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
On the one hand, this is an amusing discovery, and I applaud you for it.
On the other hand, it’s less of an issue than you make it out to be. Song structure’s importance in songwriting is frequently overstated, and you’ve fallen into the same pitfall here. If two songs use exactly the same structure but have completely different melodies, chord progressions, lyrics, and time signatures, that doesn’t make them the same song; consider Dream Theater’s ‘As I Am’, which, solos aside, follows this exact format, but no-one would say that the song bears any significant resemblance to Linkin Park. A plagiarised melody, on the other hand, even when altered rhymically and put to different chords, will result in a song bearing significant resemblance to the song bearing the original melody.
TL;dr: Repeated use of the same song structure doesn’t actually mean a lack of originality.
I didn’t know people used song structures for their compositions! That’s totally awesome! This changes everything! I always wrote songs that kept changing in tempo, key, style, volume, instrumentation and all my songs had no lyrical meaning and absolutely no stereo image movement!
Why don’t you go ahead and compare all of their songs this way…? and since you got enough time you should compare the bad artists that you listen to as well!
Why not even compare the blocks of super compressed audio that modern club music is? Wont they all look like a big block the whole song? I know this was posted back in 2007. But you should go ahead and compare that to records from the 70 or 80s also! WHY not?
But in all seriousness, these don’t look the same, your analysis is full of shit, and a single is a single not a 7 minute melodic adventure.
I really don’t know what to think of this. Ironically, all the songs mentioned are from earlier in their career, and those are the songs I liked. I kind of fell off when they changed their style with their most recent albums.
Your article was interesting in terms of the tendency for Linkin Park to pursue a certain musical structural arrangement or progression. It is clear that some LP tracks “look” the same through the lens of audio levels. As you described, these audio levels correspond with the differing degrees of intensity within the intro, kicker, verse, and chorus. As far as “sounding” the same, I can admit that there are a few songs that are similarly arranged and may utilize similar notes, chords, and beats. But the diversity and variety of auxiliary sounds is part of what differentiates each track and defines the ingenious creativity of their music. Though a song may “look” the same through the decibel lens, if you take a moment to absorb the differences in elements like auxiliary sounds, tempo, harmonies, rise and fall, and underlying pulse/rhythms, you will allow yourself to be inspired and discover the originality and beauty of their art.
All I can say is that regardless of how I feel about Linkin Park, their formula has worked out quite well for them.
I agree with the fact that they follow this formula. However, I have one issue. They are not pop, they are alternative rock. In fact they are far from pop. Pop songs generally use 4 different chords and that’s it. You can play the background to one pop song and sing pretty much any other pop song over it. If you don’t believe me go on YouTube and search “4 chord song”. Also this is only six songs and the dynamics might be similar but the lyrics, chord style, and musical style often vary. All in all I think Linkin Park is a good band. They have a good sound and creative lyrics. Nice blog, I agree with a lot of what you say. Though I disagree with many of the comments. Please don’t insult a band and say that there terrible just because you don’t like the music. I recommend learning some music theory so you actually know what you’re talking about and don’t just sound whiney.
Yeah I realized that a while ago. Their first two albums have the same structure, it’s true.
However, the songs have different atmosphere, different messages and different set of emotions behind them. This is why I love Hybrid Theory and Meteora is the only album where I enjoyed every track.
It is gimmicky, I agree. But you don’t change a winning a team.
Originality is not generally a good thing (other than the fact that wow it’s original so it must be good right).
Also, to the people boasting about “good music”, music has no taste stop humiliating yourselves. You act like smug heads trying to find a meaning behind a painting with only coloured lines drawn.
Rip Chester
This is an old article and those songs are from older albums where they mixed screaming with rap in between. For me it seems mostly like a genre thing. They changed it up with their later work. I actually like the evolution they did with their next albums and I think it shows versatility in their sound.
Besides, what level of a snob does a person have to be to actually care what the song looks like? Just listen to the music. I don’t think pictures can describe everything that matters in creating music. Those pictures don’t really mean that the songs sound the same.
Most music has some formula to it. Yes, even rock. I’m sure the same thing can be done to many other bands. And it’s not really a bad thing. Creating the weirdest structure doesn’t suddenly elevate the song to the next level. Linkin Park does great in what they were supposed to do great. If someone wants experimental, they can go listen to experimental.
And I feel like singles are usually the most formulaic songs on a CD for most bands either way.
i love Linkin Park so much
I used to be a major Linkin Park fan in middle school, recognized the pattern in like 7th grade and made my first DJ mix by spliciing up 3 verses, two hooks and a bridge all from different songs.
RIP Chester
More Comments: ‹ Previous · 1 · … · 9 · 10 · 11