I hope this won't get censored, cause what i am about to say, could be quite a hit in the face to some Linkin Park fans or, if they even care, for Linkin Park themselve. I have listened to Linkin Park for 9 Years now. While the first four to five years it was Linkin Park almost exclusively i moved on after having excessively listend to every snippet I could get of them. I still listen to them sometimes, when new stuff is coming out or just to remember the "old days". Linkin Park has never been one of these bands who come and go fast. Although beeing pretty mainstream they kept developing musically, also apart from their music, for example dome design-projects and of course designing everything themselves. But still it is no question Linkin Park has never been groundbreaking or musically advanced as other musicians like let's say The Beatles. Why compare them to The Beatles? Well there are many sophisticated musicians, but of course everyone has his own preference. Still almost everyone will agree, The Beatles were groundbreaking and musically sophisticated. It's not like I want Linkin Park to be more like the Beatles but as I moved on to other Artists I asked myself, why doesn't Linkin Park doesn't make better music? What I listen to now is Tom Waits, Peter Gabriel, Adam Green, The Beatles, Jaques Brel, Regina Spektor, to name my favorites. What do these Artists give me what Linkin Park does not have? Its not only the kind of music that is different, it also is the character is has, the feeling it transports, the fusion of lyrics, voices and instruments that get something right Linkin Park doesn't. But why have I, arrogantly watching my past favorite, not turned my back on them, and why do I still hope maybe they would evolve and improve. They have improved, Minutes to Midnight is an improvement for me but what im talking about is somethig more, signs of musical genius. The reason I still have not given up my hope is because they have already shown that, glimpses of it, they have show, they have the potential for musical genius in them but it is hard to find. Examples: - Kenji (Shinoda) - Session(Hahn) - High Voltage/Dedicated (especially the drums) - Leave out all the rest(Verse) - P5hng Me A*wy (electronic fusion) Most of the time Mike Shinoda was strongly involved, also Hahn, the drums also had some big scenes. Linkin Park has pretty good versse from time to time too. Leave out all the rest, Crawling, Somewhere I belong, its always Chester, who has a voice I cant complain about at all. But a good voice is not everything. Other Artists who dont sing better technically, still do it better. Why? It is because they can offer more behind their voice. I good verse is not only a beautifully sung verse, it has lyrics that get a complex message to the point in simple but elegant words, pronounced appropriately and filled with deep meaning acoustically which is only possible if the vocalist has a deep understanding of what he is singing and - best case - the idiomatic skill to have written the lyrics by himself. Chester has a beautiful voice but he always seems to me to only express his feelings superficially. He has grown up under difficult circumstances and the lyrics seem to express much of it but he has never sung about some kind of conclusion, an understanding he has gotten in spite of people who do not know his situation first hand. Something more than just telling, what he feels but also what he thinks about it. I cant claim him doing it. Its his decision - or maybe its not. Maybe he cant express what he thinks about it intellectually. This is what I think. Chester Bennington is a weak spot of Linkin Park because he hardly developes. Actually from HT to MTM he has hardly improved. Not technically, but he was good there anyway but neither in the subtle skill to express a message perfectly acoustically. While Shinoda doesnt sing as well technically he pronounces his character in a song better when (rarely) he sings than Chester(f.e P5hng Me A*wy live). This becomes really obvious when he raps. On his solo song Kenji he finds just the right words to perfectly construct the scenes his grandparents experienced during World War 2, the atmosphere and psychological situation of the people. Also Cigarettes and Right Now are pretty well concerning 'authenticity' and originality. Chester has never been a really good songwriter. It was alright in the past but he doensnt keep up with Mike. His solo album was not too bad but it was not creative at all. So what I feel about Linkin Park when Im looking forward is more the Shinoda-Linkin Park, and when I doubt their potential its more the Chester-Linkin Park. I wouldnt say they should get rid of Chester, he is a part of the whole thing and I dont know if they would keep up as a band without Chester although Im sure MIke would do something on his own. But I have a strong feeling Chester holds LP back from where it could go with somebody more qualified. Still Im excited if A Thousand Suns will (hopefully) prove me wrong Please excuse my own idiomatic missteps because im German.
Well, The answer to the Beatles comparison would be that they had George Martin, a classically trained composer. Without him the Beatles really wouldn't have been "Ground-breaking". It was the fusion of classical music techniques with popular timbre that made them such a big hit. (Quick example would be the entire Elenor Rigby song). The problem is now that music has developed so much from the acapella soul and black music through to Rock n roll and blues. Then came the beatles who were starting to develop different textures in songs, with synth like quality. The 80's rolled on and the first uses of computer technology, which has taken over the Industry almost COMPLETELY now. There is no 'new' direction, but i'm afraid thats what Linkin Park are looking for, a new direction, a new branch to come away from being branded nu-metal and generally hard rock. I think the time for ground breaking in music is done, i really can't think of anything other than what Linkin Park announced last month, how they are incorporating visual elements into their live shows. Just another way of thinking outside the box, becoming more unique and ultimately trying to become ground breaking!
I really really really really really disagree with pretty much everything you just said about Chester. Holding the band back? The guy's voice MADE the last album in my opinion. Minutes to Midnight was the first album in which Chester really got to show the range of his vocals, unlike the first two, in which he was used to complement Mike's parts. To say that his vocals are holding the band back from being "ground-breaking" is ridiculous. I have faith in the creative minds of Mike, Joe, and the rest of the gang to make something that has truly never been done before. And you better believe that Chester is a huge part of that plan.
Hmm. You bring about some good points. Chester is a great vocalist. No one can deny the man. Before DBS I would totally disagree with this statement. Dead By Sunrise showed me something about Chester I didn't want to see. you can blame JK but they really had nothing to do with thre lyrics thats were written on this album. Chester got the voice. Not to sure about the writting ability. Chester can't really stand on his own when it comes to lyrics IMO. I may be partial because Shinoda is my favorite member but everything he is the center of I love. From the early LP stuff to FM. Very interesting though
Mike Shinoda is a musical genius. Release a couple High Voltage inspired/styled songs with the classic Rock vibe then they will be ground breaking and innovative.
IMO, I don't think it should have a Chester-Linkin Park or Shinoda-Linkin Park. Each of the band members collaborated and shared ideas of what is Linkin Park today. Although, we oftenly see Mike or Chaz interacting with their fans but I don't think its solely them who makes decision for LP. This is a team composed of six members and they have all matured professionally. They know what they are doing. If they make an album, it's everbody's decision. If one album fails, I don't see why we have to blame one member for being not so "musically" talented. Everytime I hear the band "The Beatles" its like my mind was pre-programmed back when I was a kid when my mom and all other people used to tell me about how good their music is. So even if I don't enjoy their music but they are The Beatles and people say they are legend so I just f*ck off (-.-). Comparing LP with overrated artists who are known to be "groundbreaking and musically sophisticated" does not help at all. Well, criticism is always welcome.
I agree that Chester isn't that great of a lyricist as only a few songs on his solo album have good lyrics. And besides the lyrics Out of Ashes got old within a couple of days for me.
LP need to break outside the box a little. There's nothing wrong with Chester. It's the band's musicianship that bothers me. They need to drift away from this mainstream vibe and put out stuff similar to Tool or Porcupine Tree, because they have the potential of getting big. Especially if they would combine progressive rock with hip hop, diversify their music a little, focus on more instruments in different tracks, not just highlight Chester's voice. Brad needs to shred that guitar and write some epic solos, Rob needs to come up with an intensive 280+ BPM track, Phoenix basically needs to learn how to play bass, Joe should DEFINITELY get more involved with his electronics and Mike needs to rap more, but also sing. They need to diversify it a bit, and write faster, more lively songs, arena rock, progressive, experimental music. They need to show signs of life!
I agree with Chester is an average songwriter. The lyrics in Out of Ashes really proves the fact. Chester is really a great singer but he should not have something to do with the final word on lyrics.
I agree its difficult to talk about a Chester -Linkin Park or Shinoda-Linkin Park, what I wanted to say, is the the music of Linkin Park is sometimes more influenced by Mike, sometimes more by Chester besides the influences of the other bandmembers. And theres something about the Chester-influence that bothers me. I usually dont listen to al ot of hip hop. LP-rap or Fort Minor is pretty much the only stuff. But the the more less-hiphop songs of LP are usually more Chester-influenced which is logical. Although I prefer singing to rapping in general, concerning other music than LP, I do prefer the rapsongs when it comes to LP. Many seem to agree Chester is not a good songwriter. But for a vocalist thats a huge problem. LP had some great music but as far as I remember it was mostly the rapped lyrics. If you cant write lyrics as a vocalist you wont be able to express yourself precisely. You wont be able put onto paper what goes on in your head when you think about what you want to sing about. Somebody else can help you and thats apparently what happens at LP but nobody can look in your head and therefore find the words you would have used by yourself, if you had the talent to write it down. It's the small difference between a close translation and native expression but it makes a big difference because if you get something done perfectly theres a special musical magic in it compared to something even very close that will never get rid of its lack of perfection.
Chester's lyrics are a little simple at times (i.e. Somewhere I Belong) but it's not that big of a deal in my opinion. He doesn't "hold them back" at all. SIB is a top 10 LP song despite Chester's sub par lyrics. If you took your least favorite lp album/song and just put different lyrics in it, would you really like it THAT MUCH MORE? When I hear a song, I look for how catchy it is instrumentally and how the vocals SOUND and flow with the beat. LP flourishes with this thus making them by far my favorite band. Lyrics can only do so much to a song. With that said, lyrics do matter a little more when you talk about rap. Fortunately, Mike's verses have dope lyrics for the most part.
Well we agree on that one but you cant separate lyrics from sound because spoken, sung and not only rapped lyrics carry the sound of the words from which lyrics are made. The lenght and sound of words also own a kind of beat. A great poem needs the right words, not only for its message but also for the flow of spoken words. Just see a song as a symbiosis of a modern poem and instrumental parts. You cant separate them because they have an overlapping character. I cant help but tell you there are artist out there who are way better at this than LP. What is chatchyness? Usually a catchy song is a song that makes you listen up immediately giving you a musical kick. But beeing catchy at first sight claims compromise. It can't be too complex meaning there cant not much behind the catchyness to show. There is better music regarding what you are looking for but it needs to be listened several times and sometimes even requiring some musical experience to fully comprehend what a song offers until you can find its 'catchyness' which therefore is much more subtle and can be more complex beeing distributed on several layers. But of course it also need to be the style you like. No, because if the instrumental part is crap there would stay a bold crappy part.
I say the Beatles were only groundbreaking because of the social context they were in at the time. Think about it, Your listening to 50's soul, blues and jazz then all of a sudden the Beatles, using instruments in a way they had never been used before, writing a range of lyrics to do with world issues, rich 4 part vocal harmonies, using classical techniques in popular song. This was the first time people were hearing strings in pop music. Ever since then we've developed to a point where 'realistically' we can progress no-more. The social context of this moment just wouldn't enable any form of music to be ground breaking. As for Chester, You can be blessed with a voice, but that doesn't automatically mean you know how to write songs/lyrics. Chester is unique and without him Linkin Park would never have made a name for themselves. People were more bothered about HOW something was sung rather than what the words were actually about. Now though linkin park have realised that after 2 albums of screaming and distortion, its getting to the point where they want to make meaningful music, rather than follow the formula. So actually, you could argue that chester is the main reason Linkin Park have changed their sound after meteora...? Discuss
Well I think its more Mike than Chester driving the change of LP sound. For instance look at Chesters solo album. EDIT: Or do you mean Chester was getting it so wrong, that had to change it? A Thousand Suns will be very interesting. Do they really progress and reveal their potential or do they just do something different? Im ready to change my mind on Chester if he plays a major part in the former
I mean like I'd argue that chester WAS the significant part of the band. You think LP you automatically think Scream yes??? That was back then. So because Chesters scream defined Linkin Park as a band, it forced them to take new routes. You'll now notice from MTM and ever since Meteora really that Chester is not prominent enough to hold the LP significance anymore. He now 'sings' more and Mike sings on some songs and the sound isn't rock so he can't scream anyway. You see what i mean??