[FireFly]

I had this whole long response, but I hit backspace to fix a typo and it got wiped out. I'll try again and keep it short.

1. I don't really care for Nickelback, but that's okay as I don't really care for Led Zepplin either. *gasp*
2. I never said they were in the same league, quit putting words in my mouth to contradict a point I didn't make. Your previous point was that awards shows are bogus, my point was that if that's the case, Led Zepplin probably didn't deserve the Lifetime Acheivement Grammy a couple years ago. See? They do know what they're doing.
3. Now you're bring up influence. Influence and talent are not related. I never said Nickelback would influence anything, or are in the same league as Led Zepplin, or any of the **** you think I've said. What I did say is that they are talented in a song writing manner, (most of the awards they've won are songwriter awards,) and that they do have critical acclaim. Just not from anyone you 'respect' as a critic. Which I'm quite sure means a lot to the entire music world. I'd suggest that Santana is a crtically acclaimed artist who is well respected, and he likes Nickelback. Is it so hard for you to fathom that a band with about 10 #1s in 6 years will be around in 20 years? They will still be played on the radio. Maybe the band will fall apart by then, but their music, for all it's faults (and there are a few) will live on.

Frankly, from a pure talent perspective, AC/DC sucks, but they live on. I happen to enjoy their music as it's good fun. Talent, or a lack thereof, does not make or break a band. It's mass appeal. Nickelback has it.