Linkin Park’s singles often inspire the question “haven’t they already written this song?” An mp3 that does the rounds from time to time mixes Numb (on the left) and Pushing Me Away (on the right) to illustrate this with almost comical effect: All Linken Park Songs Sound Exactly The Same.
As shown below, and forgive the hyperbole, much more than they sound the same all Linkin Park songs look the same. And while it’s easy to criticize the band for their overuse of a formula that’s by now cliche, the similarity between their tracks at least holds a lesson on the importance of song arrangement in pop music production.
The Linkin Park Formula
The standard Linkin Park structure looks like this:
- Quiet intro: Each song has a relatively quiet two-measure intro.
- The instrumental kicker: The full band come in together on the down-beat, and play two or four high energy measures, usually instrumental.
- Quiet verse: The song eases off for a verse or two, heightening the dynamic contrast between the song’s sections.
- Heavy chorus: Usually the same chords established in the kicker, with Chester screaming over top for added emotion.
Here’s how it “looks” in practice. Each image below shows the audio level in (roughly) the first 90 seconds of a Linkin Park song. Note that I adjusted the tempo of a few tracks for better visual alignment:
If the pattern isn’t clear to you, mouse-over each image to highlight the 4 sections: Intro, kicker, verse, chorus. And click the title to hear the song on Youtube.
There’s nothing particularly surprising or innovative about the structure. But its repeated use by Linkin Park is clearly successful: They’re one of a few acts still selling lots of CDs.
Why It Works
There are several reasons why this song formula works, and whether or not you record pop music, understanding the reasons will make you a better producer:
Dynamic contrast: Our senses are drawn to change (remember why we listen to reference tracks while mixing?) so we find dynamic, evolving sounds more interesting. The up-and-down of a typical Linkin Park song grabs listeners’ attention on an instinctive level.
Memorable hooks: Because it’s often jarring, the kicker at the start of Linkin Park’s songs is memorable, and makes for a great hook. Pop songs hit or miss mainly on the effectiveness of their hooks.
Familiarity: For lovers, it breeds contempt. For pop music artists, familiarity breeds fans. It’s a truism in the traditional music industry that to succeed, a band needs a “sound.” Linkin Park’s re-use of the same basic song structure makes their music instantly recognizable, and lets their listeners feel immediately comfortable with new material.
Again, you may not write or record pop music. You may even despise the stuff. But knowing why a band would choose to re-use a formula like this will help you make better decisions about your own song arrangements (even if only to avoid having your music compared to Linkin Park.)
Cheap Gimmick?
What does this say about Linkin Park’s music?
On one hand, the band and their producers deserve kudos for finding and exploiting a successful formula. They’re in the entertainment business, after all, and appealing to fans is any entertainer’s number one job.
On the other hand, it’s hard not to view the six images above as a statement on the music industry. The major labels decry the actions of listeners who download music from free sources. But this is the alternative they offer: The same song, repackaged six different ways. The vast majority of music listeners who aren’t Linkin Park fans ask the same question I did in the first sentence, “Haven’t they already written this song?” And the obvious follow-up question, “Why would I pay for it more than once?”
For more indie artist and home recording tips,
Subscribe to the Hometracked feed, or receive email updates.
271 comments
Trackback URI Comments feed for this article
This reminds me of “This is how you remind me of someday.” Basically the same thing, but with Nickelback.
NPR even did a report on it:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4258547
Very neat, good observations and a nice balanced post on it. You’d get more hits if you’d go “OMG LINKIN PARK IS A FRAUD” though.
The pattern actually reminds me of a lot of “grunge” hits. Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana, Today by Smashing Pumpkins, etc. Quiet intro, hit hard with the chorus riff, ease off for the first verse and then build up as you go.
It became a cliche to songwriters but it’s still very effective and I don’t think non-songwriters consider it a cliche. Most don’t really know what a verse and a chorus is, never mind if they’re quiet or loud.
I need a little fescue seed
JUST ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE HEDGE, AND I’M ABOUT TO RAKE!
They need a little room to be
JUST ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE HEDGE, AND I’M ABOUT TO RAKE!
:-)
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Heh heh.
>You’d get more hits if you’d go “OMG LINKIN PARK IS A FRAUDâ€
Sad but true.
lp songs look like, but music is not about look, it’s about sound, and not how hard it sounds but how it sounds!
> music is not about look
In this case, though, the visual is a better way to appreciate the pattern.
We all detect similarity from track to track in LP’s catalog, but the songs don’t actually sound the same (different keys, different instruments, etc.) The images above make it pretty clear what it is we’re hearing – and more importantly, I think, how amateur pop song writers might think about structuring their own songs to achieve a similar effect.
This case has been made before and while it is viable, it applies to the majority of popular tracks and has done so for many years so why single out Linkin Park? The formula Linkin Park use is highly successful and very listenable – have a listen to the track “with you” off the Renimation cd (not the crap version from hybrid theory) for an alternative example of this format (I have uploaded a version for you to http://www.demasijones.com/27bstroke6/withyou.html if you dont have it). As the music is highly successful and brings many millions happiness, what is the point of breaking it down into an illustrated structure? As the tracks are in different keys anyway and the format does not take this into account (or the words etc) all you seem to have done is state the obvious (again). Interesting reading though. And on a side note, the new album minutes to midnight has broken this format for the most part and while I am a die hard linkin park fan, the new album is simply shit. Cheers, David
Hi David,
> so why single out Linkin Park?
Mostly because of what I said at the start: People ask the question of LP more than just about any other band. And I wanted to make a point about the importance of arrangement in pop music, so for illustration I looked for a band that has exploited a formulaic arrangement.
> The formula Linkin Park use is highly successful and very listenable
I totally agree. (And FWIW, I like LP. As I said above, “the band and their producers deserve kudos for finding and exploiting a successful formula.”)
> what is the point of breaking it down into an illustrated structure?
As you said, their songs are in different keys, and use different instruments. The graphical depiction glosses over this, making the underlying pattern easier to detect. (Which, again, is the point I was really trying to make.)
Cheers!
I completely agree. I’ve always believed that their songs sound the same, not just musically but lyrically they’re all pretty similar as well. You made a lot of good points, and it’s sad but true, but it seems that all anybody listens to is the repetitive bands such as Linkin Park.
Very interesting point. I do agree. The only album of theirs that i heard in full was hybrid theory and I liked the variety in that (though it’s been a long time since i’ve listened to it)..though your formula at least rings true for any lp song you can find on the radio. I think it’s why i’m bored of them now too easily.
Quite interesting, though it hasn’t changed my liking for the band. Great live
“All Linkin Park songs sound the same”
I don’t listen to Linkin Park, but i’m suprised to hear that they only have six songs.
shocking news.
Intro, kicker, verse, chorus – that’s really unique, a pop band using that structure in most of their tunes. like totally.
I agree with this article completely, and if you find a formula that works, run with it. If it doesn’t bug you as a writer, then it probably won’t bug the listener. Besides, it’s your music. If many songs sound the same to you but you like the songs, who cares? If you’re still listening to it, you probably don’t care either. This article just shows that what’s on the radio is (usually) not what you should be listening to, anyway.
Interestingly, Kurt Cobain saw a similar pattern to his own songwriting, which was very pop-influenced. He loved a good hook, listen to most Nirvana songs, and you will hear a startlingly similar pattern. Kurt knew this was a big reason for the success of Nirvana. (‘Kurt Cobain’ by Sanford, 1995). It is also the sound of most big arena bands of the 70s, as I recall.
Wow, interesting. Thanks for placing this under the microscope.
Fuck the radio and fuck Linkin Park.
Never seen it that way but you sure are right about the similarity.
Linkin Park does not do music but then again that is nothing new to 99% of the population. Some groups you can readily identify by how they sound but at least most do some music.
That’s one thing I always liked about Foreigner not only did their songs sound different but you could even easily understand the lyrics and their albums weren’t a bunch of dogs with a good one or two thrown in.
Glad you pointed this out. The other day I overheard something on the radio or on TV about how Linkin Park’s latest stuff is a “new direction” for them or something to that effect, then I heard a few of their new songs on the radio and I was just sitting there scratching my head thinking to myself, “Am I missing something?”. It sounded like the exact same Linkin Park formula I’ve heard in anything else of theirs. Intro melody…usually a piano or something…loud, scream, ease off a bit, loud again, quiet again, fade out. Ah well, I’m sure Linkin Park is crying all the way to the bank….
Sorry, as much I would like to diss Linkin Park…
Main point is why it it supposed that the song structure should be different? I often compare music with contemporary painting: often the artists have their own vision and stick to that. And I don’tthink the visual image of sound is very good argument to describe the songs in general. Songs can be very similar in their structure in one record and that is not good argument to sort them as bad because of that. Sorry my english. And I’m drunk as hell. Linkin park sucks mostly but your argument is even worse.
any one do this w. that shit of a band everclear ???
its everclear that ALL their songs are
THE ,the and teh same !!!!
LINKIN PARK SUCKS LOL NUFF SAID
That was probably true up to Minutes to Midnight, which is hardly formulaic. Still, most artists have very similar songs, and use verse-chorus song structures anyway.
Who the fuck cares. If you like the music listen to it, if you don’t…then don’t. It’s really a simple concept, you fucking bitch ass whiners.
More Comments: 1 · 2 · 3 · … · 11 · Next ›