It might not be the most well-informed opinion, but that doesn't make it worthy of so much derision. Do you listen to the entire catalog of every artist you don't like? Probably not. And it's not like he said anything spiteful about Linkin Park. It was just an offhand comment related to the sound of his new project. I don't see why everyone is getting so up in arms about it. (Not you in particular, but you know what I mean.)
Everything I saw here, I agree with, with the exception of point #1. More particularly the manufactured part. Mostly because of my ignorance. Did not know Fightstar was manufactured.
Fightstar aren't, Busted were. Never mind how that was about six or seven years ago now, Fightstar aren't doing too badly as far as I know, and if he was just trying to slate huge mainstream bands he probably wouldn't have said he likes Kings of Leon.
On the contrary, since Benji Madden of Good Charlotte complimented LP for "always bringing something new and fresh with every album", this guy can suck a fat one.
Nice ownage as Always! By the way, "Friendly Fires" are a god awful indie/disco funk rock band here in the UK That I can't escape from - they are all over the radio, Ads for their latest album plastered over billboards, posters & train stations everywhere across the country. Critics love them, I for one do not! Be glad they not discovered in the US yet
Actually, I've heard of them. I was being facetious When I agreed with Dr. Otogonopus. I used to work at Best Buy and the hipsters told me ALL about how good they were and how cooler they were for being a fan.
The Catalyst didn't get as much radio play as Waiting For The End, and Iridescent is in a huge Hollywood movie, people know those more than The Catalyst. All I'm saying is, why would they release those 4 songs as singles? Critics judge bands by their singles, seldom do they actually listen to the whole album and judge them by that, they're ignorant people. If LP released 'The Catalyst, When They Come For Me, Blackout and The Messenger' as the singles for ATS, people would have a very different view on LP right now, I guarantee it. I also remember that when MTM came out, critics and stuff weren't calling LP nu-metal anymore because the music was so drastically different. MTM had an almost alternative rock, punk feel to it, but also with big rock songs and big rock ballads. Chester was also completely BASHING nu-metal, in one interview, he even said ''I fucking hate nu-metal, I didn't like any of the bands that I've toured with''. I know for a fact that probably pissed off a lot of bands and a lot of people, but when the band had that attitude, I think it was helping them. Read this interview http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BLABBERMOUTH.NET/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=70140 Rick went in favor of a 'live sound' over Mike over polishing and perfecting songs, like I feel like he did on ATS more than MTM. Apart from GU, BIO and NMS, MTM is NOT nu-metal whatsoever.
First off, your response had nothing to do with what you quoted. Also any "review" that is put on Roadrunner Records or Blabbermouth.net about Linkin Park is pretty much irrelevant, seeing as they and their readers trash LP as much as humanly possible.
Radiohead is repeating the same songs since Kid A, before Kid A they sounded like REM featuring the vocalist of Wheatus. NIN is formulaic too: start with some noise, insert bad melody here, and add another noise there. Bjork: electronic ramblings + Scandinavian, uneven singing in English. Daft Punk: four on the floor+ vocal samples from some obscure source + robotic thingy. Dream Theater: steal some orchestra sheet music and play it using the instruments of a rock band and add cheap vocals (like "Hiiiiiighwaaaaay To ZA Danger ZONE!"). P.S.: In Between and The Messenger are overproduced. Don Gilmore is GOD.