================================================ Subject: Re: Creed and Metallica From: "Marc Levitt" To: Date: Sat 3 Nov 2001 17:47:47 -0500 ================================================ I can offer a better explanation for why people dislike Creed. In the first place, they are unoriginal. Most bands are, to a certain degree, amalgams of previous groups. After all, everyone has their influences. Creed, however, has used its influences to generate the most generic rock music possible. It's not surprising that Metallica fans would dislike Creed, because Metallica has always been innovative and musical. Additionally, their lyrics explore dimensions of thought that THEY AND THEY ALONE made palatable for mass consumption. Creed's lyrics, by contrast, are filled with rock n' roll cliches that are bad renderings of everyone from Led Zeppelin to Black Sabbath. Their thematic material is trite and heavy-handed. How many times can I be banged over the head with the same stupid allusions and canned imagery? It lacks any literary or creative merit. Personally, I couldn't care less if they were Christian-, Buddhist-, Hindu- or Islam-rockers. But the obviously biblical references apppear forced and unnatural. Their supposedly deep explorations of human nature and metaphysics are pseudo-philosophical at best, completely naive at worst. Culling the power of biblical teaching for their inspiration is a great idea if, that is, they intend to present it in a modernized, unique way. They do not, and it is clear that they have ignored the works of biblical scholars and commentators since St. Augustine. If they had been paying attention, then they would know that everything they write has been written before. As for the actual music, very few bands have ever been in Creed's position. Their goal as a musical group is to create hook-music so that it can be easily played on radio, ie. so that they can be popular and make money. That in itself is not a terrible thing. Pop music has always thrived on the repetitive, mesmerizing qualities of catchy choruses and bridges. But in the case of Creed, a band which lacks an appreciation for music theory or classic arrangement, aiming for the hook has sorely limited their song structures. Their music is arranged in the most elementary ways, such that the development of the song is both predictable and brutally unmusical. In order to keep their listeners addicted to their radio-friendly tunes, they make use of as few time changes as possible, usually only two per song. The persistent tempos, while great for radio, do not make for good, interesting music. It is simply boring and makes no attempt to bring unique aural stimulation to the listener. For a great example of a band that 1) employs time changes specifically to enhance the song's quality 2) has a wonderful understading of pop and 3) writes lyrics that leave room for hundreds of interesting interpretations, check out Wilco. They are probably the most important band on the Indie-rock scene right now, and for good reason. They are changing everything...and folks like Tom Petty and Bob Dylan have bowed their heads in admiration of the lead singer's (Jeff Tweedy) unending talent. Wilco produces pop music and they do so with a genuine historical perspective and they hope to build on their predecessors' efforts, rather than simplify whatever was good in their music so that mass audiences can be hooked by it. Any questions? Feel free to write and we can discuss. To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp