Originally Posted by Martian

Okay, that's a different question. I apologize for the mistake.

First off, I don't necessarily think that bands should constantly change. Some bands do the same thing for years or even decades. It works for them, and it's not my place to tell them not to do that.

What I like is to hear musicians who grow and adapt over time.

Let's take a band that has a good history and has been around for a while. How about the Red Hot Chili Peppers?

They've been going from twenty years, and I can go from Blood Sugar Sex Magic to Mother's Milk and all the way up to Stadium Arcadium and follow their evolution. Their music is always changing and innovating, which means that I'll probably buy their next album when it comes out because it'll be something new. I can't say for sure that I'll like it, but I'll know that I haven't heard it before.

They also happen to be a very talented group of individuals. When people make lists of top guitarists and bassists, John Frusciante and Flea are usually on them somewhere. I enjoy listening to people who are at the top of the game. As a guitarist and a bassist, I can appreciate the level of mastery that I'm hearing.

They've also consistently had a few good singles on every album they've put out. They tend to pop up every few years again, and do something that's relevant and gets good airtime.

Top 40 radio is an industry that's about using proven success. A band like Red Hot Chili Peppers can work well in that environment, because they're a proven success as a band. They could release an album of Anthony Kiedis reading his grocery list for an hour, and it would get airtime. So they're able to take risks and still thrive in that very difficult and competitive world. They're still playing a dangerous game -- the public is fickle, and it's not hard to become irrelevant.

Nickelback works in a completely different way. Nickelback is safe precisely because they don't do anything new. They have their formula and they stick to it.

Pick a song by Nickelback. Any song will do, although the singles are the ones that work best. You'll find that they all have the same compositional elements. Thespian86 already outlined them earlier in this thread, so I won't go through the step-by-step, but it's always there.

That's what works for Nickelback. Personally, it turns me off. I want to hear variety. I want to hear a band take risks. I want to hear a band try new things. I want to pick up a new album and know that I'm going to hear something I've never heard before. The risk is that, like Goo Goo Dolls, they'll go in a direction I don't particularly like. The risk is minimal, though, because for the most part if it's something new I'll probably like it. When it comes to music, there's very little I won't listen to and appreciate. The category exists, but it's not a large one by any stretch when compared with the breadth and depth of music I do enjoy.

I love Pandora, because it always brings me new things. I don't want to hear the same music over and over again. That's my preference. Clearly you'd rather have music you know you're going to enjoy, and there's nothing wrong with that either. It's simply two different approaches to music appreciation.