Talk:Minutes to Midnight (Linkin Park album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trials and Tribulations and "QWERTY"

The name of the new CD has no where been confirmed to be Trials and Tribulations, that was just what the interviewer guessed, so people need to stop putting that it is the official title. Also "QWERTY" has not been confirmed as "Lies", "Behind Your Lies", or anything else, as far as I know of. It may not even be on the final cut of the album, so until someone can link a source that says otherwise, "QWERTY" is still "QWERTY".WIKI-GUY-16, 9 December(UTC)

"QWERTY" is "QWERTY", and it will not be on the album [1] --SayCheese 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not on the album? WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! They gotta reconsider that! U-Mos 20:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to change the article to T and T? It would be more appropriate to keep it as Linkin Park's third studio album and then when the entire title is released change it to the name. --SayCheese 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather propose to cancel this article. Maybe their third studio album will be never released. --Baxtaba 11:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

u_u ... now someone changed the start of the article to read "T_____ and T________ is an upcoming album by Linkin Park. The record, whose title is currently provvisory, is set for a February 2007 release."--R-Tiztik 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And now you see why we don't change an album article's title until the title is confirmed. T and T isn't even close to Minutes to Midnight. Hello2112 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is whack, who said "QWERTY" isn't gonna be on the album, they never confirmed or denied it.

And of course the albums gonna be released....unless they all die... APACOlypse27 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"QWERTY" is not going to be on the album. "The six-track EP features two songs from the band's current studio session for their upcoming album and some unreleased live tracks. "Over the last year we have written so many new songs and really wanted to give some of the early ideas to our hardcore fans that will not be on the new album," said LP's Rob Bourdon. "Other tracks include a live version of an old track from back when our band was called XERO, and some special live tracks we played at the Japan shows this past August."[2] --SayCheese 11:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what I heard is that the new album title is called The Morning After but that could be false. I just got a new single called "Giving In" and its from Linkin Park, so im really not sure. (Bishop 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

"The Morning After" is the title of a song that Chester performed in 2001 and is not going to be the name of the album. "Giving In" is a song by Adema and has been mistakingly credited as Linkin Park for years. --SayCheese 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Giving In" features Chester on vocals Agentsmith_1111

SayCheese, the title of the album could be The Morning After. But no one has confirmed nor denied it. It remains a possibility. It is a song of Chester's, but so many albums have names that also the name is from a song.RichV 22:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be The Morning After, it could be *anything*. However, it is highly doubtful that The Morning After is going to be the album name since 1) As I said before, it is already a name of a song that Chester wrote which is also notably not a Linkin Park song because only Chester wrote and performed it and 2) "The Morning After" has been confirmed as a song on Chester's solo album. --SayCheese 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how instead of Trials and Tribulations (T and T) its Minutes to Midnight (M to M). -- Riffsyphon1024 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Or they think something like : MinuTes to MidnighT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 008xtreme (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

QWERTY is actually part of the linkin park underground albums. erm LPU 0.6 i think, and therefore it has already been released, hence the reason it came out like 6 months ago. And QWERTY is the same as LP's old sound (wich in my opinion was very good, and should really be changed) but yer the single What i've done is very good, and hopefully the rest fo the album will be like it. --168.224.1.14 12:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Phill

um ur almost right, bout 99% its LPU 6.0

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO told! 71.206.136.69 01:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Release date

What happened to the February 20, 2007 release date? Was it not true?--R-Tiztik 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Linkin Park's third studio album is set for a April 2007 release. The vocals have been confirmed as completed and the album will be 100% and in the bands hands sometime in January. A video will be filmed shortly after and the video will hit the airwaves in February. The title has yet to be announced.

OFFICIAL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.45.201.68 (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Please don't edit the page with that information until you have a website source which proves it. As of right now, the band has only said that they are almost done with vocals and that the album will be released in the spring. --SayCheese 19:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't true. March/April seems to be the most likely date, but knowing Linkin Park, it probably won't come out until June/July. They did that to us with Collision Course. Supposed to come out in Autumn (Fall for you Yanks), came out beginning of December. Bane II 11:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who added June 26, 2007 as the release date, and whoever it is, please provide proof from a reliable source. Hello2112 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, since when did "us Yanks" not understand what 'Autumn' meant? I mean sure, I'd wager it's not used as often as 'Fall' here, but it's still a VERY common word. --Foot Dragoon 04:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

June 26th is speculation that carried over from the LPU and should not be on this article.--SayCheese 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Summer release

Is there really any link or evidence that the album is going to be released in the summer? In the LPU chat Rob said that it would be released by the summertime and that is the only reference I've seen to summer. Unless there is some sort of source I think it needs to be changed to what it was before, and that is spring. --SayCheese 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm ticked now first they say Summer 06 then Fall 06 then Febuary 07 then March and now Summer. Just pick 18 songs and put the rest in under ground CD's.Sam ov the blue sand 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It'll be released in the summer see, Linkin Park: "They really are reinventing themselves," Rubin said of the band, mixing now for a summer release. "It doesn't sound like rap-rock. There's very strong songwriting. I've heard guys in the band say that it transcends everything they've done before, like it puts them in a whole different light in their minds, and they really like that. It's very melodic. It's a progressive record." [3] Utopian12 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Utopian12

Some articles say summer, some say spring[4]. It's only definite once the band actually sets a date. --SayCheese 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you wanna understand that their third studio album will be NEVER released? The truth is that they won't release another record until they disbanded. Rick Rubin probably knows it. --Chargin' Chuck 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What were you saying? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I wish this wasn't a lie. --Chargin' Chuck 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I wish this was a lie. R-Tiztik 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish it is just as it is now. The best debut of this year, great album, wonderful songs...

Release date pattern?

What is this supposed to be? Does anyone object to deleting this section? It seems like complete original research to me, not to mention you can't determine patterns from just two dates. bob rulz 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about putting an infamous TBA? Catatonic89 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just gonna delete the section. A release date hasn't been announced. The section is unencyclopedic and original research anyway. bob rulz 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been officially announced as 14th May outside the USA and Canada, and the 15th May in USA and Canada.--Au revoir!008xtreme 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Release Date Changes?

Since when is this coming out in EU on the 11th and AU on the 12th? Source or it's getting changed back to the 14th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeamOverload (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

The Herald Sun in Australia first reported the release date, or so i believe. This date is also backed up by Australian retail websites such as www.sainity.com.au which all list the release as the 12th. - D.Kelly, Melbourne, AU 203.28.244.254 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LP's official site has a countdown timer & release dates, as does their MySpace. so unless that changes, don't trust some random paper, store, or site. FyreNWater 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

LP's timer counts down to the official North American release date. If the album is in fact being imported to other countries prior to May 14 then that isn't information that should be completely disregarded. R-Tiztik 05:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sainity and JB hi-fi are not random stores, they are the largest entertainment stores in Australia. And the Herald sun is one of two major papers in Melbourne with quite a large readership. Not meaning to argue but you did ask for sources. And to put 4 different countdowns on the likin park site would be ridiculous and over-cluttered. Also, the Australian iTunes has listed the release date as 12th of May and the promo material contains the date as the 12th of May. Sourced enough? - D.Kelly, melbourne, AU 203.28.244.254 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Was it actually out EU-wide (barring the UK) on the 11th? Ireland is pretty much the only country with the weird Friday->Thursday chart (thank you, Evening Herald...) so all albums are released on Fridays here - which the 11th was. It makes no financial sense to release an album on the 'wrong' day for the charts to start though. --85.134.141.187 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom and Philippines release date, Why?

We have a world release date for the 14 May 2007 and then a release date for every country where it differs. I don't see why we need United Kingdom release date and Philippines release date because it is already covered by the world release date. I will wait day or two before removing it from the menu if their is any objections? Openhazel 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First sentence release date.

Why does the release date in the first sentence keep getting erroneously changed to the 15th May when it was available in many parts of the world before this, and the first release date is 9th May in Cyprus. It should reflect the first release date, not the US release date. Ben W Bell talk 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Track listing

Working Titles

Uhh, duz working titles mean working album names or working track namez, thanx - NJ Rock

Track names RichV 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx man :) - NJ Rock

Song listing wrong?

what are some of the new song names? in the club, wangsta, nuthin' but a g thang. -joe

This is one of the questions answered by the band to one of the questioners in the talk to the band thing.

So isn't the confirmed track listing In the Club Wangsta Nuthin' but a g thang? --59.183.137.239 14:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm is golden. Expecially to Joe Hahn. Hello2112 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ye, even i checked it out...... the listing in wikipedia is wrong........ in one of the questions they also replied that the band' fav song is the little things give you away and bleed it out...... so this brings the confirmed track listing to 5.......... and do you guys really think LP will write a song "Valentine's Day", sure the sun will rise in the west if that happens, no matter how much the band changes. --Sharmask7777 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think LP would write a song called "My December"? Oh wait they fucking did. The track listing is not wrong. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5, Source 6, Source 7, Source 8, Source 9, and Source 10. Don't say stupid shit, if it wasn't sourced it wouldn't appear on Wikipedia. And on a side note, "In Da Club" and "Wanksta" are 50 Cent songs and "Nuthin' But A "G" Thang" is a Dr. Dre song. R-Tiztik 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey tizzi chill..... i have no information about their songs........ buh i think i belierve you now... cool yer temper.--Sharmask7777 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just saying 0:) R-Tiztik 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as the track listing being wrong, I noticed something once I put the CD in my computer. (Just got it in the mail from BandMerch) The track listing on the back of the CD case is different from the names on the songs. The names are in a different order, and some of the names aren't even the same. The one on the back of the case is the same as the one here, so I think the names on the song files have been labeled wrong. Just curious as to if anyone else notices this when they get the CD and put it in their computer. 71.215.135.235 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your CD. The moderators at windowsmedia.com who set up the track titles and information that gets filled in when you insert a CD tend to make a load of mistakes. If you are intending to rip the CD you'll have to fill out the IDv3 tags yourself to make it correct. R-Tiztik 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Title track?

Where is it confirmed that the band recorded a title track called "Minutes to Midnight", and that it's an iTunes Pre-Order exclusive? I can understand why they could have pre-order exclusive tracks since it's nothing new, but for a title track to be one of them? It should have been on the album if it exists at all. R-Tiztik 16:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. No one knows what the pre-order exclusives are. --SayCheese 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sumone edited the 14th track as mtm, i dunno, is it true?--Sharmask7777 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's NOT a bonus track, the bonus tracks are confirmed as No Roads Left and Grecian. 008'/,treme 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Grecian" hasn't been confirmed yet either. Of all the information available so far, "Grecian" was to be performed at the Summer Sonic festival in August 2006, but was scrapped and "QWERTY" was performed instead. The song may never see release, and unless a source is confirmed, don't believe it is released. R-Tiztik 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnx for the information. Sharmask7777 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we know that the other iTunes exclusive track is just a live version of "What I've Done" from the AOL Sessions that we've all heard before. R-Tiztik 11:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"No More Sorrow"

The song "No More Sorrow" seems to have a very similar riff and drumming style to the end of Megadeth's "Silent Scorn".

Actually it's more like the solo in the middle of Day of Judgement, the theme of Justice from Guilty Gear XX Reload. It's similar to Silent Scorn, but not noticably..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 11:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah Linkin Park put a lot of hard work into this cd. Sure songs can sound similar to others, but bands do have musical influences. Linkin Park is now being compared to U2, (the new LP).

Album cover

Why is the new logo serving as the album cover? There's been no confirmation of it. Hello2112 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is true which is why I'm going to take it off. It seems that people are getting ahead of themselves and can't wait for an actual cover to be released. --SayCheese 18:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

slaps self* Now, why is the splash page serving as the album cover? It's quite likely but it's not confirmed, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hello2112 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Found this picture on the Warner Bros Record website an hour ago but as now been taken down so I'm guessing it is fake or just someone who runs the website messing about.

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8807/warnermtmltdty7.jpg

Look at the bands default myspace photo - a minutes to midnight album cover! use it! 81.79.40.253 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

k, we've got the official album cover. No changing it. Unusually simple for LP. Hello2112 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be simple but it's the first album (I don't know about Live in Texas) that the whole band is featured on the cover. It's a nice image. that's all I got. I guess when the Actual album comes out we can explain about the "Visual" aspect of the album.-Weatherman289 11:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here? The cover is currently this greyish looking image. What happened to the previous 600x600 image? Dmiles21 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Leak (real)

Just lettin ya all know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.120.145.194 (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Wow, this early? 69.143.159.10 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure it's actually the real thing? I could tell if I listened to it, but I'm at school. I'm confirm when I get home. TeamOverload 12:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's real, and 69.143.159.10, it isn't that early. the album's out in 10 days (7 if you live in Australia or some place like that). Look at it this way, Manson's album leaked on May 1 and it doesn't come out until June 5 (a whopping 35 days) lol. R-Tiztik 13:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

its real and its sweet, but if your at school shouldnt you do school work, i cant do this at school, block counts it as forum 71.206.136.69 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Leak and Official Time Information.

What I did was put the leak info under the release info and The TIME IS CORRECT ACCORDING TO MY CD PLAYER. NOTE: WHEN I BURN CDs I HAVE NO GAP IN BETWEEN THE SONGS. So I guess that would be the official time of the CD. - Weatherman289 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

People who keep changing the time of the album need a back up of what they have of the time. Once again as I stated my CD has no gaps in between the tracks so the OFFICIAL TIME is 43:57 on the album PLEASE STOP CHANGING IT!

- Weatherman289 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In iTunes it's 43:51.Chris Nelson 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

omg 6 seconds, dear lord, some silence at the begining of the tracks, perhaps hmmmmm dunno just wanted to be included 71.206.136.69 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

43:51 is right. Shouldn't the info be right? There's no way for iTunes to be wrong about that.Chris Nelson 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

now that it leaked for real all that clutter is just waste 71.206.136.69 01:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I really can't translate the .xx that iTunes gives. Also i know it's not in this area but how is given up the next single and does anyone have proof of it? - Weatherman289 13:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm defiantly not changing the time, if you're changing the time then what you have is FAKE! The Leak's time is 43:57 and iTunes time is 43:51 so that's what the values should be. If you change the time please discuss it first and leave a note of proof where you got the time. Also whoever removed "Given Up" as a single you get "PROPS" from me. - Weatherman289 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Whoever semi-protected the article just did a HUGE favor to the active contributors of this page who actually don't add crap. Thanks! R-Tiztik 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, to whoever CAN edit the article should take out a bit of the fine print at the bottom of the tracklisting, as it has basically been confirmed on LP's official Pre-Order page at Bandmerch.com. Source: http://bandmerch.com/java2/BandMerch/linkinparkexclusive/?referrer=&content=/store/css5/ProductPage.jsp&product=2887 - Anonymous

On the tracklisting, a user with the authority to edit the article added this "This track listing is, as of yet, unconfirmed by the band themselves."

Can anybody who has the power to edit the page remove that sentence please? That tracklisting is the one that appeared on US iTunes store (I don't think they'd screw that up) and the link at the top (http://lptimes.com/news2007/april/news04042007.html), is an extract from Kerrang with the band members discussing these tracks. So, it's pretty fair to say that the tracks HAVE indeed been confirmed by the band members themselves. Please edit.

I don't understand why whoever it was added that it was unconfirmed, but I've removed it. Thanks for noticing. R-Tiztik 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i requested the protection because of the repeated street team referral links; why did you revert the itunes bonus tracks and the passive phrasing for where you could read the descriptions of the tracks? it seems to fit better with the rest of wp as passive, rather than by somewhat breaking the fourth wall. Impasse 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've tweaked the text above the tracks where the link to descriptions is provided so that it represents the neutrality of Wikipedia. As for the placing mention of the iTunes bonus tracks in small text under the track listing? The titles haven't been revealed yet so there's no use in adding it directly to the track list. When the titles have been revealed they can be combined to the track list (also when a valuable source is provided, seeing as how people thought it would be funny to vandalize the bonus track titles, when the 2 tracks were directly part of the track listing). R-Tiztik 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I added a citation needed tag to that little tid-bit. Also, can someone tell me what is the importance of April 19th, 2007? If there is no significant importance of this date, then why not extend it till say... between May 8th and May 14th? Evilgohan2 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Parental Advisory

Nice to see this, not because I wanna hear them swear all the time but because when you listen to there albums and then hear them live its like two different bands, there albums make them too child friendly and P.C but live you hear the true them, so I'm glad this album is getting away from the friendly radio and Mtv style bullshit. Aa-Lewis 7 April 2007

Wikipedia is not a forum. 68.13.147.241 23:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Crack that whip, mr. 68.13.147.241. :p Exigence 20:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a tag on the cover. Why would they just start cursing now and not since the beginning? Is this one of the changes they're talking about?--CJ K 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There's other variants of the album cover that feature the Parental Advisory sticker. Some albums that feature heavy profanity don't even have the sticker (Slipknot's Iowa record is a perfect example). Linkin Park did in fact feature explicit lyrics in the beginning (Xero and Hybrid Theory EP respectively) but upon the release of their first major label debut they didn't feature any, probably to appeal to more audiences. "High Voltage" (which features profanity) was initially track 10 on Hybrid Theory, but the band removed it before the release. The song can still be found as a bonus track on the Japan import edition of the record. Chester and Mike aren't shy to swearing during live performances either, on Live In Texas one of the vocalists (I can't remember which it was) swore while conversing with the crowd; this was semi-edited but one can make this out (It might have been while introducing "P5HNG ME A*WY" but again I really don't remember). R-Tiztik 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, High Voltage features profanity. Also, in Live Performances, expample song being: "Place for My Head" in which at the end, Chester adds "Mother Fucker" at the end. In addition, Right before closing, Mike informed Dallas that they "are the shit" and are "fucking amazing". Evilgohan2 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As the sticker was clearly visible in the previous image displayed and the commercial albums prior to the subject can be verified to not display those stickers, I'm going to remove the "citation needed" tag on the reasonably simple-to-deduce factoid. .Absolution. 09:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

who really gives a shit about swearing, anyway? DragonDance 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The PTC (Whom for professionalism reasons, I'll keep my opinion to my self on). Just ask Rage Against The Machine... Evilgohan2 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The PA sticker could be on the back, like Collision Course. RichV 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but Collision Course was a DVD so it's already arbitrary from the format of common albums. It doesn't matter where the PA sticker is situated anyways, the discussion is as to why this record could possibly be parental advisory as a first for Linkin Park. R-Tiztik 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it PA'd simply for swearing, or is it for other types of explicit lyrics? Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's PA'd strictly for swearing so far from what information is out. R-Tiztik 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good; I just can't seem to bring myself to imagine LP singing (and/or rapping) about those other forms of explicity. As well, that will make it easier to talk my parents into letting me buy it. Cheers!!  :) 67.8.205.97 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign in before making that last comment. Cheers!!!!  :) Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well "Given Up" is a song that can be interpreted as being about suicide (given the intensity of the content of the track), but that's just one interpretation. Knowing the direction of this record, this theme can be seen as part of a "bigger picture" in the sense of "starting over" per se. I guess to the RIAA it doesn't matter. If a song sounds like it's interpretation is of negative concept, it's explicit all the same. Knowing LP there will be an edited version to appeal to the "cleaner" audiences like the standard versions of their prior studio albums though. R-Tiztik 02:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should this album receive a Parental Advisory (PA)? I mean there's not that much cussing/swearing. Maybe it's another RIAA mistake. Or just a ploy to get the album in more hands of younger people. iTunes has a clean Version on Pre-Order and you still get the exclusive tracks. - Weatherman289 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is any swearing is probably enough. Or maybe you're right, there is some kind of massive conspiracy. Rehevkor 14:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've checked Amazon.com [5] and they don't say it has a PA, yet the All Music Guide claims that it does. [6] So we'll have to wait and see what happens.

What are you talking about? There's nothing to wait for, we've all heard the leak and know for a fact that this is a parental advisory album. R-Tiztik 04:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

i heard a clip of Given Up on a page of their official site and it uses the f-word. so swearing is definitely there. just wait and don't speculate about any other types of explicit lyrics.

also, there's an advisory sticker on a Best Buy preorder site, on the album cover. FyreNWater 04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again. We have all heard the leak. Maybe not "ALL" but as I can see, the vast majority of us did. We happen to know for a fact each and every track that features profanity. There is nothing to wait for. iTunes exclusives? Even they are not album tracks. Geez. R-Tiztik 16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine then. The final word now is that the album has a Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics thing; there is also an edited version to be released without the cussing and stuff.Andrewlp1991 04:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

AOL Review

When did AOL review Minutes to Midnight? Unless there is a link to verify this the starred review needs to be taken off. --SayCheese 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably came from this review of What I've Done. ErleGrey 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the average user rating so it really doesn't count. --SayCheese 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How can users rate the album? It isn't out nor has it leaked hahahaha. It's just silly. R-Tiztik 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe how behind you are on the news of this album, you guys are constantly questioning new information being added

Wikipedia standards are that all general information be sourced to prove its authenticity. You could write anything but sources help to denote true information from vandalism and mistakes. R-Tiztik 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RS Review

The Rolling Stone review is 4 stars, not no stars...it is a site error, but the real rating is found on Linkin Park's main page on Rolling Stone.com.

Rolling Stone fixed that error, it's on the review page also as a 4 STAR review.

NY Times Review

Didn't seem "unfavorable". Not high praise, but not low blows. Tcardone05 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times review is favourable.

Seems pretty unfavorable to me. Curtainly not favorable. Rehevkor 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional reviews?

I'm not entirely clear on what wikipedia's definition of "professional reviews" is, but I'm sceptical about whether that term applies to alot of the reviews listed here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for example, aren't the reviews on Twisted Ear and Sputnikmusic just amateur user-submitted content? If so, should they really be included when so many other (and more professional reviews) are available? I dunno... just wondering. 206.248.157.234 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Plz remove the NOW magazine review, it is so unprofessional and childish. Bad reviews should be acceptable to put up on here, but that review is pathetic. You can tell the reviewer who reviewed it, hated HT and Meteora. Therefore it seems like a pointless review.PlayingTheAngel 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the review by Now, but I'm not sure about the NME one. The writer trashes the album practically because of one line in one song. Deanster123 05:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. We don't need more than 5-7 reviews on this page. --72.66.12.217 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed seven of the reviews, so now there are four favourable ones and four unfavourable ones. Deanster123 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell decided to add two more reviews? The list was perfect (4 positive, 4 negative). Now the balance is completely out of wack with two more negatives.

I don't know who did, but I don't think it matters, because you will not always have a balance. For example, what about songs that are considered the best ever that have more positive than negative reviews?Closetoeuphoria 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it matters because the even split of positives and negatives reflect the overall response to the album (which wasn't overtly positive or negative, it was mixed). I also think this is one few wiki album pages that is put together well, and I would like to keep it that way.

I don't think you should choose reviews based on whether they're positive or negative. Choose them based on their reliability. If a couple reliable websites outweigh the positives/negatives, then that's how it truly was received. Whether or not it's more positive or negative should be determined by the reviews, not by users who add or remove reviews in order to prove their own opinion. Closetoeuphoria 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force my opinion. The reviews that were added were hardly what I would call reliable. There are plenty of better known websites and publications that reviewed the album (positive or negative) than what was posted (justpressplay.com... who the hell is that?!). I'm not suiting the article to my tastes, I'm just saying the 8 reviews were fine and there was no reason to clutter it up.

Review from Australian newspaper called The herald Sun

http://pics.livejournal.com/privatelyricist/pic/004dsebp.jpg Paper gave it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars.

Please add this to the review section. Thanks.

Rating Scales

It should be of note that both The Herald Sun and Los Angeles Times use four-star scales instead of a five-star. Just giving a heads-up before anybody decides to change it. Tehcrusha 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Billboard Review

I added this review because people kept adding negative reviews from no-name places, so I thought I would add one from a more reputable source. Trouble is someone seems to disagree with me and keeps changing it to "Favorable". Would this person care to explain themselves? I would like other opinions on this as well.Tehcrusha 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

well i feel that whoevever has changed it to "mixed" has rightly done so. it is surely not an ideal review... such obscurity is not welcome by anyone.59.182.150.93 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading the review again, I think I agree with the "mixed" part as well. It still pisses me off that someone wouldn't want to discuss this on the talk page. It was this whole back-and-forth where I added the article, they changed it, I changed it back, they changed it again, grrrrr. All that without even discussing it. Anyway... glad we found a compromise, though.Tehcrusha 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

This is not the first time Mike will sing lead vocals.

Songs such as; Step Up, High Voltage, Dedicated, It's Going Down feature Mike having the role of being the lead vocalist.

Please edit that statement in the trivia section as it is false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.224.122 (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Edit it yourself. Why can't you do it?--DannyBoy7783 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is protected. Unregistered/Newly registered user can't edit the page. R-Tiztik 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you ignorant person

Note the key word SINGS. This won't be the first time he's a lead vocal (rap-wise), but it WILL be his first time SINGING vocals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.110.196.155 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

How do you know that's what he/she meant by "sings." This could just denote that Mike performed the lead vocals in general. Until the album (or the track itself) is heard there's no knowing for sure. R-Tiztik 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He's SINGING on this track. There's a track-by-track overview of the album from Kerrang! Magazine where it is said that he 'sings.' "Chester: I knew that Mike should really sing this song. I tried it once, I did a good job, but it just didn’t have the power of Mike’s performance because he really believed what he was singing. Whatever it is that the motherfucker is apologising for on this track, he’s fucking serious! It comes from the most sincere and heartfelt place." Source - http://lpassociation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24261 (link to a scan of the article in post) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.187.174.94 (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, I wonder why they never seem to have more than 12 songs on major albums. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's just the band's preference. Not that I'm a big fan of Slipknot anymore, but they did the same thing, albeit with each major label studio album containing 14 tracks. R-Tiztik 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Metora had 13 tracks, if you count session.71.206.136.69 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you count that little 11 second (or something like that) intro to Meteora, then you pretty much have to count "Session", being a much more established track haha — so 13 tracks it is. R-Tiztik 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm yea i suppose i forgot about it cause it just sounds like the beginning to Don't Stay buy take out the instrumentals and the first two each have 11 tracks, with minutes having 12(counting the instrumental "Wake Up") otherwise its 11 with that two, pattern?? 71.206.136.69 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

12, 13, 12... What the next album (if there is one) will have 13? I guess we'll see when they announce a 4th album. Oh to add this CD is OK... but Meteora was their best work. - Weatherman289 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

dude ur daft, if this wasnt the best it was Hybrid Theory hands down!Speakethnow to me! 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just mentioning that the trivia was switched around, so I edited it. 21-Stitches was the demo name for Given Up not No More Sorrow and EBow Idea(not just EBow) was the demo name for No More Sorrow. My reference for the EBow Idea demo name was http://lptimes.com/news2007/april/news04042007.html Harbit713

From memory I recall that every Rammstein album has 11 tracks. It's probably coincidence, unless someone can provide a reason for some bands having similar or identical track numbers on multiple CDs? I'm curious. Anyway I don't have any particular preference for which album is "the best"...I find MtM was a nice breath of fresh air, it's good to see the band going in a different direction, despite myself not liking the majority of the end tracks..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is unreferenced

I am adding a {{references}} tag to the Trivia section. If someone could find sources for the information please go ahead and add them. --RazorICE 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Half of the trivia section is based on "xx" will be the first Link Park song to feature.... so on. You can't source that. If you listen to the leak or buy the album on the 15th (or before depending what country to live in), that's how you source that. R-Tiztik 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources are the songs...Chris Nelson 17:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, but the album isn't out yet, it leaked but it isn't out still. You can't exactly link to the song and use that as a reference. If the album were out it would be common knowledge, but it isn't so people just have to believe it. R-Tiztik 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I gotta go with R-Tiztik on this one. The exact problem is that the source is a leaked album. The posting individual(s) might as well have placed a big red luminescent sign over their head stating "I pirate music, please sue me". As far as I'm concerned, "comment" them out till the 14th/15th.... Evilgohan2 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed trivia section

I just removed the trivia section just now, placing facts in their appropriate areas, while removing unsourced info. Now this page is much much better by Wikipedia standards!!! Andrewlp1991 04:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Heads Up: Links

One of the links at the bottom of the page is incorrectly noted as the official 'Minutes to Midnight' page, when in fact it is just as fan-site. I'm willing to delete it, but I don't want to get yelled at lol.--Twenty8 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twenty8 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

if i'm not mistaken, fansites get removed. it's not there now, and shouldn't be added back in. FyreNWater 07:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just asking before I edit... but shouldn't the Links be before that whole Linkin Park chart dealie<--(Not Real Word)? Also, how I would go about moving a section if needed?-Weatherman289 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Singles

I know "What I've Done" is a single that's burning up radio stations but, does any one have proof that "Given Up" is the next single. If I don't hear anything I'll remove it. More than likely we'll have to get ALL of our info from Linkin Park's Website. If we don't then it's all just a rumor. - Weatherman289 14:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no proof so I've removed it for the hundredth time. R-Tiztik 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's strange, I heard Given Up on the radio today, 5 May 2007. Possibly got that track form the leak? Thomsonmg2000 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Radio stations usually get promo CDs prior to certain album or single releases, with a few tracks or so.

It's been playing on the radio for a few days (before the leak anyways), this isn't enough proof to say this song will be the next single though. The probability is bumped up due to radio play, but Wiki isn't a crystal ball. R-Tiztik 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange... I guess North Carolina's radio stations are a little behind. I haven't heard anything besides "What I've Done" and that took a month after the single was released to even get played.-Weatherman289 11:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well in Detroit radio stations, they have started playing In Pieces, so does that count as a single, because they didnt say anything about it on the singels page.

New Singles According to billboard.com

I went through this [7] and if you observe a "Singles" column on the left hand side of the page, you will see that Given up and shadow of the day are two new singles........ i have already updated the singles in wikipedia.--Sharmask7777 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty sad when a band decides the majority of the album's singles within 9 days of global release of an album. "Given Up" and "Shadow of the Day" are fair picks for singles (not that I enjoyed them much, but given what the album is working with these tracks are single-material), anyways... "Given Up" and "Shadow of the Day" are fair picks for singles, but to decide the majority of an album's singles (there's designated 3 now) and their release dates already... that's pretty bad, especially when they know what single will be released in 5 months. It's sourced, but I won't believe it until the band confirms it. R-Tiztik 20:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes..... i agree, even i feel they should have been more patient. Sharmask7777 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics

http://www.metrolyrics.com/minutes-to-midnight-album-linkin-park.html. i didnt know if this should be in the article

Lyrics don't belong on Wikipedia, well maybe this link could go in the External Links section. Regardless I've been looking for the written lyrics so this is nice. R-Tiztik 05:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

allright ill put it thereRauj16 05:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC) edit: its there Edit2:when i find eat me ones ill add that to it as well fell MM fan

Lyrics don't belong on Wikipedia. There is a lyric site, but I don't think it's associated with Wikipedia, but it's LyricWiki. There you should find lyrics. Minutes to Midnight is on there. They're still in the editing stages but they'll get it right... I hope this helps out a little.-Weatherman289 10:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

of course lyrics shouldnt be here but a link probably should, simply because it is directly related to the article, and your source is complete. include it.talk

OK I got the link to the album. Just giving a heads up before I change the "Lyrics" link.-Weatherman289 10:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with the last list of lyrics?Speaketh now to me! 22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The tracks are out of order or not in the same order as the tracks on the album.-Weatherman289 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the lyrics at the MetroLyrics link are also entirely wrong. "Wake" has no lyrics, yet the site lists lyrics anyways, and "Leave Out All the Rest" doesn't have remotely the same lyrics. The LyricWiki link has the correct lyrics however. R-Tiztik 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I looked at the "Wake" lyrics. I've heard that song before...I think it's Wake Me by Grey Daze, the band Chester was in before he joined Xero/Linkin Park. I'll have to listen to the song again, hehe..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 04:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning

if some topics are irrelevant, or impossible to purposefully discuss, shouldn't they be removed, they take up space.Speakethnow to me! 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

yay, i mean we don't need all of those reviews, neither all of those charts. summerize them (Y). let's just look up some another albums articles to see which are the most important. also, trivia and the section for the special realeases might be shotened or even removed (trivia should be put into the body of the article, acctually). but anyways, we're doing fine with this article, you know, this is the the best LP-related article i have seen as of yet (Y). män-et-arms 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started a section on the album's reception.

You can take a look. You might want to add more sources and the citations, but it's a decent start. TheKillerAngel 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Is a reception section needed? It's just quoting some of the reviews linked in the sidebar. :--SayCheese 03:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is necessary, the reception is an important detail about the album.

Its very good. Brief and to the point, it filled the last necessary chunk of the article, thanks. :--Sharmask7777 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Message from the Band members

BBB recently had a message for the fans thanking us. Should we put it in the album page? Maybe in the RECEPTION area. Or have it's own. We better quote the band's reactions about the people's reception of their new album.

Thank You from Brad - LP

Robutix 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worthy of note, however use of the word "us" is a bit ambiguous, as I was unsure when you wrote that as to indicate "wikipedians," "fans" or "every person in the world." Anyway, that aside, I think it'd alright to give the reference a home in the article, somewhere and somehow. --linca^linca 08:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fourth album?

We aren't done with the MTM article, and already there's a refference to a fourth album (on the right-hand thing with the album before and the next one).

Geez, the forth album won't probably come for like the next several years...72.66.12.217 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Descriptions and Song Meanings

I removed this section because it was a clear copyright. Copying the text into Google, I could easily tell it had been copied. Anyone who wants to see the version history, here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minutes_to_Midnight_%28album%29&diff=133924132&oldid=133922102

Please, can, whoever it was, refrain from just copying text from webpages onto Wikipedia. If you really think that it is important for people to know that information, then please instead, provide a link in the External Links section instead of filling up Wikipedia. That's what it's there for.

Thanks, --rjcuk 20:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Genre

some fans continue to idolize and continue to think that they do Nu metal, metal..withou admit that a good part of the album sounds like generic Pop Rock. pop rock should added, deleting for sure "rapcore" (1-2 songs not make the whole album rapcore..) and one between "alt metal" "alt rock" and "hard rock" imho should be "alt metal", "alt rock", "pop rock" Zagozagozago

Saying it's "generic pop rock," shows some bias from your side, which could bring the neutrality of your statement into question. Something akin to "alt rock" would suffice.

Do we really need to list TEN GENRES?! I know the album is diverse but I don't think acoustic guitars in one song justifies an entire genre.Tehcrusha 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitive Genre

It seems like the changes to the albums genre section are never going to end. I think Alternative Rock suits the album just fine. Why? That's because it encompasses many different sounds and styles (read its page for yourself) There is no need to list such superfluous genres like Synth Rock and Pop Rock since many bands labeled as "Alternative Rock" utilize these genres as well. Not to mention the fact that none of those other genres have a real drastic influence on the album anyway. Please discuss.Tehcrusha 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Guitar Solo

I remember something about this being the first LP album to have a guitar solo. Why was this removed?

(please sign your posts) it wasn't relevant enough, i guess. FyreNWater 00:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hand's held high

Since Hand's held high is a new stp in linkin park featuring "polliticaly charged lyrics" it should at least have a stub. It curretly directs here.

Only singles/future singles should have their own article. --72.66.18.153 00:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

not only, almost every of system of a down's songs hava an article. and there's a project for songs.män-et-arms 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Every song of Linkin Park's Meteora has an article, so why M2M not?81.70.35.12 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does it even redirect to minutes to midnight?? If there shouldn't be an article at all why does it even redirect to minutes to midnight?

Pheonix

Did anyone notice that Pheonix is singing (just a little) in The Little Things You Give Away? --72.66.13.32 18:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Mike sings a lot of backup on this song, I don't think it's Phoenix. As far as I know, Chester and Mike are the only vocalists, and Brad, Rob, Phoenix, and Mr. Hahn don't even sing backup. They might, however. Mathew Williams 11:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at the end, there are three people singing, Chester singing "oh" constantly, Mike singing "the little things give you away", and Pheonix singing "all you ever wanted was someone to truly look up to you". --72.66.18.142 02:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

this is not a forum. please only discuss things relevant to the article. thank you. FyreNWater 00:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm aware that this isn't a forum but I just need to clear this matter up: Phoenix only sings live, Mike and Chester did it in the studio version. Hello2112 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering if this was true (and I'm pretty sure it's not, Mike does harmony) it'd be the very sort of information people would want to find on Wikipedia, perhaps try not to be so snappy? --NeF 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"All you've ever wanted was someone to truly look up to you" was sung by Chester, not Phoenix. 72.229.124.71 09:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

some idiot has vandalised the page and i dont know how to change it back88.97.6.98 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? I don't see any vandalism. If your talking about the reviews and genre sections, there were some slight modifications made.Tehcrusha 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll give ya the vandalism report. Someone changed the track names. I'll revert it. --BlooWilt 16:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Profanity

"It should also be noted that it is their first studio album to receive a parental advisory sticker."
"It should be noted that this is the band's first major commercial album to contain profanity."
"Unlike the two previous studio albums, Minutes to Midnight contains profanity and politically-charged lyrics."

Ok! Noted! - Do we really need to repeat this 3 times in the same article? Surely one reference alone to this should be adequate? --NeF 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done and done! alexdeangelis86 19:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

References

You know, it doesn't bode well for a page when half (3/4?) its fucking references are for chart positions. This page is completely fucked up.

I know what you mean. There's almost no citations. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for some of this shit. We'd almost be better off erasing the whole fucking thing and starting over (well someone else could, I'm too lazy).Tehcrusha 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

north american dvd

i uploaded a high resolution pic of the north american special edition cover becuase... well they're from north america and it seems more efficient.

Please Don't Delete IT!!

Not Nu Metal?

How come "Nu Metal" isn't in the genres? --BlooWilt on the wikiprowl, later! 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As previously stated, this is a stab in a new direction for the band. It is far and away, and agreed by its reviewers, not even vaguely related to their original style -Nu-Metal-. Thusly, how I see it, it CANNOT be Nu-metal. Or at least this is the reasoning I see. Arukan Harless 15:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

CD/DVD Special Edition

This edition was the first ever MVI disk release which is notable. John a s 07:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just Alternative Rock

It's not rapcore and alternative metal because just Bleed It Out is the only rapcore song on this record! and just because one song is rapcore then it doesn't mean that the whole album is rapcore! and its not alt-metal because just given up and no more sorrow are alt-metal! so its better to say its just an alternative rock record! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.204.34 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Demo names

I have removed the following, which was added by 189.157.52.41:

Other titles for demo songs were: 'Japan', 'Grecian', 'Chunky Monkey' and many more random names.

The reason for the material's removal is that there is no citation, and I feel that "many more random names" simply doesn't cut it; it's too informal. Qwerty (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Rock the second

Why is it so hard to understand that this record is alternative rock???There are so many musicstyles but the most are alternative rock!! just two songs are alternative metal so the whole album cannot be alt-metal and there is just one rapcore song!!!!! so the whole album cannot be rapcore too!!! you understand! alt-rock is the best style to discribed this record! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.167.215.209 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rateyourmusic.com bottom 100

This album is currently number 70 in the bottom 100 albums of all time. 81.154.221.254 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2