Oct 21st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Contrarianism: Alive and Well
The Economist wondered the other day if the negative reaction to SuperFreakonomics represented the end of contrarianism as a popular journalistic trope. The answer, it seems, is no. Slate is doubling-down on contrarianism by offering the case for Creed. This is ridiculous. Creed is a good band like solar panels are black. Your memory is correct. Absolutely everything about this is terrible:
I bet al-Qaeda plays this to recruits in order to whip them into an anti-Christian fervor.
113 Responses to “Contrarianism: Alive and Well”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 21st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Slate is doubling-down on contrarianism by offering the case for Creed.
Slate will abandon contrarianism the day after Playboy abandons pictures of nude women.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I don’t love Creed or anything, but I think its a lot better than pretty much anything I have ever seen you endorse. I think the song you linked is my favortie.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I had the same reaction upon seeing the Slate article — “OK, this is the logical limit of contrarianism.”
On the other hand, Matt Yglesias clearly does not like the *type* of music Creed plays, so of course he doesn’t like Creed. I personally think Creed is a shitty hard-rock band, but I like hard rock. Someone who doesn’t like the genre is completely unqualified to judge whether Creed is a good example of it.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
My favorite Slate column ever (I recall reading it, though I’m too lazy to find a link) basically made the argument that America isn’t really corrupt, because the amount of money spent on campaign contributions and lobbying is a miniscule percentage of GDP. Seriously.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:15 pm
The problem here is the failure to distinguish between the music (which is pretty good but not fantastic) and the artist (who is hammy and cheesy and generally pathetic).
The riff in Higher is both catchy and good. The guitar arc across all of Arms Wide Open is actually kind of compelling.
Scott Stapp is lame.
I wouldn’t say that Creed was underrated the way Slate does. I would say that their music was unfairly overshadowed by the antics of their front man.
Now the interesting thing about that, is that he engaged in what are typical front man antics–being a rock diva, getting addicted to drugs, and letting that lead to poor performances. I hypothesize that he caught more flack for that because of his Christian associations. Which is fine or not or whatever, I don’t really care.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Matt,
No, please tells us how you really feel!
October 21st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Nickleback thinks Creed is derivative hacks
October 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Wow, JD likes Creed. What a surprise.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Is Matt dissing Creed just to be contrarian and prove the Economist wrong? Whether you like Creed or not, you can do a lot worse.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Was it Slate or Salon that published the “Scientology is not a cult” contrarian article? The argument was essentially that every religion does something shady, so Scientology, which does every shady thing imaginable, is no more a cult than other religions. Convincing!!
October 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
311, I am ready to fight.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The DJ at my reception went against my will and played this Creed song as the song my new wife and I danced to, and for that I will never forgive neither him nor Creed.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Ham & Cheese on Wry
October 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Creed never struck me as a band I would like, and I’ve been successful avoiding their music. That said, Matt has horrible taste in music. I’m not considering listening to Creed or anything, just stating the facts.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Blue is much closer to black than Creed is to good.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I believe Rob Corddry and the Daily Show presented decisive evidence that Creed Isn’t Good.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Creed is a good band like solar panels are black.
I’m confused. As discussed in the post below, solar panels are in fact black (that is, they absort a relatively greeat amount of light). So is Matthew trying to say that Creed is actually good?
I don’t know any songs by Creed, so I couldn’t rightly say.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Did anyone else catch the author’s name?
I find it hard to believe that Jonah Weiner likes Creed.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Whoa, who the hell is writing for the Economist nowadays? That was an awesome post.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
So Matt likes Third Eye Blind, but not Creed? Is there any conceivable explanation other than the first Third Eye Blind record came out when he was a wide-eyed high schooler and
Creed hit it big when he was in college and therefore way too “cool” for top 40 radio? This isn’t an indictment – I tolerate (though don’t like) Third Eye Blind in a way I never would Creed for exactly the same reason (despite Creed pretty clearly being better musicians), just pointing out how much our musical tastes are governed by those around us.
Those who say Matt has terrible musical taste – come on. IIRC, he loves Op Ivy and the Clash, which by itself is good for a passing music appreciation grade in my book, even though most of the newer stuff he posts on isn’t my thing and seems too carefully calculated to be cool for my taste.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
My rule for the radio – ABC – Anything But Creed.
Must confess to tuning in for a bit of their VH1 Behind the Music. Couldn’t watch anymore when I learned that their first attempt to record an album fell apart when Scott Stapp lost all the band’s savings investing in a pyramid scheme.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Actually, my understanding is that this is a non-trivial school of thought within the world of political science: they say the market for political influence appears to be less-than-fully utilized despite indications that it represents an enormous return on investment.
I think this is idiotic, but Slate’s not the only one pushing it.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I once heard Creed’s frontman comparing Creed favorably to Led Zeppelin. Ugh.
I actually liked Creed when I was like, 13 years old, I had just started learning guitar, and their music was popular and easy to play, thus making me look cool for playing it. Later, as I became better at music, and they did not, it dawned on me that they sucked all along.
Plus, what’s with that phony Eddie Vedder-style voice? Everybody did that crap back then, and it’s garbage. You have a voice of your own. Use it.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
That doesn’t count. Everybody loves the Clash.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
And while I’m being opinionated on music, let me comment on 3rd Eye Blind: They too, are terrible. There’s nothing creative in their melodies, instrumentation, lyrics, persona, name, or any single piece of the band. Nothing.
I once saw a show with Collective Soul and 3rd Eye Blind. For some unknown reason, 3rd Eye Blind was the closer. A couple of songs into the 3rd Eye Blind set, about half the audience left, as did I, having gone there to see what I think is one of the best and most underrated surviving bands of the 90s: Collective Soul.
Collective Soul’s show was awesome, BTW.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I like hard rock. I have long liked hard rock. Some of my first CD’s were from Guns N Roses, Alice in Chains, Metallica, Aerosmith, and AC/DC.
Creed gives a whole new definition to the word “SUCKS”.
Creed does not just suck. There isn’t a word that adequately describes how horrible Creed is.
Creed would whip me in anti-Christian fervor. Creed could inspire me to commit acts of violence that could be called terrorism, if only the targets of such violence were not members of the band Creed. As the band Creed would be the target, I think it would be termed justifiable homicide.
Heck, Al Queda would be heroes if they sent a suicide bomber to Creed’s bus.
That said, MattY’s taste in music sucks. 3rd Eye Blind is almost as bad as Creed.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I find it interesting that Creed is universally mocked, while Rob Thomas — who was also pilloried during his heyday — seems to have made it out okay.
This still doesn’t explain Matt being a late-90s craprock apologist — 3rd eye blind, Lit, Dinosaur Jr., whatever. it’s all awful
October 21st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I plead temporary Creed Derangement Syndrome (TM) for causing my problems with spelling Al Qaeda.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I don’t. They’re not bad, I guess, but I just don’t find their music compelling or relevant to me in any way.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
So Matt likes Third Eye Blind, but not Creed? Is there any conceivable explanation other than the first Third Eye Blind record came out when he was a wide-eyed high schooler and
Creed hit it big when he was in college and therefore way too “cool” for top 40 radio?
This seems unlikely, given that according to Wikipedia, they both released their first albums in 1997.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Must. leave. this. thread.
Nicholas @ 27 -
Like 3rd Eye Blind, Rob Thomas sucks almost as badly as Creed.
There is a school of thought that indicates that Rob Thomas may actually suck worse than Creed. I’m not sure if I agree with that school of thought, but it’s worth exploring.
Is it Creed > Rob Thomas > 3rd Eye Blind?
Or is Rob Thomas > Creed > 3rd Eye Blind?
Or, maybe Rob Thomas = Creed > 3rd Eye Blind?
October 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Rob Thomas made the wise career move of recording with Carlos Santana. The only song I’ve heard from him since that one (which I like pretty much exclusively because of Santana’s work on it) is what sounds to be some kind of reprisal of “Bingo Was His Name-O”, using heartaches in place of farmers with dogs.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The riff in Higher is both catchy and good.
I’d go so far as to say the riff in “Higher” is perfect in the context of the song. (The song itself is just OK, but that’s a different issue.)
I never liked Creed, although I could never figure out why so many people spent energy hating them either. Sure, Scott Stapp was a doofus, but his shtick is no more or less annoying than those of a hundred other twee indie rockers.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
That doesn’t count. Everybody loves the Clash.
I don’t. They’re not bad, I guess, but I just don’t find their music compelling or relevant to me in any way.
Didn’t think anyone would ever have the stones to state publicly that they don’t find The Clash compelling or relevant, yet somehow thinks Collective Soul is awesome. Wow.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
This seems unlikely, given that according to Wikipedia, they both released their first albums in 1997.
Right, and for making me google Creed I now hate you forever, but my memory was right – Creed didn’t have a hit until ‘99 and didn’t have a #1 until 2000. On the other hand, Third Eye Blind was ubiquitous on the radio in ‘97.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Rob Thomas is good solely because he appeared on a hilarious episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia with Sinbad. That atones for many sins.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
So Matt likes Third Eye Blind, but not Creed? Is there any conceivable explanation other than the first Third Eye Blind record came out when he was a wide-eyed high schooler and
Third Eye Blind songs make me want to poke my eyes out. I like Creed’s first album which sounds authentic if somewhat cheesy, then they quickly loss cred thanks to Scott Stapp’s goofy behavior.
Dinosaur Jr and Collective Soul are good too. And Contrarianism will never die. It’s immortal.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
too many steves Says:
“I had the same reaction upon seeing the Slate article — “OK, this is the logical limit of contrarianism.””
Slate’s whole evil reason for being is a bet somewhere in The New Republic that there was actually no physical limit on contrarianism.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
oh my god, someone trying to tout ‘Collective Soul’ as a good band is saying that the Clash sucks & isn’t relevant? oh dear lord. just, just, no.
creed = suck. third eye blind = suck. collective soul = suck. rob thomas = suck. these are just commercial ventures, folks, not art. if you’re just a fan of arena rock for the sake of being a fan of arena rock because that’s what gets you going, fine. but it’s not ‘art’.
and dinosaur jr. are not ‘late 90s rock’, you silly person above @#27. they are, of course, nothing like lit or any of those other terrible bands.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Creed is a good band like solar panels are black.
You mean very nearly, and in the way that matters for the subject at hand?
October 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Heck, Al Queda would be heroes if they sent a suicide bomber to Creed’s bus.
If the Middle East and AfPak weren’t so fucked up Al Qaeda would have just formed a cheesy hard rock band instead of bombing civilians on a regular basis.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Third Eye Blind is the definition of a guilty pleasure for me: with each of their hits I can see why smart people could hate it, but I can’t help finding it delightfully catchy. Let the slagging commence.
I don’t have the chutzpah to say that Third Eye Blind is obviously better than Creed. However, there is a pretty significant difference between them, which makes it impossible for me to like Creed even as a guilty pleasure: Creed is not even kidding. They take themselves so, so very seriously; I’m not at all surprised that Stapp apparently thought they were as good as Zeppelin. Third Eye Blind just doesn’t. Even an earnest song like “Jumpers” doesn’t think it’s saying something groundbreaking about depression or suicide. Creed just screams self-importance, which is hard to get away with unless you are very good, which Creed certainly isn’t.
I also want to dock Creed some extra points for giving Nickelback a career. I guess Third Eye Blind made Hanson possible, but I wouldn’t say that’s nearly as bad.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Creed is a good band like solar panels are black.
You mean very nearly, and in the way that matters for the subject at hand?
It is actually pretty hilarious that in a post that (accurately!) accused Slate of “doubling down on contrarianism,” Matt totally doubled down on the utter ridiculousness of his solar panel color post.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I never liked Creed, although I could never figure out why so many people spent energy hating them either. Sure, Scott Stapp was a doofus, but his shtick is no more or less annoying than those of a hundred other twee indie rockers.
Trying to have it both ways on Christianity, I’ll bet. Come on, who are they trying to kid?
Although, what do I know; I don’t pay much attention to music in general. This might already be obvious.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Creed didn’t have a hit until ‘99
They didn’t hit the pop chart until 1999, but the song “My Own Prison” peaked at #7 on Billboard’s Alternative chart on April 18, 1998:
http://www.billboard.com/artist/creed/chart-history/248744#/artist/creed/chart-history/248744?f=377&g=Singles&sort=date
October 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
If the Middle East and AfPak weren’t so fucked up Al Qaeda would have just formed a cheesy hard rock band instead of bombing civilians on a regular basis.
There is a super-awesome documentary on Iraq’s ‘only’ heavy metal band called “Heavy Metal in Badgad.” As any self-respecting kid raised in the big city, I am a dyed-in-the-wool punk kid who spent his teen years mocking metal as suburban-faux-tough garbage, but it’s still a great movie.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I sort of agree that they’re really not worth the energy it takes to hate them… but in the article the author basically makes the case that they were a schlocky throwback to 80’s hair bands, so that makes them so-bad-it’s-good kind of “fun”… or something. But… uhm… I grew up in the Poison and Whitesnake years, and if the best you can say about Creed is that they were derivative of that era… then you aren’t saying anything nice about them.
Apologies to the Poison and Whitesnake fans on the board.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Creed didn’t have a hit until ‘99
They didn’t hit the pop chart until 1999, but the song “My Own Prison” peaked at #7 on Billboard’s Alternative chart on April 18, 1998:
http://www.billboard.com/artist/creed/chart-history/248744#/artist/creed/chart-history/248744?f=377&g=Singles&sort=date
True, although that’s still college for me. Also, I can’t imagine that got them much, if any, radio play on top 40 stations. I can’t ever remember hearing that song on the radio, though it’s possible I’m blocking it out!
October 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
When did everyone start liking the Clash? When I was in highschool everyone hated the Clash except me and 4 or 5 friends. What’s the point of punk rock if “everyone” likes it?
And then in the opposite corner we have Led Zeppelin – who were detested by everyone cool in the late 1970s. Zeppelin and Aerosmith were the Creed and Nickelback of their day. Roundly considered derivative, stupid and reactionary. Now everyone loves Zeppelin, including me.
And then in the middle we have the Pixies who in their heyday were considered good, but certainly not on the same level as Husker Du or The Replacements or Sonic Youth. But they seem to have far more fans among the younger kids than any other 80s college band.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
You kidding? There’s probably a HRW report on that crime against humanity.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I hate Creed now, but there was a time they were great. Their first CD with Torn and My Own Prison is very good. Their second CD was decent. But that’s when Arms Wide Open came out and then hey blew up and realized they could make a zillion dollars writing crappy music that all sounded the same.
Now tell me I’m wrong!
October 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
When played outdoors Nickelback causes flying birds to drop dead from the sky.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I agree with John at 51. My Own Prison is a pretty good song and album. Not amazing, but decent hard rock. All their real hits were from subsequent albums, which do indeed blow and made me regret having ever bought their first album.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
One major problem with Creed is that Scott Stapp’s whole “Behind the Music”-style downfall is just incredibly lame and cliche-ridden. The typical awesome “BTM” career arc is something like:
cocaine habit —> too much spending on private jets and gold plated mansions —> arrest in Tokyo/Peru/Iceland airport —> fights with band members on stage during final concert tour
Scott Stapp got addicted to Oxycontin, fell down on stage once and then went back to… Orlando.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Saying Creed were good, except for Scott Stapp, is like saying The Doors were good, except for Jim Morrison: more meaningless and incoherent than merely wrong.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I’m going to see the Meat Puppets this Friday.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Hate to break it to you guys, but Slate is not nearly as contrarian as everyone seems to think.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Hate to break it to you guys, but Slate is not nearly as contrarian as everyone seems to think.”
Is this meta-contrarianism??
Anyway, in addition to what’s been mentioned above, here’s the ultimate contrarian music criticism article (is Celine really that bad?): http://www.slate.com/id/2141418/
And a piece on how the development of smart comic books was actually a bad thing: http://www.slate.com/id/2131269/
But other than that, no, not contrarian at all!
October 21st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
About that Creed…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipy58SaIRhs
(NB: This is totally immature, hilarious and semi-NSFW.)
October 21st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Don’t forget Steven Landsburg’s articles, such as his case that the looting of the Bhagdad museum was a good thing, or his view that people should go to the front of the line rather than the back.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I just want to point out to Nicholas Beaudrot that Dinosaur Jr. is neither a late 90’s band nor at all deserving of being lumped in with garbage like 3rd Eye Blind and Lit. Next you’ll be comparing Motorhead to Manowar or some shit.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Creed, Tallahassee’s gift to the world. You’re welcome!
I was in a few different bands on the Tallahassee music scene a couple of years before the Creed guys showed up. There were a bunch of really great bands with some odd and apathetic people in them that went nowhere. Somehow Creed had something that the world wanted and Magic Juan did not.
Creed sucks, yeah, but, as was pointed out above, Nickleback and many other contemporary bands suck far worse.
@49:
This is damned insightful. I wonder what accounts for it. Other indie bands that people were much more excited about during this time period: The Flaming Lips, Dinosaur, Jr., The Butthole Surfers, Tad, Killdozer, and on an on. Or at least that’s how it seemed to me. But when I actually went to see the Pixies in Tallahassee in 1991 or so, they had a much bigger crowd than I’d ever seen for any of these other bands. The Pixies are seen as the ultimate indie band, but they always had a lot more crossover appeal than most. You’d see lots of girls a Pixies shows, but almost none at Flaming Lips or Dinosaur shows.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
@Chris 14
“That said, Matt has horrible taste in music.”
Nothing about Matt’s taste, but it’s tough to have the 90s as your formative music period and wind up with good taste.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I also want to dock Creed some extra points for giving Nickelback a career.
But you have to grant Oxycontin points for bringing down both Scott Stapp and Rush Limbaugh among other menaces to society (even if they’re both back at it like serial killers from a B grade horror movie.)
October 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
@Rob Mac
You must know my brother, who was in that scene at that time. (Not that I can give his name on a blog like this…)
My memory of things is that people were pretty passionate about the Pixies back then. They’re easier to listen to now than many of the non-mainstream bands that were popular in the early-90s. Or so I think.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
[...] http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/10/contrarianism-alive-and-well.phpZeppelin and Aerosmith were the Creed and Nickelback of their day. Roundly considered derivative, stupid and reactionary. Now everyone loves Zeppelin, including me. And then in the middle we have the Pixies who in their heyday were … [...]
October 21st, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“Nothing about Matt’s taste, but it’s tough to have the 90s as your formative music period and wind up with good taste.”
I can vouch for this.
And I’m just going to add in my own two cents about Third Eye Blind, because for me personally (not really qualified to judge the extent of their “art”) they recorded The Most Annoying Song Ever.
That’s because “Semi-Charmed Life” starts off IMMEDIATELY with that goddamn do-do-do doda-do-do chorus. As a fellow 90’s kid who got most of his music off the radio as a youngster, there was just no way to avoid it. That song was played all the time, and it would annoy me before my synapses even had time to signal my arm to change the station.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
You must know my brother, who was in that scene at that time. (Not that I can give his name on a blog like this…)
Maybe I am your brother.
You could tell me what band he was in. Now I’m curious. And if you mentioned my “handle” to him and told him I was around that scene, well, if he knew me he’d probably figure it out pretty quick. My handle is not much of a pseudonym.
Over the years I’ve posted enough personal details that anyone who was interested could easily figure out my real name. I’m not sure why anyone would care, though.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Disagree with this. The 90’s were my formative period, and I think I ended up with pretty good taste in music.
But, I also loathed MTV and most of the radio shitscape of the 90’s.
Tends to help protect you from making bad decisions, such as thinking that Dave Mathews Band has any redeeming value.
Don’t get me wrong, I made the occasional misstep, got sucked in by a catchy hook before realizing how horrible certain brands of music were back in the 90’s. But I’ve never praised the virtues of Third Eye Blind or the Counting Crows, either.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Rob Mac (62):
I think the difference is that all of the other bands you listed had a more serious “punk” or “hardcore” cred than did the Pixies, who were far more mainstream and radio friendly. But by my memory the Pixies were widely considered at the time–for better or for worse–the quintessentially “alternative” band. Due to the fact that the alternative music genre almost completely conquered pop music in the nineties, the Pixies have assumed an almost larger than life stature. They are deeply embedded in the DNA of much of today’s music.
On another note: Killdozer? The Butthole Surfer’s? Now that brings back memories…
My first concert ever was a Butthole Surfers/Mary’s Danish show in ‘87. The graphic genital reconstruction plastic surgery films and tongue-in-cheek satanic rituals marked me for life.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Disagree with this. The 90’s were my formative period, and I think I ended up with pretty good taste in music.
I’m with you. Cracking on an entire decade’s worth of music is foolish. There is good and bad in any decade. Some of the best and worst music of all time is from the 70s and from the 80s as well. I’m not as well versed on the 90s, but I can think of five or six 90s albums off the top of my head that are some of my all time favorites.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Distinguishing between 3rd Eye Blind, Creed and Collective Soul is pointless. They are all derivative hacks who suck, they just are in 3 different genres.
There are at least a couple points you can grant 3rd Eve Blind though, Creed and Collective Souls seem to take themselves totally seriously while 3rd Eye Blind seems to have a sense of humor about the whole thing which is at least something. And Rob Thomas does have a great song with Santana, but I think that probably just shows that Santana is so awesome anyone can sing with him. I suppose we could test that theory out by having do a song with Michael Bolton or something:-)
October 21st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
@70: Actually I think the Pixies influence on 90s alt pop was fairly limited to non existent. The alt pop stuff mostly grew out of the hard rock stuff that I mentioned (and, of course, all those turgid Seattle bands). Dinosaur, the Flaming Lips, and the Butthole Surfers were all signed to major labels. I don’t think the Pixies actually were (possibly because they split up at exactly the wrong time).
Where the Pixies approach to music really took over was not in alt pop, but in college indie. College indie music completely stopped rocking around the time the 80s “grunge” bands and their hellspawn took over mainstream pop radio in the early 90s. A more twee sound continues to dominate college indie music to this day, with the harder stuff relegated to subgenres like metal, etc.
At least that’s how it looks to me.
Re: genital reconstruction. I just saw the Surfers a few weeks ago and they showed that same film. In a way it’s lame when bands do this, but I never did see them in the 80s, so for me it was really cool. I finally got to see a real Butthole Surfers show! And it really was a great show.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I think the difference is that all of the other bands you listed had a more serious “punk” or “hardcore” cred than did the Pixies, who were far more mainstream and radio friendly.
Maybe, but come on – no Pixies record is as radio friendly in the classic sense as Pleased To Meet Me. Which isn’t a knock on either the Pixies or the ‘Mats, just saying…
Also, what the fuck, Collective Soul is horrible.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Rob Mac:
I was about to disagree with you concerning the relative influence of the Pixies and then I realized that I just lack some necessary distinctions. College indie is what I had in mind. But don’t discount the level of their influence via the Nirvana conduit. That whole droning-melodic punctuated by fast screeching guitar work in the chorus shtick had a lot to do with the Pixies. I even recall Cobain acknowledging their seminal ifluence at some point.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Creed’s suckiness is largely due to their pathetic God trip. Musically, they’re a reasonably competent Pearl Jam knock-off and hence don’t suck much worse than a lot of other contemporary bands.
Creed definitely sux but then again basically all bands formed after 1975 suck. The stupid punk bitchiz hate to hear it, but there is no question that popular music peaked in the decade 1965-1975 and has been in steep decline ever since — with little hope in sight.
Fortunately for most kiddies Matthew’s age, they have no idea what they are missing. Thank Jeebus for recording technology is all I can say.
Don’t shoot me. I’m just the messenger.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I agree with John at 51. My Own Prison is a pretty good song and album.
It also has good album cover art. A shirtless tattooed guy in jeans is in a barn and he’s clutching at his head as if he’s having an existential crisis and is about to find Jesus any minute now.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
no Pixies record is as radio friendly in the classic sense as Pleased To Meet Me.
*ahem*
October 21st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
The Fool,
I once made the argument that the definitive song in every genre had been done by 1972 or so. Sure there is good music recorded after that date, but you are hard pressed to find an example of something past that date that doesn’t have a superior example of it’s genre from pre ‘72.
A fun way to kill some time is trying to come up with a sing that breaks the premise.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Poptarts,
Your just trying to be a parody at this point right?
I mean come on is there a more cliched image possible for such cliched, derivative drivel as Creed?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I agree with Matt about Creed being bad, and about Third Eye Blind being good. (I would maybe just say OK, but “Semi-Charmed Life” is awesome.)
October 21st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
That whole droning-melodic punctuated by fast screeching guitar work in the chorus shtick had a lot to do with the Pixies. I even recall Cobain acknowledging their seminal ifluence at some point.
I’ve heard people say this and there was even a movie made about the Pixies a few years ago called Loud Quiet Loud that made that very argument, but I’ve never been persuaded. Anyone who thinks loud/quiet/loud describes the Pixies music is someone who hasn’t really paid attention to a lot of Pixies music. There songs actually have very odd structures, generally speaking. Whereas pretty much every single Nirvana song has what I would call a peppy/turgid/peppy structure.
Plus a lot of the rock/grunge band antedate the Pixies by a good five years.
The stupid punk bitchiz hate to hear it, but there is no question that popular music peaked in the decade 1965-1975 and has been in steep decline ever since — with little hope in sight.
A sentiment echoed by grumpy old men everywhere. The only good music was made when I was a kid, dammit!
October 21st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
eric k:
I suppose the best rap and grunge songs were necessarily recorded after 1972…
One thing that kills me when I make the claim that popular music peaked from 1965-1975 is the knee jerk reaction that always comes along that it is impossible for one decade to be better than another because all decades have good and bad music. This view is incredibly logically and mathematically foolish.
Unless you are a hard core relativist/nihilist who thinks everything is as good/bad as everything else, there is no reason to assume that musical quality is a constant over time. What force maintains the quality at a constant level? Why wouldn’t it vary like most things do?
Are all football teams always equally good across the league in a given year as well as across the years? Preposterous. So why is a music team any different?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Although I do it all the time with my friends, holding up one piece of pop music against another and saying one is objectively good while another is objectively can become a rather silly endeavor. Most popular music is designed to appeal to a fairly broad audience and is not more or less or complex or sublime than its competition. It generally comes down to relatively small differences (a hook, a tone of voice, a certain guiltar lick) that separates good music from the rest.
That being said, Soundgarden is an objectively great band and singlehandedly keept the 90s from slipping into the Suck surrounding the artistic voids of Mariah Carey, Boyz to Men and ‘N Sync. And “She said” by Collective Soulud is a pretty good song. And Third Eye Blind has about five bubblegummy songs which are eminently listenable. So there.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“A sentiment echoed by grumpy old men everywhere. The only good music was made when I was a kid, dammit!”
Another cliched response that gets rolled out every time. Snore. If your theory was correct then I would be proselytizing for disco, 80’s hair bands, and Michael Jackson. Trust me: I’m not “Theory” FAIL.
Another counterexample: Somehow I came to love reggae, bluegrass, and country in the 90’s long after my childhood and without having heard much of those genres when I was a child. Theory FAIL.
Even if the unproven asertion were true that grumpy old men tend to prefer what they grew up with, that would not be evidence against my thesis. The fact that some people allegedly hold musical views for bad reasons in no way rules out the possibility of others holding musical views for good reasons. Theory FAIL.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Although I do it all the time with my friends, holding up one piece of pop music against another and saying one is objectively good while another is objectively [bad] can become a rather silly endeavor.
Then why do you do it?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Then why do you do it?”
Because it’s both fun and irresitible. I fall victim to my own criticism in the second paragraph of my original post.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
The Fool: My cliched response came in response to your own cliched utterance. I didn’t even say you were wrong! I’ve often been the exact same sort of grumpy old man myself because I think most of the terrible stuff I hear in contemporary music is far worse than even the terrible stuff I grew up hearing on the radio in the 70s and 80s.
Since there’s really no objective way to make a case that a given decade’s worth of music is better or worse than any other decade’s worth of music, I think my grumpy old man theory is no better or worse than your no-good-music-after 1975 theory.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Somehow I came to love reggae, bluegrass, and country in the 90’s
Well, if those are the genres you like, then sure, arguing that the best predated 1972 is a winning argument.
I happen to like electronic music. Electronic music before 1972 was pretty good, but it was pretty much all in the classical realm; Kraftwerk brought it into pop, and their best came out in the late 70s. Most, though not all, of the best synthpop came from the early to mid 80s, and then there was good techno in the 90s, and the best since 1996 or so has all been IDM.
Different genres have different time periods, though. The best surf music all came out within about a two-year period between 1962 and 1964.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Adam: you’re confusing me with eric k.
Also those aren’t the only genres I like by a long shot. But all three are genres I first learned to love in the 90’s when I was past childhood and past the time when (according to Rob Mac’s theory) I was being indelibly and irrationally imprinted with my musical taste.
Another counterargument: does that mean all old men love EVERYTHING they heard when they were a kid? Obviously that claim is false but then what’s your theory for how the grumpy old men pick and choose out of what’s on the air when they are kids?
The whole imprinting theory falls apart as soon as you try to spell it out and confront it with evidence.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Rob Mac:
Anyone who thinks loud/quiet/loud describes the Pixies music is someone who hasn’t really paid attention to a lot of Pixies music.
I’d say it’s indicative of somebody who listened badly to the Pixies. As in, it’s a fundamentally superficial read. Which, come to think of it, is really a great way of describing Nirvana (I’d also add The Melvins and The Meat Puppets as additional source material read badly).
the fool:
I suppose the best rap and grunge songs were necessarily recorded after 1972…
Meh! The best grunge was Iggy and the Stooges, Blue Cheer, MC5.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
The best grunge was Iggy and the Stooges, Blue Cheer, MC5.
I thought the conventional story was that those bands were proto-punk, not proto-grunge.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I actually really like Creed and have been defending them for a few years now. For a long time I felt like the only person in the world who liked Creed, so it’s great to see that they are getting some respect again.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Feel free to find pre ‘72 versions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPYpKJlFq7Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOJMBrCNyUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dys1_TuUmI4
All the basics may have been done once the electronics had some time to be experimented with, but there are still unique ways left to combine them.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
the fool:
Conventional wisdom be damned. And The Monks were the real authentic proto-punk band ;-P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdrJ-_iGmjE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3fAzQzgeSc&feature=related
October 21st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Mark, re your first link:
I like Kashmir better as originally done by Led Zeppelin but admittedly that was 1975, not 1972.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Ana:
I dig that balding lead banjo player, the Ray Manzarek meets Pigpen keys, and that real gone chick in the pantsuit!
October 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Bullshit. Skinny Puppy didn’t even form until the late 80s.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Rob, Adam and Mark,
First of all I’m not going anywhere near The Fools argument that nothing good came after ‘75, I think there has been lots of great music recorded since then.
Also note I didn’t say best, I said definitive. There is a subtle distinction there. Especially in genres that depend on technology people may have gotten better, but they are doing better verions or derivatives of something that has already been defined.
To use a Sports analogy baseball players today are infinitely more talented than players from the 1920s, but in reality baseball as we know it is essentially unchanged since the early 20s, while baseball from say 1910 would look bizarre.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Kashmir is an awesome song, but I don’t remember a whole lot of opera in it. Instrumentally that seems about right, though.
It seems the only new directions left to music are either purification or synthesis. Purification would include music like rap, going for pure beat, Jack White going for pure rock, etc. Synthesis includes what I linked to, taking parts from seemingly unrelated music forms and combining them.
Perhaps someone will someday find a completely unexplored new sound, but I doubt it. Perhaps the work of Bobby McFarrin qualified at the time. Even musique concrete has been well explored.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Eric,
Now you sound like my 13 year old daughter. She also believes — and I agree — that people have simply learned how to make music better over the years, as each generation builds upon the previous. From her perspective, where it is all new to her, that seems fairly obvious.
The counter arguement is you have to give the first ones credit for invention, and that is at least partially true. On the other hand, they were also just lucky to be around where true invention was still possible.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Don’t get me wrong, Creed is a total abomination, but MY really has no right to talk seeing as how the entirety of music he mentions is seemingly cribbed from Pitchfork end-of-year lists. Show some hint of musical curiosity before slagging off other people’s likes and dislikes.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
The Fool;
If you look carefully you’ll see that the banjo player wasn’t, in fact, balding, but that the whole band had shaved their heads to get that Friar Tuck look. Yeah, The Monks, they were way out there for mid-sixties.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@Rob Mac
College indie music completely stopped rocking around the time the 80s “grunge” bands and their hellspawn took over mainstream pop radio in the early 90s.
Very true.
I’ll mention your name to my bro.
There were some decent albums during the 90s, for sure. But the proportion of dreck to good albums was much higher during that decade than during the 80s, most certainly.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@Rob Mac
College indie music completely stopped rocking around the time the 80s “grunge” bands and their hellspawn took over mainstream pop radio in the early 90s.
A huge number of them were cannibalized by corporations. And many of those that weren’t played a great deal of mainstream grunge.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:08 pm
[...] on the Slate piece, Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias and Scott Lemieux Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Site [...]
October 21st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I hadn’t realized that Lemieux wrote about this too. Why should anyone be surprised that Slate keeps doing shit like this? It makes everyone pay attention!
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
From this video, I gather that Creed worships the Eye of Sauron, and are therefore orcs. Do not breed with them.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Creed is a good band like solar panels are black.
That may be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Also note I didn’t say best, I said definitive. There is a subtle distinction there. Especially in genres that depend on technology people may have gotten better, but they are doing better verions or derivatives of something that has already been defined.
OK, I see what you’re saying, but I still disagree with you. You can play the precedents-and-influences game on any piece of music, but there are plenty of genres and trends that hadn’t been established yet in 1972. To say that all of rap music, for example, is just an incremental refinement from, I dunno, call-and-response R&B or whatever is just a reductio ad absurdum. I might as well say that anybody writing a “song” is just riffing off of something folk musicians have been doing for millennia.
Similarly, Brian Eno hadn’t yet invented ambient music in 1972, and while you could trace influences back to Erik Satie, he was still doing something new. Primitive drum machines existed but hadn’t been incorporated into popular music. Etc.
To use a Sports analogy baseball players today
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Sorry, the sports analogy:
The role of closer didn’t exist in the 1920s. Sure, it was still pitching, hitting, and fielding, but pitching staffs were managed very differently at the time.
Still, not as big as a difference as hip-hop or the widespread use of synthesizers and sequencers.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Have to agree with MattF, ‘Slate’ is only “contrarian” if you are hopelessly stuck inside the American ideological bubble, or within the pretty narrow parameters of received opinion. Slate displays an utterly superficial sort of contrarianism that never really pierces the central tropes of (accepted) American discourse.
It’s loopy notions like ‘Slate’ is somehow edgy, or even merely critical, that help explain why our political conversation is so impoverished and plain lost.
As for music, there’s not much (though there are a few things) after the early ’90’s that speak to me, I guess I’m already an old fusty-musty. For those feverishly arguing over the relative artistic merits of Creed, Third Eye Blind et al, I might gingerly suggest exposure to some real music, y’know, maybe pick up a few Beethoven or Miles Davis records or something?
(Frankly, in the world of pop/rock there’s just not much interesting after the admittedly brilliant late 80’s/early 90’s last rock ‘n’ roll gasp of Sonic Youth, the Pixies, Jane’s Addiction, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden and arguably a few others… and even these are a pale echo of the 70’s leviathans Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, mid-period Rolling Stones… of course REM and U2 obviously have their eternal place in the cosmos… I take that back, you do have Radiohead.)
October 28th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
[...] last night’s Daily Show, host Jon Stewart heaped praise on the contrarian approach to global warming taken by SuperFreakonomics author Steve Levitt, a University of Chicago [...]