Yes I do think they're good lyrics, no I don't think a two year old could write them, yes I think the music, lyrics, and music video were all interesting, fresh, and had effort put in to them. No I didn't think anything sounded forced, I think it was maybe an obvious choice for a single or molded in to one, but I don't think they forced it. Do I think that you take yourself too seriously as a music critic? Yes. Do I think you could write a song like Somewhere I Belong? No.
I think Meteora is a good album and has some great songs but I wil certainly say it was the band's weakest album. There are certainly a few songs that sound incomplete and over-produced and overall the lyrics were pretty bad.
With the ordinary lyrics and song structures aside, there was an epic-ness to Meteora, with the artwork/music videos and everything. Also the songs had way more repeat value than any MTM song for me.
I'm a sound engineer and producer. Of course I take it seriously. And, I could probably write a song better than SIB, but that's irrelevant. Edit: Also, you say that you didn't think it sounded forced but they were made to rewrite the chorus for SIB so many times that it's near impossible for it not to have been forced. Personally, I think their producer failed them.
"Somewhere I Belong" is probably one of my least-favourite Linkin Park songs. In my opinion, it's probably not at all hard to write a song that tops it. Like, without re-writing a hook thirty-or-so times. Seriously -- I don't mind the song's chorus, even if I think it's one of the worst they've ever come up with ... but, I mean, after re-writing the chorus that many times, they came up with that? I get the idea they just gave up trying.
If it's not too off-topic, would someone be kind enough to explain to me what this 'over-produced' sound is, because I don't get it. Does it mean the guitars are not distinct enough etc? Layered vocals?
I don't call the sound "over-produced" because I don't entirely understand the ... uh, specifics of that kind of "sound" myself.
The over-produced sound is basically that everything seems too clean and smooth and somewhat unreal. It can be hard to explain really, the best way to show it is to compare an overproduced track to an under-produced one. A good example is Green Day. Their newer stuff can be thought of as over-produced in comparison to their older stuff. [youtube]YastlxhifIc[/youtube] [youtube]SmJxtgmsqAE[/youtube]
Meh, Green Day. Yeah, most bands older stuff is less produced than their newer stuff. Common sense. Check out System of a Down's early material, then check out their later stuff, check out The Used's early stuff, then check out their later stuff, check out My Chemical Romance's stuff, then check out their later stuff, etc etc etc etc etc And there are tons of producers and engineers out there, Dedicated, and not all of them are producing the high quality material Linkin Park are, but when you come up with a song better than SIB I'd love to hear it. I doubt you ever do, though. And yeah, Gilmore may have been a bad decision, but Rubin was also a bad decision for Minutes to Midnight as he would make them rewrite as well and he'd reject anything that sounded like their old stuff. That's close-minded and just as ridiculous, to me. If they want to be smart they'll just have Mike produce, but I agree that choosing producers who make you rewrite a chorus a hundred times is ridiculous. But maybe the music was there and they couldn't come up with the right thing? Maybe the chorus they landed on was the right one. Ever think that they all worked together and actually did like the end result a lot? Still, even though it's over-produced doesn't make Somewhere I Belong a bad song, and I think you guys are missing the point of that song and of this thread.
The overproduced thing doesn't bother me at all. I find I prefer a cleaner sound to recordings. Plus, if the band got together and wrote the chorus together and thought "that's amazing!" or whatever, then that's fair enough. When I first listened to the song I enjoyed it, same for the whole album infact, but IMO it doesn't have any lasting value to me. But that's all to do with personal likes and dislikes. Same with you saying you'd like to hear me right a song better than SIB, I could write something that I think's a lot better than it, especially lyrically, but you might think it's utter shit. As for the choice of producers, I think that when LP went in to record Meteora, they were happy to go with Gilmore because they'd already recorded a very successful album with him. And that makes a lot of sense really. As for Rubin, they wanted a change and must have looked into different people and chosen him for the job, which is also fair enough. The thing I do agree with you on, is that Mike should produce their albums for them, mainly because he'll know exactly how he wants each song to sound.
I have thought long and hard about the simplicity of Linkin Park's formula, the simplicity and directness of a lot of the lyrics, and what I've come to conclude is that I have grown a respect for each member of the band and I understand why they're making the music they're making, and I think it sounds great. They're inspiring millions of people with their words and it's that simplicity and directness that is so powerful in their music. I think they're a very amazing, inspiring force in music today because we need more artists out there who can speak uplifting words and get people to think more. I truly believe Linkin Park are one of those bands that are actually trying to help better the world and aren't just trying to get cash out of people. Not to say that thousands upon thousands of other bands aren't genuine and uplifting as well, but Linkin Park are reaching a larger audience and have done it very successfully. Music has always been, and will always be, a revolutionary spiritual force. I think it's smart that they choose their words so carefully, and everything they've said has been brilliant, to me.
The guys simply were no longer content to just produce another album with the same sound; they obviously had no intention of making yet another album that went in the direction of "Hybrid Theory". The band made an effort to move away from their previous formulaic approach that had been used for "Meteora", it involved Rubin's guidance to be open-minded and experiment with sounds but it also involved being careful to not fall into the trap of just re-hashing what they he made for the previous albums. I don't think that's close-minded at all.
That's not what I meant. They said several times that if he thought it sounded anything like their older stuff that he'd just toss it and tell them to do something else. That's close minded to me because yes, it's a good thing to have that goal to want to prove you can make other styles of music and explore the whole alternative pop thing, but there could have been some nice stuff thrown out, you know, just because it had too much of a Hybrid Theory/Meteora sound. That's all I'm saying! I love Minutes to Midnight, though, I'm just saying I bet there were some badass demos that Rick was like, 'Nah, this sounds like Linkin Park. This goes in the garbage. Too much hip-hop, not enough Chester!!!'
That was the point of the album, to prove the band was able to move past the "Hybrid Theory/Meteora sound" -- to them, that sound was outdated, too many other bands were doing it and it was too easy for them to write; the band wanted to be challenged with their writing process.
I know that was the reason, and like I said, I love Minutes to Midnight. Just saying I think they may have come up with some good ideas that were rejected is all.
I see where he's coming from, there could be a Hybrid Theory Part III that they wrote which may have been up to par with the original. So in a way it's disappointing that we'll probably never know, but what they did, moving forward, pushing themselves, was better for the band, and for their fans.
i think that choosing rick was the right choice. And let me add, im talking about all bands here not jurt lp, people shouldnt get all worked up when someone criticizes their favorite band. As fans we have a right to do it, to expect more from a band we care about. I want more than a song that could have just as well have been on their last album. We arent attacking anyone when we point out flaws we point them out because we do care, lp has tons of potential and i know they could have made a better album than meteora at that time. Again im not attacking anyone so theres no use to go on the offensive and tell me how amazing meteora is. I think its pretty bad for all the reasons doc and dedicated stated and yet lp remain one of my favorite bands. M2m showed me that they werent a one trick pony and it made me dissapointed that they released meteora when they could havd released something much better and imo that set them back in growing as a band and they are just now ard at the place they shold have been in 04
You have a respectful criticism of the band, positive and thoughtful. The only offensive thing is going through each songs and going 'TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, sounds like blah blah, already done this better, next track wow TERRIBLE, did it better here, next track terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible' And I do appreciate thoughtful debate from both sides, but this thread is a praise thread, not a debate thread. Like I've said in nearly every post, read the title. It says 'Let's simply appreciate'. Now, usually when I see a thread called 'Appreciate ____'(especially of an album by the artist the message board is for),there aren't people bashing the subject from the beginning and posting disrespectful reviews about how terrible they think it is. That's what I'm trying to say. I want to hear about other people's love for the album in this thread, not debate people on whether or not it's good. I obviously think it is.
Meteora is one of those albums I can only listen to and truly enjoy when I'm having a shitty day. I'm not sure if thats a good or bad thing