| Sputnikmusic
 

stickers-linkin-park-logo

With the recent announcement of Linkin Park’s return, there has been heated debate on whether Mike Shinoda should have brought the band back after Chester Bennington’s untimely death in 2017. I fall on the side of fervently abhorring the decision, and as the weeks have trickled past since their proclamation of return, it’s got me thinking about a few things, most prominently: what makes a band? So folks, not a single person has asked for it, but this is something that has been passionately eating away at me since it was announced, so you’re getting pinned down like Alex from A Clockwork Orange and having my two-cents shovelled into your mouth, whether you agree with it or not.

What is a band?

Before I talk about The Linkin Park Conundrum, I want to take it back a bit and define what a band is. The most elemental description of a band is a group of like-minded individuals – typically friends starting out – who want to make music they enjoy listening to. It’s a collection of individuals who come together with the common interest of creating music; each member picks a role, be it singing or playing one or more instruments, and they set out to make music. Outside of this simple materialistic description, there are two other important factors I think define a band. This is the value an individual brings, and the band’s chemistry.

Value

Value comes from each member of the band – a broad metric that encompasses obvious things like competency with their instrument right through to character – things people don’t really think about, like someone’s personality, their motivations, punctuality, how serious they are about the band, and how they approach writing music. This is a volatile metric because it vastly varies from band to band, but it does shape the functions and internal politics of a band. For instance, Tool are a four piece rock band: each member has a strong creative presence and as such, it takes months, sometimes even years writing songs together. In terms of their value however, the band are a unique case, because each individual has an equal share in the creation of the music being made; and because it’s a band made up of lateral thinkers with a distinct voice, if the dynamic of the band was to change – if Danny was to leave the band, say – it would severely damage that unique chemistry. In short, Tool is its members – if anyone leaves, the chemistry is gone forever. Conversely, Seether and Breaking Benjamin hold very different values. Similar to how you’d quantify most buttrock bands, and indeed bands like Linkin Park, the most value ultimately comes from its singers. If Shaun or Ben were to step away from their bands today but they continued on with a different singer, it would be in name only. A good example of this is Breaking Benjamin. After Ben won his lawsuit against two of the band’s founding members, Arron, Mark and Chad left the band. The current iteration is now comprised of four new members, and the sound is slightly heavier than it had been previous, but the member with the most value remained so the core essence of the brand endured. Compare that to Three Days Grace, when Adam left the band in 2013 and was replaced with Matt, and the entire dynamic and vibe drastically shifted – for some, for the very worse.

Chemistry

Though value is an important factor in a band, it’s intrinsically tied to the metaphysical aspect: chemistry. Bands are comprised of individuals with their own unique personalities, desires, talents, visions, and interpretations of creativity. I myself can attest to the power of a band’s chemistry. I’ve been fortunate enough to play with people who become spiritually connected to you when you’re playing. You don’t communicate to each other with your mouth, if you have a great chemistry, your instrument will be the conduit while you experience one of the most elating things life has to offer; creating off-the-cuff jams you’ll never be able to recreate again and communicating through your instrument with the other members, it’s simply magical. However, I’ve also played with people I don’t have a connection to. As a bassist, I’ve jammed with drummers who don’t align with how I process music, and as a result the music ends up coming across stiff or lacking in fluidity. While the value of a member greatly affects a band, chemistry is the quintessential element for any band, and the loss of that connection can be catastrophic. When a bunch of people get into a room it’s like playing the lottery; even if you have a band of very talented members, it doesn’t guarantee good chemistry – hell, just look at supergroups like Hollywood Vampires or, controversially I might add (they just don’t do anything for me) Them Crooked Vultures. Bands brimming with unbelievable talent, but the chemistry falls flat.

With all that in mind, below are a couple of examples, told from different angles, of bands that lost their valuable members and the chemistry that went along with it.

81jBiAh0opL.__AC_SX300_SY300_QL70_ML2_

Oasis

While I’m not a fan of Oasis (though I do enjoy their first couple albums and acknowledge their venerable importance to British rock music), there is no better example when it comes to the importance of chemistry. Together with Paul Mcguigan, Paul Arthurs, Tony McCarroll, and Alan White, they created some of the most revered and enduring music in British rock history. However, like I said earlier on, a band is made up of individuals with varying degrees of value to them. In the case of Oasis, the lion’s share of what makes Oasis Oasis comes from the two brothers – two juggernaut personalities who couldn’t subsist as a unit, and where the band inevitably imploded as a result of clashing personalities and ego. Still, it’s these very facets of their personalities that, while pernicious to the band’s survival in the long-run, were the inimitable driving force that connected with so many people. Their chemistry was certainly overlooked by themselves as well, when both conceited brothers went off to forge tepid solo careers in the form of High Flying Birds and Beady Eye. Indeed, given their influence on modern rock music at the time, their solo careers were never not going to succeed, but I think consensus would agree both bands are monumentally overshadowed by the success of Oasis, lacking that much needed element to make both projects pop.

 

KmLD3XVgtdMgacz5A6AWeP-1200-80

Limp Bizkit

Another worthy example, in the service of value and chemistry, is none other than NU-metal legends, Limp Bizkit. To preface the point – I think all of the members in Limp Bizkit are incredibly talented musicians, however, Wes Borland is such a powerhouse of idiosyncrasy and raw talent, his contributions in the band simply subjugate the other personalities, making it (next to Fred’s vocals, of course) the defining element of their sound. To highlight Wes Borland’s importance in the band, we need only go back to 2001, when he left Limp Bizkit to pursue other creative ventures. This left Fred and the band scrambling to cobble together 2003’s Results May Vary, an intrinsically flawed record that, as the title suggests, suffered tremendously from the loss of its guitarist and lateral thinker. Whether you like the band or not, it’s undeniable Results May Vary lacks soul and the core selling point of what makes Limp Bizkit’s sound so fun. The chemistry from the myriads of guitarists brought in to fill Wes’ shoes wasn’t there, and while the other members diligently carried out their roles in the band, the crucial ingredient wasn’t there to adhere it all together. Thankfully, Wes returned (and left again, and returned again), and they went on to make some of their best material to date, as well as being regarded as one of the best live acts going today.

91C4VvwWELL._AC_SX679_

Iron Maiden/Faith No More

For this example, I’m going to tackle the importance of that crucial member bringing a band untold amounts of success, which, ironically, pertains to Linkin Park as well, since Mike Shinoda struggled getting Xero off the ground before Chester joined his ranks and went on to form Linkin Park. Iron Maiden and Faith No More have very similar success stories, in that they all had an idea, a vision, and a sound from inception, but needed that core element to pop open their untapped potential. Sure, both bands’ first two albums have their fans, but the fact of the matter is, if they’d remained loyal to Paul Di’Anno and Mike Morris, both bands wouldn’t be the household names they are today. The top and bottom of it is, Dickinson and Patton brought an unparalleled amount of talent to these bands, solidifying their own unique brand and opening up a greater ground for exploration. In the case of Iron Maiden, when Dickinson joined in 1981, they went on to create classic after classic in the 80s, solidifying their status as one of the greatest rock bands in history. His importance to the chemistry and dynamic of Iron Maiden was cemented further when he left in ’93, bringing in Blaze as a replacement, which exacerbated Iron Maiden’s mounting tribulations and lack of identity. However, when Dickinson returned in 1999, the band went on to create steadfast-quality albums that represent the band’s core strengths.

Linkin_Park,_One_More_Light,_album_art_final

Never Letting Go

We now fall into the realm of preference and how I view things. For me, I’m all about moving forwards and creating new things. However, we currently live in a time reliant on nostalgia and repurposing a popular brand by adding a “modern” spin on it. For someone who grew up in the 90s, I was privileged enough to enjoy a plethora of great entertainment. Today, the independent industry – as always – strives to develop fresh ideas and the need to progress, but corporations have been taking far fewer risks in the last decade, opting to parade an already popular brand around with a modern sensibility to it. Frankly, I hate it, with The Lord of the Rings being a prime example of corporations squeezing every last drop of milk out of the cash cow until there is nothing left. The recent announcement of The Hunt for Gollum, and the rumour it’s going to be split into two movies and bring back a cast of old fogies, you can imagine my dismay for the total lack of creativity in mainstream Hollywood. Though the state of Hollywood holds no bearing on this blog, it does connect to a similar pattern in the music industry, as well as the consumer’s need to hold onto something that is well past its prime. Make no mistake here; I believe that even when Chester was alive, Linkin Park was well and truly past their prime. A Thousand Suns, for all its flaws, was their last grand statement, before falling prey to derivative fan-pleasing or risk taking that wasn’t executed competently enough to move the band forward. Though I will always respect an artist for trying something new over churning out the same thing time and time again, Linkin Park, for well over a decade, struggled to make music on the same level as their earlier works, and relied more on gimmicks.

As black-pilled as it sounds, Linkin Park should have called it a day a decade ago. Linkin Park’s schtick from 2007 onwards was “look at how diverse our sound is”. It didn’t really feel like it was in service of progression, more parading that mantra around as a way to sell a product. All of their albums post Minutes to Midnight are inconsistent, to put it mildly. Some of it works, some of it doesn’t. But, with the exception of A Thousand Suns and One More Light for having something to say, it all feels like their albums are made to artificially prolong the band’s life span, because the brand generates so much money. You could retort and say it’s easy for me to say, since I don’t have a successful band as my main source of income, and you’re absolutely correct. Something as successful as Linkin Park is literally like winning the lottery, but then my angle has always been, as a business, when does the line blur between being a job, and creating meaningful art that’s worth listening to? For me, less is more, it always has been. I strongly believe in preserving something that is special, rather than weakening it with a steady flow of inferior products, because the masses want more of that same thing. DIR EN GREY are a prime example of this. People who know me will be accustomed to my stance; the band should have ended their career in the studio with Arche: the apotheosis of their recorded works. They worked diligently for decades, building up to the zenith of their creative genius, eventually enjoying the fruits of their labour by creating three timeless masterpieces that displayed that progression with the fundamentals of their DNA. Like Linkin Park’s global success, what are the chances Diru are going to top such an impeccable creative peak without diminishing it with their usual 3–4-year album cycle. There’s no time to breath. The reality is that the band is a business – a livelihood – and I totally get it, especially in the current climate. But in terms of raw artistry, where bands like Black Light Burns, Frank Carter’s Gallows, and ironically Mike Shinoda’s Fort Minor felt like they had so much more to say, other bands run the risk of diminishing their legacy by going through the motions. Henry Rollins is a very rare case, but one I resonate with greatly. He left Black Flag at the height of its popularity to form Rollins Band, and when he got to a stage where he had nothing left to say, he simply retired from music to pursue creative ventures he was more passionate about. Very few have the fortitude to do this, but he was right. You can see it in the quality of Rollins Band’s works. Nice sounds and feels limp in comparison to albums like Weight and Hard Volume, and Rollins understood he had nothing more to contribute to the art, simply cutting off the problem by retiring from it completely.

 

The Linkin Park Conundrum

Over 2,300 words in and we finally get to The Linkin Park Conundrum. The very impetus for this blog – Linkin Park’s return in 2024. But, just humour me quickly by going back to Oasis for a second, as they recently announced their return too. How do I feel about it? Well, given that I don’t have much of an emotional stake in the game, I don’t think much of it. However, if I put myself in the shoes of an Oasis fan with my own mindset applied, I would be elated with the news. The reason is because it has all the elements present to make the reunion justified. If I was too young or never had the chance to see Oasis back in the 90s, this now affords me the opportunity to see them play live. There’s also the possibility they might create some new material, which could result in some more excellent music, since they’ve not jammed together in decades. Enough time has passed where some genuinely good things could come out of their return, and for that I’m ecstatic for the fans. But now let’s do a ‘What If?’ scenario. What if Oasis announced their return but it was only Liam or Noel? The honest answer is I’d be as flummoxed and irritated by the news as I am with this Linkin Park reunion. The simple fact of the matter is, Liam and Noel are the core components of Oasis, and without that complete unit, it simply becomes a farcical cover band. Indeed, Paul Mcguigan, Paul Arthurs, Tony McCarroll, and Alan White are also fundamental to the Oasis brand, and to me, their inclusion is important, but Noel and Liam are the main draw for the band, and fundamentally the members that make Oasis what they are.

However, Linkin Park isn’t afforded the same positive scenario as Oasis, far from it. This is a completely different beast. As previously touched on, like Noel and Liam providing the essential values and chemistry needed to make Oasis the band they are, Mike and Chester are as such for Linkin Park. While Mike was the driving force behind Linkin Park’s business decisions, as well as being the primary songwriter, the harsh reality is Chester was the golden goose that made Linkin Park a world-dominating success – like the aforementioned subjects Mike Patton and Bruce Dickinson did for their bands. However, unlike Oasis’ situation, the Linkin Park conundrum is much darker and more delicate. Linkin Park lost one of its core ingredients in a truly tragic way, a shock that left a sombre cloud over the Linkin Park brand, and for seven years now, Linkin Park has remained very much alive in the hearts of its fans. I’ve even respected Mike for letting it remain that way. The anniversary collections for Hybrid Theory and Meteora were an excellent way to celebrate the band’s legacy: each one filled with unreleased material, demos, and things you couldn’t get elsewhere, and with them brought a new generation of listeners to these iconic albums. I even thought the live shows they’d done with various guests taking on Chester’s role was a great way to celebrate the band’s accomplishments in a live capacity. Outside of that, Mike has continued to write music solo, as well as making soundtracks for films and various other things to keep him occupied. So, the question now is – “Why has Mike brought Linkin Park back now?”

I’ve stewed on this for a while now, and the answer may annoy some reading this, but I can’t see it for anything other than what it is: hubris. Mike and the supporters for this reunion know, Chester was an indispensable part of the band. He was the core element most people gravitated towards when listening to Linkin Park. It was his exceptional gift as a frontman, as a talented vocalist with a powerful range that made Linkin Park so special. While the music being created was excellent, it was Chester’s poignant vocals and charismatic personality that brought Linkin Park’s music to life. So, we’re all in agreement that Chester is irreplaceable, yet, paradoxically, we still find ourselves with a Linkin Park reunion, missing one of its most – if not the most – crucial elements. I’ve touched on this for the entire blog, but I’ll say it again: certain people bring quintessential elements to a band’s success, and without it, it’s not the same band anymore. Chester was/is that for Linkin Park. So why bring this band back? Fort Minor is something Mike could, and should, have brought back. It’s a project that was all his, and with so much potential being left unchecked, it was a prime time to revive it. The answer, as I see it, is the fanbase for Linkin Park was just too tempting to leave unchecked. Mike’s solo works and anything outside of Linkin Park don’t get a fraction of the attention his crowning achievement still garners after all these years. Yet, rather than let Linkin Park’s legacy speak for itself, preserved for all to enjoy, Mike has seen to it that that legacy is distorted with this sad rendition.

What of Emily Armstrong, the band’s new singer? Well, as a singer, she’s clearly a gifted person, there’s no taking that away, and had this line-up been a new band, there wouldn’t be any controversies to be had. But then, it falls on what I touched on earlier – it’s business, and this particular brand name still generates a lot of attention and a lot of green. With Chester out of the equation, the new material, instrumentally speaking, is the most milk-toast writing we’ve heard from the band to date, and that’s saying something with Minutes to Midnight in existence. The full album may prove me wrong, but from the tracks we’ve been given from From Zero thus far, it’s looking to be a middling-at-best experience, that, if it was under any other name, would be forgotten about shortly after. Also, from what I’ve seen from live videos, Emily fails to capture the essence of Linkin Park’s back-catalogue. This isn’t any shade thrown Emily’s way as such, because again, it falls under the metaphysical elements I’ve discussed already. Chester had a very hard upbringing and was suffering from a depression so unbearable; he took his own life. Human suffering creates the best art as they say, and Chester was able to translate, emote and channel his subject matter into music that got into people’s souls. Like Chris Connell, who was a good friend of Chester and also took his own life because of depression, these people are revered for a reason. They were troubled individuals who channelled their emotions into some of the most poignant music caught on record. You can’t replicate a song like “Numb” or “Nobody Can Save Me”, because they come from Chester’s experiences.

81iC+O0ec2L._UF1000,1000_QL80_

Conclusion

This blog has spiralled into a monster of inner thoughts pouring onto the page, but you have to understand Linkin Park are deeply important to me. They were the band that properly got me into music, so I don’t think I have a deeper connection to a band more than Linkin Park. However, couple that with how I view music, art, and entertainment in general, I see this reunion as nothing more than a vanity project, something Mike Shinoda had to do because of ego and the starvation of adulation from not playing in Linkin Park anymore. With Rob not being in the band and Brad dropping out of touring at the last minute as well, it only adds to the sorry state this reunion is in – not including Emily’s own controversies. Like a modern Hollywood remake, Linkin Park 2024 is a skinsuit; a bad cover band, led by a man who needs to give his head a wobble. In all honesty, if you’re wanting to hear Linkin Park live, you’re likely to find a truer representation through one of the world’s best cover bands than this poor imitation. The argument that this is a new version of Linkin Park just doesn’t fly with me. A band without its essential value-bringers and chemistry is no longer the band that achieved great success. It’s merely a soulless product, functioning on the goodwill of an already built-in fanbase.                              





DrGonzo1937
09.25.24
let's keep the debate clean. some, or maybe even all of you, might disagree with my takes, but let's just at least appreciate the ungodly amount of hours that went into this. because i care.

peace.

JohnnyoftheWell
09.25.24
the fact that this piece is over 3500 words long and fails to tackle *any* of the controversies behind the reunion (other than the quality of recorded live performances) is one of the most spectacular achievements this site has produced this yr

don't disagree with many of the points made about individual artists here (dubious relevance to LP notwithstanding), but this piece does not see the wood for the trees. kudos for the effortpost ig

DrGonzo1937
09.25.24
I’m not here to commentate on Emily’s controversies, I’m here to write about why this reunion should have never happened. I’ll leave that side to someone else, if they’re that way inclined.

DrGonzo1937
09.25.24
Appreciate the kudos though

Pikazilla
09.25.24
ATS was one stinky turd of a record, and mtm, bad as it was, never hit the lows of the former, not even close

Pikazilla
09.25.24
also, you probably should've titled the article something else if you weren't going to talk about the controversies around Emily

DrGonzo1937
09.25.24
it's titled as it should be.

RogueNine
09.25.24
Yeah it's fine, the idea of the band ramping up again is going to have some division.

onionbubs
09.25.24
this is the most gonzo shit ever lmao

Dedes
09.25.24
I do think this ironically does miss a great portion of what is the general publics issue with the bands reformation but does at least raise the point of this being something to capitalize on a brand that ultimately would have irritated fans on -some- level. Chester was the face and personality of Linkin Park with Mike Shinoda playing a strong support role, so it makes retaining the name just an easily read marketing tactic, and one that went piss poor due to them giving stage to someone who was a close friend to a rapist scientologist (which is, by the way, a deeper rabbit hole of a religion than I had even understood.)

JohnnyoftheWell
09.25.24
if you're hell-bent on assessing this reunion without meaningful examination of what many would q rightly consider the core issue, then it should at least come with a disclaimer at the top of the page

that way, there is no misconstruing your priorities + there's an early opportunity to peace out for anyone who will otherwise unwittingly read far enough to be told Limp Bizkit's membership history is actually a more relevant factor to what went wrong here than a vastly influential band defined by the pain and trauma of an SA survivor deciding that now is the time to go all-in on a rapist-defending cultist

Butkuiss
09.25.24
Yeah I respect the central thrust of the argument here but any concerns about blanket justifications for the reunion in principle are kind of eclipsed by the specifics of the reunion in practice unfortunately. Quite like the moon, the shadow of this controversy is just too big to easily step out of now.

TheGreatQ
09.25.24
I still think they should have come back as Xero or Hybrid Theory. Still play Linkin Park songs but don’t use the name.

DrGonzo1937
09.25.24
"without meaningful examination"

are you for real? i'm getting really tired of all these social justice warriors riding in on their digital horses to tell me what a "meaningful examination" is. people acting like they're the arbiters of truth and justice. its cringe af and immensely tiresome. yeah, emily has skeletons in her closet - paint me shocked. the entire industry is filled with that horrible stuff. drain the swamp, as they say. but let me tell you something - i can guarantee some of your favourite artists have done some absolutely dodgy shit in their time. what are you going to do about it? sit in a dark room for the rest of you life until they go away?

i'm one of the most straight-down-the-line mf you're likely to come across, and i absolutely condemn all the shady stuff that goes on in hollyweird and the music industry. however, like the falling in reverse review, i will cover what i want, when i want, and how i want.

this blog has taken me many, many hours to write, and has boatloads of meaning behind it, because im passionate about a band i grew up with, and pissed off shinoda has dug it up again so he can stroke his ego some more.

as i say, if you feel so strongly about what she has done, go write about it. this piece is about the importance and effect individuals have on bands, and how you cant just switch and change people around without sacrificing the essence of what made said band a success. so yes, you're right, on the grander scheme of things, talking about oasis and limp bizkit might not hold as much weight as talking about emily being a shitty person, but i cbh talking about garbage human in an industry filled with garbage humans.

KjSwantko
09.25.24
^^agreed. This version of “Linkin Park” is a travesty. Probably an easy cash grab and not much more in reality.

mkmusic1995
09.25.24
Respect for putting this much effort into this article, definitely an interesting read. I honestly wasn't against an LP reunion if the right person was chosen to represent the role that Chester left behind in a meaningful and respectful way but ultimately, it's looking like that's just not the case.

RogueNine
09.25.24
Two different things at play and indeed they can be separated. Before someone (Emily or not) fills the role, should this moniker even exist? No shortage of thoughts surrounding that...

DrGonzo1937
09.25.24
thanks man, i appreciate.

yeah, for me, even if it wasnt emily, its still a case of no chester, no LP. if this was under a different name i wouldn't take such issue with it.

thgreatq makes a good point. if it was something that linked to the band but wasn't under the LP name, that would work for me too. or something similar to what static x did. but how it stands, it legitimately pisses me off.

dont think ive ever been annoyed by something a band has done, but shinoda has managed to draw it from me. very disrespectful imo

SitarHero
09.25.24
"So, the question now is – “Why has Mike brought Linkin Park back now?”

I’ve stewed on this for a while now, and the answer may annoy some reading this, but I can’t see it for anything other than what it is: hubris."

LMAO ok sure.

StephenWolf
09.25.24
You made clear that your entire focus is around the question, "Should Linkin Park continue without Chester?" which means that anything they do after deciding to continue is outside of this piece's purview. I'm not sure why people are getting hung up on the fact that you didn't focus on the band's decisions after that point (i.e. their choice of vocalist). My only issue with this piece is that you totally discounted The Hunting Party, dude! That album rules! I do think "Linkin Park puts their spin on 80s metal" is a valid musical statement, and I probably go back to that album more than any but the first two. With that said, I think your points are extremely valid, and I'm sold with it being more fitting for the band to continue with one of their pre-Linkin Park monikers like someone above suggested. That way, it would be more like a "what if" band, then one trying to continue Chester's immeasurable legacy. The upcoming album will feel like more of a corporate product than One More Light, which just sounded like a misstep by an aging Linkin Park that was still, for however much I don't like that album, Linkin Park. Also, the drumming on Linkin Park's albums, while seemingly not very technical, was wholly unique, and another element that can't be duplicated.

Did you ever listen to the band Project 86? Another interesting case study, where everyone left but the vocalist, who carried on with different musicians on multiple albums that sound nothing like the band's previous work, but still feel like Project 86 because the vocal and lyrical style are so singular. At the same time, the original members were upset that the name carried on, when the music they created was also so singular, and the albums after them just don't sound like that.

Comatorium.
09.25.24
This ain’t it, man.

Nikkolae
09.25.24
definitely an interesting piece, i can only think Mike and the rest of the band genuinely think that Chester would have wanted them to carry on, which i do not think is too much of a stretch, that, however, does not seem to be the case, especially when you take into account the whole new vocalist debacle and their doubling down on it.

chedspiffman
09.25.24
Well written, but man I'm so tired of this argument. It's been 7 years. Bands can move on. I love Chester but ffs let the band do what they want. None of us know them personally. We don't know their motivations. Even if it is a cash grab, who cares? That's literally the music industry.

No one is forcing anyone to listen or see them on tour. I know you, nor my friend who makes this argument as well, is virtue signaling, but damn does this "LP shouldn't be LP anymore because Chester is gone" argument comes off as virtue signaling to me.

Bands have different versions of themselves. It's fine.

WretchedCacophony
09.25.24
It's funny to me that people are so invested in this.
The simple matter is that you have a band without its head, and even without a head the members still want to continue to fuel their passion for music and continue to create their art. That's the purpose they've set out for themselves and they won't be content idling by without doing some work. And it's far easier for them to revive the band Linkin Park than it is for them to create a new, faceless band and have to prove their worth once again. In this scenario there's already an established fanbase, and should they fail to please them they will soon undo themselves and be erased. It's just that simple.

JohnnyoftheWell
09.25.24
>>getting really tired of all these social justice warriors riding in on their digital horses to tell me what a "meaningful examination" is

tbqh a 'meaningful examination' here could be nothing more than acknowledging the issue + its significance, stating your view, and immediately moving on. not sure who you think you're serving by sweeping it under the carpet — if you're going to handwave about having controversial takes and asking for respectful disagreement, then just be out with it and say you don't think it's relevant. much easier to respect someone who speaks their mind outright

>>people acting like they're the arbiters of truth and justice

all it takes to be an arbiter of truth is to point out that half the story here is being purposefully neglected? don't ask for respectful disagreement and then heelturn into this petty shit

>>the entire industry is filled with that horrible stuff

the entire industry is filled with SA apologists, scientologists, and people spitting on the graves of their dead bandmates? and this would in any way reduce the gravity of the LP example how? please give me a good industry example you consider directly comparable with someone like emily armstrong turning the page on a legacy like chester bennington's

>>some of your favourite artists have done some absolutely dodgy shit in their time

you bet they have! i have no issue acknowledging this or the way it's informed my experience listening to them (or ditching them) — doing so has made me v aware of how unique each art/artist relationship is and how silly it is to generalise about these things or resort to whatabouting as though any two cases are at all interchangeable

>>i absolutely condemn all the shady stuff that goes on in hollyweird and the music industry.

you are a platformed journalist and the fact that this statement (which i believe + accept) is so often at odds with the framing of your work is ultimately your responsibility. i already said i can arbitrarily respect the amount of time you spent on this — but why on earth should that make you unaccountable for anything else?

>>this piece is about the importance and effect individuals have on bands, and how you cant just switch and change people around without sacrificing the essence of what made said band a success

yes it is, so why not do yourself and your audience a favour, and title and frame it in a way that offers a fair reflection of that topic

Hyperion1001
09.25.24
terrible thread sorry gonzo

Shattered_Future
09.25.24
"Well written, but man I'm so tired of this argument. It's been 7 years. Bands can move on. I love Chester but ffs let the band do what they want. None of us know them personally. We don't know their motivations. Even if it is a cash grab, who cares? That's literally the music industry.

No one is forcing anyone to listen or see them on tour. I know you, nor my friend who makes this argument as well, is virtue signaling, but damn does this "LP shouldn't be LP anymore because Chester is gone" argument comes off as virtue signaling to me.

Bands have different versions of themselves. It's fine."

It's good to know this website still has correct takes from time to time.

Also, for a lot of folks (myself included), Linkin Park hasn't been Linkin Park since Meteora. The Emptiness Machine is the first time in a long time where they sound relevant (and appropriately evolved) again. It's just a shame they picked a garbo human to be their lead singer.

AlexKzillion
09.25.24
"Also, for a lot of folks (myself included), Linkin Park hasn't been Linkin Park since Meteora. The Emptiness Machine is the first time in a long time where they sound relevant (and appropriately evolved) again. It's just a shame they picked a garbo human to be their lead singer."

not really feeling like getting in the weeds of the article but i've seen this take a few times and just don't understand at all. minutes to midnight, a thousand suns, and living things were all hugeeee albums in their own right (quality aside) and the band had multiple huge non-album singles during that time as well. their relevance extended far past 2003 and they were essentially an alternative band for like 3x longer than they were a nu metal band. they'd be playing arenas even if they didn't have the first two albums... the majority of their current fanbase wasn't even born when those albums came out.

also calling the emptiness machine "relevant and appropriately evolved" is crazy wild when it sounds exactly like the hunting party.

Willie
09.25.24
Gonzo, this is a great write-up and there's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping your discussion focused on the music. I've enjoyed all their albums except "Minutes to Midnight" and "One More Light", but I'm never really excited about one of their upcoming releases. To that end, I haven't bothered with any of the new songs or live shit they've posted. Having said that, in the broad sense most of us aren't loyal to a majority of bands we listen to, and are willing to take member changes as long as they fit. Like you said, Faith No More and Iron Maiden were good changes... Oasis, Limp Bizkit (and I'd add System of a Down solo works too) are hard no's. As for these guys, I'll wait for the full release and decide from there.



Asdfp277
09.25.24
in the spirit of not discussing the controversies: ...i don't like this chick's voice lol

PizzaBear
09.25.24
Not really a fan of this write up tbh. It blurs the line between opinion piece and some sort of philosophical treatise and does pretty poorly at the latter.
Like the idea that value and chemistry are part of what makes a band isnt really justified in any way. You could definitely argue that they're part of what makes a good band but to try and slip them into the definition of a band itself doesn't make much sense. A band's core sound and success level (basically the points described in the value section) aren't static and can change pretty drastically even without members changing (they did for linkin park at a few points already even before Emily came in).
Likewise for a bands chemistry. Not to mention that that's so nebulous idk how you can even argue it one way or the other. For all we know their social chemistry might be better than ever, we aren't privy to what's going on behind the scenes. As for their sonic chemistry, I mean I guess "that's just your opinion man". I didn't care for late era LP and these new songs haven't changed that, meanwhile my buddy who is a die hard LP fan loves the new track so by all accounts it seems.sonic chemistry is pretty well status quo. And you can disagree with that and that's fine but it's just not a very solid foundation to try and build an argument as to them having stopped being the same band on...

PizzaBear
09.25.24
The section on Emily herself is also pretty poorly argued. The argument seems to be that she's a poor fit because the songs sound uninspired compared to Chester's tortured artist flair (a trope I have all kinds of other issues with but that's a different discussion).
Except the problem here is that it comes at the heels of a few hundred words about how the band had been in a creative but for a decade prior. So by all accounts then, it seems Armstrong fits right in? The argument doesn't follow.
And the comment about Shinoda's hubris made me physically cringe. There is nothing to show it had any more to do with hubris than it did a bunch of artists wanting to get back together to make music under the moniker they've each spent decades developing. And I think that robbing them of that agency over their life's work based on the perceived value of a member is wrong... You don't have to like it but you can dislike and discuss the reason for that dislike without turning it into a moral treatise

Christbait
09.25.24
"This blog has spiralled into a monster of inner thoughts pouring onto the page, but you have to understand Linkin Park are deeply important to me."

And this single line is why you struggle to engage with critique regarding your positions. You're too invested in the subject matter to have a level-headed perspective of what other users are saying. It seems you lament the sum artistic loss of Chester but won't go so far as to condemn the band outright for what seems to be a shockingly poorly thought out decision. The conundrum isn't so much that LP are "back" (and the debate of whether they should or shouldn't be), but moreso the context and decisions that led up to this pseudo-rebirth.

Asdfp277
09.25.24
as weird as the decision not to include anything about the emily controversies is, i appreciate the discussion about band chemistry !

neekafat
09.25.24
"the fact that this piece is over 3500 words long and fails to tackle *any* of the controversies behind the reunion (other than the quality of recorded live performances) is one of the most spectacular achievements this site has produced this yr"
[2] lmao

CR7theGOAT
09.25.24
At the end of the day, sure, Chester was the main reason for their mainstream popularity, but Mike Shinoda was the main writer and the driving force behind the band. Without Shinoda, the melodies for In the End and Numb wouldn't have ever been written, and Linkin Park would never have been as popular as they are now.

Thus, I'm happy the band is back with a new vocalist, especially one that doesn't sound exactly like Chester. I wish she had a little more tender emotion to her voice like Chester (especially in the screams), but overall think from a vocal standpoint she is a pretty good addition.

Asdfp277
09.25.24
nah vox sux

Havey
09.25.24
appreciate the rundown on limp bizkit

deathschool
09.25.24
Sometimes Sputnik really brings the haters together in a way that I have to admire.

unclereich
09.25.24
imagine nirvana with John Travolta on vox after Kurt died. they would have crushed.

deathschool
09.25.24
Sublime? With Rome? Fuck yeah, dude.

RogueNine
09.25.24
If they wanna get back together because they felt there were things they still had to say musically, that's one thing. Of course, that might not be the case.
Also just read the first paragraph for clarification lmao.

Storm In A Teacup
09.25.24
Is this where I get vetted on how to talk about and percieve music?

alamo
09.25.24
you guys are so funny

SitarHero
09.25.24
I wasn't going to pile on about the wrongheadedness of this article, and there's plenty of fodder, but this sentiment is particularly galling:

"Linkin Park should have called it a day a decade ago. Linkin Park’s schtick from 2007 onwards was “look at how diverse our sound is”. It didn’t really feel like it was in service of progression, more parading that mantra around as a way to sell a product."

It's incredibly disingenuous to feign sympathy for the struggles of a musician with depression who made music you like, while flippantly denigrating their music which you don't, and thereby contributing to said depression.

This article is an unwitting treatise on how fans place their feelings about a band's music and purported "legacy" over the lives and livelihoods of the people in that band who make the music.

Asdfp277
09.25.24
so we're not allowed tohave opinions on music because musicians might have depression? :?

SitarHero
09.25.24
Does it hurt you to be kind to musicians who have depression, or even to ones who don't?

If you're going to be a callous clod then embrace it, but don't pretend you give a shit about depression, suicide etc.

heck
09.26.24
that is certainly a take

deathschool
09.26.24
Oh heck

Gyromania
09.26.24
“Does it hurt you to be kind to musicians who have depression, or even to ones who don't?”

Is he somehow deliberately going out of his way to hate on an artist? Like is it personal? Did he message them directly? You mentioned the word ‘disingenuous’ but it’s every bit as disingenuous to filter your opinions about something you’re interested in when discussing it to likeminded people in a small music community

newsteamchannel4
09.26.24
draaaaama

deathschool
09.26.24
I’m glad that every thread about LP can still be a garbage fire all these years after Chester’s passing.

Jasdevi087
09.26.24
anyone else noticed that this band sucks?

ConcubinaryCode
09.26.24
I really don't think chester offed himself because of the critical response of a bad album. That' comes off disingenuous to me. Personally, I'm in the camp they could've come back if it was just them without a new singer but choosing not only a new singer and one with the baggage she has? It's too much, and comes off as inauthentic to me. I don't buy into them wanting to continue a legacy when the LP as a brand is basically among the greats already. This reunion does nothing but tarnish the memory of the band and Chester.

SitarHero
09.26.24
"Is he somehow deliberately going out of his way to hate on an artist? Like is it personal?"

Are we talking about Gonzo or general fandoms that shitpost pretty constantly about how some artist sucks because their new work doesn't compare to the old, or because they're soldiering on after a member dies or leaves, or just that they suck at art, and that they should just quit?

FWIW the 3500 words above that culminate in how this reunion is motivated by hubris and somehow retroactively tarnishes a former bandmember's "legacy" (which he was already apparently tarnishing himself) seems both out of the way and personal to me. I'm a slow typer though so it would've taken me at least a whole afternoon.

And yes, this is a relatively small community, but it's also a public platform and we do have artists pop in from time to time so it's not invisible. It's a drop in the social media cesspool, but a drop nevertheless. What's the critical mass / bright line for these things anyway?

Asdfp277
09.26.24
as much as i care about people with depression and suicidal tendencies, i don't think it's the responsability of everyone to like and rate highly everything anyone's ever made in case the artist might have depression

Asdfp277
09.26.24
like, i think drgonzo is allowed to think LP is subpar after Minutes to Midnight. however chester would have responded to such a situation is his responsability, ultimately

Jasdevi087
09.26.24
and, let's be clear, Linkin Park really did suck.

does seem super sweaty though to write all this mess about this subject without mentioning at all what is 100% the only reason anyone has been talking about this

MetalMarcJK
09.26.24
They did it all for the nookie.

Gyromania
09.26.24
“ Are we talking about Gonzo or general fandoms that shitpost pretty constantly about how some artist sucks because their new work doesn't compare to the old, or because they're soldiering on after a member dies or leaves, or just that they suck at art, and that they should just quit?”

And for every critic they have a thousand screaming fans. The insinuation that our voices are in any way reaching these people or affecting their mental health in major ways is frankly some hubris imo.

Emim
09.26.24
Time to break out ol reliable

tl;dr

pizzamachine
09.26.24
It ain’t the same without Chester

PizzaBear
09.26.24
Itt sput collectively discovers the word hubris and the world is made a slightly darker place

Christbait
09.26.24
Heck, I'd argue that the term is misapplied when considering the context of the blog. If it was hubris that contributed to the reformation of the band then it would imply that Mike doesn't give a shit about Chester's "legacy" which then opens up a whole other can of worms. Chester's passing was an emotional one but Mike's decision to continue is purely business under the veil of "let's do something Chester would be proud of".

Butkuiss
09.26.24
Remember the time Linkin Park called the cops on Sublime bc they were smoking weed backstage? I bet it was Mike.

DadKungFu
09.26.24
These are very good words and I'm glad this avoided the thoroughly rendered dead horse of the new singer

AmericnZero02
09.26.24
chedspiffman nailed it.

vult
09.26.24
imagine being excited about a LP reunion after Chester died. the band should have ended there, he was like the KEY to the band.

band's cultural moment is gone but shouldn't be forgotten. i'm not even a LP fan and I'm shocked that this got greenlit.

bananatossing
09.26.24
Very well written critique. I realized quickly your intention wasn't to get into the scientology/Masterson discussion, though it obviously worsens the already tricky position Shinoda put himself in.

I don't really listen to LP anymore, not even for nostalgia sake. They have been dead to me ever since OML dropped and my opinion hasn't changed at all since Chester's passing. So to me this "reunion" is as much of a cash grab as OML was, and really all of their albums post-Meteora have been pretty weak overall.

renegadestrings
09.27.24
Good read and I certainly understand where you're coming from. From a listener and fan's perspective, particularly for someone who connected deeply with Chester's lyrics, I can see why this reunion is more than problematic.

I would simply add that maybe its more than just "hubris" bringing back Linkin Park. This group, from Xero and on, was something each of the members poured their hearts an talents into. Shinoda, Delson, Hahn, Bourdon... shit these guys were making music together through it all. Through lineup changes, different musical directions nearly every album, huge stardom, and the loss of Bennington. After all of that and they still stayed together and have the gumption to come back and make more music despite their loss?

I suppose my point is this band is in their blood. Sure the likely won't recapture the magic of their former glory and they likely won't be able to fill Bennington's shoes. They could rest on their laurels and call it a day. But if they have the energy, passion, and wherewithal to put out some new music this far into their career after all they've been through?
Get busy livin, LP.

renegadestrings
09.27.24
Whoops, just read the comments. What I mean to say is LP sux, always have how dare they do this, also this band still exists question mark

A Thousand Suns slays

Icebloom
09.27.24
Honestly quite interesting to read how other people engage with their favourite music. My two cents: artists don't owe their fans shit and can do whatever they want. If you don't like their new music for whatever reason: be sad, cherish their older albums and start listening to other music. All this talk about "legacy" or the artist's supposed motivations ("selling out", "hubris") feels irrelevant. Or at least that's how it works for me.

Taking into account controversies this take might be a bit messy though. To me personally, it then becomes a question of: do I still feel comfortable listening to this artist? If not, I stop listening to newer work/stop listening altogether/stop going to concerts. But I can see how that would work differently for people.

ovmunster
10.01.24
I missed the part where we're supposed to take Linkin Park seriously as musicians now? They were a complete joke among anyone seriously "into music" back when we were in high school.

pizzamachine
10.04.24
How is a band with riffs even relevant in the first place, I mean it’s just guitars I can buy a guitar right now and strum it, it doesn’t mean it’s “music” it’s literally just noise

pizzamachine
10.04.24
How is music even music

deathschool
10.04.24
More like Blinkin Narc

StonedManatee
10.05.24
Their new album will be a 1/5 and make One More Light look good. Stay dead in the water. This isn’t AIC. It is a Scientology cash grab.

Asdfp277
10.05.24
dang

Butkuiss
10.05.24
Pizza this character hits way too close to home. Do you by any chance know my mate who in 2014 decided he was metamorphosing from a stoner metal archetype to a raver and started unironically using the term “rockist” and derisively referring to “guitar music”? Lmao

You need to be logged in to post a comment
Login | Register

STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy