It's not weird, because Disturbed always writes considering what song
should be the title track. IE, Indestructible was going to be The
Night, until they finished writing Indestructible. Same with Asylum.
just choose the strongest song on the album and name it after the song.
I personally don't like it, though. I like bands with random titles.
For example, Korn in mid-album process. Their latest album had the
most random names. Oildale ended up being kept because the fans LOVE
the name. There was a song called Strawberry; that song turned out to
be People Pleaser. Listen to it and tell me what it has to do with
strawberries. The song "Munkbox Hype" ended up "Let the Guilt Go".
being, Korn wrote badass titles while recording. I don't like the
final titles as much as the working ones. I feel like titles define
songs a bit too much, so when you just pick a word or a phrase from the
chorus it kind of limits the song. That's just my opinion. It all goes
hand-in-hand with my belief that many people will disagree with: Music
is at its best when it's random and energetic, as opposed to focused
with an intent.
Also, just wanted to say, GuiltyPleasures, I personally think The
Sickness would have benefited from lacking Down With the Sickness (in
concept only; that song was vital to Disturbed and is very signature.
If the song was titled differently is what I guess I mean). It was
meant to be a pseudo-concept album. All of the songs work toward a
greater whole, and I enjoy that. I enjoy it even more if I draw that
conclusion on my own. In this case, the song Down With the Sickness
made it very obvious to me what the album was about, and a few
interviews with David confirmed it further. I don't quite know what I'm
getting it. I guess I would have just enjoyed the ambiguity. I don't
like straightforward music.