CreedFeed Community - View Single Post

Malevolence · 12-26-2003, 10:09 PM

Quote: Rage Against the Machine was not sucky.

I beg to differ. I've never supported the mix of rap or hip hop with rock.

Call me a purist, but I simply don't think that Rage should ever be considered as a representative of Rock's best offerings. They also didn't help the true rock scene get started. They added their own flavor, sure, but ... I don't think that's where rock needed to go.

While my distaste for their type of music continues to this day, they did have, admittedly, a strong backing during their run. They are talented, and some of their music can be seen as good even by my ears, but the truth is that I don't consider them a rock-worthy band.

Quote: That happens to be one of my favorite eras in music. I happen to dig the so-called depressive/discontented lyrics, and I didn't find their stuff droll or that obscure or obtuse. Also, being a big Alice In Chains fan, I find that the music of Jerry Cantrell and his influence on many of today's guitarists is completely ignored/unknown/dismissed.

Many people did enjoy the Seattle rock scene. But that type of music was becoming monotmous and over done.

While I, myself, enjoy wallowing the darkest depths of depressive, sorrowful, and even sinister music, I don't think that rock should be limited to that sort of boundry.

Having these kinds of acts set the standard for what rock should be is unacceptable. Rock shouldn't be directly associated with only that type of music.

Furthermore, I've had people force-feed me the most well liked and popular Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Bush, Smashing Pumpkins and Stone Temple Pilot songs.

I hate it. ( Paticularly, Even Flow, from Pearl Jam's Ten. Songs like that and Last Kiss ... grr. Hatred. ) For whatever reason, I just don't feel the music, hear the words, and am entirely uninspired by their music. Usually, the songs come off as irritating and repetitve. Maybe I've listened to the wrong tracks, or something, but ... I believe that rock was more clearly defined by the early 2000 rock acts -- namely, everything from 99 to now.

Since the death of old school rock like Metallica and Iron Maiden, we've had to establish our own sound for this generation.

The point is, their exist rock bands in this era that are far better, musically, than alot of the 90's acts.

There are a couple of reasons why I don't like that style of music.

Namely, because this era is alot better.

The bands back then may have inspired the creation of our bands, but still do not meet the awesome talent of rock today.

Bands like 12 Stones, Sevendust, Boysetsfire, Weezer, Jimmy Eat World, Blink 182, Tool/A Perfect Cricle, Chevelle, Disturbed, Kid Rock, Hoobastank, Korn, Foo Fighters, Queens of the Stone Age, Staind, TrustCompany, AFI ( Namely, Sing the Sorrow only ), System of a Down, The White Stripes, The Strokes, Adema, Audioslave, Dashboard Confessionals, Finger Eleven, Flaw, and so on, have cleaned up and defined the broad spectrum of rock that we have today.

A great number of these bands are more deep, capable, creative, talented, and/or definitive than anything the early to mid 90's had to offer.

And there's more coming. Opeth, Otep, Spineshank, and more. New rock, with fresh talent, given the opportunity to show what they've got.

The fact is, rock's only going to get better at this pace.

That's why I discredit the Pearl Jam, etc, era.

Quote: I found the Weathered tour to be lacking in some respects because they rarely changed the set lists...

Granted, they brought some more stuff to the stage. Really, it was to add their own taste to their presentation. Pyro's and giant towers can be as gimmicky as glam clothing, but I really don't consider the way they used the props to be gimmicks. Gimmicks are like ... Slipknot. Mushroomhead. Manson. You know. The whole Mickey Mouse/Nazi thing he's running now is a gimmick. Creed never did anything like that.

Ultimately, this era's of rock is simply better than the best. Save for some of the old school thrash. That stuff is immortal.

On a final note, I think we need bands like Evanescence. I think we should have all kinds of rock, as everyone has different tastes.

I'm sure Evanescence, as inwardly hollow as they are from a true rock standpoint, fill a need for rock. Somewhere. And that's what matters!

Personally, Otep > Evanescence. Hah!

I appreciate your input, DS.

Keep in mind this is just my opinions about rock. I could be wrong!

Well. Rock on.

12-26-2003, 10:09 PM	#21
Malevolence USER INFO » Status: Illusion Posts: 22 Joined: Oct 2003 Currently: Offline	Quote: Rage Against the Machine was not sucky. I beg to differ. I've never supported the mix of rap or hip hop with rock. Call me a purist, but I simply don't think that Rage should ever be considered as a representative of Rock's best offerings. They also didn't help the true rock scene get started. They added their own flavor, sure, but ... I don't think that's where rock needed to go. While my distaste for their type of music continues to this day, they did have, admittedly, a strong backing during their run. They are talented, and some of their music can be seen as good even by my ears, but the truth is that I don't consider them a rock-worthy band. Quote: That happens to be one of my favorite eras in music. I happen to dig the so-called depressive/discontented lyrics, and I didn't find their stuff droll or that obscure or obtuse. Also, being a big Alice In Chains fan, I find that the music of Jerry Cantrell and his influence on many of today's guitarists is completely ignored/unknown/dismissed. Many people did enjoy the Seattle rock scene. But that type of music was becoming monotmous and over done. While I, myself, enjoy wallowing the darkest depths of depressive, sorrowful, and even sinister music, I don't think that rock should be limited to that sort of boundry. Having these kinds of acts set the standard for what rock should be is unacceptable. Rock shouldn't be directly associated with only that type of music. Furthermore, I've had people force-feed me the most well liked and popular Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Bush, Smashing Pumpkins and Stone Temple Pilot songs. I hate it. ( Paticularly, Even Flow, from Pearl Jam's Ten. Songs like that and Last Kiss ... grr. Hatred. ) For whatever reason, I just don't feel the music, hear the words, and am entirely uninspired by their music. Usually, the songs come off as irritating and repetitve. Maybe I've listened to the wrong tracks, or something, but ... I believe that rock was more clearly defined by the early 2000 rock acts -- namely, everything from 99 to now. Since the death of old school rock like Metallica and Iron Maiden, we've had to establish our own sound for this generation. The point is, their exist rock bands in this era that are far better, musically, than alot of the 90's acts. There are a couple of reasons why I don't like that style of music. Namely, because this era is alot better. The bands back then may have inspired the creation of our bands, but still do not meet the awesome talent of rock today. Bands like 12 Stones, Sevendust, Boysetsfire, Weezer, Jimmy Eat World, Blink 182, Tool/A Perfect Cricle, Chevelle, Disturbed, Kid Rock, Hoobastank, Korn, Foo Fighters, Queens of the Stone Age, Staind, TrustCompany, AFI ( Namely, Sing the Sorrow only ), System of a Down, The White Stripes, The Strokes, Adema, Audioslave, Dashboard Confessionals, Finger Eleven, Flaw, and so on, have cleaned up and defined the broad spectrum of rock that we have today. A great number of these bands are more deep, capable, creative, talented, and/or definitive than anything the early to mid 90's had to offer. And there's more coming. Opeth, Otep, Spineshank, and more. New rock, with fresh talent, given the opportunity to show what they've got. The fact is, rock's only going to get better at this pace. That's why I discredit the Pearl Jam, etc, era. Quote: I found the Weathered tour to be lacking in some respects because they rarely changed the set lists... Granted, they brought some more stuff to the stage. Really, it was to add their own taste to their presentation. Pyro's and giant towers can be as gimmicky as glam clothing, but I really don't consider the way they used the props to be gimmicks. Gimmicks are like ... Slipknot. Mushroomhead. Manson. You know. The whole Mickey Mouse/Nazi thing he's running now is a gimmick. Creed never did anything like that. Ultimately, this era's of rock is simply better than the best. Save for some of the old school thrash. That stuff is immortal. On a final note, I think we need bands like Evanescence. I think we should have all kinds of rock, as everyone has different tastes. I'm sure Evanescence, as inwardly hollow as they are from a true rock standpoint, fill a need for rock. Somewhere. And that's what matters! Personally, Otep > Evanescence. Hah! I appreciate your input, DS. Keep in mind this is just my opinions about rock. I could be wrong! Well. Rock on.