AltWire Reviews One More Light

To clarify - there's an analytical side to this (e.g. songs that actually have the same notes/melodies etc. - requires detailed analysis to do this justice), and there's a side where saying 'these songs have been done before' isn't to be taken too literally

The analytical side would show how some songs are derivative (i.e. meaning they actually copy some things in other songs closely enough e.g. 80%), but songs don't have to so strongly resemble others (can be 25-40% similar) to see that the songwriting ideas aren't original or that unique (e.g. vocal melodies aren't that far off from other songs etc.) And it's not just about comparing songs as a whole - look at the sound palettle used or sound design etc. - do they add anything to a listener's experience given what else they could have listened to? (Might depend but also the answer may be no if they've found more creative/unconventional/adventurous/daring elements elsewhere)

Off the top of my head, I know the chorus on Invisible sounds like the chorus on FM's "Welcome", Good Goodbye has some similarities to LOITE, Heavy has some instrumental similarities to Lil Wayne's "Mirror" etc. - but to further prove this point I would need time to dig into it (if I listened to music more often though I probably wouldn't need that time since I would have come across music enough times that those similarities would be crystal clear)

And no I don't think a song has to be derivative of a different artist in order for it to be derivative.

 

It was a very, very well crafted version of what dozens, if not hundred, of bands were doing at the time. LP timed HT perfectly where that style of music was on the downtrend, but they had polished it up juuuuust enough to not go down with it. In 2003 it was long gone, but they still had good will built up, so that sound was synonymous with them specifically, and not a period in time or a musical fad.

Given most of the people whining now seem to be roughly late teens, mid 20s, it's a good indication they remember those albums being completely out of nowhere and legendary. As opposed to brilliantly/coincidentally timed "pretty good" albums.

 

Unfortunately that's something some don't seem to realize.
The self entitlement of these fans just because they probably bought an album or two out of their own choosing is ridiculous.
I'd understand if they were forced to buy those albums by the band or label but no one was forced here. They heard what they liked and bought the album. They paid what, 10$ for it? And apparently because they did that, the band owes them their entire career.
Fucking insane logic.

What's even worse is you see some posting such nonsense on fan pages like this as well after following all the band updates and knowing well beforehand that the music was definitely not gonna be what they wanted.
I mean, there really should be a point past which you need to realize "oh fuck, I'm being so unreasonable and immature here. It's just an album, not something my life depends on".

In other news, 3 more days!

 

I think people are mistaking risky for experimental. Like others have said on here, the risk is in that they're undoubtedly alienating a lot of people with the direction they are choosing to go with, and as long as the band tries new things to stray further and further away from their original nu-metal sound, this will continue to be the case for every album released by the band.
Now I think where many of you take an issue with this album is the lack of experimentation, which is a fair argument. The music contains standard song structure, the lyrics, for the most part, aren't mind blowing at all, it's a safe pop sound, and I get that. But to give at least a little bit of credit to the band, they did experiment with the writing process of the album. Sure that doesn't automatically make everything better, but its not like the band sat down to make some easy, safe music. This is just what happened to genuinely come from the band, and I guess you'll just have to wait longer for ATS 2.0.

 

Thank goodness that this didn't become LP Slash.

Dude that's exactly what made HT unique. They flipped nu metal and rap metal and made it 1) a fusion of metal, pop and hip hop, 2) made really catchy hooks, especially with "In the End", and 3) they made radio-friendly metal. That's exactly why lots of teens got into LP back in the early 2000s as metal was dying. The metal then was guitarz overload, with obscene and lyrics that are sick or weird as fuck, and very similar with each other.

 

I just wanted to bring some fire on the discussion here
But I still by what I've said. it was basic music which attracted the masses.

 

I don't want to simplify this too much. First of all, experimental and risky are not antithetical - an album can be risky due to experimentation. And experimentation (i.e. trying different things) isn't the only thing that makes music good - it is the songwriting (e.g. the creativity of melodies, whether the lyrics are interesting and skillful, how all the pieces fit together and play out etc.). Second - like I said before, dabbing in genres and making good/meh music is fine (like I said doesn't mean it is not enjoyable) so long as we are honest about it, which means that if we are reviewing this album as other albums are reviewed in the overall context given how music has developed to this day, the difference between e.g. Dark Side of the Moon and OML wouldn't exactly be 'A+' for DSOTM and 'A' for OML - doesn't seem considering this that OML would exactly warrant an 'A' in the grand scheme of things.

 

and OML wont be?

 

I liked the comment that someone here made once that pretty much said LP has always made the same type of music (excluding parts of ATS), but just re-skinned it with different genres to get different sounds. I think it's a pretty easy concept to grasp: they're masters of melodies and production, and even if they're just "meh" at executing a specific genre, the parts of songwriting they excel at always make the songs feel "Linkin Parkish". I mean, layers of pop genre aside, Heavy's chorus sounds exactly like a Linkin Park chorus. They just executed it differently. If that chorus was sung with more layering or guitars or whatever, they could've made it fit in just about any of their other albums.

 

I think no. many people don't care about Linkin Park now or they completely hate them. even if the new music is simple and accessible, it won't reach the success of HT.

 

Agreed. No LP album has ever or will ever reach the success HT had in terms of sales. Nothing really wrong with that either.

 

Y'know what makes me want to laugh and pull my fucking hair out at the same time? My entire social circle consists of guys and girls. The vast majority of them go gaga over Katy Perry, Chainsmokers, Bieber, Nickelback, etc. They don't love hard rock or metal, not hate, but not love. These same people listen to OML songs. Their reaction?

"LP needs to go hard again. They're way too soft and shit"

"The songs are so boring and basic! No solos and bad ass riffs! Why does LP always make the same vcvcbc format over and over?!"

For fuck's sake. You listen to pop. You sing along to pop songs. You whine about songs when they're "too heavy" or "too weird". But fuck that, Linkin Park is even lower than putrid festering dumpster fire garbage because they're not fucking Slipknot and they don't use Radiohead-esque song structures. Even people who HATE metal will refuse to respect LP unless they're fucking death metal/thrash/speed metal. "Omg that new Selena Gomez song is so awesome! LP's new track is soft, boring shit though".

What. The. Fuck.

 

I wouldn't blame them to be honest. A few years ago during the Living Things era, I got frustrated at why the band can't only be successful commercially but also creatively. I got frustrated that they weren't part of the "all-time" greats and never changed the course of music other than HT. I was frustrated that they didn't deserve to top best-of lists and to receive lifetime awards. I was frustrated that they had (and still have) a reputation close to Nickelback and Creed (trust me, Linkin Park is like a running joke in the internet especially with major publications), and it sucked having to like such an unpopular band. I was frustrated that they didn't go crazy and stuck to safe riffs, and didn't reach the level of, say Nirvana, Radiohead, Pink Floyd. A Thousand Suns was their closest thing to a great, crazy record, and even that wasn't a game-changer musically. So I do get where people are coming from.

To be honest, that's why I liked The Hunting Party a lot. It pushed Brad and Rob to their limits. They tested and changed structure like in A Line in the Sand and Mark the Graves. They even exceeded the 6-minute mark. And a lot of the songs felt that they really gave an effort in making them. Sure, THP kinda wore off on me, but that was the closest thing to pushing themselves a lot. I'm really loving where One More Light is headed, but I do get why people are feeling like it's a step back in their definition of "risk".

 

I see a lot of generalizations about what "Linkin park fans" want or about how particular songs or albums were received. Do people not realize that this is all subjective?

For example, when I go back and listen to old LP albums, I listen to all of HT, all of Meteora (I could pass on BTH though, yeah, seriously), about half of MTM, only WTCFM and Catalyst from ATS, only LITE from LT, and nothing from THP. So far, out of OML, I'm expecting at least TTM and Invisible to withstand the test of time, and we've only heard half of the album. Now people will say, how can you like X and not Y? Who gives a damn. I like whatever songs I like. Fans don't always fit inside boxes and neither does the band.

 

I just have to stand up and applause.
This is (one of) the best comment(s) I've read.

 

No Fucking doubt! Where's the logic?

 

It's not that he's saying things, it's what he'd saying.

It's never good to tell anyone to stab themselves in the face lol

 

Not every band or artist necessarily can pull off every genre, though. Beiber and Perry are the standard default "pop music" artists but it's not for lack of trying by hundreds of thousands of other people. Those people don't hit those levels because they don't do it as well as the other artists. Why wouldn't that be the case for bands as well? I like Circa Survive and I like Green Day, but if Anthony Green started trying to emulate Billie Joe Armstrongs middle-aged California whine-sing I can't say for sure I'd dig it. Conversely I wasn't a huge fan of Miley Cyrus's earlier material, but I had no issues with saying I thought it was better than her weird Riff Raff-styled rap phase.

 

Things were getting hot and "Heavy" when One More Light arrived....