Jump to content

Talk:Hybrid Theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hip Hop?????

No, hybrid Theory is not hip hop at all. Alternative Hip Hop would be more likely, but not even that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCStreetSoldier1234 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

nu-metal, alternative metal. ITS NOT HIP HOP SilverOrion —Preceding comment was added at 06:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you call the verses to almost every on the album? You know, the ones where there are no guitars at all? The ones with rapping over electronic beats? I'm fairly sure that's hip-hop. There's also "Cure for the Itch". The fact that the album is not made up of pure hip-hop does not disqualify hip-hop as being one of its featured genres. SouperAwesome (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to point you in the direction of the Canoe.ca, Popmatters, Rolling Stone, AND Sputnikmusic reviews, all of which make mention of the extensive hip-hop sections in the songs. Please, at least attempt a proper discussion instead of simply saying "not hip hop" and blindly (destructively?) reverting everything. SouperAwesome (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a couple of times already, and there's even a big note there asking for discussion before changing around the genres. Please do. SouperAwesome (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

More reverting with nothing said... Look, I replied on the talk page - twice. SouperAwesome (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Theres no need to add the genre "hip hop" because it is already covered by the "nu-metal" tag. The "rapping over electronic music" bit can be covered by the genre:"rapcore". Add hip hop if you want, but i WILL remove it.
I fail to see how hip-hop is covered by nu metal - they are entirely different things. Yes, foremost, the album is nu metal - but it contains very extensive sections of what can only be called hip-hop. Perhaps the very best examples are In the End, By Myself and Forgotten. There is no way you can possibly call the verses in those songs rapcore or nu metal. And again, the hip-hop instrumental Cure for the Itch. Hip-Hop is also backed up by the reviews, like I stated on the album's talk page... You can't simply get rid of it because you don't like it. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Before we continue, elaborate on a few things. 1. How are they entirely different things. 2. "there is no way you can possibly call the verses in those songs rapcore or nu metal", WHY?
What? Because nu metal is, well, nu metal, and hip-hop is hip-hop... That's like calling country and new wave the same thing. As for your second question: Because, for one example, they contain no rock elements at all. By the way, I'm moving this to the album's talk page; it's easier there. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
oh what a superb explanation. Is this the kind of discussion that you wanted, you know, the kind that wastes time over issues that are quite obvious?..mm?SilverOrion--SilverOrion (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see what you're saying. You asked a question, and I answered it; don't blame me for that. There is absolutely no need to be so rude. Again, hip-hop as one of the genres featured on the album is citable, backed up by the professional reviews - the fact that YOU don't like it doesn't mean it can't be there. That's not how Wikipedia works. Thanks for the message on my talk page, too. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You didnt answer it. "nu metal is, well, nu metal".. what kind of explanation is that? Sorry, im not trying to attack you personally but you have shown to have little understanding of the concept of nu-metal and rapcore.--SilverOrion (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? You said that nu metal and hip-hop are the same. I really don't understand how you'd NEED me to explain their differences, considering how much you say you know, but here you go: In short, hip-hop is not a form of metal and nu-metal IS a form of hip-hop influenced metal. The album contains extensive sections of just hip-hop, and the sources reflect that. Again, do you have any reason to remove it from the list? It's backed up by the sources. As a response to your edit summary on the article: It was there before this discussion started, too. I waited before putting it back in as courtesy to you, considering your zeal in removing it (including breaking the three revert rule). Considering you didn't respond for several days, please don't blame me for thinking that perhaps you'd stopped. SouperAwesome (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dont give me this "it doesnt need explaining" rubbish. The fact that i asked you for an explanation shows that i was expecting a proper response. Is that how you normally reply to people when they ask you a question? "oh it doesnt need explaining". I'm not changing it because i "dont like it". Im changing it because its WRONG. Also its funny that for some reason you thought it would be a good idea to change the genres in the middle of a discussion, knowing full well that it would spark yet another round of reverts. It was just a couple of days, get over it. No reply, doesnt mean that you can do whatever you want!--SilverOrion (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I gave you the answer you wanted, but here it is again: In short, hip-hop is not a form of metal and nu-metal IS a form of hip-hop influenced metal. The album contains extensive sections of just hip-hop, and the sources reflect that. Give me something beyond your personal opinion to refute that, something recognisable by Wikipedia's standards. If you can't, please stop this, as it's backed up by credible sources. SouperAwesome (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OH really? So the source actually states that the album contains extensive sections of "JUST" hip hop? Show me your sources, i'd like to see them.--SilverOrion (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned them before, but here are some with a few of the examples:
Rolling Stone: MC Mike Shinoda's catchy rhymed refrains bounce off singer Chester Bennington's New Wave croon, proving that synth-pop can get with the hip-hop.
Synth-pop, by the way, has even less to do with metal than hip-hop.
Sputnikmusic: ...make this sound very much like a hip-hop or pop song rather than a rock song.
For clarity, that particular comment refers to "In the End" specifically. There's also Cure for the Itch is an entirely sampled track...
Popmatters: It's not all heavy like Korn and Mike Shinoda's rapping makes for a versatile mix of heavy rock and hip-hop.
Note the seperation of the genres, rather than just calling it rapcore. They also make mention of the hip-hop "Cure for the Itch".
SouperAwesome (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
AH, but heres the problem:
  • it doesnt say anything about extensive use of JUST hip hop. OF course they'll mention hip hop, its a FUSION genre.
  • being a completely sampled track doesnt make it "hip hop".
  • Ha, you're trusting a sputnik reviewer who doesnt seem to know the difference between hip hop and pop
  • by the way, you havent given me the citations, so i dont even know if you're leaving something out, or taking things out of context.
  • found that sputnik review, do you know what it ALSO says? "adding his hip-hop tinge to the Linkin Park sound", "The song was the perfect choice for a lead single, showcasing the catchy guitar riffs, the screamed yet clear vocals of Bennington, and a hint of the hip-hop influence in the band". A HINT and a TINGE. You and your selective sourcing.

--SilverOrion (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just gave you my citations; how can you possibly say I didn't? They're sitting right there. You've read them. Is this deliberate? You seem to want to ignore all logic and sources (you also seem to lack much/any respect for Wikipedia rules) and come up with unsupported (and currently heading towards nonsensical) arguments for YOUR point of view. I really don't know what else to say, and I'm honestly starting to wonder if you're not just deliberately being destructive. SouperAwesome (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I countered your points. You're making it sound like i just shot someone or something. Come on, what are you going to say now? Huh? Find more selective sources? And by citation, i meant the actual links, because you can quote all you want, but unless you give me the link, noone would know if you're lying or not. In this case , i found out your sneaky tricks. --SilverOrion (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is going too far. Your rudeness and agression is really becoming too much. Stop trying to provoke me, as it won't work. You didn't "counter" my points (sources); you ignored them. All you did was show how you disagree with them. Again, that's not how Wikipedia works. Your arguments are changing all the time now and barely even make sense ("you havent given me citations"). Please, do it properly, or just stop. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
oh i didtn counter your points? Really. Wow. Well maybe i should say it AGAIN. Perhaps your selective sourcing is effecting your selecting reading.
  • it doesnt say anything about extensive use of JUST hip hop. OF course they'll mention hip hop, its a FUSION genre.
  • being a completely sampled track doesnt make it "hip hop".
  • Ha, you're trusting a sputnik reviewer who doesnt seem to know the difference between hip hop and pop
  • by the way, you havent given me the citations, so i dont even know if you're leaving something out, or taking things out of context.
  • found that sputnik review, do you know what it ALSO says? "adding his hip-hop tinge to the Linkin Park sound", "The song was the perfect choice for a lead single, showcasing the catchy guitar riffs, the screamed yet clear vocals of Bennington, and a hint of the hip-hop influence in the band". A HINT and a TINGE. You and your selective sourcing.

--SilverOrion (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...a hint of the hip-hop influence in the band. So there's a hip-hop influence, and that song displays a hint of it. Even that wouldn't be enough for me to include hip-hop as a genre, and that's why I didn't list it. It certainly doesn't support your argument though. I never said the album doesn't contain the metal elements. We aren't arguing over whether or not "nu metal" should be listed there as a genre. About Cure for the Itch, you're right, being completely sampled doesn't make it hip-hop (though about 90% of sampled songs are). However, it's mentioned as hip-hop in other places too, and you're left with a completely sampled hip-hop song.
As for Sputnikmusic, you're twisting the words of someone you already decided has no idea what they're talking about to support your own argument? That makes no sense. At all. Your comment about the Sputnikmusic reviewer seems to sum up your entire attitude really: No one knows what they're talking about except you. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 90% of sampled song are. Oh really? PROVE IT
  • You choose to use selective sourcing, and that just undermined your entire argument
  • The sputnik guy say it sounds more like a hip hop or pop song. He isnt sure, which shows that he probably doesnt know the difference. (as if its not obvious).

--SilverOrion (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to prove it. It's already mentioned as hip-hop in other sources, so you have a 100% sampled hip-hop song.
Selective sourcing? What? Do you expect me to use a source that has no relevance to what I'm saying?
You know, I don't even have anything to say about Sputnikmusic that I didn't say in the last response except this: Whether your or I agree with it or not, Sputnikmusic's professional reviews are a credible, verifiable source that is recognised by Wikipedia. You are not. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"i dont need to prove it".. here we go again, another bunch of baseless comments. Even if 90% of sampled music is hip hop (which is NOT the case), it doesnt prove ANYTHING. You cant say that because 90% is "hip hop", therefore this track MUST be hip hop. Makes no sense whatsoever. As for the sputnik guy, how can you not know whether something is hip hop or pop!?! And ill say this again: Your sources does NOT prove that there is an EXTENSIVE use of JUST hip hop.

--SilverOrion (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Baseless comment? I said other sources already state that Cure for the Itch is a hip-hop song. You just chose to ignore that part.
"Starting with a haunting yet simple piano line, the sparse electronic drums make this sound very much like a hip-hop or pop song rather than a rock song." Where exactly does it state he doesn't know what it sounds like? You're twisting it to your own use. You say he has no idea what he's talking about, then try to use things he says to support your argument. When that doesn't work, you say he has no idea what he's talking about again, which is just your point of view. My argument is supported by multiple sources.
Finally, as a note to your userpage, you're not actually correct about the three-revert rule; you began with a revert and ended with a revert... that is, you reverted me four times when I reverted you three. I stayed within the rule, and you did not. SouperAwesome (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Its hard to decipher your logic defying arguments.
  • The baseless comment was the one about "90%" of hip hop being sampled music. Not that it really matters whether you can prove it or not, because it doesnt even help your argument!
  • Show me the "other sources", because the ones you are using at the moment are completely useless. NONE of them actually show that there is an extensive use of JUST hip hop. If you're going to prove your case, present ALL your evidence.
  • He says "hip hop OR pop". How can you not know whether it is hip hop or pop????!
  • Plus you manipulated a source, by making it seem like the author made a comment that was favorable to your argument, when in actual fact, it was the complete opposite.
  • By the way, if you look at the history, you'll realise that in this case, neither of use broke the rule. You do realise that its 3 reverts per 24 hrs--SilverOrion (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't manipulate anything - I presented the quote verbatim, and then noted that it was talking about In the End specifically. That's all. I didn't change or even try to interpret its meaning.
I believe that having a hip-hop song does help my argument that the album contains hip-hop (Cure for the Itch, as stated in the Popmatters review, along with Sputnikmusic's note about it being an entirely sampled track made by the band's DJ)... This is, of course, not to mention that many of the reviews note that Linkin Park's use of hip-hop as well as straightforward nu-metal (Rolling Stone, Popmatters, Sputnikmusic).
To be honest, if you want rapcore / rap metal there, I don't mind, as there are sources supporting that too. Having looked at all the sources, listened to the album a few more times, and thought about it for a while, my preferred genre list would be nu metal, rap metal, hip-hop.
SouperAwesome (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you changing the genres? Did you not hear me the first time, or are you deliberately trying to be difficult? You are still not proving what you need to prove. I'll say this again, you need to show that there is EXTENSIVE use of JUST hip hop. So far you're just giving sources which says that they combine elements of hip hop with metal. PLUS, as i said before, being an entirely sampled track doesnt make it hip hop. Maybe you should READ everything i write, so i dont have to keep repeating myself.--SilverOrion (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hip-hop was accepted there for a long time before this started, so please don't try to play that card or call yours the "original version"; I've been leaving it off as a courtesy to you. If you want to have the original up for the duration of the discussion as you stated in your edit summary, then hip-hop should be there now.
It's ironic that you say I should read everything you write, because I've actually answered you twice already. Here it is once more, though: There are other sources (Popmatters for example) that state that Cure for the Itch is hip-hop. I understand that it being a 100% sampled track (made by a hip-hop DJ!) on an album that has a large hip-hop influence isn't enough to convince you, but that's okay, because sources other than that particular Sputnikmusic review state that it's hip-hop anyway. Now, I would consider an entire song to be more than just an "extensive section" of a song. This, coupled with all the other notes about how they use hip-hop (for example, canoe.ca's quote about how Linkin Park have mined the best of rap, Sputnikmusic's note on In the End, Popmatters' talking about how "it's not all heavy like Korn and Mike Shinoda's rapping makes for a versatile mix of heavy rock and hip hop", and Rolling Stone's quote about Crawling) is certainly enough to demonstrate that hip-hop is one of the album's featured genres. SouperAwesome (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok "original" was a bad word to use. What i meant was the version without the disputed genre
  • "Hip-hop was accepted there for a long time before this started". Hah, yeah who are you trying to fool? I've seen the comments on your talk page, and there are numerous people on this talk page who disagree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverOrion (talk • contribs) 09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "ive been leaving it off as a courtesy to you". Are you kidding me? You've added hip hop TWICE already.
  • "answered you twice already". No you havent. The fact that you keep using the same arguments even after ive countered them, clearly shows that you havent really understood what I've been saying.
  • Popmatters is the only source with relative legitimacy, however Cure for the itch is actually BREAKBEAT.
  • "versatile mix of heavy rock and hip hop". Doesnt show extensive use of hip hop
  • "Linkin Park have mined the best of rap". Rapcore.

--SilverOrion (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of simply repeating myself; I've been finding answers for the things you ask. You asked me where it said Cure for the Itch is hip-hop, and so I told you. You said I hadn't answered and kept asking, and so I told you more than once. You said yourself that you believe that Popmatters in particular is a legitimate source, and it's one of the main ones I've been using, so what is the problem? Please, if you wish to continue the discussion, present something more than your own point of view (breakbeat, for example). You haven't "countered" my contention with anything more than that. You're twisting words and semantics (your most recent response, for example) and ignoring one point - or even your own argument - in order to try and discredit another, and then ignoring the other in order to discredit the first... That's not right. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm you've basically ignored every point that i brought up in my previous comment. Ok heres what i want you to do.
  • Find THREE sources. State the quotes plus the link to the site.
  • Explain how EACH one supports your argument (actually explain it, instead of making a generalization). Oh, and make sure that it actually shows EXTENSIVE use of JUST hip hop.
  • Probably would be better if you dont refer back to your previous statements since I've countered them already.
  • and before you say anything, YES I HAVE ACTUALLY COUNTERED THEM. If you actually read what i wrote, you will see that I explained why each of the source is either irrelevant or unreliable.
  • by the way, you have the "burden of proof", so i dont actually need an argument of my own. I just need to discredit yours.
  • and what exactly did i "twist"?

--SilverOrion (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I DON'T UNDERSTAND! Why in the world is their a dispute about Hip Hop being a genre. Fort Minor isn't even straight up Hip Hop, it's Alternative Hip Hop. And to say that Hybrid Theory is Hip Hop is crazy. I understand however that there are hip hop elements in some of their songs, but rapping doesn't mean it's hip hop. Red Hot Chili Peppers and P.O.D. are not Hip Hop. Hip Hop just can't describe the sound Hybrid Theory has. It's darker material, therefore Alternative Hip Hop... But Alternative Hip Hop isn't even a sub-genre, it's just the way Mike Shinoda delivers his verses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCStreetSoldier1234 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative hip-hop - personally, I agree that it suits. The sources just say "hip-hop" though... SouperAwesome (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Itt isnt hip hop. Souperawesome, quit being a nuisance.--Es-mortum (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

  • I've started the copyedit on this article. If you have special concerns or requests, or if you don't agree with what I've done, please comments below or on my talk page. Thanks. --Malachirality (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey! Thanks for doing a revamp of the lead. I did feel something was up with it. Anyway I was wondering if you could just check through the prose of the whole article and correct what's wrong etc. Thanks! (SUDUSER)85 06:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just CEed "background" and drastically reorganized the section in the process. I felt the original just didn't work well; it started abruptly with things whose connections to Hybrid Theory/Linkin Park were not immediately obvious. As a result, I had to wander through at least a paragraph of the original until I reconnected with the article's topic. I've taken out some information that I thought was largely extraneous (too much detail on Xero's life story), but in the process I also had to leave out the sources, as I didn't know which ones pertained to what info. However, the original version of "background" is still there--it's just hidden--, so you should probably go back re-add the source citations in the right places. --Malachirality (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There seems to be too many right-floating objects. I suggest a move of the picture of the four band members to the left. Nvm doesn't look good. --Malachirality (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of the blurb about "Point of Authority" in the "Songs" section? It confuses the singles theme and seems random. Can it be moved elsewhere or deleted? --Malachirality (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the section is titled "Songs", in the sense that it isn't completely devoted the singles alone; I do feel that the info on Points of Authority is necessary, after all it is one of Linkin Park's well-known and notable songs. What is your opinion? (SUDUSER)85 08:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but I think it interrupts the flow of the text where it currently stands, and doesn't really make much logical sense (unless it is in track order?). Nevertheless, I think it should be moved to end, sort of as a side note in the sense of "oh, btw...". That way, the discussion of the singles (after all, the paragraphs start off with "the first single," "the second single," etc.) is not weirdly broken up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachirality (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Finished. On a side, unrelated note, I removed one sentence (hidden) about the inspirations of Meteroa being Depeche Mode; this has nothing to do with Hybrid Theory. I have kept the sentences detailing Meteroa as the successor album, and the sentence where Shinoda describes the differences b/t the two. Hope you agree. In future articles (assuming the relevant prose was written by you), I would suggest using the serial comma, avoiding repetitive internal links, and placing commas and periods inside quotation marks. Thanks for cooperating with this ce, and happy editing. --Malachirality (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevermind the part that is struck through. Wikipedia uses logical quotation, which means that punctuation only goes inside double quotation marks if the sense conveyed by the punctuation is included in the quote. For songs, etc, commas go outside of double quotation marks. Sorry about that. --Malachirality (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary Improvements

There are a lot of unnecessary things in here. The lyrical meanings have been mentioned twice, and why is there information on all the singles? They have their own articles already. And I agree mentioning Reanimation is a good idea, but mentioning it's style, when it's already in its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan50 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, what happened tot he Place for my Head article? Titan50 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Place for my Head was never a single, and does not have any special significance. 198.53.144.114 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Move

Don't we need to move this to Hybrid Theory ???

Done. Tuf-Kat

Which is the weapon that the character in the cover is wielding?

It is a flag. inx272

Reanimation Plug

"Additionally, every song on the album was reimagined in a new style for Reanimation."

Is this line really necessary? I think it's kind of extraneous, and it's stated on the Reanimation page anyway. I'm going to remove it for the time being, but if it needs to be reposted there, be my guest.

Mr Hahn - bonus track?

On the copy of Hybrid Theory that I downloaded a few days ago, ther seems to be a track in place of "Cure for the Itch" called "Mr. Hahn". I'll note it's the same length as "Cure for the Itch", at 2:37, was "Mr. Hahn" just an error in naming the track? ~~Neo 2.3 Hylan 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

its an error in naming, you get it quite often when you download music Balthazar 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

I'm currently working on this article, it's not in that great shape. Help would be appreciated. Thanks!(SUDUSER)85 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job with the additions. I made a couple of small alterations. SouperAwesome 10:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:In the End.ogg

Image:In the End.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid Theory

Hi there! I just want to let you know that your adding of electronica could be wrong. As the album only has elements of electronica, I would consider it a sub-genre. So I am taking it off. That's all, pretty minor issue. Anyways I'm deciding on putting this expanded version of Hybrid Theory up as an FA candidate. Please reply to tell me what you think. Thanks for your time! (SUDUSER)85 12:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's getting there, but I don't think it's at featured article status just yet. I really feel electronica needs to be mentioned as one of the genres, as every single song on the album contains electronica, whereas, for example, not every song contains nu metal (Cure for the Itch, Pushing Me Away, as well as My December and High Voltage on the special edition). I've also read several reviews that mentioned that LP's difference to other nu metal bands was the more prominent electronica. Also, I'm pretty sure Crawling wasn't a Xero song - its original incarnation was a Hybrid Theory demo. Forgotten and Runaway began as Xero songs, however. The article is certainly a fair bit better than it was, though. SouperAwesome 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The style of music is generalized as nu metal. As I can also comprehend, not every song in there is nu metal, thus the inclusion of alternative metal. As for electronica, just because things such as electronic drums and synth sounds are in their songs, it does not classify as electronica. I'm a fan of the Nine Inch Nails and they have alot of the elements in their songs too. But they're not electronica. Electronica is groups like Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk and AIR. I hope you understood my point. As for the FA, that's why I'm setting up a peer review first. (SUDUSER)85 13:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"Cure for the Itch" is nothing but electronica though, and "My December" from the special edition may as well have been written by Depeche Mode. Most of the songs shift from almost complete electronica in the verses into "metal" choruses. The only purely nu-metal songs would be "Papercut," "One Step Closer," and "A Place For My Head." SouperAwesome 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned before: thus the inclusion of alternative metal. Thanks for understanding! (SUDUSER)85 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You didn't comprehend me? I stated: “As for electronica, just because things such as electronic drums and synth sounds are in their songs, it does not classify as electronica. I'm a fan of the Nine Inch Nails and they have alot of the elements in their songs too. But they're not electronica. Every band out there has probably used electronic instruments in the songs at least once! The can only be really classified as electronica if their songs are electronic drums, keyboard loops and synth sounds from start to finish. It is common for rock bands to electronic instruments, okay? I hope I made this clear, I know this is a heavily dubious topic between many, but that's the way it is. They are rock bands if guitars and drums dominate their songs. So, can we end this? (SUDUSER)85 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
But alternative metal doesn't include the electronic elements at all. As I said, "Cure for the Itch" is a purely electronic song, containing no guitar. "My December" contains a couple of very soft acoustic notes in the background of the chorus, and is otherwise also purely electronic. "High Voltage" contains almost no guitar until the end, when it just buzzes. I understand that one song (if "My December" and "High Voltage" are not counted as they are only on the special edition) is not enough to categorise the album, but all of the songs, every single one, contain the same electronica in the verses, and often also through the choruses. SouperAwesome 13:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The loops are nothing. If you want to see a difference, listen to songs by Chemical Brothers, Daft Punk etc. and compare them with Linkin Park. Bottom line: Linkin Park is a ROCK band, and though Cure for the Itch is the only purely electronic, it is the only one and thus does not count. End of story. (SUDUSER)85 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand, but every song on the album DOES use loops from start through to finish, and the songs I mentioned don't use the metal elements at all. SouperAwesome 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I realise that Linkin Park are not an electronica band, and that Hybrid Theory is primarily a nu-metal album, but the huge electronic part of the sound on Hybrid Theory should be listed afterwards. SouperAwesome 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


I did mention that in the Songs section about the electronic elements. Couldn't find solid refs for Cure for the Itch though. That's too bad. I hoped that the copy of Rolling Stone from 2002 had something. But it had nothing. (SUDUSER)85 14:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The RS review mentiones "a Jones for Depeche Mode." The VH1 reference and the Sputnik review both mention the electronics, too. The Rythm interview reference and Popmatters review mention also, but call it techno. SouperAwesome 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Just as a side note, do you think we should copy all this discussion to the album's talk page?
Hybrid Theory definitely falls in the electronica category. Turntables are heard throughout. But I may be wrong, I don't know much about those types of music. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

“Special Edition” cover

Is this really unnecessary? It's almost identical to the normal cover and add absolutely nothing to the article, other than another copyrighted image, which probably fails fair use. Seems it's only been added for the sake of it.. I thought I'd mention this rather than just removing it out right. Rehevkor 16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It does have significance. I added this section regarding the special edition. The goal of Wikipedia is not to neglect any notable facts. The special edition is something. And I feel that the cover does qualify under fair use. (SUDUSER)85 02:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the SE is notable, but you're neglecting the fact that the SE cover is almost identical to the standard cover so it had absolutely nothing to add to the article or Wikipedia. And just being a "something" (whatever that's meant to mean) is no reason to include it. Rehevkor 12:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

GA review

Because i was bored i made some changes myself [1]

Image:LP In the End.JPG also fails FU as it is above 300x300, below 300 is considered low resolution M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 Done reduced sizes of both images, the music video and the photo without Phoenix. (SUDUSER)85 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
After another ce by myself [2] i feel the article satisfies requirements for GA. For FA you will need to change things like "Eventually, the band was signed by Warner Bros. Records," to "The band was signed by Warner Bros. Records in YEAR," (tell the reader when) and continue to remove redundancy. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • JESUS CHRIST!!! Hybrid theory passed the GAN? YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!! Thanks M3tal H3ad for reviewing the article! And I'll take your advice for helping the article advance to FA. Thanks again! (SUDUSER)85 05:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In The End

On the caption for the screenshot of the video, I'm not sure it was in a California desert. I saw on the making of In The End that they used a small mat mimicking the scenery of a California desert. It was What I've Done that was filmed in a California desert. Bentu (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about that either. I do have an assumption that maybe, the scenery was shot in the Calif. desert and the movements of Mike was just rotoscoped. I not 100% sure about that either. Look, it all comes down to which city Ozzfest 2001 was held in, and I don't know which one; do you? (SUDUSER)85 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the Ozzfest was in the UK, but I'm not sure of the city. Bentu (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it didn't use footage of any desert. I thought the entire background other than the mat Mike stood on and the balcony of the tower the band played on was all CGI. SouperAwesome (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Remade Tracks

Why was this section of the article deleted? Titan50 (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to. All the tracks were 'remade' (remixed) in Reanimation. 198.53.144.114 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant songs that were remade from old demos (The Untitled - In the End, Superxero - By Myself, Esual - A Place for my Head, etc) Titan50 (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Has anyone got any positive reviews for the star rating thing, other than just 2.5, 3, 3, 3 Titan50 (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actively seeking positive reviews over others is kind of a breach of Wikipedia's neutrality.. just a thought! Rehevkor (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added two more professional reviews. I forgot to close the link on one of them and it messed up the whole template, then instead of previewing I kept accidentally saving. Oh well, at least I got it done now. We're at 6 good professional reviews now, which is a pretty good number, but there's also room for a couple more to even it out, I suppose. SouperAwesome (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Favourable's all right, I suppose! lol. Anyone know what Kerrang or NME thought? Titan50 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Runaway

If I remember, Wiki says articles on album tracks are suitable if they charted (like Given Up and LOATR from MTM). So, should someone create an article for Runaway? Titan50 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would we put on it? Bentu (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

GENRE

WHat for a jerk wrote : nu metal , alternative metal?´??? WHO???? everyone knows that the record is nu metal, rapcore!! oh my god this is realy the biggest shit that i every hat to read! alternative metal tz and you need a reason why i wrote rapcore!! you know nothing about music that was the locical argument! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.118.67 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Dude, CHILL! 96.225.68.153 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax. Rehevkor (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There isn't any hardcore on the album at all, and virtually the only guitar-driven parts are the choruses, which are sung, not rapped. The "nu metal" covers the rapping and hoarse vocals mixed with guitars, and alternative metal covers the guitar playing style. I only think there should be something there to cover the prominent electronic elements, because none of the current genre tags indicate the heavy / prominent synth layering at all. SouperAwesome (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The OP is a sock-puppet of the indefinitely blocked AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They continue to troll though their main account was blocked in May 2007... The block summary reads "vandalism only account" but there was a lot more to it than that; the harassment, personal attacks, abusive sock-puppeting. I don't understand why this matters to them so much or why they don't understand that they should take their trolling elsewhere; their editing privilege has been revoked. I am extremely doubtful that even one admin would ever unblock so I may take this to AN/I so we can officially call him banned. Let's WP:DENY and not feed the troll as far as possible. Seraphim Whipp 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they are emo.--Greenday21 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Most nu metal songs do not have rapping, so "rapcore" or "rap rock" should be included. The songs have emotionally charged lyrics, but not really that musical style, so "emo" should not be included.

GENRE

here is the source that they make rapcore(rap rock/rap metal): http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hifqxqq0ldke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.74.145 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rap Metal

It Should be Rap metal instead of rapcore. When Hip hop is mixed with metal it's called rap metal. and shoudn't it say that Hybrid Theory is the best selling debut album in this centuary. --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

BPI

Shouldn't it say that the album was certified 4x platinium in the UK. Have proof her [3] --Alice Mudgardens (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shows in 2001?

"Linkin Park played 324 shows in 2001"

I don't think I really believe this... it isn't possible. That means they would be touring just about every day in the year. No band does that. I don't want to edit it out in case it is true, but I highly doubt it...

96.225.68.153 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC) PoaFina 4/1/08

Rapcore > Hip Hop

I think rapcore describes the album better than hip hop as it definitely has rock elements in it. Hip Hop is more albums like Significant Other by Limp Bizkit. Who agrees with me? Titan50 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative metal, nu metal... I think we've got the metal elements covered. The hip-hop sections usually include no metal at all. The only songs that significantly overlay them are Papercut and A Place For My Head... and those fit under the nu metal tag. SouperAwesome (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This album is Rap metal. Because they mixe metal with hip hop. --Freedom (song) (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
They only mix metal with hip-hop to any significant degree on two songs. For almost the entire album, the two elements are separated; the album contains a LOT of pure, electronics driven hip-hop. A rap metal song would be something like Faith No More's "Epic" or a Rage Against the Machine song - which feature near constant rapping, over metal. SouperAwesome (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the background music is heavy guitar rythmens and Chester sings and then after words Mike sings that means it's Rap rock, Rapcore or even Rap metal but it's not hip hop. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SouperAwesome on this, hip hop covers it really, and any rap metal elements are covered by nu metal. Rehevkor (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Points of Authority is a single!!!

I don't understand why Points of Authority isn't listed as a single. They even made a video for it. Sometimes it even plays on Fuse's Loaded, and it's on Frat Party at the Pankake Festival.. So can anybody explain this to me? I'm a monkeys uncle if this isn't a single, and no, I'm not confused with the reanimation version, I know that's also a single. However, I am, 99% certain that Points of Authority is a single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.198 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Actually it wasn't. Maybe you're thinking of Pts.OF.Athrty, a remix of the same song which appeared on their next album Reanimation, and that was a single. But you're right they did make a video for Points of Authority and Pts.of.Athrty (different videos.) Tezkag72 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Points of Authority was released as a promotional single. Im 100% sure. They released it the same exact way they did Lying From You. It was a radio single and the single even came packaged with a sticker that said it was the fifth and final single of Hybrid Theory. It came out in January of 02. Again, im 100% sure. --75.34.40.116 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "nzalbum" :
    • {{Cite web|url=http://charts.org.nz/showitem.asp?interpret=Linkin+Park&titel=Hybrid+Theory&cat=a|title=New Zealand album chart archives|accessdate=2007-07-16|publisher=charts.org.nz}}
    • {{Cite web|url=http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp|title=New Zealand Annual top 50 album chart (2001)|accessdate=2008-05-25|publisher=rianz.org.nz}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cure for the itch sound sources?

That one quote "Wasn't that fun? Let's try something else" - I've heard it comes from an old toy or something. Anybody know the source for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.156.213 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal

The band member's roles on this page differ slightly from the ones listed in the album booklet. While Mike does play guitar live on some of these songs (Pushing Me Away, Crawling...), and is seen playing it in the video of Crawling, he is not credited as having played guitar on any song on the album in the booklet. It also says that every band member does vocals. Chester, lead, of course, and Rob, Mike, Brad, and Joe backing. While I don't believe that any one but mike does backing vocals on this album, or Meteora, which they are also given credit for, it is listed in the booklet. It is even debatable weither or not Mike does backing vocals, if you call his line in Crawling backing vocals, yeah, but all the backing vocals are clearly Chester. However, live mike does some backing vocals. And, other than on Hands Held High, Brad Rob and Joe are never known to have done backing vocals, and I'm pretty certain it says something like "The first time all band members have sung" on the page for Minutes to Midnight. Since we can't actually PROVE that the booklet is wrong, we have to go by what it says, even including the Mike not playing guitar thing, right? Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A Place for My Head

shouldn't the track be called "A Place for My Head", instead of "Place for My Head" [4][5]. i changed it to "A Place for My Head" 59.183.249.39 (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sales

A note says that adding worldwide sales in not 'necessary' and i do think it is necessary. When one views this page it is useful to know the sales as well and besides most major album articles have a sales section. Hence, I am adding a sales and certification section and I will add it again if anyone removes it. KingdomHearts25 (talk) , 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hybrid_Theory/Archive_1&oldid=1143891427"