Linkin Park

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think people woulda liked Evanescance if they came out (got big) after Linkin Park, people were just ready to go "noooooooooooo" after hearing that genre through LP.

Had they came out around the time I started listening to green day, I was around 11/12ish, I mighta liked them then. But, no not for me.

Shiminay

Shockingly bad is the only words you can use for the pop band known as Linkin Park. They are an absolute insult to music and I resent the fact that the "music buying public" seems to think they're heavy metal.

They started (to my knowledge) as a band called Hybrid Theory, minus Chester and with the rubbish rap guy doing solo "vocals." The studio said they'd have their record deal if they changed their name and added their boy Chester to the mix as main "angst" vocalist.

For anyone who's a fan of music and not the "pop music industry", they and their fans represent one clear thing...
The enemy.

silenoz

I'm finding it hard to believe this is a serious topic... Are you people joking or do you really like Linkin Park?
Hmm... Such lyrical quality as "I come so far and tried so hard, but in the end it doesn't even matter" ...
Ooh, the frustration these guys must feel! Frustration at what though? ...

Oh well if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad... See I'm throwing out Sheryl Crowe lyrics now. So who's worse?

fro46_2

Karl Hungus wrote:

I imagine "Suck" would be the more operative word here.

They're nothing but a pop group dressed up as rock, or whatever you'd want to consider them. Simple pop songs with big catchy choruses, but it's got guitars and a sort of "Shouty" singer to rope in the dopes. :rolleyes:

Hey i think this guy has it figured out, except for the part about them having a good singer. They should forget the rappy pop sound and find a couple of new singers. But hey, it's just an opinion, so all you linkin park fans out there don't take it personally.

cournioni

Kharn wrote:

Shockingly bad is the only words you can use for the pop band known as Linkin Park. They are an absolute insult to music and I resent the fact that the "music buying public" seems to think they're heavy metal.

They started (to my knowledge) as a band called Hybrid Theory, minus Chester and with the rubbish rap guy doing solo "vocals." The studio said they'd have their record deal if they changed their name and added their boy Chester to the mix as main "angst" vocalist.

For anyone who's a fan of music and not the "pop music industry", they and their fans represent one clear thing...
The enemy.

Good post.

Fuhrio

I used to love them when i was younger, now i rarely listen to them.
I still think they are talented as hell, and in all fairness, I'd love to see any of us here do better.

Jimmy_Jazz

♪♪punk_rocker♪&#9834 wrote:

They kick hole.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I imagine "Suck" would be the more operative word here.

They kick suck? What does that mean?

Ph3n0m

Jimmy_Jazz wrote:

They kick suck? What does that mean?

are you that simple? or are you trying to be sarcastic on the internet (when we all know that doesnt work)

If I know Karl - and I dont, he probably meant that "they suck" instead of "they kick hole"

this explanation has been brought to you

by the number 13
the letter Q
and FANMBOC - Fire All Nu Metal Bands Out of a Cannon

evad_lhorg

Now i am not a linkin park fan but i di like some of the stuff off hybrid theory. ive gone passed them now but i dont understand why people just go "oh theyre ****" or "theyre just a pop band". For gods sake Metallica are a bloody pop band. pop is short for popular yea? cause linkin park sure as hell dont sound like britney spears or anyting. they are rock. whoop di doooooo. its just rock you dont like. doesnt mean they arent rock. grow the fúck up. music taste is a persons opinion.

i mean all this person was asing do you like them. they didnt ask what genre you think they are even though they are rock/metal. they scream they have heavy guitar riffs. last time i checked that was rock.


alll you have to say is "nah im not a fan"

Töpher

Pop is short for popular music yes. However, over the years the term was almost redefined to describe bubblegum acts such as Steps, Britney, Christina etc. Pop in this context refers to the drivel that spews from manufactured acts who are solely in it for the money, both for themselves and their companies.

Linkin Park were manufactured for the sole reason of selling records to kids (Hybrid Theory may not have been, but Linkin Park complete with Chester Bender, or whatever his name is, were created by a company to sell records for the lvoe of the green stuff - not, I repeat NOT, for the love of the music). Ergo, they and Good Charlotte and all those ilk alike are pop acts, and no amount of guitars or pretend shouting will change that. They may not sound like contemporary popular music to some people, but Rock/Metal/Punk/Grunge/Pop/etc have alot to do with mindsets, and in this instance it is the mindsets of them and their puppet masters (aswell as their bland unoriginal boring attempt at "Rock") that define them as a pop group.

QED.

And yes, modern day Metallica could be classed as pop in my books.

Deadwing

Nightwish wrote:

whats the "thank yous" got to do with the lyrics? They are written mainly by Chester Bennington who was a suicidal, angry, sexually abused, drug addicted teen. That means he can't thank people for getting him where he is now?

Sexually abused? His buttocks probably came into contact with the buttocks of another man at a disco one night and he decided to make a career out of whinging about it and say hed been 'violated' and felt so 'numb'. Maybe if hed been properly queered up he mightve written a decent f*cking album about it.
Whiner.

Karl Hungus

evad_lhorg wrote:

For gods sake Metallica are a bloody pop band. pop is short for popular yea? cause linkin park sure as hell dont sound like britney spears or anyting. they are rock.

Indeed, pop started out as short for popular, but words in the english language are anything but as rigid as that, because lets face it, how often do you hear someone say "Throw another **** on the fire" seeing as **** means a bundle of sticks bound together.

No, these days, "Pop" is a formulae. It's a set structure for songs that are for mass consumption, such as verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/verse/chorus/end for example. In that sense, Linkin Park sounds exactly like Britney Spears, because they're both playing the same set song structure. A structure so wide-spread and painfully tedious that it's almost like those who adhere to it are playing the exact same single song over and over, with no variation.

Metallica, are certainly pop now, but pre-black album were anything but. Think about it, and compare songs like Master Of Puppets and Orion to songs like Enter Sandman and Fuel. You're comparing something unique and original to tedious pop.

evad_lhorg wrote:

alll you have to say is "nah im not a fan"

This is a discussion board, is it not? I'd hardly think discussing the band is something to be avoided. Besides, this board would be pretty god damn sterile if all everyone could respond with is "Yup" and "Uh-huh" or "Nah" on such threads.

honru

Yea.

Nightwish

Deadwing wrote:

Sexually abused? His buttocks probably came into contact with the buttocks of another man at a disco one night and he decided to make a career out of whinging about it and say hed been 'violated' and felt so 'numb'. Maybe if hed been properly queered up he mightve written a decent f*cking album about it.
Whiner.

he was abused by his uncle. he turned to drugs and then dropped out of school, was a full blown addict, tried to kill himself. etc
I doubt anyone would admit they were abused as a teenager if it was just a joke. No matter how sh!te the music is, I would never try to trivialise someone elses suffering or hurt, so I object to you doing so

Shiminay

The crux of the arguement is pop versus "pop music."

A pop song is a Popular song. Even something like Slayer's "Angel of Death" could (in a VERY loose sense of the word) be classed as a pop song in this manner.

A pop music song is crafted with the sole reason of making money. This is why Linkin Park and someone like Britney Spears are as wrong and as shockingly bad as each other.

It's soulless and disrespectful to anyone who considers themselves a music fan. Why can't real bands get a break today? How is it you must be able to dance and look fabulous to even get your foot in the door?

Wouldn't the world of music be a very interesting place if under 18's were no longer allowed to buy CDs? Just a thought...

celticwarriorjb

Kharn wrote:

The crux of the arguement is pop versus "pop music."

A pop song is a Popular song. Even something like Slayer's "Angel of Death" could (in a VERY loose sense of the word) be classed as a pop song in this manner.

A pop music song is crafted with the sole reason of making money. This is why Linkin Park and someone like Britney Spears are as wrong and as shockingly bad as each other.

It's soulless and disrespectful to anyone who considers themselves a music fan. Why can't real bands get a break today? How is it you must be able to dance and look fabulous to even get your foot in the door?

Wouldn't the world of music be a very interesting place if under 18's were no longer allowed to buy CDs? Just a thought...

Ok you cleared up that a Pop song is a popular song! So in that argument your basically saying any popular song there has been in the history of music is crafted with the SOLE reason of making money.
And that you consider a real band something that isnt popular!

Also your saying that It's soulless and disrespectful to anyone who considers themselves a music fan to listen to a piece of music that has ever been popular! :eek: Just looking at some of my 'poplular' cds I have Oasis, Blur, Ash, Led Zepellin, Thin Lizzy, U2, Nirvana. So If Im to understand from your post as these are popular Im not a 'real' music fan , Does it mean I have no soul? I dont fully understand your argument. Please explain more

Jesus, I swear some people just want to be a little little bit too individual, and neglect popular music as they dont want to be like everyone else, even though they know deep down inside they actually like most of it

Karl Hungus

celticwarriorjb wrote:

Ok you cleared up that a Pop song is a popular song! So in that argument your basically saying any popular song there has been in the history of music is crafted with the SOLE reason of making money.
And that you consider a real band something that isnt popular!

Also your saying that It's soulless and disrespectful to anyone who considers themselves a music fan to listen to a piece of music that has ever been popular! :eek: Just looking at some of my 'poplular' cds I have Oasis, Blur, Ash, Led Zepellin, Thin Lizzy, U2, Nirvana. So If Im to understand from your post as these are popular Im not a 'real' music fan , Does it mean I have no soul? I dont fully understand your argument. Please explain more

Jesus, I swear some people just want to be a little little bit too individual, and neglect popular music as they dont want to be like everyone else, even though they know deep down inside they actually like most of it

Wow! That's absolutely amazing. Every single point Kharn made just flew right over your head, yet you still choose to reply reguardless. You seem to have everything jumbled up, so let me try and get to the crux of Kharn's post here.

Now, what he does here is differenciate between pop as in simply popular and pop music, which is something designed to be popular. You may want to see my previous post about pop music being a formulae for more insight on this. You following so far?

You see, both terms are not mutually exclusive. On one hand, if we simply use the definition pop as refering to the popular, it could mean anything, eg; Popular or "Pop" culture. When we're speaking solely of Pop music, it becomes something specific. In this instance it is the 3 minute song with the rigid verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/verse/chorus/end structure.

Now, please re-evalute your entire ridiculous premise of what Kharn was saying.

Somnus

Nightwish wrote:

he was abused by his uncle. he turned to drugs and then dropped out of school, was a full blown addict, tried to kill himself. etc
I doubt anyone would admit they were abused as a teenager if it was just a joke.

Unless he's lying.... because i doubt you'd wanna sing about being abused as a teenager,i'd reather keep it quiet

celticwarriorjb

Oh ye sorry kARL, I dont know why I didnt get what he was saying, I was tired. But do remember this, God gave rock and roll to you (As in all of us) So please dont steal it and only have it to yourself, cos quite frankly thats not a 'pop'ular thing to do.

Also I dont mind Linkin Park, but theres something kind of gay about them, when they shout and get angry its not very intimidating, its like they used to get bullied at school and this is their way of getting their revenge, but It comes out kind of nerdy. I think Limp Bizkit are better at being angry. Micro Cube are popular in my books, now I know youll agree this time Aunty Karl, and remember altough you rebel, youll grow out of it sooner or later. Because I know youve got that loving feeling

Sarky

While we're at it, let's remind ourselves that the Gods made Heavy Metal, and as well as that, They saw that it was Good.

mc nuggets

I've probably got this wrong but according to what people have been saying, pop is a popular song, but the replies of this thread seem to say that most people are agenst linkin park. secondly the other meaning for pop is a sonjg that folows a strict set of rules linkin park do but so do green day, nirvana, and quite a lot of u2 songs. So that would mean that since these are popular bands they would also be classed as pop.

Karl Hungus

Popular doesn't really come into it tbh. Rush are popular, but they're anything but Pop. Indeed, I'd consider the bands you mentioned to be pop as they adhere to the strict pop song structure.