Quote:
Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 11 2005, 09:31 PM
And objectively, Nickelback is uncreative, derivative, uninspired, and not particularly lyrically talented. That is not opinion.
As for why I'm able to better assess the quality of musicians because I am one myself...I thought this would be self-evident. A craftsman of any type is in the best position to critique his peers because he realizes what requires the most effort or highest amount of skill. Just because Nickelback records a catchy tune that becomes popular doesn't necessarily make them talented; Nirvana was super-influential and sold a boatload of records, but as a guitarist Kurt Cobain was decidedly second-rate. I realized that when I was 13 and started learning how to play guitar...while most of the other bands I liked were beyond my skill as a beginner, I could play virtually every Nirvana song as a neophyte guitarist.
Or to put it in hockey terms, someone who has actually played the sport is better able to appreciate subtle details that make some players better than others. A casual fan, for instance, might look at Andy Delmore's offensive stats and think, "hey, here's a really good defensemen," but anyone who knows about the game probably wouldn't want Delmore on their team.
|
This smells of the Frustrated Artist Syndrome.
Comparing art to sport is quite possibly the most inane thing I've ever heard. There is no +/- rating to music. The set of criteria by which music is judged is different for every single person.
Calling Nickelback whatever you want will never be objective because the qualitative industry they live in is a completely subjective one.
I would imagine if you were a true musician or artist, you would want to embrace everything that's out there and try to come to some positive understanding of it. Maybe you don't begrudge people who listen to Nickelback, but you certainly believe you are the better person because you listen to what you think is 'good music'. Your kneejerk reaction would be to deny this, but it's true.
It doesn't matter if you have the best voice, unbelievable guitar chops or rhythym... none of these things can make you determine what sounds better. It's what separates art from just about anything... there's an undistingushiable factor that makes it great.
Ultimately, it's pointless to say with such certainty that something sucks, then tell someone to listen to something like Wilco and expect them to be blown away (of course, when they're not, that person simply doesn't know how to appreciate music).
It's unbelievable at how music snobbery can be taken to such great heights. The funny thing is, the person who loves to listen to Nickelback will rarely ever tell another person what's better or worse. They just love what they listen to and generally, are fairly open to suggestions. To me, that is the epitome of a music fan.
I'd take a lineup with those fans than a bunch of frustrated artists whining about how Liz Phair went all Sheryl Crow on us <insert eye roll here>.
Like Jeff Tweedy said, "music is not a loaf of bread."