Discussion in 'News' started by Joe, Feb 16, 2017.
Just download it
well, if you think art is 100% subjective then there is no point arguing, its actually a very debatable thing. but if your statement is true than its impossible to value any form of art, and any discussion about it is pointless.
if we use complexity as a parameter to jugde a song, than Heavy is objectively bad, it doesnt matter if what you like is how simple the song is. but you can still like it anyway.
but then, in every other commonly used parameter to judge a song Heavy is also bad. we can see a few in Reanimate02's post.
i strongly disagree with you but its fine.
well, the point is that Reanimate02's post would be meaningless if music was completely subjective, he didnt have to call the song objectively bad but it is implicit as he stated that he dislikes it and showed why, it follows that if he is right, then the song is bad (at least on those parameters).
a good song can be better than another good song without the no-so-good song being bad, you are right. like saying messi is better than ronaldo is not the same as saying that ronaldo sucks.
that was not my point tho, as a football fan, i see the same discussion happening about players and clubs. in football the objective part is very clear, but some people still deny it and keep arguing based on personal preference.
the same thing happens with music, for example, there are many ways to objectively value a singer or a band, even if they are arbitrary it doesnt make them less objective, and even so it will not make a difference for the listener, because we like what we like and this is the subjective part of music. otherwise it would be impossible to say that theres even a difference between a screaming goat and chester's vocals.
chester is objectively a better singer than a goat is, but i bet theres people out there who enjoy listening to a goat scream, they shouldnt feel bad about it, but they cant claim that goats are just as good as real singers and that what they like is exactly how raw they are, they would be wrong if they tried to, unless their parameter is "not being able to spell words" or "only being able to "sing" one note repeatedly", in this case goats are amazing singers
There's a few people who keep reverting to the "What I've Done type sh*t" quote from Mike in 2010.
I can kinda see the argument you're trying to make, but I'm gonna take a massive guess that the guys are in a far, far different place in their lives both emotionally and musically than they were 7 years ago.
Think how much you've changed as a person over the last 7 years
just got the acapella. awesome
I don't like this blog right now
Stacking up problems that is so unnecessary
People wishing LP'd change their sound
They wanna let go but there's comfort in the panic
And they drive themselves crazy listening to Heavy
Yeah they drive themselves crazy cause they can't digest the poppy beat
Holding on, why must everything be heavy
Holding on, to the era of Hybrid Theory
They keep dragging around they want the old sound
If they'd just let go they'd be set free
Holding on, why must everything be heavy
So I still dislike the song and I doubt it'll change very much. Still, this time, I'd like to adress a few things that irk me.
1. They said during their last album cycle that they hate how bland pop music is and use it as a chance to make an album like THP. Now, I don't mind THP in one bit. but its those comments that bite you in the ass one day, and from what I feel this is exactly whats happening with this album. They want to make an album that is unlike the current charts, yet they do so with their album after THP. Sure, thoughts can change, but IMO not when you don't put a quote you made ~3 years prior into context. I do see it as fucking hypocritical
2. Which brings me to my next point: You want to take risks and involve new writers. Fine on paper, but Heavy shows me that this experiment has not worked well. Heavy, to me, is the opposite of taking risks. Also the fact that you invite external writers, again nothing wrong with that on paper, BUT if the result is something that is effectively lacking by LP standards, then personally its not something that should see the light of day.
3. Before this gets brought up again: No, I don't have a problem with a change per se. Previous albums have showed that a band can change, but still make good music. Something which is not true for this album. I know LP have done pop-ish songs before, and I don't mind. Just when it gets too bland and to a point where you are unable to find an LP-flavor in it, which Heavy does in my opinion, it is bad.
4. This is a "what if" situation on my part again, but I don't think backlash would be as bad if this as Kiiara ft. LP or something kinda like a new project altogether.
Wow how different the song feels without vocals. I really really like it.
Instrumental > album version
Okay, many people are saying this shit and it's not what Mike fucking said. He said as much as he likes CHVRCHES, HAIM, and Vampire Weekend, that shit shouldn't be representative of rock music.
Same shit, different cycle. Linkin Park fans are the worst. You'd think people would have learned the lesson of letting the band make what they want to at this point but I guess if you don't like it, it's a personal crime or something. Yet any time it's something y'all like and other's don't, you're on the other side of the fence.
Get your heads out of your asses and practice what you preach.
On a separate, but related note: The band's always going to make what they want to. Every album they're scratching different itches. It's not hypocritical to release one album and then move to a different sound all together, because, after Meteora, that's what the band's always done. They just don't have as strong of a "This is the itch we wanted to scratch" statement this time around, which is making people latch onto past statements and apply them to this record without realizing that it's been three fucking years since that statement was accurate (THP). Do y'all know how long three years is? The internet lends these statements a permanency that they don't deserve, at all. Y'all need to get some perspective if you think THP era statements apply after that album's era.
Somebody, please close the thread.
This is perfect.
By reading comments alone , I think that Some linkin park fans are actually the curse of hybrid theory success #fact
This forum is so entertaining every album cycle.
I literally can just eat popcorn when I read this thread. It's like a warzone with temperory ceasefires every few moments or so.
I don't think Linkin Park are good with electronic music. Look at all the tracks people have thrown shade at in here.. they're all really electronic in comparison to the first three albums.
LP need to listen to their fanbase this time. We heard you guys jump from genre to genre with the first 5 albums, so we don't need you to "prove" you can do pop.. we had Burn It Down and Leave Out All The Rest for that. Stop with the technical exercises and get back to making great songs.
They're getting too wrapped in the idea of making a great album, and not actually making one. A great album starts with good individual songs, and LP are obsessing over what genres they're doing instead of focusing on making individual tracks good. Like.. they've totally lost their way since Living Things I think. The production has been so cheesy ever since then too.
Mike's production has totally lost the underground/mature vibe it used to have.. it's like watching Trent Reznor's production career, but in reverse..
Man i'm done, I expect all these excuse makers will carry on bashing anyone who criticizes.. labelling us nostalgic metalheads. I guess you guys want them to turn into a pop band.
HASHTAG NOT MY LP!
The album is finished, nothing to change this time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is exactly the kind of reasoning that I was talking about. You make the assumption that believing that you can't objectively rank art from best to worst means that there's no point discussing art at all. That's not a valid conclusion. As I said, you can have a perfectly valid discussion on the merits of the colour red vs the colour blue without having to reach a conclusion on which is objectively better than the other. I love talking about music; I wouldn't have so many posts on this forum if I didn't, but it's possible to discuss taste and opinion without having to decide whether a piece of art is good or bad. I do it all the time, music is my passion, and I've had hundreds of great conversations with friends, family, and strangers on the internet without once reaching the conclusion that a song or album is simply "bad".
Okay, let's talk complexity. Then Linkin Park's music is objectively worse than almost every popular band in history. The band's instrumental abilities range from average at best to mediocre at worst. Compositionally, the vast majority of their songs are diatonic, are in 4/4, and follow the exact same ABABCB structure without even breaking the four minute mark. Hell, even my own music is more complex than the vast majority of LP's songs, so let's call that objectively better too. And the piece that I posted in my last comment? It's one of the most complex pieces I've ever heard, but you'd struggle to find anyone who could tell you that it's better than Pink Floyd or The Beatles with a straight face. TL;DR, complexity is objective, but it doesn't correlate with quality. In fact, nothing really does.
I addressed this point in my last post, but I'll try to explain myself as best as I can. You're assuming three things. One, that subjective opinions are meaningless, which is obviously not true, two, that anyone who has an opinion on a piece of art is implicitly calling is objectively bad, and three, that having subjective opinions on what makes something bad instantly makes that thing bad, even if someone else has a directly opposing valid opinion (e.g. this song is bad because it's too short vs. this song is good because it's not too long). Reanimate02's opinion is "right", in so far as my opinion that blue is a nicer colour than red is "right" (by definition of being a valid opinion), but that doesn't make blue objectively better than red. Nor does it make my opinion on what colour I should paint my house meaningless just because there's no one objectively "best" colour.
Honestly, that's not what I said. I'd actually go a step further and say that no song is objectively better than any other song, that they simply have objectively quantifiable differences. For example, 7 is objectively different to 4. 7 is bigger than 4. 7 is a prime number, and 4 isn't. We have 7 days in a week, and not 4. But you couldn't possibly conclude that 7 is "better" than 4, right? Similarly, The Catalyst is objectively more complicated than Heavy; it's objectively longer, objectively has more stuff going on, but it's not objectively better. Why? Because I could easily argue the other way. I could argue that there's beauty in Heavy's simplicity, that the overbearing arrangement of The Catalyst ruins the raw emotion, and that The Catalyst's lack of strong melodies make it "objectively worse" than Heavy. Neither sides are right or wrong, nor do they have to be. It's not meaningless to discuss these differences without having to decide whether one is better than the other. It's not a competition.
Well yeah, I agree with you totally, Rory McIlroy is objectively a better golfer than me, because we've defined objectively quantifiable rules to determine who's the best. That's why we have league tables and world rankings in sport, we've set up rules purposefully to decide who's better. In music, there are hundreds of metrics we could use (complexity, strength of melody, strength of chord progressions, uniqueness, cultural influence, popularity, etc. etc.), some of which are subjective in their own right and some of which are completely objective. But either way, it's not as simple as who can net a ball more often in 90 minutes.
I do totally agree, but that's not really what we're talking about. I agree that one in their right mind would try to argue that Brad's a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix, or that Chester's as good a singer as Pavarotti. But again, there's an assumption here that being more technical at your instrument makes the art you make better. The best concert pianists in the world would run circles around any rock or pop musician any day, but most of them can't write music for shit. And they don't claim to be able to. They're two completely different skills. And as I said above, I have no problem saying that the band are objectively worse at their instruments than many of their contemporaies, and that a solid majority of rock/pop musicians are objectively worse instrumentalists than your average professional classical or jazz musician, but that doesn't make the music they write objectively worse.
The main issue I have with trying to define objectivity in music is that you can literally argue that any piece of music is objectively better than any other piece of music. If I can find a valid way to argue that A is better than B, and you can find a valid way to argue that B is better than A, then the only logical conclusion to me is that neither is better than the other, they're just different. Sorry if anything I said comes across as rude, I don't mean it that way, but it genuinely confuses me that people aren't able to discuss what they like and don't like about a song without having to justify their opinions by pretending it's objectively "bad". There's more to this world than cold objectivity (and I say that as someone who studies in STEM). Being able to accept that subjective opinions are just as important as objective ones is a very, very important skill. Despite what you said above, your opinion isn't meaningless if the song isn't objectively bad, in fact, it becomes even more interesting and nuanced if there's no way to objectify the quality of music. In fact, I'd argue that musical opinions are only so interesting because of the fact that we can't define whether one song is better than the next. I totally respect your opinion if you disagree with everything I said in this post, and I used to think the same way as you do, but after years of thinking about all of this (as I said, I love to discuss music ), it's a position that I just can't agree with.
Well that got a bit... heavy in the end there.
In the end they'd be breaking the habit until it's gone if they did that
They said that they would never repeat the same style of music for a new album (except for meteora), so... if Living Things it's a pop rock album, why taste another again with pop? For me, "heavy" could be inside of Living Things.
PD: I think that Kiiara sings too many, seems like she sings a lot more than Chester on the song.
Separate names with a comma.