Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Man I gotta say...Creed was really good.

hepcat

By hepcat,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Panthers128 Newbie

Panthers128

Posted
Posted

I never got into Pearl Jam (although I like Last Dance) or Nirvana. In the 90s, I always preferred Smashing Pumpkins and Nine Inch Nails. As for how their mentioned in the same breath, how about both being popular and both being rock bands?

These conversations about music just get silly. People worry too much about image and in that respect many fans of Nirvana or Pearl Jam are no different then fans of Katy Perry or Snoop Dog.

I personally listen to anything that catches my ear whether it be David Bowie, Bob Dylan or Michael Jackson. At the end of the day what will ultimately link all popular musicians is they have the most resources available to them to make music and have great exposure.

Interesting Creed never hired a big name producer for any of their albums and instead stuck with the same producer (a relative unknown when they made their first album) for all three. In comparison, Nirvana brought in a former member of Soundgarden to produce their first album, then went and got the guy who produced one of the Smashing Pumpkins albums. Then they went and got the Pixies album producer (David Bowie has pointed this out as a big Pixies fan in several interviews mentioning how some Nirvana songs borrow the Pixies sound - or the sound that originated with the Pixies).

So who has more credibility? I say they have the same amount. The both wrote songs, performed songs, had success, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CharlotteBeer.com Newbie

CharlotteBeer.com

Posted
Posted

I never got into Pearl Jam (although I like Last Dance) or Nirvana. In the 90s, I always preferred Smashing Pumpkins and Nine Inch Nails. As for how their mentioned in the same breath, how about both being popular and both being rock bands?

These conversations about music just get silly. People worry too much about image and in that respect many fans of Nirvana or Pearl Jam are no different then fans of Katy Perry or Snoop Dog.

I personally listen to anything that catches my ear whether it be David Bowie, Bob Dylan or Michael Jackson. At the end of the day what will ultimately link all popular musicians is they have the most resources available to them to make music and have great exposure.

Interesting Creed never hired a big name producer for any of their albums and instead stuck with the same producer (a relative unknown when they made their first album) for all three. In comparison, Nirvana brought in a former member of Soundgarden to produce their first album, then went and got the guy who produced one of the Smashing Pumpkins albums. Then they went and got the Pixies album producer (David Bowie has pointed this out as a big Pixies fan in several interviews mentioning how some Nirvana songs borrow the Pixies sound - or the sound that originated with the Pixies).

So who has more credibility? I say they have the same amount. The both wrote songs, performed songs, had success, etc.

So well said. I think a lot of people hate on Creed and bands like Creed because it's almost expected of them, not because they genuinely dislike the music. It's become as trendy to dislike these overly "pop" bands as it is trendy to like the bands they were influenced by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Panthers128 Newbie

Panthers128

Posted
Posted

Please do not put Led Zeppelin in the same paragraph as Creed. They don't deserve that.

Despite my comments about the image obsessed, I agree with a certain idea of this statement but not exactly what is stated. Led Zeppelin and most of the late 60's and 70's rock bands originated a lot of sounds. I don't think you can really compare some of those bands to anything out today.

Iggy Pop, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, The Who, etc. There wasn't as much precedent when they did it. Most music was softer rock like the Beatles (a band I do not like at all, but have respect for). Now adays too often you hear what sounds like rehashed ideas and material or bad ideas and bad material (hip hop, rap, most pop).

But even if you evaluate these bands, I'm sure you can find something that influenced them that probably wasn't nearly as popular or respected. Bob Dylan liked some guy named Woody guthrie and people draw comparisons. David Bowie borrowed from Marc Bolan and the Velet Underground. Iggy Pop was out of ideas as a musician and had David Bowie produce a couple of his albums.

No one is entirely original or as unique as you might believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boo7382 Newbie

boo7382

Posted
Posted

Despite my comments about the image obsessed, I agree with a certain idea of this statement but not exactly what is stated. Led Zeppelin and most of the late 60's and 70's rock bands originated a lot of sounds. I don't think you can really compare some of those bands to anything out today.

Iggy Pop, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, The Who, etc. There wasn't as much precedent when they did it. Most music was softer rock like the Beatles (a band I do not like at all, but have respect for). Now adays too often you hear what sounds like rehashed ideas and material or bad ideas and bad material (hip hop, rap, most pop).

But even if you evaluate these bands, I'm sure you can find something that influenced them that probably wasn't nearly as popular or respected. Bob Dylan liked some guy named Woody guthrie and people draw comparisons. David Bowie borrowed from Marc Bolan and the Velet Underground. Iggy Pop was out of ideas as a musician and had David Bowie produce a couple of his albums.

No one is entirely original or as unique as you might believe.

Pretty sure Zepp was a lot of blues, some folk and some jazz as well. WHich is widely represented in their music if you listen to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zcustom Newbie

Zcustom

Posted
Posted

I really don't understand how people cannot like the Beatles. Please tell me why you do not like them. This was a group that I was raised listening to, so I realize that I am biased. But, I would really like to know.

I don't care for the Beatles, but I respect them.

I never listened to them growing up and when I did finally have a listen it was like "What's the big deal"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C47 Newbie

C47

Posted
Posted

I don't care for the Beatles, but I respect them.

I never listened to them growing up and when I did finally have a listen it was like "What's the big deal"

I think it's because of the simplicity of the music. When compared to rock bands now the Beatles just don't seem very talented. I can appreciate the music for the time period it came from, but I would much rather listen to more complex in depth songs....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zcustom Newbie

Zcustom

Posted
Posted

I think it's because of the simplicity of the music. When compared to rock bands now the Beatles just don't seem very talented. I can appreciate the music for the time period it came from' date=' but I would much rather listen to more complex in depth songs....[/quote']

True.

Also Ringo Starr is a hack on drums

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CharlotteBeer.com Newbie

CharlotteBeer.com

Posted
Posted

I really don't understand how people cannot like the Beatles. Please tell me why you do not like them. This was a group that I was raised listening to, so I realize that I am biased. But, I would really like to know.

Life will be a lot less frustrating for you once you realize that not everyone is required to like or hate the same things. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...