I don't really understand musical snobbery myself. My personal standard has always been this: do I like what I'm listening to? If yes, then to me it is good music. Of no, then to me it is not good music. I listen to stuff I like and I don't listen to stuff I don't like. It's a simple formula and it serves me well. I don't listen to stuff I hate because I "should" like it, and I don't avoid stuff because it's chic to hate on it.
I can certinaly appreciate music that may not be to my taste, but which it tecnhically complex or takes talent to compose or perform. That does not mean I will listen to it on a regular basis. I personally like to expose myself to more music all the time. I will certainly give stuff a chance, and if I like it, I will keep listening to it. Keeping an open mind about different styles means there's always more stuff to listen to. That said, I definitely do listen to my fair share of simple, three-chord, basic music. I don't avoid it because it's too "simple."
If you like Nickelback, then by all means listen to it and enjoy it. To me, the music (whatever style) that jumps out, grabs you, and makes you enjoy life a little bit more is the music that's worth listening to.
__________________ @crazybaconlegs ***Mod edit: You are not now, nor have you ever been, a hamster. Please stop claiming this.***
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Crazy Bacon Legs For This Useful Post:
...however just because a band is popular does not mean that they suck. Pink Floyd, Tool, Metallica, all are bands that have huge followings but none have stuck to the same formula for their entire existence
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to call you on that one. Metallica? They used to have a formula until Bobby Rock concocted a new one for them.
I don't really understand musical snobbery myself. My personal standard has always been this: do I like what I'm listening to? If yes, then to me it is good music. Of no, then to me it is not good music. I listen to stuff I like and I don't listen to stuff I don't like. It's a simple formula and it serves me well. I don't listen to stuff I hate because I "should" like it, and I don't avoid stuff because it's chic to hate on it.
so i keep hearing about how bands like Nickleback are just a formula and they all sound the same and therefore should be mocked.
I'd say there's a difference between 'formula' music and popular music. Nickelback gets ragged on because the songs all sound the same. I can't tell the difference between Silver Side Up and whatever their newest album is. Take a band like Foo Fighters for instance. Lots of hits, would be put in the popular music category. However the songs they write today sound different from the stuff they wrote 10 years ago.
But actually, if you are a musician and do know what you're talking about then I'd love to get into it. But for the sake of the thread PMs might be best.
Above is Radiohead song that doesn't use popular musical formulas. It still has plenty of hooks and satisfying moments if you take your time with it. I know a lot think that music that isn't instantly likeable isn't good, but I think enjoying music has a lot to do with developing some level familiarity with its structure.
I won't try to convince anyone of my opinion on music and taste in general but I do believe in having some standards in music to maintain courage, innovation and intelligence as values in music. I can't accept an idea that says Britney Spears is equally as good as Beethoven, to use an extreme example. However, I definitely don't begrudge anyone listening to what they genuinely enjoy.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Weiser Wonder For This Useful Post:
how much has Nickleback varied their sound from album to album? almost zero from what i can tell, to me their goal is to simply make as much money as possible, the music comes secondary. they follow the same formula from album to album because they know that's what sells, they refuse to take risks or expand their range. that's why i prefer music that's off the mainstream, artists that play music they love and enjoy and aren't worried about trying to top the charts
Well, it's tough to alter your sound anyway. The singers voices are very distinct, can't change that. The guitar playing styles they use aren't going to change much. Same for the percussionist and his tendencies.
The reason a lot of their songs sound the same are twofold:
1) the lead singer has a very distinct voice and most of the songs are in the same range of his voice
2) they use similar chord progressions
It is the second that I think most Nickelback haters have a problem with, and probably that is the most valid complaint. But honestly there are hundreds of artists that use similar progressions, and what Nickelback is doing is popular so why change it?
Of course it is about money as well. But "changing your sound" is a lot more difficult to do than you are implying...and it isn't necessarily a good idea when you are selling that many albums.
Oh, dont get me wrong, I love their old school thrash.
The problem is they are not thrash anymore.
Kill em All is my favorite album of theirs, and mostly because you can hear the Mustaine influence.
i agree their first 4 albums are the best, but i really liked S&M and the new Death Magnetic album is easily the best since Justice. my point is that they've consistently changed their sound, they weren't content with pumping out the same album over and over again. some worked, some didn't
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
But actually, if you are a musician and do know what you're talking about then I'd love to get into it. But for the sake of the thread PMs might be best.
I know.
I am not musically inclined at all unfortunately, wish I was. In the interest of the thread I enjoy many types of music, rock, country, classical, even some jazz if the mood is right.
