2 Million Is Pathetic!!!!

[Dogstar]

Quote:

Because the rosy glasses are a fantasy world, where no one gets sued, and where every band is perfect and superhuman. But they're not. And when they're not they have to sometimes answer for their humanity. They screwed up. It's human to screw up. They didn't answer to the satisfaction of some fans, so those fans - who couldn't get Creed's attention through letters to the band, or other methods - filed a lawsuit. The lawsuit was a wake up call - a "listen to us" if you will. They want to be heard, by Creed, and an impartial mediator (a judge).

Well, if anybody needs to take off the rose-colored glasses, it's you. If you think Creed are going to *listen* and respond to a lawsuit from a few disgruntled fans, I think you are the one living in a fantasy land. I don't think any apology would have been enough for some of the Chicago fans. They wouldn't be satisfied until the man was nailed to the cross, IMHO.

[JulieCitySlicker]

I thought that a lot of the people from Creed pit were rude I only posted there for about a week

[robaustin1701]

>>>Well, if anybody needs to take off the rose-colored glasses, it's you. If you think Creed are going to *listen* and respond to a lawsuit from a few disgruntled fans, I think you are the one living in a fantasy land. I don't think any apology would have been enough from some of the Chicago fans. They wouldn't be satisfied until the man was nailed to the cross, IMHO.<<<

Actually - that's kind of the point of a lawsuit. To take it into a public forum (court of law) where Creed HAS to listen. If they don't - they get held in contempt.

And yes - I do think they are going to listen, because I believe the band cares very deeply for ALL their fans. Even disgruntled ones.

--*Rob

[crest tattoo]

Too bad you won't admit you should be "close-mouthed." In other words, telling little.

We are not close-minded. For crying out loud, you've gone on for 10 pages, and we have listened.

Dogstar, you said it. Rob, think again if you think this is really going to hurt Creed. They may pay monetarily, but that's about it. They won't even be the ones dealing with the most of it. That's what attorneys are for.

[Dogstar]

Quote:

Originally posted by robaustin1701
[B

Actually - that's kind of the point of a lawsuit. &nbsp;To take it into a public forum (court of law) where Creed HAS to listen. &nbsp;If they don't - they get held in contempt.

And yes - I do think they are going to listen, because I believe the band cares very deeply for ALL their fans. &nbsp;Even disgruntled ones.

--*Rob [/b]

Don't patronize me. I'm well aware of how the legal system works. I'm saying it's not really going to make a difference. If they cared as deeply for their disgruntled fans, as you seem to think, then with your logic, you all should have gotten an apology from Scott and a free show or a refund. You indeed are living in a fantasy world. I do believe they care for their fans, to a point.

[robaustin1701]

>>>Rob, think again if you think this is really going to hurt Creed. They may pay monetarily, but that's about it. They won't even be the ones dealing with the most of it. That's what attorneys are for.<<<

It hurts them in a different way. They lose fans. In turn, they lose CD sales. They lose CD sales - the label terminates the contract. They go to another label and get a new contract for less money. They get less money for a tour. So starts the downward spiral.

Now - I'll give you a bit of my background so you know I am not some run of the mill guy - I worked in the music industry. I worked in radio for 10 years. I spent 5 years as a chart researcher for Billboard magazine. I worked for a market research company that worked with radio stations. I was on the air in Vermont and New Jersey, on a top 40 station and a rock station. I run my own internet streaming radio station. I've seen and analyzed the rise and fall of artists' popularity. You just don't know what this will REALLY do to their career.

Having been in the industry, I know the deal. I'm telling you, if they do not settle this amicably, if they do not apologize publicly and all we get is PR from the attorneys, people WILL remember it. It WILL hurt the band in the end. It makes them an impersonal entity. Nothing is more important to an artist then their relationship with their fans. That is again why I tell you: support the band by encouraging them to play a makeup concert. It will go a long way towards smoothing things over.

--*Rob

[Dogstar]

I'm sure they will lose a few fans along the way; I'm sure they already have. Their popularity will ebb and flow with the trends that research types spew to the mega-corporations and labels, not because of a silly lawsuit. All of this *market research* and mega mergers have ruined the music industry and shut out a lot of talented musicians who don't have the *right sound* that these mega corporations think will make them a ton of money. They spoonfeed a lot of crap to willing souls who think it's *good music*. Having been in radio does not increase your credibility one bit. In fact, it erodes it in my eyes.

By the way, what actually did you do as *chart researcher* for Billboard Magazine? I'm just curious. Were you simply monitoring sales, or did you do actual research?

[Bridge of Clay]

blah blah blah...

that´s why you dislike creed... you´re in the industry! I guess songs like Bullets and What If make you really feel unconfortable... and that makes you dislike the band even more

[robaustin1701]

I did a lot of different stuff. I did the sales tracking thing (before soundscan and all the computer based tracking - we would take faxes of the record stores' top sellers and input them manually). I did the airplay tracking with radio stations (similar). And I did research on past trends - which back in 1987 meant going through a lot of microfiched Billboard magazines. We would do a lot of special projects for all kinds of entertainment stuff. Documentaries, other things on artists. It was great fun.

I have to say that by and large the reason I am mostly OUT of radio right now (I am now a web consultant) is that I DO feel radio is over researched and lacks very much passion. BUT I understand the importance of this business aspect of the industry - and that it frankly isn't going to change. And that's what worried me about this. That it will adversely affect the band, and it will end up eroding their fan base.

<sigh>

--*Rob

[Bridge of Clay]

Quote:

and it will end up eroding their fan base

not the real fans

[JulieCitySlicker]

Quote:

Originally posted by N30°14'?.7 W84°
not the real fans

Ya! Tru Dat

[Dogstar]

Quote:

Originally posted by robaustin1701
I did a lot of different stuff. &nbsp;I did the sales tracking thing (before soundscan and all the computer based tracking - we would take faxes of the record stores' top sellers and input them manually). &nbsp;I did the airplay tracking with radio stations (similar). &nbsp;And I did research on past trends - which back in 1987 meant going through a lot of microfiched Billboard magazines. &nbsp;We would do a lot of special projects for all kinds of entertainment stuff. &nbsp;Documentaries, other things on artists. &nbsp;It was great fun.

I have to say that by and large the reason I am mostly OUT of radio right now (I am now a web consultant) is that I DO feel radio is over researched and lacks very much passion. &nbsp;BUT I understand the importance of this business aspect of the industry - and that it frankly isn't going to change. &nbsp;And that's what worried me about this. That it will adversely affect the band, and it will end up eroding their fan base.

<sigh>

--*Rob

That does sound as if it was a fun job.
It's sad that the business and creative ends are so out of balance.

[robaustin1701]

Actually, I love Creed's music. I'm about as far from hating them as any of you. And I'm not sure if you noticed - but I wrote that I was not in the industry any longer- because I don't like the music industry as a whole - and the changes that have taken place over the past 10 years. So don't try and paint me as an industry guy trying to change the opinions of some true Creed fans.

I'm just someone who understands the industry as a whole and what it can do to the artist. I don't like it ANY more then you do - but they have to work within the confine of the industry. I can also tell you that the industry - the business end of things - can really screw over an artist. But by the same token, you can't discount it, because if you do you can end up losing.

Creed have a chance to show their honesty and integrity to the fans - and make some GOOD news for themselves, rather than letting the INDUSTRY turn them into BAD NEWS. Maybe it means they have to suck it up to do it, I don't know. What I do know is that the longer they let this sit, and the more they drag it out in court, it just makes for more and more bad publicity - which makes them a liability in the industry, rather than an asset.

--*Rob

[Dogstar]

Rob, there are a number of bands who are trying to make their music heard in unconventional ways because the industry is so confining. It just takes a lot longer and a lot more patience. One rock band that comes to mind is Comes With The Fall. They are pretty much self-producing and setting up their own tours because they feel they can't work within the confines of the what the music industry has turned into. They did get quite a bit of exposure last year when they backed up Jerry Cantrell's Degradation Trip tour. They're pretty good, too. They have a very loyal fan base and their music is getting out there. You can download their first album from their web site because it's out of print and you can order their latest CD and other merchandise from their web site. They are using technology to their advantage and building a fan base with their concerts, much like the way Creed started. They don't even want to get signed by a label.

[creedlvr]

Quote:

Originally posted by robaustin1701
I honestly do NOT think these people want to use the judicial system for a quick buck. They want their money back. &nbsp;And they want to represent anyone else who simply WANTS their money back. That's all. &nbsp;Believe me - I HATE frivolous lawsuits more than anyone else. &nbsp; But I believe they are justified. &nbsp;Creed did not perform to the standard for which the product was set on the rest of the tour. &nbsp;Creed presented a defective product that night. &nbsp;They didn't really apologize, and they tried to pass it off as a "unique experience" - but if these people felt that they did not get their money's worth - they have the right to file the lawsuit. &nbsp;If the judge feels it's frivolous - then he'll throw it out. &nbsp;It's not that they didn't "get a good concert" - they didn't get much of concert at all. &nbsp;Without Scott singing - it's not much of a Creed concert now is it?

Well I do think the want to make a quick buck. If you read the actual complaint, it clearly states what their actual costs were for the concert, but at the very end of each count, it also says that they are seeking "money damages in an amount to be determined at trial, prejudgment interest and costs, and for all and any other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances."

That tells me they are looking for a bit more. Besides ... you can't POSSIBLY think that these people are going through all of this ... hiring a lawyer, investing time and money, etc. ... for a lousy $55 plus parking, can you!? You seem to pride yourself on your intelligence .... let's be for real here. The complaint also implies that they HAVE TO make it a class action suit in order to hold any clout ... they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Quote:

Originally posted by robaustin1701
>>>Okay so ... you go see your favorite baseball team and the star player has an "off" night and plays lousy! It's a major upset and the team (expected to win) loses. Do you sue?? Where does it end?<<<

You're comparing apples to oranges. &nbsp;Concerts come to a specific location once, twice a year if that. &nbsp;Baseball games happen 4-5 times a week. &nbsp;The team is ALWAYS expected to win. &nbsp;Analogy doesn't hold water (at least with me).

No ... the analogy DOES "hold water" ...
What difference does it make how many times a week, month or year an event takes place??? Your point (I thought) was that people paid for a particular "product" and did not get it. For first time goers, especially ... this was a huge disappointment. Does it matter that the team will be back again 2 - 3 more times that week. I don't think we all make it a habit to go to EVERY game our favorite team plays. And, to your point that a team is ALWAYS expected to win ... even more I hold my ground. Does that mean that people should sue if they team loses ... since they were "expected" to win??? I didn't say why the baseball player was "off" ... what if he was drunk ... as a result, let ball get past him, struck out at bat ... again ... would you sue them??

Quote:

Originally posted by robaustin1701
>>>If someone is unhappy with the show that Creed put on, then it is their right to not go see another one ... or to not support them by buying their cds, etc. ... to sue, though??? That's just ridiculous!<<<

Ah - now this is an interesting point. How many people from Chicago now are/will do that? &nbsp;Maybe one of them was the most DIE HARD Creed fan around - came to this board, loved the band, etc... &nbsp;What now? &nbsp;Creed loses them as a fan. &nbsp;Why? Because Creed did NOT do the RIGHT thing. &nbsp;Creed did not act with honor and integrity by giving a refund or a make up show.

If people feel that they no longer want to support Creed ... then yes, that IS their right. It doesn't matter who agrees with them (I, personally, don't.) But it doesn't matter.

I agree with you that they should have issued a response ... one that is better than what Wind-Up issued. To be quite honest, I wasn't even at that concert and was very disturbed to hear what happen. In fact, I heard about it on here. I had logged on to see how the Chicago concert was because I was going to the NYE. When I read what happened I had hoped that they ... particularly Scott ... would have some sort of explanation or apology or some way to make up for it. But I accept the fact that doing any of those things could have put him at risk of incriminating himself further. I'm sure that if he wasn't most likely advised otherwise, he would have made good for it.

Which leads me to your next point ...

Quote:

Originally posted by robaustin1701
It's really not so ridiculous. It's only ridiculous if you can't detach yourself from the emotional connection - rose colored glasses - to the band. &nbsp;What if this was Madonna? &nbsp;Weird Al? &nbsp;Nelly? &nbsp;What would you be saying then? &nbsp;I don't think you'd be so readily defending the artist - because you would NOT have that EMOTIONAL CONNECTION to THAT artist.

If it were anyone else, I'd still say they should not be sued. In fact, probably even more so because I really don't hold a lot of artists to as high of standards ... therefore, I wouldn't be shocked by it. I would assume that that is "typical" of some artists and perhaps not agree with it ... but I still would not think they should be sued for it!

I admit I am guilty of holding Creed to "too high" of standards based on what they proclaim to represent. When someone says they don't drink before shows, and then clearly, they have done just that ... it IS a disappointment. I have that EMOTIONAL CONNECTION to Creed because I love what they are about and what they stand for ... as well as their music. For all I have read about Stapp, I feel like I know him ... and yes ... I would defend him and Creed before some (most) other artists. That's actually why I am more disappointed about what happened in Chicago ... because I care about them. I would not expect them to let something like that happen based on the standards they have set for themselves. But let's remember that they are HUMAN ... and it did happen. Does it mean they should have their reputations ruined over it???? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

I'm quite sure that there have been MANY bands that have gone out on stage and did not perform to the best of their ability ... due to drinking or drugs or whatever. So why should a band like Creed ... who, other than this ONE bad show, usually gives the best live show you've ever seen, be used as the "example"????

This is ludicrous and incredibly sad!