Creed's legacy?

[creedsister]

Quote: (Originally Posted by TremontiWanaB)

what's w/ all the caps?

um....
legacy....
um....
SUPER KOOL GUITARS
Spiritual Lyrics
Stapp Gettin Beat Up By His Ex W/ a CELL PHONE!!!!

Lol,,,shame on her and the little cell phone as well if your going hit a guy at least get a bigger object like a tv or something,,Lol,,poor stappys wittle head for 2 cents i would kicked,,im going shut up now peace

[JulieCitySlicker]

Quote: (Originally Posted by CollectiveSoul)

what the heck did u jsut say?

Thats what I was wondering

[Malevolence]

Alright, alright.

Enough of that.

The Bottom Line:

Learn how to type more efficiently and clearly. It's very difficult for people to understand you if you don't take the time to create thought out and understandable text.

I always skip replies that are muddled, confusing, poorly presented, and without any actual content.

Frankly, if you don't take the time to give me something clear to read, I'm not going to spend three hours trying to decipher whatever the hell is being said.

Now. Back to the topic.

Creed's Legacy is, honestly, both publicly nonexistant and prevalent at the same time.

Creed came in when Rock n' Roll was going through a pretty strange phase.

Essentially, it was only being fueled by lyrically "edgy", spritless, lifeless, scummy-drummy acts that based their entire musical content on freaking people out.

Rock was dwindling around the likes of Manson. God. Think about that people.

The days when Manson was making the rock music people actually thought was good.

Gives me the creeps. Hmph.

Well, really, looking back -- the early 90's was not very kind to the rock scene.

People SAY Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, other Seattle-rock bands were the revolution for rock. Also, we had rock/rap fusion -- which was like rap, except with rock riffs ... which was ok, but still ... sucky.

There were also a few weak punk acts. If you want to hear some really crappy punk -- the kind that was going around at the time -- check out the Offspring. And AFI's first four ( or three? ) albums. ( ED note -- Sing The Sorrow is their only good album. Decent album. Period. )

With bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden representing the rock and roll world... well.

It was no doubt people turned to pop and hip hop for music.

I refuse to comment on Nirvana's contribution to music, by the way. Seattle's Nirvana ... I won't go into it.

Creed's Legacy stands, however, unknown to many. Creed revolutionized and re-established the true essence of Rock n' Roll.

They established strong live shows instead of using gimmickly flam acts, put in lyrical content instead of mindless dribble, made their content GOOD; instead of making their songs entirely depressive, obscure, jaded, discontent, and droll -- as the trend was -- they showed you can have great music without having to be negative.

Plus, musically, they inspired a new sound. Pearl Jam cutouts, my tush.

The music world, in general, simply does not realize the impact that Creed had on rock.

Creed MADE Wind Up. Without Wind Up, we wouldn't have bands like 12 Stones, Evanescence, and the like.

Furthermore, with Creed's new, self-made sound and solid music, they inspired other bands to success without having to submit to gimmicks, and other crap.

People don't know it, for the most part.

Creed did alot to change the face of rock, the inspiriation of other bands, the trends of music, and the like. Merely by existing, and doing their own thing -- essentially, establishing a more melodic, yet hard-hitting rock.

That's their legacy. Most people won't acknowledge it, but if you look at the music scene back then, you can see how Creed changed alot of things for the better.

They created hope for the rock scene. Sure, they're not as heavy as I'd like them to be. And yes, the Christian references do throw off people about the truth of Creed and the point of their music.

But, damnit, Creed just sounds better than at least two thirds of the rock acts out there. Every song is worthy of being a single. ( With about three or four exceptions out of the 40-odd something songs they've made. Like Lullaby. And Never Die. )

No other band sounds like, changed the face of rock, or made a statement like Creed. At their height, they were renowned as American rock at it's best.

Clean Cut. Solid. Hard Hitting. Passionate. Powerful.

That's Creed legacy.

[Wylde-Tremonti]

well said.... i have to admit it was a bit long.
but good

[Dogstar]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Malevolence)

Well, really, looking back -- the early 90's was not very kind to the rock scene.

People SAY Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, other Seattle-rock bands were the revolution for rock. Also, we had rock/rap fusion -- which was like rap, except with rock riffs ... which was ok, but still ... sucky.

Rage Against the Machine was not sucky.

Quote:

With bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden representing the rock and roll world... well.

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.

Quote:

They established strong live shows instead of using gimmickly flam acts...

.

I like their live shows as far as the music goes, but I could have done without the gimmicks they did use, the pyrotechnics and such. I didn't see them in the early days when they probably didn't have that stuff. I found the Weathered tour to be lacking in some respects because they rarely changed the set lists...Bands like Pearl Jam, albeit they have a larger library from which to draw, change five or six songs sometimes. That makes every show somewhat different and takes away the choreographed feel that many of the Creed shows had. There was little room for improv, covers, or jamming, which can be really cool.

Quote:

Creed MADE Wind Up. Without Wind Up, we wouldn't have bands like 12 Stones, Evanescence, and the like.

I'll give you that. But I think we could do without bands like Evanescence. I think they suck. I do like 12 Stones, though.

[Malevolence]

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.

[Dogstar]

LOL, yes, we appear to differ on some of those opinions, but it makes for interesting discussion ...

I'm generally not a fan of rap or even rap/rock, but musically and lyrically, Rage really drew me in. Tom Morello is one kick-a** guitarist.

For the record, Last Kiss was a cover, and I, too, loathe that song. I hated the original and it remains the one PJ song I despise . I just can't see how you can discredit Pearl Jam's influence, though, especially vocally.

You must have listened to the wrong tracks, because I think Soundgarden (especially with Superunknown and Down on the Upside) really rocked. Zeppelin-esque vocals (you have to love Chris Cornell. Well, I guess you don't, but I do ). And I think Eddie Vedder is a terrific storyteller. I love the pictures he paints with his words, but again, that's just me. I never said rock had to be limited to that particular style, though. There is room for plenty, and diversity is a good thing.

Tool, though, is more early-to-mid nineties, as are the Foo Fighters, though that band is enjoying more popularity now.

Quote:

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.

I don't think it was. There was plenty else coming out of that time period than the so-called Seattle sound (which really wasn't one sound, IMO). There was just so much focus on those bands from the media. I mean, Nirvana couldn't sneeze without hitting a photographer or reporter in those days. And I wouldn't call it so much a revolution in music, but more of a reaction to what had been out there earlier.

Quote:

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.

I don't agree that this era is better all around, even though there are some wonderful bands out there. Personally, and this is just my opinion, Jimmy Eat World, The Strokes, Dashboard Confessional, Blink 182, Weezer, Trust Company and The White Stripes sound like retreads of stuff from the past. I haven't seen a lot lyrically from them that impresses me too much, either. And their music is boring to me, but that's just me.

I don't know Boysetsfire, but I do like Audioslave, APC, QOTSA and Chevelle.

Staind started off great with Dysfunction, but has deteriorated IMO into to a softer mode that just doesn't impress or move me. It sounds like everything else out there, like Default, Nickelback, Seether...none of that rocks my socks the way the 90s did.

Quote:

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!

They fill the record label's need to make money. I can't listen to radio anymore because I'm tired of being force-fed what I think is formulaic mediocre rock. There isn't enough diversity on the airwaves to get me to listen. It's all about selling and creating to fit what the execs think the kids will buy. God forbid we hear something a little different, like the Mars Volta or something. That band is amazing, lyrically and musically. But you won't hear that one because it's not cookie-cutter music.

[Malevolence]

I guess we can agree on a couple of things.

Chris Cornell is a bad-ass singer.

Tom Morello is very good -- good enough to even nab a guitarist of the year award over our boy, Mark.

And Last Kiss sucks.



Excellent.

Actually, truth be told, the rock scene wasn't that bad. I just think that this era took the raw, good peices of back then and melded it together with a few twists.

The fact is, you're going to have "re-run" bands, as I call them, inadvertently.

I never did like Zepplinesque singing though. Sounds like wailing.

I veer towards a super clean style with the occasional scream/death growl.

The problem I have with Seattle rock, or had ... back then, was that it was too ... covered by the media, as you said. Everyone figured "Ah, this is what rock is" ... when there should have been more representation for the other music circulating out there.

And yes, Tool is mid ninties. Blarg. I still think they should be in there.

I'm simply pleased by this era's extra diversity.

Creed's a good example of a very good band that gave some great music.

On a side note, go find music from OPETH -- unless you don't like the mix of clean singing with death growling -- try Dreame Theatre.

Still, though. I think Opeth is like ... the greatest band out there. Ever. Incredible stuff.

Anyway. Creed still rocks though. I hope Mark makes his "mark" in the world though. He's got so much talent -- everyone should worship his talent!

... besides. I still say he's better than Morello.

[Dogstar]

Yeah, Opeth sounds intriguing. Others I know have talked them up of late. I like a good growl mixed in with clean singing, too, if it's done well. I've tried Dream Theater, and while technically they are very talented, there is something lacking in them. I guess they don't move me. They seem to be playing just to show that they can play. Not much passion in it for me, I guess.

I love Zep. Grew up on them and they are in my top 10 all-time favorite bands.

[hide]

You seem to have some condtractions that i'ld like to point out. You don't like RATM and weren't overly impressed with Soundgarden but you like Audioslave. Audioslave basically sounds like RATM with some Cornell type songs such as I Am the Highway and Shadow on the Sun. I prefer Audioslave to RATM simply because of Cornell vocals and lyrics. Add the fact that Cornell's lyrics with Eurphoria Morning, TOTD and Soundgarden were better then anything in Audioslave's debut. Compare "The Day I Tried to Live" or "Fell on Black Days" to anything in Audioslave's debut album.

While I don't think Creed are by any means PJ, AIC or SG ripoffs they were undoubtely influenced by them and other bands that I think are much more generic such as Nickelback much more so.

I think Creed will be remembered as that "christian rock band" who wrote WAWO and lets hope that people can discover how good Mark really is. I'm also hoping that Philips really improves for this album for the new band.

[Malevolence]

Overall, that's pretty accurate. Audioslave is, however, an evolution of a the aforementioned bands' talent.

The reason I don't like RATM is mainly because of the singer. The reason I like Audioslave, howevr, is because of Cornell.

Got some Euphoria Morning. Great stuff.

On Creed's influences:

I simply haven't found another band that sounds, even vaguely, like Creed.

Show me a band that's made a song like anything on MOP or the good stuff on HC -- Like What If, Say I, Beautiful, Wrong Way -- Or even Bullets on Weathered -- and I'll believe you.

( Oh, on another note -- could someone point out where the song, "Weathered", got it's influence from? I recall some sort of Zeppline-riff vibe at the bridge? ... )

I simply see no similiarities, musically or otherwise, between any of the aformentioned "influences" and Creed's music. None of Soundgradene, Stone Temple Pilots, Pearl Jam, and the like, sound like Creed's best work.

At least, not any of the good stuff. You'll notice a huge increase in generic-soundsing rock over the albums.

MOP's generic songs were, like, Sister. And One.

HC had Are You Ready? and Higher ( Which was different, but still heavily influenced ... in a generic-ish sort of way ) and Never Die.

Weathered ... like. Over half of it. Is generic rock. Anthemic, Stapp wanted to call it.

Yea. Whatever.

[hayley]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Malevolence)

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

AMEN

[hide]

I for one can't understand how people can like early 90's rock and not like Creed or vice versa. I don't believe that Creed 'borrowed heavily" from these bands but there are similarties. Apart from the obvious comparsions to Vedder and Weiland there is the perhaps less obvious throwback to 70's rock espesically Led Zepplin but also Aerosmith and the like. For more I would much rather compare Creed to these bands then their contemparies because i'm not overly impressed with Nickelback and the like. Lyrically espesically these bands are much better then Nickelback, Fuel etc: