http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLE3f0kWjoM
The Ink Spots
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLE3f0kWjoM
The Ink Spots
Following with another real oldie -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RhMoC6kjMQ
A very beautiful song I remember on the radio. It was one you wanted to sing along with. I am amazed that there is not an updated verson by someone as the melody is so beautiful.
And they're coming to Shreveport in September. Why does everyone hate Creed? I kinda like them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Because every aspect of their music sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by mentechsters
I couldn't state it any better than this guy:
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/youc...anarticle.html
I'm not a huge Creed fan, but I do reject the article. If "just anyone" could make millions by "knocking off Nirvana", where are they and why didn't they do it too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
There is a difference between being a cover band of Nirvana and being influenced by Nirvana, but creating your own music. Throw in a little Jesus and they clearly are headed down a different path than Nirvana set out on. I challenge you (Guiss and the writer of the article) to write a song half as good as Eyes Wide Open... it's next to impossible. You may not like what they stand for, or the sounds they make, but only the best of the best can make money in the music industry.... and they are not even "1 Hit Wonders."
I almost fell out of my chair. That is definitely their worst song. And I am pretty sure it is "Arms Wide Open." They are very formulaic, and their formula sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Won
LOL... told you I'm not a big fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Their formula sucks to you. It has been very successful for them... meaning alot of people dig it. I only wish I could come up with a formula that made me millions! There's talent somewhere in that equation.
That article's main point was that they became too popular.
His whole second point about how rock-n-roll can't exist with any form of -particularly unspoken, but vaguely present- Christianity is laughable. Heck, he mentions U2 in the same piece (who I know you don't like), but I could bring up Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Johnny Cash and other "inventers" of rock and roll who spent much of their time arguing that rock music was not " the very arena set up in protest against it[Christianity]."
But his first and third points are the same. Creed sells (at least in part) because of the way the system is set up as much as they sell because of what they actually produce. And while I'll agree that that is a problem - it's hard to blame them for working the system the way it is set up (assuming it is all intentional on their part).
The piece barely touches on why someone might not like the actual songs Creed sings. If you can dig through the hyperbole (the result of their one-time ubiquity) you can actually find rational reasons for disliking (or at least not-liking) them/their music.
Their hits do tend to be formulaic.
Their "spirituality" seems so purposely vague that it loses much of whatever meaning it might have had (and I should say - I'm not saying you have to bluntly choose between Jesus Loves Me and Enter Sandman to be creatively authentic, I mean - I love U2, the key word here is "purposely" - it's as if Creed is using generic spiritual terms because they are trying to appeal to the widest audience available, not as if they are trying to wax poetic about a difficult and nuanced emotion or idea - but maybe that's just me, it's obviously hard to quantify something like this).
Part of the problem with their songs is directly related to the method of their success in that non-stop airtime will sell you a lot of records to people who only know the music they hear on the radio, but it will also earn you some serious backlash.
Some people just don't love that sound.
Etc.
That was the ultimate point the guy was making in the article. I am a big fan of Capitalism, so I don't fault Creed one bit for doing what they do. Hell, I would rather make millions off a record than produce a musical work that I was proud of. But the guys point is that music is supposed to be about art and not profitability. A rock musician who is motivated to make commercial music lacks credibility and only perpetuates the problems of corporate music.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Won
Its popular in the music snob community to dislike Creed and Nickelback. Just like its popular in the film snob community to dislike Michael Bay.
However, the goal of the rock star lifestyle is to make a ton of money and get laid. They've done that. Mission accomplished.
I find the guitar work trite, the drums way too simplistic, and Scott Stapp a copycat poser lacking any unique vocal style. I can drill down further if you want. The guitar work is nothing more than rehashing of the chunky power chord arrangements of the early to mid 90s. The guitar effects are unidimensional. It is either clean with reverb, distortion with compression, or straight flange. When the guitarist changes between effects, it is very sudden - you can actually picture the guy standing on the stage stepping on the pedal to lead into the bridge. Not 100 percent sure but the guitar has no character - it sounds like a Gibson running through a solid state amp. The drums are extremely well recorded so you can here every weak detail the guy puts in there. Completeley uninspiring.
And I think you can make valid critical arguments about why one doesn't (or shouldn't, I guess) like/support Creed or Michael Bay. Or Norman Rockwell for that matter. But I think true critical response tends to get lost in the storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luminaire
I think it helps to remember that music and movies and paintings and even sports (in some cases) are all popular/capitalistic and artistic endeavors. And it's great when those things intersect and tons of people can appreciate great art (The Beatles, The Godfather, the Montana era 49ers), but it's often going to be a big split (Teddy Thompson vs. Rascal Flats, Once vs. Pearl Harbor, Boise State vs. Ohio State).
It also helps to remember that sometimes all you want is a little background music, or some big explosions, or a "W."
Saw where the Toadies played Rabbs this week. Surprised it wasn't mentioned on the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by solo1001
Are you serious?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
It must be exhausting for you to listen to music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I used to be a music snob, too, but it wore me out. Now I've decided to like what I like for purely subjective reasons. Sometimes it is because of virtuosity, sometimes it is because there is a sound that is novel to me, sometimes I just get some sort of emotional stir, and sometimes it is because the song is singable and in my range.
I like Creed. Not enough to spend actual money on their albums, and I certainly wouldn't nominate them to be enshrined in the annals of great artistic endeavor, but I still like them. And Mark Tremonti is pretty skillful, though, again, I wouldn't nominate him for any awards.
Also, I would argue that there is NO music produced these days that is genuinely unique. Every artist is influenced by someone else in some fashion or another. The Beatles made a great living out of tweaking other people's styles. Sometimes you get a novel combination of re-hashed sounds, but who cares.
Finally, any standard that one would establish for judging music is necessarily completely subjective. In fact, Guiss, I could just as arbitrarily invert your critique and praise Creed for producing music that is unfettered by complicated guitar effects, pure in its melodic and harmonic simplicity, and accessible to ordinary people.