I really wish I understood why so many people get hung up on 'originality' vs 'selling out' or 'contrived' or 'manipulated' or 'engineered' or anything really. It's fucking entertainment. If they "entertain" you, it's doing its job. Maybe I have no standards, but I'm "entertained" by Britney Spears as much as I am by Beethoven's 9th. They're doing what they do to make a buck and to entertain. If they can't sing, they're free to use a machine to make it sound good. If they want cool beats, use a machine. I don't care. If it's catchy and works then who am I to tell them they're contrived or whiny or can't sing.

See comment above about music snobs. :)

I'm a music snob.. so what?

And this is what I don't understand. You asked why people don't like Nickelback and got a few answers. You then attempted to show how those reasons are invalid.

I don't like Nickelback because every bloody single they ever put out is exactly the same. There's nothing new to catch my interest. I don't like Linkin Park or pretty much any of the other bands you've mentioned so far for exactly the same reason. I have no problem with you or anyone else enjoying their music, but that is why I don't like them.

Jinn, nobody's said anything about selling out to my knowledge. The sole issue that's come up here as far as I can see is that Nickelback is unoriginal. They hit on a formula and mined it to death. I may not particularly like some aspects of what they do (I fucking hate auto-tune, since it's been brought up), but I don't deny their right to do such things.

Electronic music is all contrived and artificial. It's also a valid artform. Some people get worked up about it because it removes a lot of the skill and technique that normal analogue musicians work so hard on, but it is a creative form of expression and requires a completely different set of skills that I don't even pretend to have. It's also not really my thing, but I won't get down on people for making it or enjoying it.

All kinds of problems start when people try to make objective statements about something that is inherently subjective.

EDIT - And for the record, yes I can sing better than Chad Kroeger. Lots of people can, as he's not a particularly good singer. Mainstream success != talent.

Is music snobbery just a way that people develop to rationalize why they're 'better' than these multimillionaires? Why they deserve success more than those 'no skill' musicians?

Look, you seem to be basing your entire position on a premise that is false, so let's just go ahead and get rid of it right now.

Top 40 radio has absolutely nothing to do with talent. That's not to say that talented musicians do not break into the charts, but that's not the primary indicator of success. Top 40 is all about profitablity, and that's a whole other discussion. A band like Nickelback has an image. It's marketable. The front man looks good on a poster. And the same things that I don't like about it are what make it good for top 40 radio; namely that it follows a proven successful formula.

Nothing Chad Kroeger has ever done has lead me to believe he possesses any great amount of musical talent. He's not a guitar virtuoso, and he's not a great singer. His songwriting isn't anything to write home about either. He's a competent singer and guitarist, and he has a method for composing his songs that works out well for him. That's all he needs to do what he does so it works well for him.

I don't understand how people who don't like top 40 are snobs. The opinion expressed here by myself and others seems to run along the lines of 'do what makes you happy, it's not our place to judge.' That seems like the complete antithesis of snobbery to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

Yes, yes you are. You seem to be making it waaaay too personal!! Perhaps the thread should be moved to tilted religions! :p

EDIT: How does anybody hate goo goo dolls?!!

I'm not offended, just confused.

You asked a question, I answered the question. You then (as far as I'm able to tell) attempted to prove my answer wrong (if that's true then how come/what about... etc). My answer is not wrong. It's based on my opinions, and therefore cannot be wrong unless for some reason I choose to lie.

You've come off as defensive, and I don't understand why that should be. That's the part that I think I might be misinterpreting, but I'm not sure how.

I've never said that you can't listen to and enjoy Nickelback. I've never said I'm better than you because you like Nickelback. I've never expressed any sort of elitism here. And yet I'm called a snob, simply for not liking the music that typically hits top 40.

Huh?

In re: Goo Goo Dolls, I really enjoyed A Boy Named Goo. I don't like the direction Rzeznik went in after that. Again, personal opinion, not particularly relevant to anyone but me. to illustrate the difference though, if you gave me the choice of a new Goo Goo Dolls album and a new Nickelback album, I'd choose the Goo Goo Dolls because, whether I like it or not, I know it'll be something I haven't heard before.

EDIT - I've just had a look at my earlier posts, and I'm going to try to clarify once more where I'm coming from here. I can see that it might not appear consistent. I'm excusing myself with a bout of insomnia that's making my brain a bit sluggish.

Pop, to me, has two definitions. There is a style of music that I refer to as pop, but it's also a culture; an industry, even. Nickelback, 3 Doors Down, Brittney Spears and Limp Bizkit are all pop in the industry sense.

Coca Cola is also an industry. And their entire product range is designed to appeal to the most people possible, and therefore make the most money.

Nickelback is Coca Cola. Lots of people like Coca Cola, and that's great. I certainly wouldn't dream of bashing people for such a thing.

I like wine. Wine comes in a lot of varieties, and even two bottles of the same vintage can be subtly different. The small variations are what's exciting about it.

Coca Cola is always the same. Wine is always a bit different. Some people prefer the consistency, some prefer the variety. There's nothing inherently wrong with either preference, it's just how some people are.

So yeah. I have no problem with people liking Nickelback. Rumour is that Chad Kroeger is a dick, but I've never met the man and can't confirm that; regardless, I certainly don't begrudge him his success. However, his music doesn't excite me, and that's really all there is to it.

OK man, if "Do what makes you happy" is an answer to everything this place would seriously be lacking in threads ...

the second question I posed to you is, why do think that all bands should change styles (Of which I discovered you and I have very little in common to do with bands but we both like foo fighters so high 5 ...) when doing their music? Sometimes not everything that's original is good. I mean, art might be all artsy fartsy and stuff but if it's plain boring then they deserve to not be on the top 40.

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.

Sorry:

This makes me so mad. Not because of what you said, but the situation it was used. And it's not your fault.

Liking art, good art, GREAT art, does not make you a snob. Art and elitist culture are not the same.

Art is worth exploring. Art is worth loving. We, every artist - whether they are Chefs, or Abstract Painters, or Musicians, or whatever -, work the wounds of our life in a display of intense and often incredibly unhealthy honesty for the hopes of creating a message or an image or a text that will speak. That speaks. We do it because it's all we can do. It's all we have. And it kills us but it's what we love so we do it. We have no choice but to do it.

People like Nickelback are lacking. That sounds elitist but it's true of everything else, EVER, so why can't it be true of art. There are world class surgeons, and run of the mill surgeons. Art's subjectivity doesn't mean there is no bad or good. You can fail. And it happens in the attempt. If you half attempt something, it will stink of it, and Nickelback stinks.

Art, for me, is about honesty - not spectacle. And I can't live in a world that thinks honesty is worth laughing off, or rolling our eyes at; I can't.

Do you know what's really upsetting? It's like comparing a completely spontaneous incendiary blues guitar solo with the game Rock Band. It's like comparing a soap opera to a performance of Hamlet. They aren't the same. Sure, they are churning out (churning out being the key phrase) text and music and visuals but they just used the "rock" template and drew a line around it and called it Music.

I'm not anti-pop, but I'm anti-lazy fucking "rock stars". They are a blemish on our profession.

Anyone who wants to argue, I want you to think of one person in the field you have chosen; that person who is at the top but you know is terrible. The one everyone supports and you feel like yelling "am I on crazy pills or something!?" The one that gets the promotion over you and they are jerk offs but all you can do is sit around and talk about it. Everyone will agree and say "yes, of course you should get it" but as soon as you leave they all say "whiner. grow up." Now say it's a life passion. Say it's something you need to do with your life. Now drown. Take thirty years of your life drowning in this impossible fucking mess of attitude. Not fact, but perception. Lazy fucking perception.

/rage blackout

Listen Nickelback, Theory of a Deadman, Our Lady Peace, 3 Doors Down, David Usher, etc fans. You can love that. You can celebrate it. But don't call it something it's not. Call a spade a spade. And then realize there is more out there. So much more.

/plea and threadjack

I believe this is more what you had in mind, Halanna.

HTML embedding does not work. Simply take the code and surround it by [youtube ][/youtube ]

You are exactly correct. I'm such a newb with embeding. :sad:

Thank you for bringing me up to speed!

An addition to an already large post:

What I can understand about Artists is fear. Fear of losing favor. Fear of irrelevancy. Fear of failing.

I'm so young. I have the rest of my life, hopefully, to create great things with my mind and body. I have it in me to be great.

When I was younger I wrote a play that got lots of attention. I won prizes at almost all of the fringe theatre festivals that accepted my play. I spent two years trying to "write a follow up" and failed. Failed constantly. The more "funny" it got, the worse it got. The thicker the plot, the thinner the response got. I tried to CONSTRUCT something new. The problem is with the first play (dubbed: I Don't Like Mondays) I had something to say. I was funny because it was spontaneous. It wasn't well constructed; in fact it breaks almost all the rules of popular theatre. But it succeeded because it said something. It was a moment. A thing unto itself. And, say I get it published, even if an editor decides its a "superior abstract work" or "a non-linear journey into the mind of a decaying teen" or whatever shit they want to call it, it doesn't change it. It's not part of a collective movement. I just... created it. And their are influences a-plenty. But it is independent of conscious creation. It wasn't intentional.

The Strokes are a great example of that in the music world. Their first album, "Is This It? Room On Fire; First Impressions of Earth" is fucking great. I'm still waiting for a second album.

So yeah, having a "sound" is cool. But having a sound and not changing are different. I'll put it this way: I'm still waiting for Nickelback to put out their first album.

Opposites...or is it the same?
I'm a music hermit . . . unless I hear a band/song on the radio that I really dig and decide to seek out, or unless a friend recommends an album to me, I pretty much stay in my musical box.

~~~~~

Who said anything about getting "hung up" on originality vs. selling out etc.

You are correct that some genres of music are entertainment. Others are art and are not really meant as entertainment so much as they are to be thought-provoking or provocative.

Like I said ... I don't personally care for the way autotune and beat correction software is used these days. That's my choice as a person and a musician. I never said that the use of these applications was wrong in any way.

In regard to the question of changing styles ... I don't expect any artist (whether I like them or not) to do anything they don't want to do. The last band I was in used formulaic song-writing. It was a little more complex than Top40 stuff but it was still Pop. I think that the bands you mentioned are just boring (this includes Goo Goo Dolls). It's mostly because I have different taste in music than you. You would probably think most of the music I listen to is boring and pretentious. That's fine. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I understand your opinion.

I gotta agree with you Martian.

When I was a kid (about 10 or so) I joined a private music school...so sometime around 1995. For those years, I was introduced to tons of music. And it became my passion to hear new sounds. Even so, being a kid, I got a lot of stuff off the radio. I used to listen to top 40 and such for awhile.

As I continued my music studies into high school, my music library expanded further, and top 40 was merely a good way to find out who released a new CD.

To this day, I feel that top 40s are corporate controlled. How are singles released? The artist usually picks a couple songs "Single-worthy" and their recording companies do the rest. And those recording companies can buy their way up to number one.

Like you said, its not talent-based. But that's not to say they're not talented. And I certainly don't intend to bash them. They do more than me. I'm not creative enough to write music. I just play it.

In the 90s and early millennium, top 40s were big, really big. Lately, music categorized as "indie" has crept up to mainstream sounds. (side note: I hate the term indie. Its not a genre. just a kewl way of saying independent label. ugh) Bands I never knew existed are finding their way up to the popular music charts.

And so, yet again, a new and different sound is out there gaining attention.

Music preferences change quickly when it comes to mainstream music. If the band/artist fits the profile, cha-ching.

These days, I don't listen to local radio...far too repetitive for my liking. Besides, I go through serious music phases: one day african beats, then irish melodies, euro disco dance tunes, hard rock, metal, jazz...the list goes on and on and on. My collection is extensive and eclectic. Everyone has different tastes. Mine seem to encompass all genres, and I'll listen to it depending on my music mood. :P

They're pretty terrible, but then, so is U2.

I hereby give you permission to like them.

The "Bono walks on water" posts start in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.....

What is being said here about the Top 40 can be said about books (bestsellers), films (blockbusters), and television (prime time). These areas within the creative industries--top 40s, bestseller lists, boxoffice leaders, prime time slots--are the "sweet spots" that essentially equate to "stars" on what marketing pros call the growth-share matrix.

"Stars" essentially mean huge market growth and a high market share. This is compared to "cash cow," a term that most have heard.

"Cash cows" tend to be more stabilized and established earners. The creative industry doesn't have much of these. Television has had its share, but from what I've observed of late, even television has gone to the "star" model.

Culture is a fleeting thing. Music, film, books, etc., are not the same kind of product as, say, furniture, cars, and such. As a result, the big money makers are those that can enter the market and become hugely popular over a short period of time. They need to do this before the next competitive entrant comes along to overshadow it. With a LOT of luck, a star will become a cash cow. But in the culture industry, this is difficult. Some examples include Harry Potter (books and films and video games and toys), the Lord of the Rings (books and films and video games and toys), ...and Nickelback ("guaranteed" hit albums/singles).

How do these become cash cows? Marketers/producers/publishers plan for them. They prolong their place in the market by building longevity into the product and by other means (publicity, promotion, etc.)

Nickelback is a cash cow because they stick to their winning formula (I suppose we could say they are a "cash cow" that keeps releasing "star" products)...the formula that vaulted them to "stardom" (both in the marketing and fame meaning of the word). They won't change the model much because its working.

What about the art? Well, there are other artists who aren't going for the same goals. Michael Ondaatje could write circles around J. K. Rowling. Atom Egoyan is arguably a better filmmaker than Peter Jackson. I like Leonard Cohen much better than Nickelback. Each contrast has their own goals that aren't compatible with the other. This is a reality of art and business. Some strive for commercial success, and the art is secondary, though the latter might have been the only concern at the start. For others, the art is the be-all and end-all, and some have been both artistically and commercially successful regardless.

Most aren't so lucky.

I think Baraka Guru summed it up well, but I will put my own spin on it.

Some of us look to music as a form of art. We appreciate music that has artistic value (brings new or thoughtful elements to the fore). We do not appreciate music that lacks artistic value or appears to be created solely for the purpose of making money. "Musicians" with the full backing of their record label's publicity armada are in that position because the label sees them for their marketability, not necessarily their art. Music that is not only popular, but lacks artistic value is subject to high amounts of ridicule because it exposes the agenda of the music industry like a gust of air from a vent on the ground.

I don't think there are many people who don't look at music as a form of art. I think the line is drawn between people who base their appreciation for art primarily on the way it makes them feel and people who base their appreciation for art primarily for the many convoluted ways they can talk about it.

Nickelback is not actually a real band, it's a computer program that happens to output easily-digestible rock music. You know, that stuff the kids are listening to these days.
http://milbut.org/images/the_more_you_know2.jpg

I think it's very interesting that people are able to honestly enjoy Nickelback and Top 40 music and some people aren't. That is infinitely more interesting than discussing the actual musical quality. The same thing goes for all entertainment as well -- some people love Independence Day and Armageddon and crappy movies like that and honestly think they are absolute blockbuster movies and cry during them, yet some people only cringe during them and want to walk out of the theater.

The psychological, mental, even physiological effect that entertainment has on people has to be attributed to something...the way we're brought up, our lifestyle, our age? There's no telling. Whatever it is, it allows some people to love Top 40, and some people to want to pull their hair out when they listen to it, and no, the reason isn't simply because it's Top 40.

This whole topic reminds me of a conversation I had with a coworker once. We had just recently met, were outside on a smoke break and at some point the conversation turned towards music. I'm even sure which group were were talking about, the thing that I do remember is that he told me that he stopped liking said group as soon as they became popular.

I think his response is interesting in that it speaks to how the ways people use art often have nothing to do with the actual art. I think his rationale seems kind of silly, but it is probably significantly less capricious than the reasons folks have offered up in this thread for hating on Nickleback. At least he was clear about the reason he didn't like them. It wasn't like he was hiding behind superficial notions of artistic purity or depth. He just didn't like people, and didn't want to listen to the shit the people liked because if the people liked it, then there must be something wrong with it.

I personally don't care that much for Nickleback because I think that they seem kinda douchey, but I could see how some folks might find them charming. Sometimes, despite my best efforts, I even find myself humming one of their songs under my breathe.

That's pretty much what Nickelback's music is. Do I like it? Yesno. It's catchy, and makes good background music, but it's not good. It's perfect mall music because (99% of) it is unoffensive to all age groups and nice and bland.

I think of them as a "meh, go back to the last station, that song was fine" band. Not a "oh man, wanna go see Nickelback in June?" band.

Here's a good test:

Listen to this track and tell me what you think!



I instantly loathed it and yet, couldn't help marking the beat. After a few plays, (my kid loves it) now I just loath it.

I hate Nickelback because they are unoriginal, uninspired, and boring. As everyone has stated, they have a formula and they stick to it. Everything is safe and easy listening. Nothing is too loud or too angry. The songs are the perfect length for radio. Essentially, everything is pre-packaged and radio ready.

If they were cheese, they would be Kraft

I agree with many of the reasons stated here for disliking Nickelback: boring, unoriginal, insipid lyrics, that horrible Bob Seger imitation of a voice.

I like music that I consider to be good and I won't apologize for it, nor will I apologize for calling something bad when it sounds bad to me.

And it has nothing to do with commercial success. When I was a child (and before), lots of great acts were very commercially successful. Even in the highly reviled disco scene of the '70s cream rose to the top. Increasingly that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. You have to search out the bands that are earnestly trying to make thoughtful, thought-provoking music. The documentary 'X:The Unheard Music' highlights the trend in the late '70s/early '80s when the music industry decided to stop taking risks with music artists.

i keep trying to go to sleep but all these thoughts keep distracting me tonight...randomly

I want to say something in defense of Run DMC, an act that I have enjoyed for many years. No, they are not uberpoets and not particularly significant considering the achievements that have been made by more talented artists in the rap genre, but they were a significant presence in the early formation of what truly was an original and significant new form of American music.

What equal significance has Nickelback played in the history of American music? I suggest that they have played none, nada, zilch. Therefore I think to compare Run DMC to Nickelback is uninformed at best and somewhat of an insult at worst. Nickelback is a canned act built on pre-existing successful forms performed more virtously by artists in the past. Including Bob Seger...at least Bob Seger was Bob Seger.

Ok, now I am going to bed.

Run DMC was good.. until they got with Aerosmith.

I don't put DMC in the Rap genre either. They were more hiphop to me. There is a very (and I mean it) VERY large difference between Rap and Hip Hop.

anyone who disagrees should watch the documentary Scratch.

here it is if you're interested
now as far as nickleback goes.. if someone likes them, then fine. People shouldn't have to apologize for liking what they like. Just ask yourself, do you like them because it's force fed to you.. or do you like them because it speaks to you. If it's the former, then perhaps you need a new musical direction. If it's the latter, then fuck the haterz. ;)

That's a good point, gucci, thank you. And I agree with you about Run-DMC and 'Walk This Way'...

Then there are people that are diverse enough to enjoy those movies for the thrill-ride escapism that they are, as well as enjoy heady, deep emotional movies as well. The same way that there are people diverse enough to enjoy some mainstream music as well as liking music that no one has ever heard of.


I've said this before, but I think that when anyone bashes an artist, especially with the mantra of "all their music is the same, the should be required by law to post a list of the artists that they listen to.

Cool Doc Gucci, thanks!

yup yup :)

Well, according to my iTunes library I have 1272 artists in there (not counting artists that are on compilation albums making that prob. closer to 1500 artists) so forgive me for not supplying a list. :p

I'm sure I like plenty of artists that other people don't like. I have had to defend myself as a Bob Dylan fan many times, esp. on the internet, from people who say that he sucks. It doesn't bother me or make me question my musical taste. If you like Nickelback then listen to them and more power to you. But this thread was created for people to give their opinion, specifically, about the band. *shrug*

MM, I wasn't comparing Nickelback to Run DMC. I don't think that's possible. I singled out Run DMC because I felt that was the most favorable of the rap artists there are out there because their material is/was bearable. I could easily have picked any of the rap artists I can think of the top of my head such as 50 Cent or Eminem of whom I equally hate.

No offense but you could learn a lot more about rap music. :)

---------- Post added at 07:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 AM ----------

meaning that there is an entire universe of music out there between Run DMC and 50 cent/Eminem (two artists I'm fairly unfamiliar with).

What you fail to understand is that just as Nickelback really aren't a hard rock act, 50 Cent and Eminem aren't rappers - they're all pop acts and this is evidenced not only by the demographics that they're marketed to but also by the extent to which their music has been watered down from the styles in which they're derived.

I don't understand why rap is typically considered - especially around here - to be the default shitty genre but short of RUN-DMC, you aren't even talking about it.

I haven't seen the documentary but I've always understood hip-hop to encompass it all - rappers, DJs, break dancers and graffiti artists. From there I don't bother to divide rap into anything but pre and post golden age.

And as for Nickelback, who gives a shit, really.