Ow... ow... ow... Linkin Park...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-10 05:00pm

not elitist, its just not aesthetically pleasing, or in any way interesting. and it feeds off of the insecurities and pain of todays youth. alot of modern "rock" does this. and not in a good way, like old rock might have done, instead modern music makes ones problems seem hopeless and worth dying over. Modern rock music is parasitic garbage. End of story.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-05-10 06:04pm

Linkin' Park is a worthless shithole of a farce. They aren't even a band. Their rappers to rock music, execpt they can't sing. Yeah, most bands sound better in the studio than live, but they shouldn't sound like a drunken karoke singer with a ripped vocal cords. Their voices are so warped and twisted in the studio that you couldn't tell it was them live unless you've seen a picture of them. And you can tell by the way they sing that they don't write their own music. All they are are N'SYNC to different music and gothier lyrics. They are talentless hacks, that some music company took and use technology and marketing to make a sucess and are destroying rock music like they are to pop with American Idol and Making the Band. Except atleast the people in those make you a celbrety contests can atleast sing.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-05-10 06:08pm

I own a copy of Hybrid Theory. I am selling it on eBay.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-05-10 06:09pm

Dammit Crazy! I thought a guy like you would know better than to court braindeath! Remember, if it's popular now, then look before you leap. That's why I have my own walkman(I'm getting a CD player over the summer)

Isil`Zha · Post by **Isil`Zha** » 2003-05-10 06:50pm

Yeah, they do suck live - and so does Godsmack actually.

Another band though that sounds just as good as the CD (if not BETTER - being at one of thier concerts is definatly awesome) is Tool... speaking of which, the last one I went to was recorded for a DVD released.. I wonder when it's going to come out....

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-05-10 07:53pm

verilon wrote:MUST a band be judged SOLELY on their live music?

IMO, they should be judged primarily on their live music. With enough studio time & assistant songwriters any hack can make a decent CD. Give me 5 million bucks and the services of a major record company and I can have a gold record guaranteed, doesn't mean that I can write songs or even sing or play instruments. However I will still suck ass if I ever had to perform live and I'll likely have beer bottles thrown at me.

Take a look at the great bands & artists, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Ozzy, Metallica, The Tea Party, they all have something in common - they're all talented musicians who kick ass performing live, and who's live stuff is as good and often better than their studio material.

As for Linkin Park, I can't wait for Metallica to show them up and make them look like the talentless hacks they are in the Summer Sanitarium tour.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-10 08:01pm

Hell, even Blink 182 sounds a lot better live than Linkin Park. Their melodies may be simple and repetitive, but the important thing is that they can 1) sing and 2) play their instruments well.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-05-10 08:58pm

I'd have to say Linkin Park is your typical no-talent punk rock band, with a vocalist that screeches more often than he sings, and loud songs that pretty much sound the same.

And, I do agree that many bands nowadays are so reliant on studio recording material that can make a Middle School band sound like the London Symphony Orchestra that when they do a live performance, it usually sounds bad. In my opinion, the biggest problem is with the vocals. They're usually even more garbled, off-tune, and indeicipherable than they are with studio equipment.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-05-10 09:19pm

For a band to have credibility as a serious music artist, they simply have to be able to bring it live. The studios are so advanced nowadays, the only way to be able to tell the difference between the talented and the hacks is on stage.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-10 09:23pm

...until we get real-time studio-quality editting

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-10 09:23pm

Howedar wrote:...until we get real-time studio-quality editting

The day that happens, real music is dead.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-05-10 09:45pm

Howedar wrote:...until we get real-time studio-quality editting

I believe that's called lip-synching and intrument-synching.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-05-10 09:59pm

Regarding my post on studio magic, songwriting, and live performances, I hereby submit Avril Lavigne as my proof. Check out this Rolling Stone article on Avril. To summarize, she knows nothing about music, She's convinced she's "written" her songs because she had the power to say "yes I like that, no I don't like that" to ideas, music, riffs, and lyrics WRITTEN BY OTHER PEOPLE. She "wrote" "Complicated" because she changed the line "take off your stupid clothes" to "take off your preppie clothes". In addition, I've seen her live at a free outdoor music festival and she a)can't sing on key, b)can't play a single instrument she says she can, c)she sounds like she gargles paint thinner, dear god her voice hurts my ears, nothing like on her CD. It was a painful experience I want erased from my memories.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-10 10:49pm

From that Rolling Stone article:

Avril Lavigne's tiny face is eclipsed by a pitcher of beer that she has set about emptying. After the last swallow, she puts the pitcher back on the table, belches loudly and grabs a microphone in time to sing the opening notes of Creedence Clearwater Revival's version of "Suzie Q." It's 1 a.m. on the last day of a two-week trip that has taken her to Singapore, Seoul and Tokyo. Lavigne -- clad all in black, except for her silver skull-and-crossbones belt buckle and the dingy red, white and blue sweatband on her wrist -- is celebrating in a dark, private room at a fifth-floor karaoke joint in Tokyo with her band and a dozen or so Japanese record executives.

The bitch should be shot for desecrating the work of Creedence Clearwater Revival.
She isn't fit to give John Fogerty a blowjob, much less perform his version of Suzy-Q.

And the death's head belt buckle? Tres SS chic.

Hey, look! It's Reichsführer-SS Himmler's great granddaughter. And she's trying to sing.

Avril's about as punk as Tammy Wynette. She's Britney Spears with less talent and a bratty attitude.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-10 11:20pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I'd have to say Linkin Park is your typical no-talent punk rock band...

Hip-hop-metal, actually. They merely were signed owing to Limp Bizkit's artificially created popularity.

Thank you MTV!

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-10 11:37pm

Frank, they are about as far from Metal as Britney Spears is.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-10 11:52pm

kojikun wrote:Frank, they are about as far from Metal as Britney Spears is.

No shit? Really?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-05-11 01:26am

Frank Hipper wrote:No shit? Really?

Your sarcasm wasn't very evident in that post, you know.

Drewcifer · Post by **Drewcifer** » 2003-05-11 01:31am

Howedar wrote:...until we get real-time studio-quality editting

If by "we" you meant "them", they already do, for the most part: real-time wave form editing, on-the-fly vocal manipulation (including pitch fixing), and so on, you can pretty much do anything you want to now in the studio.

If by "we" you meant "us", it's already pretty close. We just don't have the same studio rooms (with no right angles), sensitive mics, or high end processing gear

As far as judging bands, I ultimately do judge them on their live performances, but I tend to judge albums first as stand-alone works.

And Linkin Park? I like them, quite a bit sometimes, but they aren't particularily talented or significant, IMO.

EDIT: Gerf. I just listened to the first 60 seconds of that MP3. Wow. They really do suck live. That's too bad, I really liked "In the End". Oh well, I can't get those 60 seconds back, but I can get those 4 megs back. *delete*

Hethrir · Post by **Hethrir** » 2003-05-11 03:28am

I'd call it hip-hop-rock. They don't have enough in common with metal. If they played Master of Puppets and rapped over the top, (i know that's sacreligous) it would be. The distortion's not heavy enough, and it's not Baroque enough.

But come on ppl! We should just leave people listen to the music they choose and not go TK here. Now if someone made a new thread "why i love linkin park", THEN i would have a field day :p

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-11 06:17am

Frank Hipper wrote:
kojikun wrote:Frank, they are about as far from Metal as Britney Spears is.
No shit? Really?

Hard Rock and Metal, while related, are not the same. There's a big difference between the likes of Uriah Heep and The Who, and the likes of Bathory, Dissection and Sodom.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-05-12 03:46am

Hybrid Theory was just as bad.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-05-12 04:06am

Re: Avril Lavigne's writing.

I have to jump in and say that it shouldn't matter whether a singer wrote their own songs or not..
*cough*joan Baez*cough*Meatloaf*cough cough*Elvis Presley

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-12 09:03am

Byron Roberts (vocalist of Bal-Sagoth) on the state of the modern music industry:

In an age where bands seem to achieve dizzying heights of success solely based on the amount of times they can moan in contrived rage about how unbearable modern society is whilst accompanying such incessant drivel with seemingly the same three riffs again and again song after song, or how many naked breasts and expletives they can plaster over their album covers or t-shirts (aided of course by the corrupt and jaded media whose pockets are lined by record companies fervently
handing over greenbacks to ensure their run of the mill acts are flavour of the month and will thus infiltrate the psyche of the more impressionable and deluded sheep-like masses who swallow such pap like baby birds awaiting regurgitated worms), true art is often ignored.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-05-12 10:35am

innerbrat wrote:Re: Avril Lavigne's writing.

I have to jump in and say that it shouldn't matter whether a singer wrote their own songs or not..
*cough*joan Baez*cough*Meatloaf*cough cough*Elvis Presley

It shouldn't matter...unless
a) the singer claims to have written all the songs but didn't
b) the singer is being promoted on the basis that she wrote all her own songs

Which is exactly how Avril is being hyped here in Canada, which makes her a lying bitch and pisses me off. If she says she's just a singer I have no argument with her, but to claim she's a songwriter because she has the authority to change a couple words in lyrics that other people wrote is plagiarism at best, and I think it's a complete fraud. Because if this and other things, I hate the bitch. And for somehow winning the best new artist award at the Junos (Canadian music awards show) over Sarah Slean, I'd sell Avril to a seedy strip joint if I could. Did I mention I hate Avril?