When Chester Bennington died seven years ago, I was devastated. And I wasn’t alone. Millions of people, like me, had grown up on Linkin Park’s music. We recognized Bennington’s transcendent talent, and we were crushed at the thought of losing such a talent so young. Most fans simply assumed that Linkin Park was done, and that we had heard all that the band would ever release. However, a recent announcement in early September 2024 changed this thought entirely. Seven years after the tragic death of Bennington in 2017, Linkin Park is ready to pick their guitars back up, anchored by new vocalist Emily Armstrong. However, with the release of two (at the time of writing) brand new singles and a series of concerts featuring the female vocalist, controversy has ignited. Many Linkin Park fans feel that the Nu Metal outfit, by choosing to stick with the same band instead of creating an entirely new one, is dishonoring the memory of Bennington, raising the question: should bands replace beloved original members?

One important thing worth noting when considering this question is the degree to which Linkin Park is switching it up. This is probably the biggest switch-up for a band of this level of popularity in music history, though it seems to be working out well so far. The two singles at the time of writing, The Emptiness Machine and Heavy is the Crown, are, in my opinion, both very good songs and very good songs at showcasing Armstrong’s talent as a vocalist. The Emptiness Machine is a bit of a slower song compared to most of Linkin Park’s discography, but it showcases Armstrong’s talent as a pure singer. Heavy is the Crown, however, shows Armstrong in a much more Linkin Park-esque way, even including a Chester Bennington style 15 second scream. Another important thing to note is how the band has been very clear that they are not trying to replace Bennington in any way. I think much of the backlash stems from fans thinking that by continuing with Armstrong that they are calling Bennington replaceable. While a talent like Chester Bennington will likely never be seen again, I don’t think that means others can’t attempt to honor his memory. The band, in my opinion, made the absolute perfect move. It’s hard to think of two more different vocalists than Bennington and Armstrong when considering the genre. That’s not to say that Armstrong can’t pull off Bennington style vocals, because she can, but it is to say that she is her own talent. There are several good Linkin Park imitation bands out there, and if they wanted to, Linkin Park could’ve simply chosen a Chester Bennington vocal doppleganger and continued on like nothing happened. They didn’t though. They recognized that choosing a literal Chester Bennington replacement would be disrespectful to his memory. Instead, they chose Armstrong. They aren’t seeking to continue the old Linkin Park just as it was, but as an updated version: a Linkin Park 2.0 of sorts. As far as the question of whether or not they should have continued under the Linkin Park name, I think it ties into how you actually define a band. If you define a band as simply the sum of all of its parts, then yeah, I think they should’ve switched the band name. But, in my opinion, that’s not a very good way to define a band. That definition ignores the artistry and nuance behind the hood of every band. I define a band more as an idea rather than a physical thing. If new Linkin Park is able to honor their past while still maintaining a style that a majority of their fans continue to enjoy, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to continue with their already existing branding. Continuing under the Linkin Park name will allow them to reach more people and impact more lives, which is ultimately the goal for any band. While it is simply ignorant to assume that both eras of the band will be exactly the same, I think Linkin Park’s future is bright. You’ll certainly find me listening the second the new album drops.