Hey, you're the one that used the words "Completely discarded". Accusing me of cherry picking when you reached for an absolutist argument is a little silly, don't you think? I was gesturing back to a point I made earlier in the thread, anyway-- about how even one or two songs can round out an album's direction, and that didn't happen that much with OML because it was so short. Fair 'nuff.
Yeah ok that was me generalising but cherrypicking the exception to prove me wrong is a tad bit pendantic on your part too Anyway let's move on and be excited about whatever's coming on the 5th
I've waffled back and forth on the "should they or shouldn't they" discussion regarding having a new vocalist. My viewpoint has evolved on it over time. Within the first few years of us losing Chester, I was like, "Absolutely not." either they find a way to continue with the five members organically, or they don't come back at all. But I realized that it was just me being fiercely protective over the Chester era. I didn't want to entertain new band members because doing so would make the loss of Chester that much more real. Despite the reality that he had been gone for many years, my mind didn't want to close that chapter. However, within the last two years, I've realized that one of the things that made LP special was the contrast between the two vocalists. The dynamics of Chester and Mike's voices were so dramatically different, yet they blended perfectly on stage and record. Without someone new to provide a similar 'contrast,' I fear any new music would feel somewhat empty, as if it needed something more and wasn't quite "there." Of course, they could easily continue as a five-piece and prove me wrong, but I will not be offended if there's someone new tomorrow, and I'll understand why they did it.
In the first years, I thought the same, it should be just the 5. My only problem with the idea of just the 5 was the live shows. How to figure that out? After a while, the idea of a new vocalist made more sense to me. I was always drawn to bands with two vocalists. LP, McFly back in the days, now The Warning. I just love these types of dynamics and the one between Mike and Chester was a very special and unique one, that's LP for me. Having a new member, especially a female vocalist, seems the best option to solve the live questions and also to allow less comparisons to Chester that any other male vocalist would get. Either way, I'll be happy with their choice, just hoping the 5 or 6 members have their mental health in order cause any choice they have made will suffer massive repercussion among fans. Can't way for tomorrow!
If the band indeed decides to go with another permanent or semi-permanent lead vocalist, I think it will be very important, on fan forums like this one and others, to show lots of supports and be very respectful of that person. Even if some of us end up not feeling the new singer style. I am quite sure the atmosphere will be very good here, but I just wanted to express it still. I suppose I am a bit afraid of the massive amount of toxic reactions that could happen in the mainstream (youtube comments, the band's facebook, some press, etc). Regardless of how confident you are as a singer, it is in our human-nature to feel some amount of pain from rejection. Obviously I am hoping for the best possible reaction in general, but it'd really be great for the core fanbase to make the new singer feel accepted and welcome. After all, it is probably going to be someone who also needed to make a fair amount of compromises to join the band. If it is anyone who put his or her own band in standstill, that would mean for example giving up on performing songs you have written in order to perform songs written by someone else. Or possibly putting some strong bandmates relationships on hold, in order to tour with your new band.
If they have a new vocalist, cool. Same if they don't. I would find it more interesting to see how Mike would interpret more Linkin Park songs live as a solo vox but ultimately I'm excited for whatever they wanna do.
We're going to be keeping a watchful eye over the forums for this very reason. Respectfully written critiques or fans stating they're not fond of something in a respectful manner are fine. We've already discussed in this thread some records of LP that we felt were hit or miss. That's okay. We encourage discussion and debate because it keeps the conversation flowing. However, as you said, if it becomes incredibly toxic, disrespectful, hateful, or dives into the realm of personal attacks against the band/others over the new music, I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that none of us are going to stand for that. The band is sticking their necks out here, doing the incredibly challenging (and scary) task of continuing onward after losing an iconic lead vocalist. They've undoubtedly poured a lot of heavy emotions into this decision and new music, and fans should be mindful of that, even if the new music doesn't end up being their cup of tea.
I don't think its strange to not give Skiba with Blink a chance. I get it. As I said I didn't either. Your point about Mike is true, but the problem would likely be the classic hits. No way Mike can scream like Chester. I don't think anyone can, isn't that what LP realised after the tribute show? Just how many people were needed for that 1 show. How can your tour? And again for me, it would just feel very off, if someone tried to sing or scream all of Chester's parts. Saying that if that didn't permanently replace Chester, and every show was advertised as "Linkin Park with...." and the singer was chosen to help promote this new talented artist, then I suppose, that would be an easier pill to swallow. BUT I will still be a whiney fanboy and never accept it. Because I was the 1 who voted NO.
Art changes and evolves. Musical artists, creating art, also change and evolve. Rigidly holding to your idea of what makes "Linkin Park" is the same as trying to define music or art as one single narrow definition. And honestly, in my opinion if you think that way you kind of miss the point of the band's entire creative output. They were never content to sound like the nu metal and rap-rock of their contemporaries and held their ground. They continually reinvented their sound to redefine what they could do. And they can most certainly bring in a new vocalist and it still be the same essence of "Linkin Park". You can personally not enjoy the new output, but implying it's not Linkin Park seems disrespectful to Mike, Brad, and the other band members who put in just as much work over the years. They're just as much a part of Linkin Park, and there's a reason that they credited a majority of their songs as being written by "Linkin Park" rather than individual members.
They can rework songs pretty easily to account for the lack of Chester. Look at how Mike changed the bridge of Papercut during his solo tour, for instance. That new bridge is KILLER. I have no doubt they can adjust classics based on that. You might not like it, but there were 6 members of Linkin Park and as irreplaceable as Chester was, he was still only one part of a whole. Also I'm glad you accept that you are being whiney because HOLY COW I need some cheese to go with the whine.
Imagine if AC/DC had called it quits after Bon Scott died and never hired Brian Johnson and released Back in Black. No one person is irreplacable. I think you’re getting being a Chester Bennington fanboy confused with a being a fan of Linkin Park.
You need to learn how to properly quote posts. Your comment is inside the quote instead of outside the quote.
The multi-quote isn't working for me, but there have been a lot of good critical points made in the last few replies. Some bands with absolutely wonderful lead singers who passed away have gone on to create phenomenal records. AC/DC was an example thrown around, and it's a perfect instance. Bon Scott was a fantastic vocalist, but the band decided to forge on with Brian Johnson after Bon died, and they made one of the best rock records of all time. Layne Staley was a once-in-a-generation vocalist, but after many years disbanded, Alice in Chains reformed with William Duvall and made 'Black Gives Way To Blue,' one of the best records that came out that year. Chester was legendary, an icon, and a great enough vocalist that none of the dozen-plus vocalists they brought in for the Hollywood Bowl even came close. And the band knows this as well. Hence, I can guarantee you that whatever they forge ahead with and premiere tomorrow will be stylistically different than anything they ever did with Chester. Mike has made it clear that he doesn't think anyone sounds like Chester and that Chester was in a league of his own. They're not going to hire a copycat or do something that seems desperate to hold on to their past. No, I can guarantee you that if there's a new vocalist, they are as deliberately different from Chester as can be - on purpose. And there is no such thing as "is not Linkin Park." Because the Linkin Park of 2000 differed from the Linkin Park in 2007, 2010, 2014, and 2017. The band completely changed themselves multiple times within their career, purposefully, because in their mind, they didn't want to be defined or put in a box. To quote Mike from an interview with us: "Anyone who thinks our band is synonymous with a genre isn't actually very familiar with the band. We're proud to be able to play comfortably on stage with Paul McCartney, Metallica, Jay-Z, and Steve Aoki. Who else can do that." Completely changing as a band is on brand for them, even if it means a new vocalist. As Minus said, they can rework some songs to account for Chester's absence. Chester would want this.
Also we need to remember, that Chester wasn't even the original vocalist of Linkin Park. Not to remove him from his legacy, which he is owed, but the bandmates and a lot of the breakout material existed before he ever joined. A lot of that DNA in the first album existed before him, waiting for him to arrive to it. Just as that material welcomed him, this new material will welcome a new lead singer too. The only real question is whether or not you'll let it.