I told you so

Edward · Post by **Edward** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:32 am

For all of those who bought into the "Creed is a good Christian bunch of guys playing secular yet clean music."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060217/peo ... drock_dc_1

What is done in private on the tour bus will be watched on the internet.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:42 pm

Not a Creed fan, but it seems to only be Stapp's name coming up, not the other "bunch of guys."

executioner · Post by **executioner** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:08 pm

I'll get flamed for this one but the three most overated bands in history are.

3. Creed
2. Nirvana
1. The Beatles

Edward · Post by **Edward** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:50 am

I must agree that Creed is WAY over-rated. Same chords, same chord progression, and after the first album, same predictable formula on nearly every song. I would pay big money to hear Scott sing like Scott, and not like a crappy kareoke Stone Temple Pilots.

The Beatles were innovative in their day. Had it not been for them and Sir George, I doubt that recording technology would have evolved as quickly as it did. Musically, I find very few songs appealling. It was not my time, my generation. It was the bomb for those females back then though.

Nirvana. I think Cobain did what others wanted to do: End his life for starting that band and being successful. My hat is off to Steve Albini for engineering their records with such littl budget though. Surely he had no idea that Nirvana would be huge, and he treated that project with the same hard work and dedication as all of his other local bands. Good ethics there.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:10 pm

Creed > Nickelback

yamasaaaki har har · Post by **yamasaaaki har har** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:12 pm

Today's rock music = poopoo

charl · Post by **charl** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:37 pm

Okay I am just going to hijack this.

The best sounding rock band I've heard in awhile is Young Heart Attack, and they basically play 70's metal. Fun as all heck to rock out to though. And very bad.

Worst band in the history of popular music-the B52's. To say they are anything but really awful in a train-wreck sort of make-you-want-to-have-a-falling-down-moment way is under-rating their sheer powers of crappiness.

Ironically I have heard comparisons made of the two groups. That confuses me because one is super super bad and one is not.

yamasaaaki har har · Post by **yamasaaaki har har** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:35 pm

Hi, Jack.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:49 pm

I don't know...I thought "Love Shack" by the B-52s was sort of fun...

This won't be the first time I've admitted to liking or at least being tolerant of pretty bad stuff...

I will agree they weren't the best band in the world.

spottacus · Post by **spottacus** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:50 am

The Beatles were innovative and trend-setters. The things they did back then that were groundbreaking are now trite. That doesn't mean they weren't a great band; it means they've been copied and mimicked to death.

Nirvana was a very good band, and Dave Grohl probably had as much to do with that as Cobain.

executioner · Post by **executioner** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:46 am

The Beatles very mediocore musicians. They played very few chords with their guitars, the vocals were never up to par, and the drumming was very, very simple. IMO they were a girlie band somewhat like the boy bands of today.

Shell · Post by **Shell** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:17 am

There are some Ringo Starr fans who might stone you about what you say about the Beatles drumming, Exe...

And Paul McCartney is a heck of a bass player.

Boy bands of today...That's the problem. Sure, compared to today their music might seem simple, but there isn't a band today that wasn't influenced in some way by the Beatles. And they must have done something right for people to still like their music today.

executioner · Post by **executioner** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:19 pm

As we know Bob is a fan of the Beatles and he gave at one point a reason for their popularity over the years; He said their music is so easy to play and most rock musicans start out with that because of its easyness.

charl · Post by **charl** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:14 pm

As is most roots music. That is why people love it and continue to play it. Technical virtuosity is not the be all and end all of what should be considered "good music".

I also like the Beatles. I often say I belong to the Louis Armstrong school of music apreciation, which says there are only two kinds of music: the good kind and the other kind. Listen to the stuff that sounds good regardless of how impressive it is.

greenchili · Post by **greenchili** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:29 am

executioner wrote:The Beatles very mediocore musicians. They played very few chords with their guitars, the vocals were never up to par, and the drumming was very, very simple. IMO they were a girlie band somewhat like the boy bands of today.

If you only knew....

There was ALOT more to the beatles than that.

More complexer does not always = better song.
They influenced the industry in more ways than just music.
They were doing videos way before anyone else did.

Paul pretty much revolutionized the use of bass in music, before that a bass player was pretty much looked down on. I know his bass sounds real wacky sometimes but when he is on, he is on.

Their mixing alone puts them way up there. What they did back then with the equipment available was unthinkable.

Although alot of people may think of them as the first boy band, they were not. The Monkee's were.

Dig deeper.

BTW I'm not saying you have to like them.

I'd actually seriously considered learning beatle songs as a picking up point from when I dropped a guitar several years ago.

The Petra Zone

I told you so

I told you so

i

there are a few 4-letter words I could use also

wup

y

b

Re: y

Who is online