The Warner Hate; What's Your Excuse?

Discussion in 'Linkin Park Chat' started by Blackee Dammet, Mar 5, 2011.

?

What's your problem?

  1. WB keeps a lot of money from the band.

    4 vote(s)
    10.0%
  2. WB dumbs down Linkin park, who otherwise would be making Radiohead-esque audio brillance

    15 vote(s)
    37.5%
  3. I don't like how they operate in general with other bands

    3 vote(s)
    7.5%
  4. MEME MEME U MAD OVER 9000 SHANKY SHANKY DERP

    18 vote(s)
    45.0%
  1. #1
    Blackee Dammet

    Blackee Dammet Feminism Is My God Now

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    152



    I see a lot of disdain for Linkin Parks record label, and they're almost universally regarded as horrible for a variety of reasons. What's yours? Do you even have one, or just assume that, if so many other people hate them, the hatred has to be warranted?

    Now with handy poll!
     
  2. #2
    Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,875
    Likes Received:
    2,338



    I've always felt that they've dumbed down the band and not allowed them to express their true creativity (at least to prior to ATS).
     
  3. #3
    minuteforce

    minuteforce Danny's not here, Mrs. Torrance. LPA Team

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    12,705
    Likes Received:
    1,593



    I've always thought that, for the most part, LP seem to have a good working relationship with their label so they don't have an immediate reason to ditch them. :"
     
  4. #4
    BlackedOut

    BlackedOut Zero

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0



    Before ATS, I felt that there potential was limited with Warner dumbing their records down. Now, their potential has been released with ATS. :awesome:
     
  5. #5
    Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,875
    Likes Received:
    2,338



    They do have a good relationship for the most part, but as evidenced in the ATS DVD during the last scene, it's obvious the label and certain people in power at WB want LP to retain more of a marketable sound, or to make another Hybrid Theory.

    Sure there's a (small) fraction of fans who want that too, but there's also people like me who want the band to evolve, and try risky or creative things. It's why ATS was so significant to some fans, because while it wasn't 100% perfect...it was a huge step towards breaking away from the confines of mainstream pop and expanding themselves as musicians. I can only hope they continue down that path and continue to impress.
     
  6. #6
    El Muerto

    El Muerto LPA Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,922
    Likes Received:
    1



    I went with Shankyshank option
     
  7. #7
    Dean

    Dean LPA Addict LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    0



    It seems as though they're just another big label with the issues you would typically associate with bigger labels on a certain level. If they ever get to leave and want to they could probably manage on their own, but as labels go there are worse ones they could be signed to, and I don't think it's as though majors are automatically worse than independent ones.

    Warner kind of do seem to have a habit of chewing up smaller acts then spitting them back out, but I'm not sure if that's always an immediate problem and that doesn't really concern Linkin Park anyway.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2011
  8. #8
    travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    I hate the music business in general, not just Warner. If only Linkin Park could be as cool as Radiohead or Trent Reznor and release their music whenever they want, for however much they want.
     
  9. #9
    Blackee Dammet

    Blackee Dammet Feminism Is My God Now

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    152



    I took the opposite opinion away from that scene, that they overreached in what they attempted and were going crazy trying to figure out how to pull it all together.
     
  10. #10
    Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,875
    Likes Received:
    2,338



    Yeah but they talk about people wanting them to be a certain sound that they don't want to be. And then another part goes "___ isn't down here with us", "___ doesn't give a f*ck if we turn it in". That to me means Warner.
     
  11. #11
    TimeSpree

    TimeSpree Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0



    Every big label is the same, if Linkin Park went indie they would have to self finance everything, promote everything themselves, would lose even more money due to their lack of copyright enforcement yadda yadda, Linkin Park want to keep things easy, but unfortunately they had to adhere to the pressures of deadlines and nagging because Warner are business minded.

    Beauty in the eye of the beholder doesn't sell, it never has, Warner know that Linkin Park have sunk into the abyss, they know they probably won't make catchy mainstream music willingly ever again, so Linkin Park may not have a choice when it comes to contract renewal time, until then, Warner may be more lenient, I just hope that the next one won't take more than two years;
    fuck that shit.
     
  12. #12
    Gloomy Mushroom

    Gloomy Mushroom Absolute Zero LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    0



    You're making it sound like going solo is going to be the worst move ever for the band. Yes it means a lot of running around for themselves and not having Warner handing out contracts that 'water' them down. But there are a lot of other positives to going solo as well. I've always personally wanted Linkin Park to be 'self-employed' but there's no guarantee that they will. The reasoning behind this is simple.

    > You Keep Your Rights

    > You Keep the Cash

    > You Make It On Your Own Terms

    But I am also aware that I don't think Linkin Park will ever leave Warner for reasons beyond any fan's control, but also leaving Warner is not impossible either. You never know, it maybe more of a benefit for the band to leave the label and release their own music their own way.
     
  13. #13
    TimeSpree

    TimeSpree Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0



    I never said or suggested that, I said that Linkin Park have a laid back approach and don't want to have the worry or hassle of all the other bullshit involved, LP want to make music, play shows and keep things simple, that's the beauty of a major label, they allow you to do just that and let them do the rest; in my opinion it's worth the pay off of less cash, not to mention Warner fund the promotion and distribution.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  14. #14
    jessiexo

    jessiexo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0



    Honestly... Aren't most major labels the same? I'm fine with LP staying with warner.
     
  15. #15
    arbiter

    arbiter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0



    Based off all the things Mike posts on his blog, it is of my opinion that if they had a choice and knew what they know now, they would have made sure to never sign with Warner unless the contract was to their liking 100% or not sign at all.

    Its easy for people to say that the band should try and go the "cool" route of Radiohead (whose circumstances may be similar to some degree, but is different from other bands) and go solo. But does everyone know what that entails. A contract is a legally binding document with stipulations agreed upon both parties. Some have it worse than others. Some unlucky group of artists who were too eager to sign with a label may have in their contract that if they choose to break off before the contract is up, the artists owes the label ____amount of money(that could be very high) or the label gets to keep the copyright, or the artist cannot release an album for __amount of years and other sort of stupid stuff. We don't know what LP's contract with Warner entails. So to me, its quite useless and pointless to try to come to a conclusion without the most crucial fact. What are the outlines of LP's contract?
     
  16. #16
    Gloomy Mushroom

    Gloomy Mushroom Absolute Zero LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    0



    I've heard Virgin is really good. I base that on the crap they let their artists get away with (the Bikini Bandits saga via A Perfect Circle).

    IMO, the only reason why Warner 'waters' their music down so it can be radio and chart worthy. Nothing like the vulgar language and contents of say .... Nine Inch Nails whom you don't hear topping the Billboard charts with Closer?
     
  17. #17
    travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    This pretty much sums it up; When you're rich enough to finance everything on your own, and famous enough where you know you're going to sell a lot of records no matter what kind of album you release, you are going to make a ton more money by doing everything on your own than under a record label. The only reason people need record labels is when they are starting out poor and unknown. It wouldn't even be more work to go solo. You can hire someone to setup a website for people to buy mp3s and promote everything yourself on your band's website.
     
  18. #18
    Benjamin

    Benjamin LPA team LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    3



    Pretty much.
     
  19. #19
    Blackee Dammet

    Blackee Dammet Feminism Is My God Now

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    152



    A follow up; WB's music division also consists of Glassjaw, Avenged Sevenfold, and here's the kicker, fucking Mastodon.

    WHy would they be watering down Linkin Park, but leave other, as-popular bands like A7X and Disturbed to their own devices and have Mastodon doing Mastodon shit, but be trying to make Linkin Park a radio rock cash cow even after each subsequent album selling around half as much as the one before it? As opposed to, say, just looking for another gold goose?
     
  20. #20
    Dean

    Dean LPA Addict LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    0



    First off, Glassjaw have released one album on Warner and that was nearly nine years ago now, and they could just as well go that long again before they release another. I'm not sure whether or not they're even on Warner now considering that stretch of time and that they've self-released their two recent EPs.

    Secondly, Mastodon. They'd have to be stupid to sign a band like that and think they're going to turn them into a hit-making machine, but why not have your finger in that pie anyway? They have an established fanbase among metal fans and they're also critical darlings. On the other hand, they've also gotten more and more melodic with each album so I'm sure they have been accused of watering down their music somewhere down the line. The same can be said for Glassjaw, come to think of it.

    Thirdly, who says they haven't interfered with Avenged Sevenfold and Disturbed? The former, for instance, had less commercial appeal on their first two albums. Then they sign for Warner and release City of Evil, where they pretty much did away with the screaming and breakdowns and focused on trying to be Guns n Roses, and pretty much kick-started the whole trend of metalcore bands turning in the direction they've gone in now. None of these bands have had a hit as big as Hybrid Theory either, so that leaves them less incentive to try and quantify that success.

    Finally, what about Green Day? What about Red Hot Chili Peppers? What about My Chemical Romance and Taking Back Sunday and all the other popular bands they have signed? What about them signing Gallows then dropping them after one album? What about Against Me! getting dropped after releasing their two most commercial albums? In most cases these are bands I like and I'd defend them from accusations that they've watered down their music, but your point is still kind of selective to say the least.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011

Share This Page