fitting the typical LP song structure. Apart from these two, however, every other song does. An argument could be made for IMR, considering the reprise of the bridge, or even for LGM, due to the last chorus being somewhat different, but these two songs still fall very much under the same LP song structure in the same way that BITS and The Messenger do on ATS. THP is a bit better, with MTG and ALITS being the obvious examples, and KTTK falling under the same umbrella as Victimized, but outside of that, again, the album features standard song structures on every track.

On ATS, while as I said above, I do agree that many of the songs fall under the same song structure, which is why I do agree with the sentiment of your point, I feel that there are noticeably more songs with unusual song structures. Even though, on paper, many of the songs can be written off as being ABABCB or similar, when you listen to the tracks, it becomes clear that the outros are so radically different (even on songs like WTCFM and The Catalyst, where the outros are far further removed to their first halves than songs like papercut IMO), that it really adds to the structure.

One last point I want to make, but I feel it often gets overlooked. We have to look at album structure as well. Now, you might say that that's completely irrelevant when talking about song structure, but I'll explain why I feel that it's not. Take a song like Blackout. On paper, its structure is: ABABC, or even ABABCD. Why is this any better than ABABCB? IMO, it's because we get to hear more musical themes in the same track length. Instead of having to listen to the same chorus three times, we only listen to it twice, and then we get a completely new theme for the outro. There's less repetition. This is where interludes and album structure come in. On ATS, none of the interludes repeat themselves, well, because they're short interludes. This is important though, because it means that fewer musical themes are repeated. Even if you have a lot of ABABCB songs on an album, if you have interludes between them, then the overall levels of repetition change. If you look at the overall structure of ATS vs, say, LT, then you'll see that almost every theme on LT is repeated at some point, apart from the bridges. On ATS, you have so many themes that are never repeated (bridges, outros, interludes), and therefore, the band can fit in music more new music in the same space. Now, sometimes a bit of repetition can enhance a song's structure IMO, such as the repetition of the bridge at the end of IMR, but overall, on ATS, even though the song structures themselves aren't all that special, we see an album that features a greater number of musical ideas. Now, this doesn't change the fact that many of the songs on the album feature an ABABCB structure (although, as long as you don't have 9 or 10 tracks with this structure on the same album, I don't mind this. ATS only has ~5 songs that fit this structure), but in ATS's case, I feel that it's worth pointing out that even though I agree that the song structures in and of themselves aren't always the most innovative, the way the album is constantly throwing twists, turns, and new ideas, whether it's in the form of an outro (WTCFM, Blackout, The Catalyst) or in the form of an interlude, makes ATS still overall far more interesting structurally than anything else the band has done.

Just to reiterate, seeing as this post is ten times longer than I intended it to be , I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I disagree that any other LP album has come even close to topping ATS structurally. I do still believe that the band can push themselves much, much further, and top ATS structurally, but from the 6 albums we have, ATS is by far the most interesting structurally IMO.

 

I've always had the feeling that if people are this big about song structures/key changes/meter changes/tempo changes they probably shouldn't be looking at Linkin Park in the first place.

 

THIS.

 

I'm not sure if you're talking to me, but it's sorta implied that the fact that I'm spending my time on a Linkin Park forum, discussing the music of Linkin Park when I could be doing anything else means that there's just a tiny chance that I like Linkin Park's music.

That's like saying that the band should never have released MTM, because in 2003, anyone "this big about softer songs shouldn't be looking at Linkin Park in the first place". Similarly, the band should never have released ATS, because you could just have easily said in 2007 that "anyone this big about electronic music shouldn't be looking at Linkin Park in the first place".

I love the band's music. No matter what they release next, chances are that I'll think it's really good. But seeing as the band pride themselves with mixing things up as often as they can, I feel that it's relevant to talk about the aspects of music that I'd be excited for them to explore in the future. This is all hypothetical, I'm not saying that the band have to do this, or else I'll stop listening to them. I'm saying that it would be cool if they incorporated these things into their music, but if they don't, hey, that's life, they'll still be one of my favourite bands. See what I mean?

 

Well yeah don't get me wrong, I totally understand that, there are aspects of music that I personally love and Linkin Park as a band hasn't really tried before. What I was trying to argue is while expectations are good and all that, I'm more inclined to be surprised than have them fulfill a certain expectation. As in before ATS, if people want electronic music they would go for something other than LP and then ATS came about, people are surprised and some are happy. In this case, if you love rad song structure, go for some prog madness and if LP7 is like that, come back, be genuinely surprised and hopefully enjoy it.

...That being said, I think I'm just trying to address the fact that I completely don't understand this entire song-structure fuss. I mean, it's great to have them (and hell yeah I love it) but at this point it is very safe to say it is also one heck of an achievement to make regular structure songs interesting.

 

I'm just waiting for the end of this thread to come.

 

This place.... Ever dare to say something a tad negative about the holy gold ATS, and you mostly get sarcam and condescending stuff in return. Glorious.

Oh well. Btw, yeah, ATS was barely experimental when it comes to structure.