It's a nu-metal album that was released at the height of nu-metal's oversaturation. There was no cursing on the album, so big-box stores like Wal-Mart could sell it to children and the parents controlling their spending habits. The lyrics are so vague that any kind of suburban angst can be projected onto them. I'm familiar with why Hybrid Theory got as popular as it did. It's just that none of those reasons have any bearing on the quality of it. Pop audiences are easy to please. Just look at the success of Flo Rida and Train.
But you know ATS is still an album by Linkin Park? Even if it may have less pop appeal it's still mainstream music.
Oh, golly gee. It never crossed my mind that ATS was written by Linkin Park. I guess I must've missed all the Linkin Park avatars, references to Linkin Park lyrics, the name of the site being Linkin Park Association. Just because it was written by a mainstream band does not necessarily make it a mainstream album, especially when the public wasn't all that receptive to it. Did we forget everyone bitching about how "techno" "The Catalyst" sounded? As far as the mainstream is concerned, Linkin Park is a relic of the regrettable past. The biggest selling band in a genre best left forgotten at the turn of the century along with Furbies and the Spice Girls. Even if it was on par with the Dark Side of the Moon, people wouldn't buy it. Not after the sporadic nature of Minutes to Midnight and definitely not a decade after Hybrid Theory and the impression that album made for them.
Ok. I shouldn't have used the sales and commercial success argument.To be more specific, I never said that commercially successful means quality music. I just used the commercial argument to insist on the fact that if HT had sell that much, it might have been because it was somehow good. It was the easy way out: I didn't really wanted to debate about why I think HT is a good record, so I just put the commercial success out there. Why would HT be good? Chester vocal performance. The raspy shit he's doing on that record, not a lot of singer could perform it. Even Chester can't handle those agressive vocals anymore. The agressive voice he had on that record was pretty much unique.. Then, the guitar riffs. Simple? Yes. How would that make them bad? Have you ever seen how the crowd get pumped when OSC riff is played live? A good part of HT guitar parts were catchy from the start and have become really iconic over the years. If you don't like them, that's fine, but how can you force other people to admit they're unoriginal and bad? If POA riff still get me pumped after 10 years, how could I admit it's a bad guitar riff? Then, there is something more subjective, but the whole vibe of that record totally kicks out everything LP has done next for me. The melodies, the electronic parts, the whole atmosphere the albums creates. If I prefer it over anything LP has done after, how could you force me to say: well, HT is bad! Then, of course, the record was formulaïc, the lyrics were angsty, much of the songs were similar, the record style was not really original when it was released, but...But didn't the Beatles release some pop records with formulaic songs structure, when rock was the most popular genre? You really makes me think of those critics who are judging foods or stuff like this. They will always come with their arguing "Oh, this meat is so simple it's pitifull! But the other one was such elaborated, lot of spices, lot of..."' Cool, but if the first meat tastes good and the other tastes like bitter shit, not matter what they gonna say, I will think the first one is better. It would be ridiculous for me to say "Yeah, it tasted like shit, but it was more elaborated, so the second one is better!" Yes, it's subjective. Like judging music is subjective. Admit it or not. Not my problem if you're stuck in your trip of "I know what is good and what is not!". And yes, here I am, bitching again with a long-ass post. It really wasn't my initial intention.
David Draiman had raspy vocals. Phil Anselmo had raspy vocals. James Hetfield had raspy vocals. The mere fact that Chester's timbre isn't a carbon copy of those singers does not make him unique. And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those vocals double-tracked so he could sing and scream at the same time? If that's the case, then that singing you like so much was artificial. Hybrid Theory doesn't have memorable guitar riffs. The reason why you and I can differentiate between the guitar parts to different Linkin Park songs is because we've followed the band for so long. Go to your local guitar store, what are all the kids fucking up playing? "Smoke on the Water". "Master of Puppets". "Stairway to Heaven". Maybe even "Bulls on Parade". "One Step Closer" is memorable for a Linkin Park song, but not for a rock song. Hell, not even for a nu-metal song. I'd sooner see someone identify "Freak on a Leash" within two seconds than any given LP song. How about the sterile production? The guitars aren't raw, the bass might as well not exist, and the samples aren't as crisp as the hip-hop or big beat records coming out that year. The Beatles were doing pop records because that was pretty much the only thing that existed as far as teeny-boppers were concerned. As far as rock went, they only had the people who created the genre to build on. Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley. That was it. They weren't simplifying music created by their peers/influences for pop success. What were the Deftones doing while Linkin Park were writing Hybrid Theory? White Pony. Hell, they made "Back to School" to prove how played out rap-metal was. How about the Roots? They had Things Fall Apart. Nine Inch Nails? The Fragile. All three of those albums got massive critical acclaim. Hybrid Theory? A diamond certification but middling reviews.
Can we please agree that there will never be an agreement here. So let's try to get a little more civil in this thread or I will close this thread
Yes, the mainstream media does treat LP as a "relic of a regrettable past". But that doesn't mean those "relics" don't have a chance of a comeback. Green Day's "American Idiot" had put them into the mainstream once again almost after a DECADE since they were last popular. No more were they only known as "that shitty 90s band that wrote that shitty acoustic ballad"; they are actually respected as rock veterans now. U2 have become "relics" through the decades and came back from it probably 4-5 times by now, and they may still have some steam left in them. My point is, don't brush off Linkin Park. They still have a chance of making an album that would be picked up by the mainstream as heavily as HT was. I personally feel they haven't written their magnum opus yet. I hope they haven't written it yet.. I agree. Calm down people... It's just music. Listen whatever you like and enjoy. No need to talk sh*t on others' opinions.
Yep, those 3 singers had raspy vocals (even though I found Chester better at it), but they couldn't handle other sides of singing that Chester performed on HT (either the brutal screams or the soft singing). The variety and quality of Chester vocal performances in HT was trully outstanding in my opinion. Those things doesn't really bother to me. Raw or not, crisp or not, the guitars and samples in HT still sound great to me. What Zane said. We will obviously never agree on the subject. I'll stop here. Sorry for having make this thread a mess :-/
I'm going to go into some pretty controversial territory here. Try to bear with me... I like A Thousand Suns. and I like Living Things. Thanks for sticking with me there guys. I know some of that must've been pretty hard to comprehend...you know...actually being able to enjoy both for what they are and everything.
You call that controversial? THIS is controversial: I like ATS. I like Living Things. I like MTM. I like Meteora. I love Reanimation. I love HT. I love HT EP.
Huh? No, Linkin Park isn't treated like that all. They had a steady popularity since their debut in 2000... Their latest album got number 1 all over the world and Burn It Down is a freakin' hit, I hear that song everywhere. LP have never not been popular, all of their albums had hit singles, and they got a lot of mainstream reputation with their Transformers songs. What I've Done, New Divide, Iridescent... all of those songs were massive hits and had big media presence. "Relics of a regrettable past" are maybe Limp Bizkit, nobody gives a shit about what they're doing anymore. I mean have you listened to their latest album? It's the same old childish nu metal. They even said they won't even tour in the US anymore because nobody wants them there... When people hear songs like Break Stuff and Rollin', they have to cringe, but they don't do that with In the End and Numb because those songs have aged well. Bands that the mainstream media sees as "the past" are maybe The Offspring and Sum 41, even though they still make good albums, but you don't hear them on the radio anymore, don't see them on tv and they rank low on the Billboard. I don't think that anyone sees Linkin Park as the nu metal band who made songs like One Step Closer and Crawling anymore, more as the radio alternative rock band who made songs like What I've Done and Burn It Down. Why the hell are people talking about things like "oh LP needs a comeback" - LP doesn't need a comeback because they have always been there. I swear, LP fans are spoiled. Try being a Sum 41 fan and never seeing them on tv, and having to see how they have to play club shows instead of stadium shows now... Linkin Park is one of the biggest rock bands around and they have been that for ten steady years. They're as popular as they have ever been, maybe even a bit more right now than in the ATS era.
Exactly, Meteora is LP's most underrated album ever. That album is so amazing, the lyrics is so good and mature, every song is so different and unique. It's so old-skool. Meteora4eva.
When I tried to discuss the politics of ATS with Jay Baruchel he just laughed and told me to listen to "Godspeed You Black Emperor" instead. Then I punched him in the neck because I don't want to wait 20 minutes for them to start singing. This is why I haven't been in a studio movie since 2010 lol
The fact that in his signature he has Meteora at the bottom of his album hierarchy makes me believe he was also being sarcastic. That and he basically mentioned everything about Meteora that's wrong with the album.