I guess we need to put this to bed once and for all.
Dave very aptly pointed out that I've never really stated what it is about Creed that sucks, I've only said they suck. So let me see if I can quantify just what it is about this band I really don't like.
For me, I guess it comes down to two things: lack of any creativity and possessing no originality. To my untrained ears they sound like a bad Pearl Jam cover band. I listen to their songs and it's like they all hit this kind of emotional short-hand. The big power chords, the simple melodies, the generalized lyrics. They make an immediate sensory impact on the listener. It all adds up to Creed being the Smarties of the rock world -- music that's sweet and immediately palatable and then gone as quickly as it came. To me, as a listener, that's lazy and insulting. And I get bored of it really quick.
Had they not sounded like every other grunge rock band that came before them, had their big singles not been played into the ground, had the Evangelical Christians not latched onto the band, I might have given them more of a chance.
The thing is I like music that challenges me. It doesn't have to be indie, it doesn't have to be obscure. It just has to challenge me. That's everything from Queen to Elvis Costello to Wilco to U2. I don't get sick of it, I always hear something new when I listen to it and it entertains me. Creed simple didn't do those things for me. You've heard one Creed song, you've almost literally heard them all.
To be honest, Dave and I may have gotten off on the wrong foot. Creed and U2 are two different groups, appealing to two different people for a variety of different reasons. I will say that as I clumsily tried to make my point about U2 being a better band, in some respects I may have simply been comparing apples to oranges. The issue is moot at any rate. Creed is no longer together and U2 has been inducted into the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame.
One more point, before I put away the pen. I often fall into the trap of pegging people by the music they listen to -- because I define myself by the music I listen to. That's a fallacy. Not everyone defines themselves by their music. So I'll just say, bear in mind U2's the best band on the planet and everything will be right as rain.
6 comments:
Gotta love the passion of defending your taste in music. I love it when people are passionate about something. Anything. It gives you a reason to live life.
But, since I claim no such taste it wouldn't bother me for someone to rip my music.
Now if they were to rip on my favorite sports team...... it would be time to saddle up.
I think Dave brought up a pretty valid point. There is a difference between listening to music as a critic or listening just because it "sounds good" to you.
I fall in the latter catergory. I can't critique music because I'm clueless on how to. When somebody talks about how difficult a song is or how many key changes it has or whether it's a vanilla 3-chord song, I'm clueless. Those things don't ever enter into my mind when I listen to them. I don't even know what to look out for.
However, I can understand that someone who has done more research or has more musical knowledge can sit down and say "Ice, Ice, Baby" is a piece of crap because it has no originality (main riff stolen from Queen) and is a pretty simple song. But in my mind I can sing along to it (I have the whole song memorized)so it's OK by me.
My rule of thumb: If I can sing along in the car or shower then it's a song I like. Por ejemplo, this morning driving to work. "Jukebox Hero" is on the radio. Haven't heard the song in years, but the words came rushing back. Is it a good song or not? I don't know. But if felt good belting out the lyrics.
Oh, and Rob. It sure makes it easier to write in the ole' blog when you know people are reading. Keep up the good work. It's been fun to read. Except all the music stuff. :-)
I'll call you out on Nirvana, Dave. The only reason they have the respect, the lore, the granduer they have today is because Kurt Cobain died young. There would be no Nirvana without Temple of the Dog and I've always believed Pearl Jam was a far superior band.
And as far as listening for entertainment or listening with a critic's ear, I would only saw that we all listen to what sounds good to us -- regardless of the reason. I've just found that songs that grow on me I'm less likely to get sick of.
I'm still laughing about the guy who loves Chicago. I can see Rob and his firey eyes in my mind. Ha, ha, ha!!
Kirk didnt show much genius in his choice of spouse. Perhaps if Courtney hadn't sold her soul to the cocaine devil she would be coherent today.
Regardless of song popularity I think you have to take a look at endurance and evolution of an artist. While Mozart is still big he did nothing to move the music of his time forward. Bach and Beethoven on the other hand audibly rocked the world with their evolving styles by pushing the envelope to bring us to music today. In U2 I hear more experiemental, going out on a limb kind of music...and its still popular!
My opinion may be influenced by the fact that I dont listen to the radio. only because the fm in my car doesnt work. Its just me and Dr. Laura on the good 'ol am. I also get mexican music...and it makes me grateful for whatever would be on FM.
Nice parallel to the classical world, D. Just for the record -- and I know this is going on oh-so-much longer than it should -- I'm not discrediting Nirvana's contribution to the musical world. I'm just trying to put it in perspective.
The band alone wouldn't have had nearly the same impact they had if "Smells Like Teen Spirit" had been the only song to come out of Seattle. In fact, there would have been no Nirvana if groups like Mother Love Bone hadn't paved the way before them. It was the Seattle grunge revolution that defeated (thank goodness) the likes of Warrant, Poison and White Snake. If Kurt hadn't offed himself, Nirvana would just be another Pearl Jam.
Post a Comment