Discussion in 'News' started by minuteforce, Jan 27, 2016.
IT'S ROBBIE BOURDIE ERRYONE IT'S ROBBE BOROADOOo!!
I don't believe it's very plausible the band ever had that conversation. Only a few guitar nerds will notice the mistakes and the band knows this, it doesn't matter at all. It's probably more a question of Chester having a hard time singing some of the material, and some of the songs (like KTTK) just wouldn't translate very well to a live situation. That and the fact that they've been doing this for a long time, so they have a lot of old successful songs the majority wants to hear. So there's no reason to incorporate more songs really. Aaaand if you add a little bit of laziness in the mix, there's the real answer.
^ Welcome back, you.
Doesn't stop NIN.
Doesn't stop NIN.
Doesn't stop NIN.
And that's the difference-maker.
NIN are trash.
Except "Wish" and "The Hand That Feeds".
The solos aren't that tough to play, especially for a pro surely?
As for the unplayed songs on Living Things, if the band genuinely think that they aren't very good why were they on the album?
While I respect your opinion, if NIN are trash then LP must be like, third-world excrement. Especially when it comes to live concerts. NIN has been critically hailed as one of the bands that are essential to see live.
Solid argument there, man. Bulletproof. /s
Why have NIN released only one album in the last 8 years?
"Because they want to take their time an-"
Doesn't stop LP.
Why haven't NIN put out a number one album in over a decade?
"Because clearly their musi-"
Doesn't stop LP.
Breaking News! LP and NIN are different bands!
T-Rez worked on a good number of projects between the last two major Nine Inch Nails releases, and waited until he felt inspired to devise an album and tour to support it. Personally, I actually think a little more highly of some of the side-projects from that period than I do "Hesitation Marks" but that's personal opinion.
Whether an album succeeds on the charts is largely irrelevant to the fanbase, and the live shows still draw a decent number. By and large, Nine Inch Nails' audiences actually like Nine Inch Nails songs, such that the band could play even relatively obscure songs (which they sometimes do) and still get a good reaction from the majority of a crowd.
So you're exactly proving my point. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Doesn't stop LP/NIN/Whatever" is silly. There are very valid reasons for what was being discussed that apply to LP and clearly don't apply to NIN, such as the quality of Chester's voice, LP not being great at rehearsing a large variety of songs, and LP prefering to play a lot of their older, more famous songs over their more recent songs. You can't compare one with another, they're completely different artists who work in completely different ways. For the record I quite like NIN, but it's just a pet peeve of mine when people call artists lazy for silly reasons. Just because LP struggle a lot more bringing their music to a live setting doesn't make them "lazy".
RE: Your edits, I thought it was clear that I was being facetious, using over the top, silly criticisms to highlight how silly Minus's point was. I suppose that tone of voice doesn't translate well into text. I'm not actually criticising NIN for any of those things, that would be hilariously hypocritical of me if I was. It would be a bit silly of me to give out about something, then turn around and do exactly that thing.
What I'm trying to say is that they're different bands, in different situations, who need to therefore be treated differently. Should we criticise Reznor for not being as great a guitarist as Hendrix? Should we criticise him for not being as great a singer as Mercury? Should we criticise him for not putting out albums as quickly as The Beatles? Clearly not. Different artists.
EDIT: Clarified my point.
Okay, you make some fair points, but this ^ is something which I will personally never, ever believe to be 100% true. In spite of whatever evidence there might be, the idea that the band genuinely enjoy performing "Numb" is simply ridiculous to me.
Sorry I forgot to label my edits earlier - and, by the way, you were responding to Minus, not Decay, despite the username.
EDIT: my point, which I actually forgot to summarise earlier, is that I think Linkin Park's notoriously fickle, shallow fanbase deserves way more of the blame for this issue than the band themselves. If the audience could handle "In The End" and "Numb" being excised from the setlists in favour of newer songs, I believe that the band would breathe a long-overdue sigh of relief.
As I explained before, Nine Inch Nails essentially doesn't have this problem.
Fair enough, I was just going by what Mike said in the recent podcast. For the record, I wish they'd play more newer songs too, I'm not particularly supportive of that decision at all, but I suppose the band feel obliged to play their older tracks, and I guess we have to respect that decision. I suppose maybe we'll never know the exact reason why.
Ack, I knew something felt wrong, brainfart on my part!
Edit regarding your edit because I apparently have nothing better to do with my life right now:
I would love LP to do this, a setlist of maybe ITE, Numb, OSC, BIO, WID, and then the rest rarer songs. The rarer songs could be anything from Forgotten to No Roads Left to Robot Boy, but I totally agree, the band's attitude to live sets can be... infuriating.
I suppose the band not wanting to learn more of their discography at any one time could be down to "laziness", but so many of the songs are so simple, that I really have a hard time believing that the band would struggle with any of their tracks outside of maybe THP. I suppose it's a mixture between several factors, but I really hope the band mixes their live shows up soon, as you said, I think it would be a breath of fresh air not only for us, but for them too.
Side note, I've typed "Love" instead of "Live" on three deprecate occasions today.
I don't feel it's necessarily laziness - at least, not to any significant degree. Again, to me, it's the fans. The band might never admit it (obvs., you can't get picky w/ who likes your music) but I, for one, feel that they really deserve better. They deserve fans who actually support their shifting artistic/musical directions and who are open to hearing new songs live. I don't even mean that they have to like every new song or album because tastes mean that it's either your thing or it's not, and you never know. It would just be nice if, on the whole, they could simply be cool with it when the band does something different from what they were doing a whole decade-and-a-half ago - that, or walk away and cease being a fan. Either one of those is best for everyone.
I agree with you. Every single LP release after HT was heavily criticized by fans. Either say you don't like it in good ways, or shut your mouth before throwing shit to the band. Your choise.
Real post. It still baffles me that 9 years since LP released MTM, which means they've been non nu metal for most of their mainstream career, those same kids from 1999 still want another Meteora at 30. Jeez, that's disturbing to me Grant it, also due to YouTube and a perpetual belief being thrown that Old LP was good, new LP sucks, etc. , even younger generations who were maybe 7 or 8 when MTM came out now believe the same.
I liked you better when you were agreeing with me about ATS on /r/hhh.
Also you should know by now that everything I say is marinated in sarcasm or hyperbole. Except #VoteDecayMostControversial. That's 100% cereal.
I see what you did there.
Separate names with a comma.