Do you dislike, Linkin park, Evenescence and the darkness for the wrong reasons?

Fobia · 06-03-2004 11:15PM

is anyone going to actually vote for the third option tbh? I've already given my 3 cents on the topic, as have many a person, but I honestly don't think many nerds are the type who dislike a band just because their friends would laugh at them if they liked one (mainly because alot of nerds have few/no friends, unfortunately).

That is now 4 cents on this topic from Kwetzal

Karl Hungus · 07-03-2004 01:20AM

Originally posted by AngelofFire
ok i admit linkin park strictly speaking aren`t "the real thing "if you judge them purely in the context of metal. but as a band in general i rate them very highly.they are fantastic lyricists and mike is a brilliant rapper plus their style encompasses many forms of music that i listen to, rock, hip hop, electronica,orchestal etc.

"Good Lyricists" is pretty debatable, but more of an opinion, so I'm not going to argue with you on that. However. I disagree that they encompass many forms of music. A more accurate term would be that they take a bare flavour of those different genres to make it sound like they are vaguely "Crossover" or "Original" in their sound.

But lets face facts here, Linkin Park aren't doing anything that Faith No More haven't done years previously. And it's not just compared to metal that Linkin Park fail to measure up. You say they're encompassing electronica, but compared to Tweaker they're rubbish. Compared to Blackalicious they're rubbish. Compared to Mozart they're rubbish.

Originally posted by AngelofFire
the reason why so many rockers dislike them is because they are judged against metallica, pantera etc. if you judged them as music acts and not get bogged down in categorising them as pop or metal etc you would have a clearer perspective. forgive me if im patronising i dont mean to. im just adding to the debate.

To be quite honest, my issue isn't really with the fact that they aren't exactly 'As good' as other bands, because there's always going to be something better, my issue is that they're simply Faith No More re-packaged, and sold off again as new to make big bucks for the record company, yet all the ignorant kids think they're being original. Much in the same way that Evanescence is nothing more than a re-packaged Lacuna Coil.

I think a lot of people need to go out and get some Faith No More.

Placebo · 07-03-2004 01:25AM

"Original" in their sound.

It is Original.
You cant compare it to Faith no More ! Lostprophets are closer to FNM than linkin park! Plus linkin parks music is at a different level than FNM, more upbeat, very very different, some would even say better, that someone be me.
Maybe it doesnt seem new to you, but i do think its something new.

Karl Hungus · 07-03-2004 02:01AM

I'd certainly say they've a different sound to Faith No More in one sense... It's a lot more 'Pop'.

Sarky · 08-03-2004 09:45PM

The Darkness? I like them. Good sound, decent voice, competent musicianship. And the cheese factor, naturally.

Evanescence? Not bad. Some crap songs, but some very nice ones too.

Linkin Park? They're good at what they do, I'll give them that. It's just that I think that what they do is pretty rubbish to start with.

I judge bands on how much I like their music. I quite like The Darkness, because I like their music and showmanship. I have a soft spot for Evanescence because they certainly have their moments (although I must have a look at this Lacuna Coil that Ken mentions...).

I dislike Linkin Park because they almost always utterly fail to impress me. There are one or two songs that I'll listen to, but not often. They seem to me to be repetitive (how about that album reanimation that really wasn't just a cheap re-release of Hybrid Theory with a few more synthesizers bolted on? )and whiny.

markomac316 · 08-03-2004 10:08PM

I dont like Linkin Park, or Evenescene but I like The Darkness. People always critcise me because I Good Charlotte are my favourite band so I know what it feels like to be a Linkin Park fan and get called a wannabe etc.

All my friends like Radiohead, Nirvana, The Pixies, AC-DC, Iron Maiden, Slayer etc etc but they always give me credit for not joining on the band wagon with everyone else.

Instead Im the odd ball cause I listen to Good Charlotte, Rancid, Stiff Little Fingers, NO-FX, Blink182, and other punk bands.

Civilian_Target · 08-03-2004 10:33PM

Oooh, sore spot there Mac. Stiff Little Fingers, yes, but I wouldn't particularly consider Blink182 etc to be Punk.

Punk IMO is SLF, Undertones, Clash, Distillers, etc. none of which sounds like blink182.

Bungalow Bill · 09-03-2004 05:21AM

"Im the odd ball cause I listen to Good Charlotte"

Ok listen to them a couple more times and then just be SURE that you think they are good.
They suck like simply red and a steps comeback tour.

markomac316 · 09-03-2004 11:48AM

Of course I think they are good I've been listening to them for the guts of four years.

Blink182 are punk just a different kinda punk from SLF, Distillers, The Undertones etc. To bad Busted had to go kill The Undertones by releasing Teenage Kicks, what a fook up they made of that.

Ameirgin · 09-03-2004 01:08PM

I like Linkin Park. No they may not be overly original, and there re-releasing the same album as remixes sucks, but they are genrally pretty good at what they do, and I think they are pretty fine live.

I like what I have heard of Evanescence , and I plan on listening to a lot more.

the Darkness - well, I'll just not go there. It's not that I'm not afan of their style of music - in fact, musically, they are brilliant. It's just that singer's voice gets right on my nerves. Gimme Coverdale, Plant or Gillan - I love a good singer. But for goodness sake stop that guy's tuneless screeching! He can't actually hit the damn notes properly, and it's frustrating to listen to. If they replaced him singing (he's not a bad guitarist), they they would have a really good band!

That's my two cents

Unpossible · 09-03-2004 04:35PM

I actually liked linkin parks first album, I stopped listening to them when they brought out the remixed version. I heard their last album at the metallica gig and to be honest they deserved to be bottled for that god awful C**p they insisted was "music",
That was also where i saw the darkness for the first time & they really impressed me. As for Evenscence I havent heard much of their stuff but it sounds interesting, a mate of mine said they were good so I might *ahem* "Borrow" the album off him

LightofDarkness · 10-03-2004 01:52AM

Okay, here's a full 10 cents for you all....

First off, I really dislike Linkin Park. If their music wasn't ****ty enough, they are a, wait for it.... MANUFACTURED BAND. That's right, they were all assembled in a TALENT AGENCY and thus under the direct spotlight of record labels, big ones, who could market them and put enough money behind them to make them appeal and make them sell. Originally, the first album had guitar solos, but they were removed at the demand of the label. Absolute BS.

Evanescence have a similar situation, clever marketing allowed their rise to fame. The label execs thought "Ooh, a hot hot chick demi-goth singer and a crap band that sound like the recently famous Linkin Park! WHAT COULD BE BETTER!!!"

The Darkness, for all intents and purposes, are a decent band. They PLAY their instruments and their music how they like it and admit to being a piss-take. They're laughing all the way to the bank, too.

Interesting to listen to LP and Evanescence as a guitarist? PLEASE. Down-tunings and crummy distorted "riffs" give as much inspiration as llamas and watching how slow snails move.

What really gets to me is how Linkin Park became famous for doing JACK ****. Other bands, really good bands deserving of contracts don't get them, while these bands earn millions for their luxury. It's a joke.

You can poke your sticks at Metallica all you want but they EARNED their money. They worked hard for over 20 years to be where they are now.

PS: Linkin Park are classed as POP-METAL. Such a contradiction I have never heard. Not that metal is by definition unpopular, but the pop element comes from comparisons to folk like Justin Timberlake and boybands, except these guys play guitars and appeal to many 12 year old "metal" fans too. Make fun of Limp Bizkit all you want, but Linkin Park and Evanescence aren't much better.

Deadwing · 11-03-2004 01:39AM

Originally posted by AngelofFire
you should of gone for the 3rd option.

Oh please, i was hanging out with 'the kids at the bank' when Kurt Cobain killed himself 10 years ago.

i leave kiddie bands like linkin park for the kiddies at the bank. And yeah..Mikes rapping is right up there with Grand master flash's 'The message'

"o motha f*cka, the other day my moms told me to clean my bedroom,
AND IM ABOUT TO BREAK!!!!!
****ity f*ck motha f*cka, so i screamed real loud to show how
IM ABOUT TO BREAK!!!!!!
and then i had to do my damn homework bizznitch, and yah
IM ABOUT TO BREAK!!!!!
and then i didnt wanna eat my damn vegetables and did i mention that
IM ABOUT TO BREAAAAAAAK!!!!"

xx · 12-03-2004 04:42PM

Originally posted by AngelWhore
...they're simply Faith No More re-packaged, and sold off again as new to make big bucks for the record company...

No fuckin' way is any nu metal band nearly as good as FNM. Thats fuckin' blasphemy that is.

Emboss · 12-03-2004 04:46PM

Originally posted by weak infant
i cut my hair took the drugs and sold out. life is good. untz untz untz.

That's called puberty well done..you've reached it

xx · 12-03-2004 04:50PM

Sounds more like Old Age to me.

eth0_ · 12-03-2004 04:56PM

Originally posted by LightofDarkness

Evanescence have a similar situation, clever marketing allowed their rise to fame. The label execs thought "Ooh, a hot hot chick demi-goth singer and a crap band that sound like the recently famous Linkin Park! WHAT COULD BE BETTER!!!"

You're so right. Evanescence are a BLATANT rip off of another hugely talented band....Lacuna coil. The girl from Ev. has a good voice but really, that's as far as my praise of them extends. Christina Scabbia all the way, woo!

Emboss · 12-03-2004 05:01PM

Originally posted by LightofDarkness
Okay, here's a full 10 cents for you all....

First off, I really dislike Linkin Park. If their music wasn't ****ty enough, they are a, wait for it.... MANUFACTURED BAND. That's right, they were all assembled in a TALENT AGENCY and thus under the direct spotlight of record labels, big ones, who could market them and put enough money behind them to make them appeal and make them sell. Originally, the first album had guitar solos, but they were removed at the demand of the label. Absolute BS.

Evanescence have a similar situation, clever marketing allowed their rise to fame. The label execs thought "Ooh, a hot hot chick demi-goth singer and a crap band that sound like the recently famous Linkin Park! WHAT COULD BE BETTER!!!"

The Darkness, for all intents and purposes, are a decent band. They PLAY their instruments and their music how they like it and admit to being a piss-take. They're laughing all the way to the bank, too.

Interesting to listen to LP and Evanescence as a guitarist? PLEASE. Down-tunings and crummy distorted "riffs" give as much inspiration as llamas and watching how slow snails move.

What really gets to me is how Linkin Park became famous for doing JACK ****. Other bands, really good bands deserving of contracts don't get them, while these bands earn millions for their luxury. It's a joke.

You can poke your sticks at Metallica all you want but they EARNED their money. They worked hard for over 20 years to be where they are now.

PS: Linkin Park are classed as POP-METAL. Such a contradiction I have never heard. Not that metal is by definition unpopular, but the pop element comes from comparisons to folk like Justin Timberlake and boybands, except these guys play guitars and appeal to many 12 year old "metal" fans too. Make fun of Limp Bizkit all you want, but Linkin Park and Evanescence aren't much better.

Well f*ck me stupid, a manufactured band well i NEVER!

what band isn't these days? 9/10 now all are in some form or another

and it was happening long before linkin park so linkin park were put together so what? i don't like them personally although when it comes to lyrics alot of the songs are at least half intelligent...if you could just shut the singer up and dj poxy chong or whatever his name is. but they can all play their instruments

so could the beatles...but 90% of the beatles was manufactured FOR them huge production teams behind them so the beatles are a load of crap too right?

debating on what band is better than another is always retarded unless it's a debate on say a drumers technical ability and you can _Actually_ play the drums and have an educated opinion on it.

you say the darkess are decent, i think they're the bunch of morons and when you see quality hard working bands especially in ireland it kills me to see twats like this earning money from being clowns.

so who's right? me? you?

back on topic kids will be kids and will always want to look cool in front of their friends this will never change be it clothes/music insert whatever random crap is cool at the time.

Bungalow Bill · 12-03-2004 06:52PM

"and it was happening long before linkin park so linkin park were put together so what? i don't like them personally although when it comes to lyrics alot of the songs are at least half intelligent...if you could just shut the singer up and dj poxy chong or whatever his name is. but they can all play their instruments"

While not a Linkin Park fan I really don't see people's big problem with them. I'm almost sure they have more closet fans than people who say they do.
Record companies have huge influence these days even over 'credible' artists.
Take Ryan Adams for example who couldn't release 'Love is Hell' because it was 'too dark'.
People's main problem seems to be that Linkin Park are marketed to attract a certain demographic, (ie skater kids). But this is the very same for every other artist. Not least Metallica who are apparantly far more credible. If you ask me Linkin Park are far more adventurous and listen to-able than Metallica.
Being brutally honest I think that it is fashionable to slag Linkin Park and a lot of people succumb to that.
The fact that they were assembled in a talent agency should be irrelevant to everyone as it should be the end product that counts. After all Legends like Frank Sinatra and Elvis were 'manufactured' and even worse didn't even write their own songs!

Karl Hungus · 12-03-2004 07:11PM

I think what you've got to understand emboss is that the average metal head appreciates the fact that the average metal band is not something constructed by a record company, and who doesn't have their song written for them. They appreciate that the metal bands are very much 'As Is' and are creating music without any hidden hand pulling the strings for the sole reason of making money.

So the idea that a metal band is manufactured is almost offensive. And comparison with the beatles certainly isn't accurate, or subjective seeing as the pop industry has had wave after wave of manufactured bands churned out year after year. What you're not taking into account is that the genre of metal is the exact opposite of the pop industry, in the sense that a manufactured band hasn't really been seen before.

Sure, in the grand sceme of things, a manufactured band isn't something you'd take notice, but a manufactured METAL band!? Now THAT'S something to write home about!

Emboss · 12-03-2004 07:31PM

Originally posted by AngelWhore
I think what you've got to understand emboss is that the average metal head appreciates the fact that the average metal band is not something constructed by a record company, and who doesn't have their song written for them. They appreciate that the metal bands are very much 'As Is' and are creating music without any hidden hand pulling the strings for the sole reason of making money.

So the idea that a metal band is manufactured is almost offensive. And comparison with the beatles certainly isn't accurate, or subjective seeing as the pop industry has had wave after wave of manufactured bands churned out year after year. What you're not taking into account is that the genre of metal is the exact opposite of the pop industry, in the sense that a manufactured band hasn't really been seen before.

Sure, in the grand sceme of things, a manufactured band isn't something you'd take notice, but a manufactured METAL band!? Now THAT'S something to write home about!

AH I'm not sure where all the metal came from....I never mentioned it in my post.
I can't deny my ears...they like what they hear it's not something you can control
if i hear obscure polish folk music and like it, i like it or a"metal" song i like it it's not a descion i have much control over.

not liking a band or a song because it was written by someone else is just stupidity if it sounds good it _is_ good there's no if but maybe. if you're favourite metal band do a cover (not that it happens alot) but if they did do you not bother to listen because obviously it's crap because it was written by someone else?

the comparison to the beatles which i never made _against_ a metal band is very relevant the fact they were manufactured were designed to attract as many listeners as possible and to make alot of money....lets face it there's not many people that don't like 1 or more beatle record yet their suppose to be legends?

I understand that the average metal head appreciates the fact that the average metal band is not something constructed by a record company, that's fantastic but putting a band down because they are is just silly...music is music if you like you like it turning your nose up because it's "uncool" or was "manufactured" is just stupid. IMO

like i said music is just a stupid thing to argue about you're not going to change someones ears are you?

LightofDarkness · 14-03-2004 10:32PM

The covers argument is just unfounded. A metal band with creative control does a cover because they like the song and thought it would be fun to play. The manufactured bands are told "This is the song your're going to play and sing, like it or not you're going to play it or you're fired. We'll make sure the general music audience likes it by creating hype and media buzz around it. You just sit back and record, you won't have the play the song to an audience and see if they like it, we'll tell them they like it."
Alot of this argument comes down to respect. I have much more respect for a band who worked hard to get their music heard than ones who had execs pumping millions into getting everyone from New York to Thailand to hear it. I have more respect for a band who built a following playing their own music their way for however long and THEN got signed on a record label becuase of the obvious talent. Linkin Park and their ilk had their talent created by hype and media buzz and the wonderful and all powerful device known as pro-tools, a device that can fix bum-notes and even change the entire key of a song with a patch, where whatever sound you want is just one mouse click away. And this thing can be used to make bands sound better LIVE. Linkin Park are noted to have recorded BOTh albums on this magical platform.

PS. the Beatles weren't manufactured, they were playing around Liverpool for about a year before they were looked at by a producer type, who owned a local record store. They came together under their own will and built a following before they ever saw a producer at a gig.

RicardoSmith · 14-03-2004 10:49PM

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder theres no right or wrong reasons thats just stupid. Music has always been intrinsically linked with the fashions and fads of the time.

Töpher · 15-03-2004 10:44AM

Originally posted by Bungalow Bill
Linkin Park are far more adventurous and listen to-able than Metallica.

Latter day Metallica is a pain to my ears, but by jesus man, LP more adventurous...?! Can I just ask in what way they are more 'adventurous'? Standard riffs and basic 4/4 timing with repetitive song structure? Thats unadventurous is it not?

xx · 15-03-2004 04:13PM

Originally posted by Einstürzende
Latter day Metallica is a pain to my ears, but by jesus man, LP more adventurous...?! Can I just ask in what way they are more 'adventurous'? Standard riffs and basic 4/4 timing with repetitive song structure? Thats unadventurous is it not?

I'm thinkin' he means the way they throw a little bit of everything into their songs. Personally speaking, from the 2 linkin park albums, the 2 tracks I like the most are the 2 instrumental tracks (the second last track on each album). Very.......adventurous.
But at the end of the day, Nu-Metal or not, if a song sounds good I'll listen to it and try to not hate it cuz its nu-metal or cuz the band sold out etc etc. I also like the fact that Metal bands can actually PLAY their instrument unlike all the pop fungus that's played over the radio, shoved down our throats etc. daily.

AngelofFire · 15-03-2004 04:16PM

Originally posted by xx
I'm thinkin' he means the way they throw a little bit of everything into their songs. Personally speaking, from the 2 linkin park albums, the 2 tracks I like the most are the 2 instrumental tracks (the second last track on each album). Very.......adventurous.
But at the end of the day, Nu-Metal or not, if a song sounds good I'll listen to it and try to not hate it cuz its nu-metal or cuz the band sold out etc etc. I also like the fact that Metal bands can actually PLAY their instrument unlike all the pop fungus that's played over the radio, shoved down our throats etc. daily.

finally someone understands the point im trying to get accross. i couldnt agree more

xx · 15-03-2004 04:49PM

Originally posted by AngelofFire
finally someone understands the point im trying to get accross. i couldnt agree more

you should've just said so:D

carl carlson · 15-03-2004 06:46PM

Originally posted by Einstürzende
Latter day Metallica is a pain to my ears, but by jesus man, LP more adventurous...?! Can I just ask in what way they are more 'adventurous'? Standard riffs and basic 4/4 timing with repetitive song structure? Thats unadventurous is it not?

My opinion is that latter day metallica is just finally a sh1t band being exposed for what they are.
Linkin park incorporate a dj, a piano, guitar and bass, a futuristic style rhythm section, a singer who is largely melodic contrasting with a rapper. This combined with some awesome producers, i believe is adventurous.

As for the 4/4 time comment...that is the same as almost EVERYTHING. Thats like giving out to someone for only incorporating the minor and major chord systems. It a non-issue.
Unless it's jazz using 5/4 or something everything is 4/4 or 3/4

LightofDarkness · 16-03-2004 03:46PM

Metallica weren't "adventurous?" When they started playing, Thrash metal was like the most adventurous thing going. Blast beats and crazy, non-pentatonic solos were almost unheard of, as was the speed. Even more strange was a metal band not all dolled up with some crazy gimmick, they dressed like the man on the street. They were an underground band for years. Metallica are not a crap band by any sense of the word either, lately they've been running dry, but St. Anger was, as Kirk said, going back to basics and trying to rebuild from there, get back to their original style.

LP are not that adventurous. Pop elements and rap elements were a tried and tested ground, mixing heavy riffs in was no biggie. Rap metal had been around for ages before they surfaced. The DJ stuff, in fairness, is good. But still not amazingly adventurous, that stuff has been done for years by many groups, including Daft Punk, Moby and Prodigy.

RicardoSmith · 16-03-2004 04:44PM

For peats sake they are all derivative of other bands. Cop on will ye!

Do you dislike, Linkin park, Evenescence and the darkness for the wrong reasons?

Comments