trying to make this about something more than the music, but my suspicion is that there's bipartisan agreement that just based on their tunes alone, Creed is awful, awful music. Somehow, though, it wasn't bad enough for the Guantanamo prisoners.
Why is Creed the band that has been so singled out? Why not Hinder or Nickelback or Three Days Grace or Rob Thomas or some other faceless duderock band? Discuss.
Off the top of my head, I would say because Creed is the band that inspired all those other shitty bands. They are like, the godfathers of duderock (nice term), and thus all that excrement rests upon their shoulders.
And of course, ironically, Creed is actually a better band than all those guys. Certainly better than Nickleback. I listen to modern rock radio sometimes on the way to work, and after suffering through some of those other bands, a Creed song comes on, and I think, "Huh, this doesn't seem so bad. At least their guitarist can play." I mean, Creed is annoying, but Nickleback is both annoying and without any sort of skill. There's this weird thing were a lot of the most hated bands are not actually as bad as some of their co-genreists (not a word). Usually such bands have at least some shred of talent somewhere that allows them to rise above their peers in terms of popularity, because despite being annoying and tasteless, they are at least somewhat listenable.
Yah, Creed songs have decent musical backing. I mean, you don't get many people saying, "I hate Alter Bridge and want them to die in a fire." It's just, well, one day there was Eddie Vedder, and he had sex with the ebola virus, and there was Scott Stapp.
Nickelback, by comparison, is apocalyptically bad.
corvus is right on, i think. many of the bands i love to hate are not the worst bands in a technical sense, but the progenitors of epigones. it is the imitators that makes us hate the originating band, which is often unremarkable but not as untalented as their imitators.
Post a Comment