================================================ Subject: Re: Creed on MTV From: "Marc Levitt" To: Date: Mon 5 Nov 2001 23:56:42 -0500 ================================================ To Veronica and Leigh: Personal attacks do nothing to support your case. As a matter of fact, they damage it because they detract from what otherwise might be interesting points. I have managed to see past your insults and realize that you have not read my statements closely enough. Rather than take the time to analyze what I've said, it seems you have lashed out indiscriminately. Not the best way to win an argument. I must admit that the above two lines are equally ad hominem and do nothing to support my own cause. But I already argued my case and, given that (most of) the responses have addressed things I never said, I cannot possibly hope to satisfactorily respond to them. I stand by my previous e-mails if anyone cares to reexamine them, and I will address a couple interesting things that were said. (In the meantime: if you really don't want to hear opinions contrary to your own, then that's your decision. But shouldn't exposure to differing opinions sharpen your view of your own? A challenge to your thought shouldn't be regarded as an insult, but as a chance to clarify why you think the way you do.) One argument stands out as particularly valuable: That many people were Creed fans previous to being subjected to marketing. To that I would say that those fans are distinctly in the minority. And while you can carry that mantle proudly, it makes no difference in examining Creed's general popularity and appeal. As to the comment that Creed is "subjected" to making videos and they wish they never had to make them: Creed had a choice to make at the very beginning. They could create art for the sake of creating art, or they could create art that would be mass-distributed and hence more profitable. They chose the latter. Artists today are hardly the "victims of labels and big companies." (How on earth could Creed claim victimhood? The companies are responsible for gigantic paychecks, remember.) Hell, it's only within the last 50 years that this type of art even became this profitable. These artists CHOOSE to make profitable art. And the undeniable fact of that choice is that Creed is thereby limited in what they do (and forced to make videos). There are (contractually-binding) expectations. They need to produce a certain type of album in order that their record company will produce it and support them. If Creed does not produce an album that appeals to the masses, they will get dropped from their label. That's quite a bit of pressure. And I hope no one is under the illusion that art that appeals to everyone is automatically good. On the contrary, it should be suspected. The fact is that very few people actually have the discrimnating tastes or the background from which to make judgments on genuine quality. The average person on the street might see just any Picasso and say "That's brilliant work!" But there's an entire museum in Paris of Picasso works that were forfeited to the French government by Picasso's family to pay for back taxes. And it's regarded as utter crap, the family found most of the works in basements. I know a shitload about Creed, and about music generally. Keith seems to as well, and so it surprises me that he's such a Creed-head. Tara knows what she's doing...way to go...actually engaging me in intelligent discussion. Thank you. It's pretty much to her arguments that I responded in this e-mail. To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp