The Juno's...what the hell?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by habernac

music snobs crack me up. They love "indie bands" until they finally sell some albums, then abandon them calling them "sell outs".

Yeah but there is also the reverse-snob. The people that automatically don't like or turn up the nose to something they've never heard of.

The "they suck because they aren't popular" crowd is as big and probably a lot bigger than "they suck because they are popular" crowd.

Funny thing about that is that the people who don't like Nickelback are not flying blind. I don't like Nickelback and I've heard their music. The "Friends of the Top 40" bunch sneer at music that they have never actually listened to.

I'm with you on the "enjoy what you like, who gives a feces" philosophy, but it's no fun (and not very good for messageboard traffic) to not voice an opinion.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I didn't say anyone will start hating Nickelback in 30 years. I don't think anyone will remember Nickelback in 30 years any more than they'll remember Limp Bizkit, Tim McGraw or Kenny G. Being bland isn't particularly memorable.

Well Nickelback did release its first CD 10 years ago, so they have been around for a while now.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I didn't say anyone will start hating Nickelback in 30 years. I don't think anyone will remember Nickelback in 30 years any more than they'll remember Limp Bizkit, Tim McGraw or Kenny G. Being bland isn't particularly memorable.

There aren't many (maybe 1 or 2) rock/roll acts that will have the shelf-life that Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin had and still have. Nickelback is not one of them.

You are apparently not noting the proliferation of stations playing "golden oldies", "golden country" and even one specializing in 80's songs . . . . . not to mention the re-birth of disco in a limited way.

People will not only remember, they'll seek out the music they favoured in a by-gone era.

Or to put it another way, Nickelback has a helluva better chance of achieving immortality than most of the other obscure, eclectic bands favoured by our snobby friends in this thread.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You are apparently not noting the proliferation of stations playing "golden oldies", "golden country" and even one specializing in 80's songs . . . . . not to mention the re-birth of disco in a limited way.

Fair enough, but I still don't think they are the 2006 version of Led Zeppelin.

A-Ha and Flock of Seagulls are staples of any 80's station -- that's what Nickelback can hope for.

[FireFly]

I doubt it. With the number of #1s they have, any late 90's early 00's radio station will play them repeatedly. They aren't a one hit wonder.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I doubt it. With the number of #1s they have, any late 90's early 00's radio station will play them repeatedly. They aren't a one hit wonder.

Nor were Flock of Seagulls or Aha, though they both have one song that is remembered above the others. Nickleback WILL be remembered for sure, but not as a in the same way as Led Zeppelin. In other words, they are not going to go down as one of the all-time greats, but more than likely simply as a popular band that people remember with nostalgia and fondness.

[Deelow]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

As for the whole "you can't judge music", well why not? It's not snobbery, it's common sense, and we all do it all the time for everything -- books, tv shows, movies, music...

It's not the judging music that bothers me. I sure as hell don't like Nickelback. It's judging other people for their tastes.

[troutman]

I was reading a book by Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth last night. He said that 10,000 cds are released every day on average around the world. That is 10,000 unique recordings every day. A station like CJ 92 might expose their listeners to 50 new cds each year.

Big corporations that own record companies and radio stations are really limiting our access to new music. You have to work hard to find all this music, and most people don't have the time or money to do so.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by habernac

My twisted musical tastes go everywhere from Alice in Chains and AC/DC to Megadeth, Slayer, Dire Straits, Black Sabbath, The Hip...... all over the damn place.

That's hardly a wide spectrum of tastes. All hard rock bands that sing in English.

There are 1000s of musical styles in hundreds of languages. Not to single you out; we are all just scratching the surface (music snobs too). So much of what we listen to is the same formula guitar, drums, bass, vox, verse-chord-verse, 4/4 time. There is a whole world of wonderful music out there.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by troutman

I was reading a book by Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth last night. He said that 10,000 cds are released every day on average around the world. That is 10,000 unique recordings every day. A station like CJ 92 might expose their listeners to 50 new cds each year.

Big corporations that own record companies and radio stations are really limiting our access to new music. You have to work hard to find all this music, and most people don't have the time or money to do so.

If "they" are releasing 10,000 CD's a day, how are "they" stifling access to new music? Obviously its out there when it might have been stuck within sound radius of a garage before.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say, particularly with the downloading capacity available, that people have probably never had wider access to eclectic music than they do now

Also, it goes without saying that people don't have the time or the money to review 10,000 CD's a day . . . . . so how is that the fault of anyone and secondly, doesn't that confirm the point above?

Cowperson

[Dynamic]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Well he's right. Following in the footsteps of Good Charelotte, Green Day put out an album that appeals to the Liberal masses but is really just full of ****. It's cool to hate Bush and write songs about it.

People herald that album as an amazing piece of work. Green Day used to be decent around the time of Dookie. Since then...it's pop-punk extreme...but more badass because Billy Joe wears make-up now.

Green Day.......follows in the steps of Good Charlotte . Wow thats funny. Care to explain?

Why to people think the AI is a bush hating album. Never in the album is he even mentioned, and there are only 2 songs that are even remotely liberal biased. The rest are what you make of them.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

Green Day.......follows in the steps of Good Charlotte . Wow thats funny. Care to explain?

Why to people think the AI is a bush hating album. Never in the album is he even mentioned, and there are only 2 songs that are even remotely liberal biased. The rest are what you make of them.

You seriously don't know? Wow... okay, well in the beginning Green Day was a somewhat popular punk band that flirted with pop-punk music, but for the most part had the attitude and flair of being punk. Dress like slobs, make asses of themselves, Billy Joe was vulgar and fun. Now turn to 2004 where Green Day is making ultra pop-punk music for their album "AMERICAN IDIOT" (gee I wonder who that's in reference to). Now watch the transformation that all the members go through eventually ending up looking (and frankly sounding) just like Good Charlotte. As Ed The Sock would say. Dye the Backstreet Boys hair black, put on some mascara, and voila. You've got these guys.

As for the liberal content...all popular music outside of country has liberal undertones. It's hip and cool to be anti-conservative. So now everyone wants to be just like NoFX and Anti-Flag, but with less substance.

Listen to songs like "Welcome to Paradise" and compare that to "Boulevard of Broken Dreams." Then check out the music that Good Charlotte churns out and tell me that Green Day hasn't morphed into a thirty year old version of GC that doesn't have their own clothing line and the singer isn't dating Hillary Duff...yet.

edit: I'm not saying that Green Day are bad, just that they aren't as good as they used to be, and that I find their music to be shallow and boring now.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Nor were Flock of Seagulls or Aha, though they both have one song that is remembered above the others. Nickleback WILL be remembered for sure, but not as a in the same way as Led Zeppelin. In other words, they are not going to go down as one of the all-time greats, but more than likely simply as a popular band that people remember with nostalgia and fondness.

Further to that point, one must remember that music snobs (and I use that term endearingly) are a big part of the retro-music industry, even more-so than in the modern industry. For a band to be considered great decades after they've stopped recording, they have to be critically endorsed, not just popular. They have to be referenced and adored not only by later critics, but also by later musicians. As others have done, I have to dispute the notion that Nickleback will achieve that sort of influence. I'd liken them to NKOTB. Popular during their own time among the mainstream, but without any critical endorsement, and actually despised by critics for what they symbolize. Hence they'll have little staying power. On the other hand, few critically adored but unpopular bands have long-term appeal, either. You need a delicate balance of the two. Perhaps Nickleback will, at some point, achieve the sort of critical success that would allow them to endure. I've heard nothing in their music, and seen nothing in reactions to their music that would lead me to believe this will happen.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Further to that point, one must remember that music snobs (and I use that term endearingly) are a big part of the retro-music industry, even more-so than in the modern industry. For a band to be considered great decades after they've stopped recording, they have to be critically endorsed, not just popular. They have to be referenced and adored not only by later critics, but also by later musicians. As others have done, I have to dispute the notion that Nickleback will achieve that sort of influence. I'd liken them to NKOTB. Popular during their own time among the mainstream, but without any critical endorsement, and actually despised by critics for what they symbolize. Hence they'll have little staying power. On the other hand, few critically adored but unpopular bands have long-term appeal, either. You need a delicate balance of the two. Perhaps Nickleback will, at some point, achieve the sort of critical success that would allow them to endure. I've heard nothing in their music, and seen nothing in reactions to their music that would lead me to believe this will happen.

Because numerous awards aren't enough? I don't recall the New Kids ever winning any...

Let's take a quick peek down memory lane here... Based on the theory that AC/DC will be forever loved, and Nickelback will be forgotten quickly:

AC/DC:
nominated for: 4 grammys, 1 MTV Video Music award

in 30 years

Nickelback:
nominated for: 2 American Music Awards, 4 Grammys, and Kroeger for his duet with Josey Scott for an additional 3
has already won: 5 Juno Awards, 2 MuchMusic Video Awards, and 1 MTV Video Music Award.
has worked with artists such as Josey Scott, Kid Rock, and Santana.

In six years.

No critical success? Surely you jest.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Because numerous awards aren't enough? I don't recall the New Kids ever winning any...

Let's take a quick peek down memory lane here... Based on the theory that AC/DC will be forever loved, and Nickelback will be forgotten quickly:

AC/DC:
nominated for: 4 grammys, 1 MTV Video Music award

in 30 years

Nickelback:
nominated for: 2 American Music Awards, 4 Grammys, and Kroeger for his duet with Josey Scott for an additional 3
has already won: 5 Juno Awards, 2 MuchMusic Video Awards, and 1 MTV Video Music Award.
has worked with artists such as Josey Scott, Kid Rock, and Santana.

In six years.

No critical success? Surely you jest.

man, I almost puked...thanks for once again showing us that awards shows are absolute crap now. The awards you listed have far more to do with commercial success than critical acclaim, especially in the last 10 years or so. Where are the favourable reviews from reputable music mags?

check these reviews out:

http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti...herightreasons

http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti...lback/longroad

And no, entertainment weekly does not count as a reputable music mag..

And that tool Josey Scott's band Saliva has similar reviews, because they are absolute garbage.

I didn't know this thread was going to become a prove Nickelback sucks thread, but its kinda fun.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Igottago

man, I almost puked...thanks for once again showing us that awards shows are absolute crap now. The awards you listed have far more to do with commercial success than critical acclaim, especially in the last 10 years or so. Where are the favourable reviews from reputable music mags?

check these reviews out:

http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti...herightreasons

http://www.metacritic.com/music/arti...lback/longroad

And no, entertainment weekly does not count as a reputable music mag..

And that tool Josey Scott's band Saliva has similar reviews, because they are absolute garbage.

I didn't know this thread was going to become a prove Nickelback sucks thread, but its kinda fun.

I'm sure Led Zepplin felt the same way about awards shows when they won the lifetime acheivement award, what 2? 3 years ago?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Further to that point, one must remember that music snobs (and I use that term endearingly) are a big part of the retro-music industry, even more-so than in the modern industry. For a band to be considered great decades after they've stopped recording, they have to be critically endorsed, not just popular. They have to be referenced and adored not only by later critics, but also by later musicians. As others have done, I have to dispute the notion that Nickleback will achieve that sort of influence. I'd liken them to NKOTB. Popular during their own time among the mainstream, but without any critical endorsement, and actually despised by critics for what they symbolize. Hence they'll have little staying power. On the other hand, few critically adored but unpopular bands have long-term appeal, either. You need a delicate balance of the two. Perhaps Nickleback will, at some point, achieve the sort of critical success that would allow them to endure. I've heard nothing in their music, and seen nothing in reactions to their music that would lead me to believe this will happen.

Very good post.
It's very unlikely Nickelback will be influencing bands in 20 years. I'm not even sure they influence many musicians right now.
Also most Nickelback fans (generalizing) are not music enthusiests. They are more casual fans they change with the flavour of the week. These are not the type of music listeners that carry a bands legacy through generations.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm sure Led Zepplin felt the same way about awards shows when they won the lifetime acheivement award, what 2? 3 years ago?

I don't care how much you like Nickelback, they are not in the same league and they never will be in the same league as Led Zeppelin. It is absurd to even bring them up in a conversation about Nickelback. The guys in the band Nickelback would laugh at the suggestion.

It is so blindingly obvious that it is kind of difficult to even argue the point because I don't know where to start.

It's like trying to argue that Johnny Cash was more talented and influential than Billy Ray Cyrus. There are a million and one things out there to demonstrate the point. It's hard to pick one or two.

Also, awards shows do not = critical acclaim.

[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.

[habernac]

I recall the Grammys awarding top Metal band to Jethro Tull as well, I think that's the last time I even bothered watching the show. The Grammy's have zero credibility IMO.