Nickelbashing
 

Now, I have been listening to nickelback for a while now and I tend to think that I like his (thier?) music. They have lyrics that try to be ambient and cool. Sometimes even trying to appeal to the demographic of the pop culture but also some few bikers and maybe those who like country music. So I really can't see why y'all hate him.

I have to be honest, very many of the songs I have heard and really liked i.e. seventeen by ladytron or even more heavier du Hast by Rammstein have no lyrics. In the rammstein song he just says "Are you gonna live with her for the rest of your life" over and over again. Nickelback actually has coherent lyrics. They aren't corny or cheap. To say that you don't like Nickelback genre then you must also hate creed, 3 Doors down, matchbox 20 and goo goo dolls (Not really the dolls but they are kinda alike).

I HATE rap because I find it distasteful and lacking in style. I'm sorry but even Run DMC's music was just bad for me. Aaaand they have lyrics.

So....
Why do you hate Nickelback? (He sucks is not an answer)

I don't really hate Nickelback, but they try to sell themselves as rock but they are as pop as Britney Spears and The Backstreet Boys(ha I can't even think of a more recent pop act.) This is why everyone HATES them, Especially the internet where everyone has to have an opinion of either LOVE or HATE but never anywhere between.

edit: dangit twisted! I was posting that!

Hate? I don't hate them. They just don't play the type of music I like to listen to.

I'm completely comfortable saying that I don't dig any of these bands. I don't like them for pretty much the same reason I don't like any band. They don't appeal to me and I don't relate to their music very well.

Grown men bitching about women and such just doesn't get me going. I like my music a lot faster, harder, and about booze, rebellion, and being poor. =p

Wow, that's pretty much every band that makes me reach for the radio dial like a knee-jerk.

Why dont' I like them? I guess it's the combination of romantic lyrics with processed hard-rock guitars. It just sounded forced to me. I get the same reaction when I hear most nashville pop-country.

With Nickleback specifically, for me it has a lot to do with the double-edged sword that is "CanCon".

Essentially, here in Canada broadcasters must devote a certain percentage of their programming to Canadian produced content. The idea is to promote and develop Canadian talent and arts under the tidal wave of American culture we're exposed to.

The plus is just what it promises: Artists like The New Pornographers or Arcade Fire and shows like Testees and Trailer Park Boys get a voice.

The negative is that when there is a bonafide mainstream hit by a Canadian act like Nickelback or Brian Adams or Tom Cochran, it's an all out heavy-rotation blitz as the broadcasters fall over themselves cashing in.

I actually like the song "Steal My Sunshine" by Len, but back when it came out, it was inescapable. Just like Nickelback.

Fresnelly speaks the Canadian truth.

The video says "All Nickelback Songs Sound the Same" then plays two. Like all Green Day songs sound the same, then just play "Good Riddance" and "Blvd. of Broken Dreams". I happen to like "Far Away" and "Because of You". Sue me...
Creed cranked out tunes like a factory and had maybe one or two decent ones, same with 3 Doors Down, et al.
If we all liked the same stuff, it'd be pretty damned boring. Insanely boring.
When you go back to the 80's (still the most prolific and progressive decade ever in music), you find groups like U2 and Police doing some decent work then going so commercial, they might as well be singing about Coke. They went from rock to sugar.
Nickelback ain't any different.
It's called "makin money".

The thing about Nickelback?

They're quite open and up front about being a formulaic and commercial band.

They especially like the commercial part. Can't you tell?

I to this day maintain that Silver Side Up was a good album when it hit. The problem for me is that they're released the same album every few years since.

Any situation where the commercialization or monetization of the music overshadows the music itself is guaranteed to turn me off.

I have no issue with popular music.

I also don't believe that any musician gets into this business without the dream of making it big (i.e. commercialization). I have no problem with this.

In the end, if I like the music, I like the music.

It's not that I object to the commercialization of music per se. Musicians need to make money, same as anyone. I suppose the standard is whether a musician is in this career path for the music, or for the money/fame/women. I would contend that anyone who pursues the latter is ultimately a fool anyway, since the odds of actually achieving that kind of success are vanishingly small.

I don't know that Nickelback was always that way. Silver Side Up really was good. It was new, and it had a lot of energy. There were some good sounds there. But ever since then they've stagnated. Given my views of music as an artform, this makes it very difficult for me to take them seriously.

That was the worst rape of two of the best songs that introduced me to rock music in the beginning!! I will never forgive you twisted!!!!

And I don't get what y'all mean by commercialization. What exactly does Hannah Montana and 50 cent do? It's not like they're saying "That girl broke my heart and drank a pepsi"

The music is good. And thanks ng, I had to come out of my closet and I'm glad I'm not alone.

EDIT: I really like Brian Adams too. Most especially underwear!! :D

I don't like Nickelback because to me they sound very bland and generic. Someone mentioned that there are a few bands that all sound indistinguishable from each other and I agree.

However, I constantly get made fun of for my choice in music, so I can't really say anyone sucks even if they do.

They're the musical equiv of Saltine crackers... everybody can eat them and yet they offer nothing of substance.

The guy's vocals are so "good" they have no character, the music is so washed it sounds like it was made in a lab.

But ya know how it goes: whatever gets the records selling and the G-strings down around the ankles.

Quoted for truth.

When Silver Side Up came out, I really liked it. But us Canuck radio stations overplayed it...severely. And their albums all start to sound the same.

Even so, I like singing that Rockstar song. whoo.

Martian have you ever heard of Evan's Blue? Listen to the Melody (1st album) and then listen to their second album, Cross and a girl called blessed ... then tell me if changing music styles is always a good idea.

Also Avril Lavigne ... 3 Days Grace, they all changed settings and then what happened?

Sorry to be offtopic and trite, but I find it hilarious as I'm reading this thread I'm also consuming a store-bought baguette and a few red apples. It seems as though bland surrounds Nickelback. :lol:


To be honest, I've listened and enjoyed some of their radio hits in the past, but I don't actively seek them out; they are not bad, but are quite generic. It's not bad to consume saltine crackers or baguettes every once in a while, but they won't have you salivating at the thought of eating/listening. I'd say this describes most of Nickelback's audience I've encountered thus far.

I don't like nickelback because they are forced; contrived. Their drumming is run of the mill, Chad's voice is grading, their melodies are repetitive, their guitar work is without character or distinction, they have no original thought or feeling within their lyrics, etc. I could go on.

What I hate about this style of music is that it's defense is "but they are blue collar; their lyrics are about looking at a photograph because that's what they do man!" But The Hold Steady rock a similar outlook but with a lot more grace and originality. They are drunken poets. Being an artist means creating art; I don't think their is a place in my mind for people who replicate it as an art form.

Yep I hate all these bands, no need to listen to Creed(Christian Pearl Jam), 3 doors down, please some douche pissing and moaning about how hard his life is when he's made millions with limited talent, Matchbox 20, seriously people still listen to that, the Goo Goo Dolls needs no explanation why they shouldn't be listened to....what was that song for a movie they did? Fuckin lame.

Why don't I like Nickelback besides them not being my style, all their songs sound the same, and they play them 50 fuckin times a day on the radio, and I just really don't dig Nickelback

I have a friend whose fiance is American and LOVES Nickelback and couldn't understand my extreme hate for them until I explained it pretty much like you did above. If it wasn't for the for CanCon, I still wouldn't like them but I probably wouldn't hate them as much as I do. I'm starting to feel the same way about Billy Talent since 102.1 in Toronto plays them so damn much.
But you're right for putting up with excess of Nickelback we do get Arcade Fire so it kinda all balances out in the end.

I wish we would have had Nickelback and Theory of a Deadman when I was a teen.

You want some bands to hate? Don't get me started on Journey, Styx, Loverboy and their like. I suspect Chad Kroeger understands enough about the music industry that he'll make money on stage right now and then at some point he'll make it off other bands. Meanwhile many of those "artists" from the 80s are touring county fairs and casinos in Oklahoma hoping someone remembers them.

Rock and Roll is entertainment, not art.

This has as much to do with the lousy state of commercial radio these days as it does with any band.

For example, Nickleback's music crosses many radio formats. You can hear them on Classic Rock, Alternative Rock, Adult Contemporary, Soft Rock and Top 40 stations and these make up about 90% of the dial. It's the same for those other bands mentioned in the OP.

What is it about the power-ballad that gives it such traction?

Nickelback is the modern equivalent of Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers with one important difference. Tom Petty made a career of what amounts to 4 songs slightly reshuffled with new lyrics. I would argue that Nickelback's source material isn't as interesting or as good.

For me, music hasn't been nearly as interesting since The Beta Band broke up.

You should know by now that you're not supposed to like a band that makes it to the radio!

I'm not really bothered when a band sells out or goes commercial, as long as the music is good. Nickelback has always been too country for me; I tend to look for more technical guitar/drums in most of the music I listen to.

Isn't every band ultimately striving to "go commercial" and make money?

My suspicion is that bands like Nickleback etc. will also be playing county fairs and casinos (or some similar circuit) in 20 years. There's not much different between then and now in this genre. Journey and the others you mentioned might be considered light-prog rock but it's mostly Pop. Besides, do you know how much casinos and fairs pay for those "has-beens?" Hell, I'm just a local act and when I've been in bands that play casinos the money is really good (for a local act). I'm guessing those bands aren't hurting ...

But you are right the genre of "Pop" within Rock-and-Roll is entertainment no art. There are art-bands that play Rock-and-Roll though.

In my opinion, Silver Side Up was just a decent album. Once that hit though, every Nickelback song got played on the radio every five minutes and I got hugely burned out on them. Their lyrics and music are bland and generic (much like the other bands mentioned in comparison) and yet, we are being forced to listen to them all day, every day. I also have a problem with how they play to the hard rock/heavy metal image. If you listen to them, you realize they are just another cookie-cutter pop band. There is nothing "hard" or "edgy" about them or their music and unfortunately, bland is what sells to the masses. This is all fine, if that's what you like in your music but that's not exactly my cup of tea. Don't tell me they're an edgy, relevant hard rock band because they're not...and PLEASE...STOP playing that sappy "Gotta Be Somebody" 80's pop ballad on the hard rock stations right after an advertisement claims your station plays "everything that rocks"!

What happened to rock anyway? Since when did everything get all whiny and bitchy about feelings and women? I want my sex, drugs and rock and roll attitude back is all I'm saying.

Just my two cents.

Nickelback is about as cookie cutter as they come.

all the bands mentioned in your list are cookie cutter with lyrics that are posed to the fluff pop crowd who simply devour music because it's not good, but because it's popular. What makes music popular? That's an interesting question but there is obviously a technique that radio exec's use in order to achieve this and create the frenzy of sheep buying power.

and Xerxys.. am I really going to listen to your take on music when you said that Led Zeppelin was boring? :lol:

I hate labeling genres when it comes to pop because it represents a sound and an "art form". so when I say "pop-rock" I mean the sound, not all popular rock and roll.

See I don't hate Journey, Styx, and Loverboy et al. Because Pop-Rock can be good. If it is done well. In fact POP IS GOOD. Good pop consists of melodies, lyrics, and instrumentals that are GOOD.

Nickelback has a monotonous sound that comes off as lazy; acoustic beginning, drums pick up on the second verse, chorus the wall of "rock guitars" crash in (which is just four power chords over and over again). They remind me of a phony Ramones. The Ramones weren't making music with their three chords, they were making noise. But they didn't pretend to be musicians. Nickelback does.

On the entertainment front: Chad's tone is so flat. The guitars are monotonous. The bass line singular. The drumming predictable. There is nothing dynamic about it. How is it even entertaining? I just don't get it. There are no hooks because all of their stuff is so dissonant sounding. I don't get it.

I'm not of the persuasion that is amused when pyro goes off. So maybe it's just not my thing. I like some substance.

Note: art and entertainment are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they most often go together.

thespian86 has summed up a lot of the problems I have with Nickelback, which leaves me with this question: why is it so important to you Xerxys that everyone digs your music? If you listen to it and you enjoy it, then who cares if everyone else in the known Universe thinks it's crap? The important part is what you like.

Ding!

That's the answer we're looking for....

I recently rekindled my obsession with the Tragically Hip (I'm a homegrown Kingston boy). I could argue that they are the best band in the world (though I could argue that for the Beatles, Big Sugar, Radiohead, and the Smashing Pumpkins, too).

The Tragically Hip is the best band in the world. I believe that. I don't mind if you disagree, because it's mine. I grew up with them. They were featured prominently as I progressed through high school, college, and beyond, and all the events that transpired around that time.

The Tragically Hip is mine.

Bash them if you will; they are invincible; they are gods.

Along with the previously-posted "two songs played at the same time", please listen to this style parody of Nickelback by Possible Oscar: How We Recycle. (I'd embed it, but we don't have a code for The FuMP.)

I'm in such a minority when it comes to discussing music, in that I absolutely love any song that makes it to Top40. I don't think it has anything to do with it's actual position as a 'hit', only that it seems anything that makes it to Top40 I will enjoy. I guess that means I agree with the people who determine the top 40, and the rest of you are just music snobs. :)

I really hate most music on the radio to the point where I haven't listened to it in years. Nickelback's lead singer sounds like a dog trying to sing (honestly, picture a dog bark combined with a human singing). Every song sounds the same, and, worst of all, the people who honestly like Nickelback think it's "hardcore metal" or "hard shit" or "hard rock" when it's the equivalent of a male Britney Spears with guitars.

And yes, I hate the rest of the bands you mentioned, and most people who hate Nickelback hate them also. My mind simply can't enjoy music that sounds like a machine made it (which is what most songs on the radio sound like). Britney Spears songs are engineered to be enjoyable the first time you hear them and get you to buy the album; same shit is in effect here.

Really the only music I can listen to is a very, very small sample of metal and a slightly larger sample of electronic music.

---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

Actually you are the majority. :oogle:

Oh man, that's the best:

You're listening to KHARD-101!
*sound of revving engine and heavy metal guitars*
Nobody kicks ass harder than we do!
*sounds of explosions and kungfu fight*
We rock out with our cocks out! Oh yeahh!
*sounds of woman orgasming and a chainsaw*
And now here's Poison with Every Rose Has Its Thorn!!! On K-HARRRD!!!!!...

/me plugs in an audiobook.

Priceless.

Martian this wasn't a **puts on whiny voice** "Please Stop picking on Nickelback, They're not bad, just misunderstood" type of thread.

I actually wanted to know why y'all hate Nickelback. Most of you were in agreement that to change styles is the way to go for a band. If that was the case, then Linkin Park would still not be here. I disagree with changing styles too much. I would rather hear a song and go like "Ooo Ooo Ooo, I know who sang that, wait could it be ... " Yep. I'm one of those. So in essence you answered the wrong question but thanks for trying.

And if you think you can sing better than Chad Kroeger or that his tone is flat then your really just bashing for little or no reason at all. If your gonna pick on something then give the devil credit where it's due. But ohh well...

:lol:

Xerxys, you are tone deaf man. You think that Chad can sing or Scott whiney Stapp can sing? :lol: :lol: :lol:

you want to hear singing check out Howard Jones of Killswitch Engage.

I think I can sing better than Chad Kroeger. :) His tone is not flat since it's been autotuned to death ... but it has no real personality. It's all contrived. I'd rather hear a person singing slightly out-of-tune with a lot of personality than autotuned BS.

Not to say that a product like autotune doesn't have it's uses ... but to just blindly apply it across the entire vocal take is something I don't like (and I'm not talking about the Cher effect). But that's a topic for another thread.

Really, this all comes down to personal taste. I LIKE surprises in music ... I like music with substance. I don't think lyrics have to be bad high-school poetry. I don't think music has to be drop-D two-finger power chords.

But that's just me. I'm not judging anyone based on what music they like. Seriously, it doesn't matter to me at all if someone likes Nickleback or whatever floats your boat. Just as I am certain that it doesn't matter to you that I like Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen (speaking of out-of-tune vocals).

I don't even judge the bands themselves. If they honestly enjoy what they do then great: keep doing it and keep getting paid for it.

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.

The thing about any genre of music is that there is a ton of shit to wade through before you find the good stuff. Record execs aren't stupid. They have a formula that works and they know how to make their money. Just because a band is making money doesn't mean they are good. The formula is a cookie cutter sheet that the masses of sheep will devour because it's not good, but it creates some sort of entitlement to a look, culture or way of life that they want to be a part of.

Manic: Rap is a genre that forgot it's roots. They left the Dj's, diggers, graffiti artists and breakers out in the cold. Was it their fault? Not really. It is more the fault of the record execs who didn't want to pay dj's or dancers. They could sample a few beats on the beat box and could save a few bucks. That being said, hip-hop is starting to do the same by forgetting the MC's as a payback and it's gradually making the Hip-Hop world barren.

My advice for you Xerxys, is to look into genre's a bit deeper before making a broad general depiction of it. There is tons of rap that I hate, but there is tons of rock that I hate also. If you remember our chat a while ago, there was a huge world of music that you had either not heard of, or you never gave it a chance. Music is one of those things that you cannot find the bottom of, so why not dig as much as you can and you might be surprised by what you like.