"How appropriate that this, Linkin Park's first live album, was recorded in Texas. It was, after all, among the disaffected youth of America's hinterlands that these Californians found their audience and the key to stratospheric success - 14 million copies of debut album Hybrid Theory and a further six million of follow-up Meteora shifted to date. But let's face it, it's almost 2004 and nu-metal has pretty much had its day. That this album arrives just eight months after Meteora speaks volumes: the fact that it sounds so dated says more. The wicky-wacky scratching, the white-boy rapping, the angsty lyrics, the shouting - it all sounds so damned boring. On top of that, whereas some acts strive to reinvent their material live, mutating much-loved classics into something new, Linkin Park have simply opted to recreate their recorded material note for note. Which might have been great for those in attendance, but hardly the stuff of an exciting recording. Somewhere between the studio and the stage, the energy has drained away. Onstage, Linkin Park actually sound human, their overwrought, almost mechanically perfect sound becoming strangely fragile, as if one bum note could send the whole caboodle crashing down - not what you'd expect from a band who once played 324 shows in a single year. And out front, as he strains his way through the more melodic moments, vocalist Chester Bennington sounds less like the demagogue at the helm of the biggest metal act since Metallica and more the ex-Glee Club geek he probably is. Worst still, MC Mike Shinoda delivers his raps with all the sincerity of the guy in the drive-thru yelling you to "have a nice day". The one thing that Linkin Park have in their favour is that they can actually write decent tunes. When they dare to break the mould, even for a second, for example with the violin flurries and breakbeat on Faint, they can actually cook up some genuine excitement. But laid bare, Live In Texas demonstrates rap metal's core problem: it's all fake. Rather than angry torchbearers of youthful ire, they're just nerds with a business plan." I notice that LIT hasn't garnered particularly good reviews from the critics since its release. I would personally give critics the middle finger but if all the critics are giving LIT a 2-star review, then maybe there's something wrong with it? How would you all review LIT and how many stars (out of 5) would you give it? The above review, by the way, is from the Jan 2004 edition of Q.