|
| |
|
|
|
Linkin Park's music may have served as the soundtrack to the lives of many a disenfranchised youth, young lads and lassies who hated their parents, hated their teachers, and hated everything in the world... but a lack of originality, creativity and innovation soundly places albums like Hybrid Theory in the same line of dated bargain-bin stuffers as Limp Bizkit, Papa Roach, et all.
Granted, a certain amount of anger can be thoughtful and well-executed behind quality music and beats -- Rage Against the Machine successfully integrated social and political fury with rage rock, for example. On the other hand, without being able to successfully hide their dishonesty and lack of talent, Linkin Park seems tailor-fit for an audience, rather than a band that could have ever successfully built a fanbase on their own. Linkin Park is the kind of band that seems to have been put together by a record label executive and hand-delivered to the MTV masses.
Linkin Park seems to have everything the young kids wanted: electronic/hip-hop beats mashed with brash guitars -- we're talking the same four chords over and over again repeated ad nausea and interchangeable to result in what sounds like an album with only one song. Well, okay, there are a few acoustic-based tracks and some hip hop interludes, so let's say three songs.
The problem is that these three songs are not in any way good. The quality of the music here is atrocious - and I'm not speaking out of a personal dislike for the group, I'm speaking out on music in general. This music is as simplistic as it gets. Which seems to be a trend in modern pop music - but what happened to bands like The Beatles, who could get together and write some actual music?
The set-up is pretty basic, except for the fact that there are two vocalists - a rapper and a singer, which is absolutely pointless. Other hip hop-influenced rock vocalists can change up singing and rapping, but this band basically hired a rapper to tap into the audience that worships at the alter of Fredrick Durst. The lyrics aren't too original either, cribbing not only from Korn, Bizkit, etc. but from the rising emo scene. The problem is that repeatedly hearing a singer wax poetic on how he can't take it anymore and he's about to break and the world's crumbling at his feet, etc. is boring. My advice to Linkin Park is to pop a couple of Xanax and stick to watching Sesame Street, and leave the touring to musicians with actual talent.
| other reviews of this album |
|
I disagree with pretty much every point you make but I like the review it is easy to read and pretty well written.
| | |
This didn't really need another review,
espicially one that's basically more of a hate letter
than an actual reviewThis Message Edited On 01.28.09
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
just for the record: the early Beatles were as simplistic as Pop music could possibly be (and they were fucking great at it, btw)
this album is still kinda nice, there's no great songwriting in it or something like that, but I really like the arrangements during the softer parts and the overall sound. and quite a few of the songs are not half as bad as you seem to think, Place for my head and Pushing me away are actually really nice. unlike most of the other albums I listened to as a little teen, this one still has some power in it.
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
I still love this album after all these years
| | |
errrrrrrrr
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
Thor, I bet you have a LP t-shirt.
This review is kinda shitty tbh. Lumping Linkin Park in with the Papa roach and the others is kinda pointless because they all existed in the same musical period, nu-metal.
Oh, and it's ad nauseam.This Message Edited On 01.28.09
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
I disagree with pretty much every point you make but I like the review it is easy to read and pretty well written.
Same here. Some examples of your points in specific parts of songs would have been nice though.
| | |
I don't like this album but it's objectively not a 1.
I don't like this review either. Seems just to slate this album because people liked it. Also the Beatles namedrop is cringeworthy.
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
Comparing this to the Beatles is so pointless. Completely different eras/genres.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
This album is nothing too special, but it is enjoyable, to say at least. After all this years I still love Pushing Me Away, With You and A Place for my Head.
Review is nicely written, btw.
| | |
Last line is pretty awesome.
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
[quote=review] and I'm not speaking out of a personal dislike for the group, I'm speaking out on music in general.[/quote]
This makes it seem like you're speaking out of a personal dislike for the group.
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
the review reads very well, but the content doesnt really offer much info or is at times totally wrong:
The set-up is pretty basic, except for the fact that there are two vocalists - a rapper and a singer, which is absolutely pointless. Other hip hop-influenced rock vocalists can change up singing and rapping, but this band basically hired a rapper to tap into the audience that worships at the alter of Fredrick Durst.
didnt the rapper created the band together with the DJ. and if the rapper isnt confident enough to sing so why should it be pointless to hire a singer/screamer.
the lyrics aren't too original either, cribbing not only from Korn, Bizkit, etc. but from the rising emo scene.
exactly, the lyrics arent really good nor original. but as you said, a large part of the MTV generation really digged it, so they got something right.
and please dont compare them to the beatles, only few bands can be compared to them. and not only that, the beatles are a whole diffrent era and genre as already said.
the Genre Nu-Metal was created in a total diffrent era. comparion to Korn or Limp Bizkit are right ofcourse.This Message Edited On 01.28.09This Message Edited On 01.28.09This Message Edited On 01.28.09
| | |
bad bad review(if you can call it that) is bad-and I'm
not saying that as a LP fan, because I'm not-
The reviewer spent virtually no time whatsoever on the
actual album, and just focused on how inferior he/she thinks the band is
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
Album rules....Faggot
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
You seem to take on reviews for albums which are cool to hate. In those three instances (50 Cent, Hollywood Undead, LP) you barely focus on the album at hand but rather spend time bashing the artists themselves. If you want to write good reviews for bad albums, that's not the way to go.
| | |
also when you call the dual-vocalist thing 'pointless' what does that even mean? you might not think it WORKS but its point is surely variety.
| | |
also when you call the dual-vocalist thing 'pointless' what does that even mean?
Exactly. Since when has collaboration and dual vocals been a bad thing, if done right?
In your review you took the attitude that the main singer is less skilled than vocalists that can both rap and sing-- A stupid opinion to have considering many of the BEST vocalists probably can't rap, let alone Chester Bennington.
| | |
this is like my review for this except for more ranting and less actual musical description.
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
Shoot me you bastard, you are correct. At least yours had points to back it up/argue your point.This Message Edited On 01.28.09
| | | |
|
| |
