zago
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 978
|
Post by zago on Jan 17, 2007 11:30:56 GMT -5
Snow is the 11° red hot chili peppers song to reach n.1 in Modern Rok Chart (a record, Green Day and U2 are at 8)
|
|
|
Post by singingsparrow on Jan 18, 2007 0:17:59 GMT -5
Snow is the 11° red hot chili peppers song to reach n.1 in Modern Rok Chart (a record, Green Day and U2 are at 8) Keep an eye on Linkin Park, who are a fairly young band that already have six under their belt, and will inevitably get a seventh at least immediately when the lead single from their third album is released soon. Sincerely, Noah Eaton
|
|
|
Post by Love Plastic Love on Jan 18, 2007 0:44:44 GMT -5
I have decided this song is subtly amazing.
|
|
zago
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 978
|
Post by zago on Jan 18, 2007 2:23:45 GMT -5
Snow is the 11° red hot chili peppers song to reach n.1 in Modern Rok Chart (a record, Green Day and U2 are at 8) Keep an eye on Linkin Park, who are a fairly young band that already have six under their belt, and will inevitably get a seventh at least immediately when the lead single from their third album is released soon. Sincerely, Noah Eaton yes, unfortunatly ( i hate linkin park, nice melodies but 0 credibility) they could take the record in next years.
|
|
|
Post by singingsparrow on Jan 18, 2007 13:09:28 GMT -5
Keep an eye on Linkin Park, who are a fairly young band that already have six under their belt, and will inevitably get a seventh at least immediately when the lead single from their third album is released soon. Sincerely, Noah Eaton yes, unfortunatly ( i hate linkin park, nice melodies but 0 credibility) they could take the record in next years. I think Linkin Park may really put up a fight against the Chili Peppers considering the average age of everyone in the group. The real question is if they can keep the commerical momentum going since "Hybrid Theory" will all but certainly be as popular as they ever get. Green Day are also about as popular now as they were during the "Dookie" era, so they have a shot at overtaking the Chili Peppers. They're about a decade younger than the Chili Peppers as well, so that really works to their advantage (Linkin Park are almost five years younger than Green Day) The Red Hot Chili Peppers will still be a force to reckon with considering their airplay still translates into millions in album sales worldwide each album, and so it'll be an interesting competition. Sincerely, Noah Eaton
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Jan 18, 2007 17:41:02 GMT -5
I don't understand what is meant by "zero credibility".
|
|
zago
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 978
|
Post by zago on Jan 19, 2007 3:37:25 GMT -5
I don't understand what is meant by "zero credibility". for mew both Linkin Park and Rhcp NOW do a type of rock with a huge commercial appeal (Linkin Park more in teenager, Rhcp Teenager but also older), but Chili have a great past, they have already dimostrated at the history of music that they must be remembered (for the influences on rapmetal/nu metal, for their innovative sound of early days and for Blood Sugar Sex Magik), Linkin Park never enter in History their albums are always considerate "bad" from every no-fans people, they are compared always at a "boyband with guitar".Linkin Park that maybe are in good faith but they sound too "builded on a table do only good and catchy melodies but for the music history they are insignificant.
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Jan 19, 2007 11:55:27 GMT -5
I think the opinion of Linkin Park being a boy band is ludicrous. They're young people, but so were the members of Green Day when they started and nobody considers them to be a boy band.
The band formed together on their own, and they only found Chester because their old vocalist left the group. The fact that they found Chester through their management is still no different from them putting an ad in the paper or grabbing a vocalist from another group, both of which happen often and nobody questions it.
Granted, their first full-fledged album was Hybrid Theory, but they did make EPs first and demo songs and work to get their deal in the industry, just like any other band. The fact that their success came so quickly is in my opinion only a testament to their abilities as musicians.
On the subject of historical importance, I do agree that they are not nearly as historically important as the Peppers. However, when I think of the nu-metal movement, three names invariably come to mind: Korn, Limp Bizkit, and Linkin Park. Korn more than any other group planted the seeds of the genre and I think they and Limp Bizkit are responsible for many of the conventions that the genre tends to adhere to, and even arguable genre-defiers like System Of A Down, Slipknot, and the Deftones still carry many of those trademarks.
I think Linkin Park stands out though as the quintessential nu-metal group. Besides being one of the few entries in the nu-metal genre to remain wildly popular within multiple genres (including ones that typically hate nu-metal) without changing into a completely different band (although I guess with this new album we'll see if this remains a fact), I believe they, more than Korn and Limp Bizkit, are the group that many newcomers to the genre aspire to become.
And why not? They were a colossal success and managed to easily blend together elements of rock, metal, electronics, and hip-hop without sacrificing a certain amount of pop sensibility and powerful rhythm and melody. Every single they have released has done staggeringly well and all of their releases have achieved phenomenal success. And I think that they are easily as influential as Korn if not more so, since very few bands seem to be aping Korn as easily as they try to ape Linkin Park's rise to the top.
Breaking Benjamin, Crossfade, Red, Taproot, Flyleaf, Trapt. You can't tell me that these groups and many more don't even owe at least a little to Linkin Park's sound. Evanescence certainly more than any other band owes their huge success partially to the waves that Linkin Park made. Even heavier groups like Slipknot and Mudvayne have become just a little bit more accessible and radio-friendly in the wake of Linkin Park's success, and maybe it's arguable whether the two are related or not, but it's obvious that more bands have tried to walk the fine line between melody and heaviness since Linkin Park debuted than beforehand.
I think that a band is only as important historically as their influence, and I think Linkin Park does have an unquestionable major influence on the bands of today. I don't think we've seen the end of it either. They strike me as a band capable of leading the genre, but we'll see where the third album goes.
|
|
zago
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 978
|
Post by zago on Jan 19, 2007 14:11:49 GMT -5
your post is good, but i think that they will be remembered only for the success and less for the music..this is my opinion. Chester have a good voice but in a lot of chorus seems to listen Savage Garden with guitar. for Nu Metal they are +- the same thing of Def leppard for '80 Metal..
|
|
JayBoozer
7x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 7,692
|
Post by JayBoozer on Jan 19, 2007 14:24:59 GMT -5
I have decided this song is subtly amazing. Completely agree...
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Jan 19, 2007 14:36:00 GMT -5
your post is good, but i think that they will be remembered only for the success and less for the music..this is my opinion. Chester have a good voice but in a lot of chorus seems to listen Savage Garden with guitar. for Nu Metal they are +- the same thing of Def leppard for '80 Metal.. I'm sorry to be rude, but I have to say that your posts are really painful to read. Is it humorous that the guy into mainstream stuff is the one who's more articulate? I don't know if that's ironic or not. I don't see any comparisons to Savage Garden. Savage Garden was a pop band adept at writing songs largely about love, and since they were brought up, I'd like to say they are the only pop band from that time that I can tolerate and even say I enjoy. They were especially clever at the very least. Linkin Park, at least to my knowledge, has never outright written a song about a relationship and indeed has yet to write an actual love song, at least as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I know a number of Chester's lyrics came from his messy divorce, but they're never explicit about the meanings of their songs, mostly because the lyrics tend to be so vague and general that you could apply it to any number of situations. Indeed, I think that's actually a plus about their music. If you mean they are similar musically, then I don't know how to respond to that. I don't agree, and I honestly don't see how you would come to that conclusion. Savage Garden is obvious pop, and I don't hear any screaming, rapped vocals, or loud guitars in their songs. I'm deeply confused.
|
|
zago
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 978
|
Post by zago on Jan 19, 2007 14:43:28 GMT -5
your post is good, but i think that they will be remembered only for the success and less for the music..this is my opinion. Chester have a good voice but in a lot of chorus seems to listen Savage Garden with guitar. for Nu Metal they are +- the same thing of Def leppard for '80 Metal.. I'm sorry to be rude, but I have to say that your posts are really painful to read. Is it humorous that the guy into mainstream stuff is the one who's more articulate? I don't know if that's ironic or not. I don't see any comparisons to Savage Garden. Savage Garden was a pop band adept at writing songs largely about love, and since they were brought up, I'd like to say they are the only pop band from that time that I can tolerate and even say I enjoy. They were especially clever at the very least. Linkin Park, at least to my knowledge, has never outright written a song about a relationship and indeed has yet to write an actual love song, at least as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I know a number of Chester's lyrics came from his messy divorce, but they're never explicit about the meanings of their songs, mostly because the lyrics tend to be so vague and general that you could apply it to any number of situations. Indeed, I think that's actually a plus about their music. If you mean they are similar musically, then I don't know how to respond to that. I don't agree, and I honestly don't see how you would come to that conclusion. Savage Garden is obvious pop, and I don't hear any screaming, rapped vocals, or loud guitars in their songs. I'm deeply confused. i'm talked about melodic and clean Linkin Park voice part, chester voice is similar to Svage Garden. An other band similar to Linkin park are (was?) TrustCompany..yes Linkin Park had influenced some bands but i think that they influenced the worst part of today rock (is only my opinion), like nickelback inluence on bad bands like hinder & co. sorry for my english, i'm italian
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Jan 19, 2007 15:04:45 GMT -5
Sorry for my comments, I'm an asshole.
I guess we'll have to choose to disagree then, because I love those kinds of rock bands (as well as many others as I'm sure you've noticed) and I don't have a single problem with them. I don't think having a clean vocal melody makes for a viable comparison to a pop group either.
|
|
|
Post by singingsparrow on Jan 20, 2007 14:59:51 GMT -5
Although I think Linkin Park are making an effort to evolve, I have to agree with zago that their first two albums sounded like there were boy band components meeting nu-metal in my opinion.
It's there where it's not too surprising that "Hybrid Theory" became a runaway commerical 800-pound gorilla, which is sure to go diamond in the near future; "Hybrid Theory" was released in late 2000 but didn't really start climbing the charts until "Crawling" was released in mid-to-late 2001, and conquering the charts in late 2001 to early 2002 when "In The End" became a cross-format mega-hit.
It was at that time where the boy-band renaissance began its decline. N'Sync released "Celebrity" in July of 2001, which sold only half of what "No Strings Attached" sold (over 17 million worldwide) and while they still achieved three Top-20 hits from that album, they were still a notable far cry from their airplay dominance from the late 90's through early 00's.
I think it was by 2001-2002 that most Americans got the point about boy bands and were desiring something different. I think it was also at this same time where emo began its gradual takeover of Top 40 radio, which to many was the more melodic, earthly alternative to boy bands.
Now, there certainly are some things that separate Linkin Park from the conventional or dictionary-defined boy band: 1) they're not 100% choreographed and perform as dancers deliberately, 2) there is much to their music that isn't prefabricated, and 3) they don't strike me as identifying one another by the stereotypes of personalities.
But there are some notable comparisons with this band and boy bands as well. The nu-metal genre is itself trendy, and Linkin Park became treated as a sort of poster children for it. Boy bands also had a tendency to take turns rapping and singing, which is precisely what Bennnigton and Shinoda do in Linkin Park. And Linkin Park, though indeed pushed primarily to the Alternative audiences, were essentially pushed primarily to younger demographics like boy bands do, and "Hybrid Theory" began dominating the Billboard 200 once "In The End" became a Top 40 titan.
Frankly, "Breaking The Habit" is the only single I've liked of theirs to date, though I am optimistic they'll evolve this era. Virtually every track from their "Meteora" era in particular sounded exactly the same and followed the same conventional musical pattern. For example, "Somewhere I Belong" sounded like a re-tread of "In The End", "Faint" sounded like a re-tread of "Crawling" embellished with an anime theme song musical background wallpaper of sorts, and "Numb" sounded like a condensed "In The End" with much less rapping.
Sincerely, Noah Eaton
|
|
pen
9x Platinum Member
A true gentleman leaves no puzzle unsolved.
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 9,408
|
Post by pen on Jan 20, 2007 23:28:02 GMT -5
Well a lot of genres are trendy (see emo and hip-hop), a lot of bands rap and sing (see Zebrahead or 311), and a lot of bands are promoted toward young kids (see almost every band on the radio today). I still don't agree that it's a fair comparison. I think it's trying to make a connection that's not there, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that the people who make that connection are usually the ones who don't like their music.
I also do not agree with you about the retreading, at least not to the extent that you apply it. I think that on Meteora, although it was a very similar album to Hybrid Theory in overall sound, the songs are better written and incorporate more interesting components. I think it was an album where they more or less proved that they were not just a flash in the pan. I am looking forward to where they go on the next album, because at this point they don't need to prove anything anymore.
|
|
Nicholas2.0
6x Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 6,666
|
Post by Nicholas2.0 on Jan 21, 2007 2:02:11 GMT -5
I also do not agree with you about the retreading, at least not to the extent that you apply it. I think that on Meteora, although it was a very similar album to Hybrid Theory in overall sound, the songs are better written and incorporate more interesting components. I think it was an album where they more or less proved that they were not just a flash in the pan. I am looking forward to where they go on the next album, because at this point they don't need to prove anything anymore. To me, they have to prove that they're not going to Xerox the first album again (which, it sounds like, they won't.) There was so little musical and lyrical growth on Meteora that upon listening to it the first time, when I visited my friend next door shortly thereafter, I demonstrated what I thought of it by throwing it in the trash. Of course, I was dramatizing for effect, but that's beside the point. I'd give Hybrid Theory a 4.5/5 and Meteora a 3.5/5, simply because it was released second. It may very well have been the other way around, had Meteora been released first. Speaking of Linkin Park, I heard "Faint" on the radio recently and as the intro played, I thought it would be a great experiment for someone to screw and chop their music. If only I had the resources to do it myself. Half-assedly trying to steer this back on topic, the Chili Peppers did a serviceable job in concert earlier this week, though Anthony missed a lot of notes, John purposely deviated too much from some of the expected guitar solos, and the band (sans Anthony, obviously) is way too prone to jamming now instead of playing more songs. Seriously, they played "I Could Have Lied"(!) and "Give It Away" for the encore, but then Anthony left and the remaining three jammed for 10 minutes. How anticlimactic. I knew their current sets were less hit oriented, but no "Scar Tissue"? Ponderous. Overall, though, they were in fine form; it's just, the three times I'd seen them previously were more satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by ccorces1 on Jan 26, 2007 15:08:29 GMT -5
so...I own "Stadium Arcadium" and I must say that both discs are amazing. I listen to Mars and Venus on a regular basis. I feel like the band has changed alot in 22 years of rocking! Anyone who know NYC radio stations would agree that the sound has progressed from a KROCK to a PLJ sound! What the hell, still good stuff!
|
|