Fuck this is so bad I promise I'm not out to shit on them,

>>72951273
>It reminds me a lot of Christian rock ballads or something
That's why I like it.

File: A_Thousand_Suns_Cover2.jpg (31KB, 300x300px)

31KB, 300x300px

>>72951273
>>72952061
To add though, the lyrics are the worst part about the album. The sounds are nice, but the songs all peter out instead of building to a finale.

Bit of a mis-fire, but they can get back on course easy enough. Still hoping that they have one more Thousand Suns in them.

What surprises me the most is how retarded this band de/evolved
>2010, Industrial electronic rock concept album talking about a nuclear holocaust
>2012, a decent electro-pop album mixing their early song structures with new elements
>2014, a forced post-hardcore,garage-rock album with semi-decent screams but at least the lyrics aren't edgy
>2017,a straight up shitty mainstream-pop album with only one decent song and no indications that it is in fact an album made by 6 musicians

>>72952277
Every album post-ATS is like a whole album of a tiny portion of the influences of ATS.
LT- very electro
THP- very heavy and psuedo analog
OML- ballads
And of course, some rap sprinkled in each.
They feel like different segments of the band have made the last three, respectively.

The biggest problem is that the lyrics are never as good/not cheesy as ATS across the whole album.
All three have good moments though, even OML.

It just sucks because when LT came out, I realized that they peaked with ATS.

>>72952277
>Industrial
>post-hardcore
>garage rock
LP have never been any of those. Hunting Party is a generic alt rock album. It's their "Wasting Light".
>>72952097
ATS might one of their more ambitious releases, but most of its "experiments" are terribly amateurish and there's too much filler (even for a 40 minute album, mind you).

Heavy isn't bad imo

>>72952409
The whole album is average/above average pop.

>>72952097
end this ATS is good meme already

>>72952390
>but most of its "experiments" are terribly amateurish and there's too much filler (even for a 40 minute album, mind you).
Eh, don't agree. /mu/ is just poisoned against things they perceive as un-cool, forcing them to always qualify praise.

Did Chris Cornell's death just compel /b/ posters to start coming here?
Jesus you guys, none of it is good.

>>72952430
not a meme tho
Tell me why it's bad.

>>72952435
Tell me why it's worse than k-pop, Carly ray jepsen, etc..

>>72952452It appears as if Nu-Metal bands just refuse to admit defeat, out to torment all of us by rehashing the "Glory Days". Take Taproot and their newest album, which sounds strangely out of time--a dated band recycling old ideas, alone and forgotten. So what should be said about bands like Linkin Park, that are trying to expand their sonic palette and refuse to simply release the same album a-la Pennywise? Should we praise their daring and cut them some slack for their vision? Fans of the band certainly seem to think so. Many comments about the album emphasize Linkin Park's refusal to conform to a particular sound and demand that at least the album should be respected for its experimental edge. Professional critics also seem to be impressed, with the band receiving glowing reviews from Artist Direct, Kerrang! Magazine and MTV; the album was even compared to Radiohead's landmark Kid A album and Pink Floyd's classic Dark Side of the Moon. Does the album live up to such gargantuan standards in the music world? If you do not feel like reading the rest of this review (and quite understandably so, as it promises to be fairly lengthy), the simple answer is: not by a long shot.

Who couldn't be intrigued by their new album? Promising to be an experimental affair, its very title suggesting nuclear Armageddon, one could easily overlook the lackluster previews of the album's songs. Besides, to be compared to Kid A and Dark Side of the Moon is a tremendous honor, and maybe, just maybe, Linkin Park did have some talent that had managed to remain hidden since their formation in 1996.

>>72952514
pasta didnt read
think 4 urself an get bk 2 me

>>72952452The album does begin promisingly enough, the first two songs (well, really, one introduction and a segue into the first "real song") are fairly well constructed, and, if by no means a "Speak To Me" intro, it definitely showed promise, if flawed. You see, the album begins with some semi-ominous electronics and what seems to be some piano notes, which quickly create a sad, if somewhat dull atmosphere (something that will incessantly plague the whole album). Then some "ooo" vocals come on. It's very reminiscent of something Thom Yorke might do for an intro, albeit in a much more inferior and less-impressive manner--something he might think of when he begins writing an intro to an album and then discards for being too silly and shallow. Still, Radiohead is a tough act to match, let alone surpass, and compared to the intro I was expecting (think of Limp Bizkit's intro to Significant Other), this was surprisingly good. Unfortunately, what sounds like a woman trying to imitate the innocent and despairing vocals of a child comes on, nullifying any possibility of creating a haunting atmoshere. Plus, what she reads is extremely melodramatic. Yet, for all of this, it works. Then it moves on to a speech where someone quotes the Bhagavad-Gita. Yep, what appear to be allusions to that Holy Book appear throughout , although it really doesn't do much for the album, and, unlike the Krishna-core bands of the late-80's, there really doesn't seem to be much religious convictions here, just an attempt to sound and appear deep and insightful. Having done their duty to create a somewhat-gloomy start, the intros give way to the song "Burning in the Skies", and disaster is inevitable.

>>72952527
>it's from another source so it's wrong
So you are from /b/. Thanks for clearing that up

>>72952514
>>72952530
seriously, you suck
give me YOUR thoughts

>>72952542
????
I asked for YOUR opinion.

jesus christ if you need someone to tell you why linkin park isn't good you're probably breaking global rule #2

>>72952598
see
>>72952452
>Tell me why it's worse than k-pop, Carly ray jepsen, etc..

>>72952514
>>72952530
Sputnik's own reviewer liked the album.

>>72952433
>/mu/ is just poisoned against things they perceive as un-cool, forcing them to always qualify praise.
I'm not /mu/ though. I liked ATS back when it came out and I do still listen to select tracks but you must be either a huge fanboy or not have listened to enough music if you think it's ATS is anything but bland. I'd like to see them explore this side more though.

>>72952611
it doesn't need to be worse than kpop and poptimism (which are generally easy to filter and in the case of kpop don't really pretend to be about music) to be bad

>>72952664
>but you must be either a huge fanboy or not have listened to enough music if you think it's ATS is anything but bland.
I've listened to plenty of music and I've never found albums that I personally come back to more than some Flaming Lips stuff, ATS, Broken Bells, Owl City, etc...

>>72952696
Good for you then. I do think /mu/'s tendency to discredit uncool things for being uncool is cancerous, but you'll find that in every board. Gotta stay true to your own taste.