Well, there's more than one way to interpret those kinds of lyrics, especially given that Shinoda and co. were quite fond of metaphors when writing songs for "Midnight" and "A Thousand Suns"
Huh. It feels like it's been a while since a thread turned into an old vs. new debate. I guess I'll just leave at this: I agree with Chester's assessment of that style of music. I'm over it. Although to be honest, I've noticed that the style of music isn't what turns me off the most. It's the lyrics. Linkin Park's lyrics have improved so damn much from MTM onwards. Expressing what you're feeling in a way that's self aware (LOATR), poetic (In Between), or right to the point (When They Come For Me) will always be more appealing to me than the bland, I'm-sad-but-I-don't-know-why stuff from the first two albums.
I don't really care about lyricism, I care about the message in those lyrics, If I want to listen to amazing lyricism I go listen to Eminem, that's why I consider HT & Meteora masterpieces, MTM would also be another masterpiece if they had ATL instead of In Between, and ATS I love that album 9/10 (I'm not a nu-metal fan all sad cuz they changed their style) but It's just not as good as their previous work.
Okay, but can you really call something a masterpiece while totally ignoring one of the biggest aspects of the art form because you "don't really care"?
HT was a freaking masterpiece. They perfected nu metal like no one else and even had something unique about it. You could easily tell that it had a mix of so many genres. It was the epitome of what the band stood for. But Meteora was plain and dull. I'm not saying the songs weren't catchy or that the lyrics weren't good. The songs were extremely catchy and the lyrics were as good as usual. I like the songs in the album. But the album would be given zero for trying something new. And that album was what cemented half these nu metal fans opinion that LP is JUST nu metal and nothing else. If that album wasn't there, LP would probably have been known for their experimentation enthusiasm like Coldplay or Muse. People call LP sell outs now which is downright stupid. People think just cause an album has electronics in it, it becomes commercial. Meteora was commercial and thats why it's their worst album in their other wise amazing discography. The reason the band struggles to maintain it's fan base is all because of Meteora. Meteora is no masterpiece. HT definitely was. Meteora is an album that tried to follow HT in a similar way to become a masterpiece but couldn't cause it had nothing new to offer and therefore ended up being their worst album. Simple.
I will agree that Meteora is kind of a cop out, but i feel that Meteora is more darker than HT. But HT and Meteora helped me get through some really dark times in my life and it they still does help me till this day whenever i feel sad, angry, or even depressed. Thats the power those two albums have more than m2m, ats, and LT.
Alright. Let's state originality within the context of popular American music at the time that Hybrid Theory and Meteora were released. The 90's had already seen the rise of nu-metal with bands such as Korn, P.O.D., Slipknot, Mudvayne, Static-X etc. By the time Hybrid Theory was released, it was a creative spin on the genre that aided in popularizing it. You could liken it to how dubstep has existed for a long time, but was popularized by Skrillex. So if you want a context for originality, Hybrid Theory wasn't very original in style. A creative and fun spin on the genre, sure. Meteora even less so. You do realize that you can have emotive, poignant, relatable lyrics without giving in to cliches? That's the point around the term "angst". Saying that something is "angst-filled," "melodramatic," or "emo," isn't to criticize the listener by saying, "Hey fuck you, grow up." It's to say, "There's a better, more intelligent way to say the same thing." And this is definitely true with they lyrics on Hybrid Theory and Meteora. Typically the only intelligent use of those kinds of lyrics is in punk songs or punk tributes. How can you not grasp the concept of subjective vs. objective criticism? I can relate to songs like Breaking The Habit, and I love that song, but that doesn't mean the lyrics are a masterpiece. Just like how I love B-horror films, but for the most part, they're garbage. Probably. Because people grow up, change, and evolve. I'm not saying HT or Meteora are TERRIBLE albums, but within the context of LP's discography, they've proven that they can do way better, and have on all fronts, including lyricism.
Why are you judging his features for those shit artists? you saw how he's a beast when he's serious, he did it for 50 and you heard it dude, it was fuckin amazing, and obviously meant I go listen to his albums so I dont know why you said that.
He had great flow on My Life but these others are just... stupid. All three on SH's album are nothing, the Pink & Rihanna ones are horrible. The best you can say about the Skylar one is that it's ok. We're totally off topic here, btw.
Again.....why are you judging the features for those shit artists? when I go play Eminem instead of LP, I dont put on those shit features -_- you said he's been meh lately, why? because of like 5 shit songs he did for shit artists? have you heard the Bad Meets Evil? that was dope as hell and its from 2011, Recovery is another classic, and his new album is coming out 2013.
Of course HT/Meteora were released during a "nu metal era". But as far as I know, all Beatles records were released when Pop and Rock were the most succesful music genres in the world. Same with a lot of Who/Rolling Stones records. Depeche Mode's "Violator" was released when new wave/synth pop music were super trendy. Nirvana's "Nevermind" was released during Grunge glory days. A lot of records that are considered as masterpieces were released during periods where their genre was succesful. Are people calling them unoriginal? Nah. In reality, if the only good records existing were those that were totally innovating when they were released, there would be a ridiculous small amount of good records. The list would only consists of records that invented a genre. A little narrow, doesn't it? "There's a better way to say the same thing". Later in your argumentation, you'll talk about subjectivism VS objectivism in lyricism, but still, you use that "better" argument here, which is totally subjective. So yes, a better way to say the same thing? But how do we decide which manner is better? Is the poetic way of expriming its angst better? Or is it the simple "cliché" manner? You'll say it's the first one, because it demands more skills, because it's more evocative, and so on. But I could say it's the second one, because it's more representative of the angst-state of mind. When you're really depressed/angsty/.... there's a point when you don't want to think about anything anymore, when you just want to say "Shut Up" . Yes, it's seems more immature, but to me, it also seems more honest and like a better way of getting rid of its "negative energy". I said it earlier: fine, but how do we decide what is a masterpiece and what is garbage? Isn't such choice subjective? If I'm getting it right, we should derminate objective criterias with a subjective process. Sounds weird. LP never proved me that they could do better than HT, because none of their records gave me as much enjoyment as HT. They proved me that they could do different, more layered/diverse music, but complexity is not objectively better than simplicity The whole concept of "better/best" is a joke to me, and here's why. Fact is: You'll never get a consensual response on the fact that a record is better than another one. Because the notion of "better" depends of human perceptions and ideas, and is subjective itself. That's why most sciences have stopped trying to determinate "What is better between..." to concentrate more on "Let's describe this and let's decide what we could do in regards to our goals". In the music world, fans saying Record < other record < other record aren't telling an objectibe truth, they're only telling a subjective opinion. As there isn't such thing as "Best pizza in the world", "Best human in the world", "Best toothbrush", there isn't a "Best music record".
http://stereogum.com/898922/rolling-stones-50-best-albums-of-2011/list/ And collectively, various "official" groups come to a consensus on what is objectively better based on certain criteria. That's because the casual fans opinions are far too based in their emotions towards a record and not based on judging something based on other criteria. They base their opinions on "THIS RECORD MADE ME FEEL THINGS," or "I RELATE TO THIS SO MUCH," or "THAT HOOK IS SICK." https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121126/submitted/121129931/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/toothbrushes.htm But really, there is. Just because you choose to say "I don't believe in objective opinions because no one can separate objective and subjective" doesn't mean they don't exist. I can admit that it's difficult for many to separate, but as stated with the film example, I subjectively love B-horror films, but objectively they're absolute garbage. Why I can do that and others can't is beyond me. Is it because I'm self-righteous and just trying to look smarter? Or could it be that I can like something and still say it's not a masterpiece. What I feel towards something versus it's significance and artistic merit are two completely separate things.
You just proved my point. You gave me some lists who ranked various things. Now, I could easily make a search on the net, and find other "Best albums of 2011" lists which would be different from the Rolling Stones' one. Or find other pizzas contests with a different winner. Why? Because the guys who made that "Best Albums" thing in Rolling Stones have a different opinion from those who made a simillar list for NME for example. Why do they have different opinions? Because they don't rank records with the same criterias, or they don't give the same importance to similar criterias. Because they have different ideas of what makes a record good. And why? Because there isn't a single definition of what makes a record good. It all depends on people opinions. Even those "official objective criterias" have been determined after discussions, where people said what they thought were the best criterias to judge music. What they thought is subjective. The day when ALL music critics in the world agree on what is the best record ever will never happen. I'm saying it again: there isn't such thing as a best record ever.
That's because you view it so black and white. You're saying that if THE ENTIRE WORLD cannot come to a complete consensus on the single best record in the world then there is no such thing as an objective opinion. Again, you can like something without thinking it's something of quality or substance, but that concept is lost on someone who views such issues as black and white as you.