What is innovation really? I am being honest with that question. Even the "best" albums of 2014 didn't do much crazy. Haim's sound is nostalgic. Arcade Fire's album was for people who have never heard of Afrobeat. And i like both albums. Innovative is a term that is over used. Very very rarely do I hear something that I consider "DAT NEW SHIT".
I've been staying out of the debate on Mike's mantra for the most part.. but here I go anyway: Most of the time I feel like what Mike is doing a bad job of getting across is that a lot (most?) of the new music/artists being pushed or promoted by "radio" (or really whatever media we want to point at) feels like it's competing for the same slice of the market. I've never felt like his point was supposed to be 'these particular artists are dominating radio and they suck'.. I've always felt like he was essentially saying 'we have artists like these ones who are played on radio and are good and fill a particular space, but then so much of what is played is cut from a similar cloth that it blends together and highlights what isn't present more than what is'.. and I've never really disagreed with what I was interpreting his meaning to be. I feel like a lot of the most controversial aspects of his whole rhetoric have been inferred from what was not implied.
This. Comparing music to past works creates an excessively high standard. Compared to the alt-pop, dancey stuff that's all over the place, THP is quite a breath of fresh air. The closest thing to punk you can get on the radio now is 5SOS (They're quite ok, though. Just goes to show how obsolete rock and its subgenres have become).
No one's saying he isn't entitled to his opinion. That's just silly. A lot of people are simply disagreeing with the way in which he's expressing it, even people who agree with the gist of what he's saying. It's one thing to simply say, "we want to be different and sound more like the bands we grew up listening to." It's another thing entirely to say modern rock radio sounds like the soundtrack to Friends. It kind of astounds me that someone cannot fathom how this could be interpreted as negative, including Mike himself. Opinions aren't above scrutiny. And furthermore, you have to consider the source. This is Mike Shinoda from Linkin Park. The guy who was either directly responsible for or was at least a significant contributor to a seemingly endless string of tepid ballads like Numb all of a sudden thinks music is too soft. Yes, people's opinions and tastes change, but the fact that he rarely if ever acknowledges his own complicity in the current rock music climate makes it seem a little disingenuous.
When hasn't radio been filled with cookie-cutter crap? Radio being a haven for middle-of-the-road dung isn't exactly a new thing. You mean the era when bands like Linkin Park and Papa Roach rode on the coattails of Korn and Limp Bizkit to make utterly derivative music was so much better than now? Silverchair and Bush desperately trying to sound like Nirvana in the mid '90s was perfectly fine? So is derivative music only okay when it's heavy? I never accused him of dissing Chvrches, so I don't know why you're bringing that up to me. My point is that Mike shouldn't act surprised that some people take umbrage with him criticizing modern music. My personal beef is with him shitting on modern music while simultaneously making, in my mind, less-than-stellar music himself. You have to understand that not everyone feels the same way about Linkin Park's music as you do. You find what he's saying acceptable because, I imagine, you think the album he delivered is a breath of fresh air among a sea of vegans playing synthesizers with their labias. I think it sounds like a decent metal-tinged rock album that still conveniently has the requisite soft singles (looking at you, Until It's Gone and Final Masquerade) that are tailor-made to be played on those cookie-cutter radio stations that Mike just can't stand. Guilty All the Same has a riff that sounds like New Wave of British Heavy Metal? Bands totally weren't doing that 10 years ago!
Personally, I don't think Mike's point is strictly that modern music is populated by derivative artists, or that he's specifically "dissing modern music". I'd be willing to argue that his overall, main point has to do with a lack of variety within that music. If there were greater variety to the sounds being pushed by different media outlets as "modern" then it seems likely that even some of the types of music that he's specifically alluded to might not seem "herbivorous" or whatever in context. The problem is that those outlets seem to have decided that "modern" rock is a very specific thing (both in sound and..loudness?), and that thing has over-saturated the market to a certain degree. Now, I've seen it pointed out a few times that THP is 'basically just 90s nostalgia, etc..', (ignoring the fact that a fair number of "modern" rock bands that still incorporate traditional instrumentation are fairly retro sounding as well.. but either way), I'd like to take the opportunity to use the 90s as an example: So, in 1998, as is the case every year (and likely always will be for all of time).. A whole lot of what was on rock radio was medium or middle-of-the road as evidenced by songs like Savage Garden's "Truly Madly Deeply", Aerosmith's "I Don't Want To Miss A Thing", Barenaked Ladies "One Week", Third Eye Blind;s "Semi-Charmed Life", The Verve's "Bitter Sweet Symphony", and Goo Goo Dolls, Everlast, Lenny Kravitz, Semisonic, Creed, U2, etc.. Even heavier bands like Metallica had "Turn The Page" and other medium songs which maintained the trend of more aggressive bands releasing more palatable songs as singles (Although I strongly doubt anyone would be arguing about whether or not any of the music, even the middle-of-the-road stuff, on rock radio counted as "rock").. I don't even remember anyone complaining about songs like the Beastie Boys' "Intergalactic" being on rock radio that year because it added welcomed variety. Which is really the point.. variety: That same year saw rock radio playing softer songs like Jewel's "Foolish Games" as well as darker ones like The Smashing Pumpkins' "Ava Adore", The Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up", and aggressive songs like Rage Against The Machine's "No Shelter", Rammstein's "Du Hast", Korn's "Got The Life" and "Freak On A Leash", Limp Bizkit's "Faith", and things that straddled lines some like Depeche Mode, Beck, whatever..Quality aside, there was way more variety. The thing I think I do agree with is that most of the "modern" stuff is very medium and the variety on rock radio is currently being created by playing new medium stuff and playing older stuff to break it up or for the occasionally more aggressive spin. Sure, rock (and any genre) can evolve and fresh new sounds are good, but this idea that somehow louder music is for the past and medium is the new modern sound seems ridiculous to me. Shouldn't "modern" music always be a mix of soft, medium, loud, and everything in between..?
I honesty think this is a ridiculously stupid conversation to be having. There's tons of hard rock music out there, it's just not mainstream. What we should be focusing on is whether or not it's a good album, and where LP can go from here.
I agree . I think we all got carried away with the whole ridiculous CHVRCHES saga. Anyway I think THP is a great step forward as far as instrumentation goes.
I think that a big part of the band's intention with "The Hunting Party" was to put some aggressive rock in the mainstream pool.
Well, there are a lot of different ways to look at it. In my mind, mediocrity is mediocrity, regardless of how many different varieties of it there are. We also have to keep in mind how radio isn't the force that it used to be. The internet has changed everything. Why does rock radio even need saving? Underground bands really aren't that underground anymore. Heavy and aggressive music in particular have been absolutely thriving as of late. Even indie music blogs cover metal and hardcore bands now. Maybe Numb is miles heavier than anything on the radio now, but to someone like me who's spent the better part of his life listening to heavy, abrasive music, a whiny ballad with more distortion than the other whiny ballads isn't really any better. I'm not convinced that what the world needs is a mainstream rock band making a watered down version of what countless better bands have been doing for years. There's also a big difference between the way you're talking about this issue and the way Mike is talking about it, which is at the core of why people are rolling their eyes at him. You say there needs to be more variety in mainstream rock music. Fair enough. Mike, on the other hand, undercuts everything he says by talking about making "cutting-edge music" and pushing the envelope. If you're going to make bold claims, you might want to deliver an album that doesn't sound like music bands like Thrice were making in 2003. Trying to sound like the bands you grew up listening to isn't inherently bad. Trying to sound like bands you grew up listening to in some vain attempt to save rock music is bad. I'm glad you like the album and that it fills some void for you, but I'm simply not as impressed. We're going to have to agree to disagree.
The thing is Mike's a fairly intelligent guy, and i'm pretty sure he knew how his comments would be interpreted if he started mentioning names, instead of voicing his concerns about the mainstream rock scene as a whole. The press are always looking to derive something controversial from interviews, and as soon as you drop names of other musicians into an argument you're always going to be in danger of an x bashes on y scenario, rather then anyone taking on board the point you're actually trying to make.
Well I hear UIG on sports center and baseball tonight all the time so there's something. It'd be cool if it had some Rebellion guitars in the background instead. I still think Rebellion could be huge.
I know MLB.com/MLB TV played Rebellion in a MLB highlight montage in the days prior to the album release.
LP should've done a Weird Al and released a video every day for five days before the album. GATS, UIG, Rebellion, ALITS, and FM
I liked this album. People here are really weird ! Accusing mike about being selfish for the heavy style ? Actually i'm glad they are back to their heavy style and i wish they will continue doing heavy-hard stuff... instead of what mikes described while he was writing "alternative pop demos that sounded like they would fit in with what radio is currently playing" which got him thinking that he has been working on things that wasn't really what he'd love to be making So the guy pushed what the majority and what kids love on radio for his own taste, which originally was Nu-metal/heavy/Hard rock music! Thank god he stepped away from they M2M/ATS/LT craps and got back to his origins a little bit !! Please don't stop the hard stuff mike !!! F**k the critics
Not entirely on-topic with the discussion, but neither is what my response is going to be.. In any case it got me thinking: ~~As a creator of music myself.. I find I often struggle with the idea that an artist should ever consider their audience, the musical climate at large, the marketplace, critics, whether anyone has done something similar before, or really anything besides what it is that they are feeling and want to make when creating art. I understand that an audience essentially facilitates an artist's success, but I also feel like outside considerations can impede the honesty of the artists/the authenticity of the art, etc, etc, blah, blah.. and obviously things will come into play when it's someone's livelihood.. ~~So I have this internal argument with myself about it and never really resolve it because the artist part of me that wants freedom of expression and such is at odds with the fan part of me that nevertheless wants to impose expectations on other artists.. Oh the hypocrisy of it all ~~So I'm a Linkin Park fan who can appreciate that their abilities and diversity allow their art to be expressed in varied and eclectic ways, and I don't at all fault them for following their own desires.. buuuuut.. there's also a part of me that wants? .. maybe hopes that the next thing they do is more this way or that way.. ~~I'm going to use an in-exact metaphor to illustrate and maybe we'll all pretend its other possible interpretations aren't what I mean? okay, here goes: Everyone has foods that they like more than others..maybe even favourites. Most people probably don't want to eat the exact same food for every meal, but.. Lots of people have favourite things to order when they go to certain restaurants.. ~~My tastes in both music and food are fairly inclusive.. stylistically? I like some North American, some Mexican, some Italian, some Japanese, some Thai, some Indian, some Seafood, Rock, some Rap, some Metal, some Blues, some Classical/Orchestral, some Indie, some Pop, some Electronic, even some Country, etc, etc.. ~~But as much as I like that diversity, sometimes when I go to my favourite steakhouse.. I really want my favourite steak. So I appreciate LPs diversity, and I actually really like ATS and some of their experimentation, but I guess sometimes I find myself feeling like that stuff is like trying the salmon at that steakhouse.. and maybe the chef is really versatile and it's well prepared and I actually do like it quite a bit because I like fish and it's very tasty, but at the end of the day.. the reason I go to that restaurant and what made me like it in the first place, is the steak. So while I don't necessarily want to have steak all of the time..when I'm feeling like some salmon I'd rather go to Half Moon Run for some "Dark Eyes", or try Thrice's "Alchemy Index" for more of a conceptual meal.. and I could keep throwing in other bands and mixing up my metaphors, but in any case, maybe that made sense? ~~I guess what I'm getting at is: while THP isn't some perfect masterpiece of culinary inventiveness and mastery, I suppose it's maybe closer to what I want to order when I eat at Linkin Park's restaurant than what I imagine when Mike mentions the indie-like demos he thought were a little more like bands who are following after the "standout" indie artists he mentions liking.. 'cause when I think of those followers, I imagine something more like.. un-buttered white bread or plain boiled potatoes, or unsalted soda-crackers, or something?... it just doesn't really pique my appetite. (Although in the interest of full-disclosure, neither do a lot of the artists he does mention.. but anyway..)
That analogy is indeed inexact but I get it. Speaking broadly, what I want from Linkin Park goes beyond any one style or aesthetic.