Nickelback

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cheese@Oct 11 2005, 02:17 PM
whatever turns your crank sir Rouge...you can dance to her wearing that lovely pink teddy and a big fuzzy boa!

YOu bet I will, as long as you keep paying for the footage.

[transplant99]

I'm a musician, and thus I'm able to appreciate other talented musicians better than most people.

What a complete and utter ridiculous statement.

Think about this.

YOU decide what is good and bad based on YOUR tastes and experience. What YOU do or say, means NOTHING to others...including those that are musicians.

Using Nickelback as an example....YOU have decided they suck and are bad...based on what YOU feel is good musicianship

What if I'm a musician and think they are great??? Who is right?

If you wanna base this argument on a comparison between Rhett Warrener and Cory Cross...you have completely and utterly missed the point.

Unless you want to decree that the better player is the more obscure one.

Cross has played well over 600 games in his career.

Warrener has yet to see that level I believe.

Is one better than the other...sure you and I think so. Does that mean the other one "sucks and isnt worth my support"....no way. Nor have several GM's across the NHL agreed with you. They kept buying him and using him, thinking he was worthy of the money they threw his way..

Dont be a music snob...with age comes the realization that whatever you consider "sucky" today, changes in time.

Unless of course your an "age snob" as well.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 11 2005, 06:36 PM

What a complete and utter ridiculous statement.

Think about this.

YOU decide what is good and bad based on YOUR tastes and experience. What YOU do or say, means NOTHING to others...including those that are musicians.

Using Nickelback as an example....YOU have decided they suck and are bad...based on what YOU feel is good musicianship

What if I'm a musician and think they are great??? Who is right?

If you wanna base this argument on a comparison between Rhett Warrener and Cory Cross...you have completely and utterly missed the point.

Unless you want to decree that the better player is the more obscure one.

Cross has played well over 600 games in his career.

Warrener has yet to see that level I believe.

Is one better than the other...sure you and I think so. Does that mean the other one "sucks and isnt worth my support"....no way. Nor have several GM's across the NHL agreed with you. They kept buying him and using him, thinking he was worthy of the money they threw his way..

Dont be a music snob...with age comes the realization that whatever you consider "sucky" today, changes in time.

Unless of course your an "age snob" as well.

I am fairly certain you have a better grasp of rating hockey players than me because you've actually done it. Can't it work the same way with music? Certainly not everytime, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a musician to say "I am qualified to critique this music because I know music".

[REDVAN]

Been a fan of Nickelback since before they released Leader of Men. So anyone who says they suck can listen to some of their earlier stuff. The new stuff is good too, and just because it IS the trend doesn't mean you have to dislike it. It's the classic scenario with children these days: now that my dad listens to the same band I do I have to go and listen to some no-name shinguard band that will never make it anywhere because I wanna be cool.

Grow up and like a band that is making good radio friendly music. Not everyday do these bands appear. Other than Nickelback, what other band has made it this big and is from Alberta??

[transplant99]

I am fairly certain you have a better grasp of rating hockey players than me because you've actually done it. Can't it work the same way with music? Certainly not everytime, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a musician to say "I am qualified to critique this music because I know music".

Thing is with music, or any arts Rouge, is that what's good for one , is not good for another.

In hockey, I had one job...to win. And it was never at the expense of the team "looking good" to do so. Or playing a certain "style" of hockey. If it won...it was good. Period.


I am NOT a Jazz/Blues fan per se, in fact i think much of it boring and far over reated, but that doesnt mean the bands/musicians do. In fact, just the opposite.

I love old 70's funk and R&B...but clearly that wouldnt make me any good at judging todays R&R bands beyond whether I like them or not.

No different with music snobs.

Telling someone else what they should like/listen to/support is nothing short of obnoxious and self-serving. It's not their place to tell me what I like, nor what I consider good.

[peter12]

Originally posted by the crispy badger@Oct 11 2005, 06:18 AM
have you picked up "B-Sides & Rarities yet Peter?...I had to pay quite a bit for it but they some amazing songs..the acoustic version of The Mercy Seat, What a Wonderful World, etc..

I keep seeing B-sides but I keep putting it off because my other experience with B-side albums haven't been all that good. But I should check it out, acoustic version of Mercy Seat should be fantastic.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by REDVAN@Oct 11 2005, 07:26 PM
now that my dad listens to the same band I do I have to go and listen to some no-name shinguard band that will never make it anywhere because I wanna be cool.

Okay this attitude has raised it's ugly head a few times in this thread and it's certainly no better (and I think worse) than the "Nickelback sucks" argument.

I don't like music you (or my dad) haven't heard of because I think it's "cool" to do so. I like it because I like it and it has nothing to do with trying to be cool. Unfortunately I'm a little old for that.

And again -- musicians don't have to make it anywhere to not be shinguard. Many crappy acts have made it a lot bigger than Nickleback. Anyone ever heard of the Backstreet Boys? Record sales and "getting somewhere" do not = quality. Britney Spears outsells a favorite of mine (Beck) and yours (Nickelback) combined I'm sure by a wide margin. Does that mean it's good music? Not to me. Anyone wanna admit to being a big Britney fan?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 11 2005, 07:47 PM

Thing is with music, or any arts Rouge, is that what's good for one , is not good for another.

In hockey, I had one job...to win. And it was never at the expense of the team "looking good" to do so. Or playing a certain "style" of hockey. If it won...it was good. Period.


I am NOT a Jazz/Blues fan per se, in fact i think much of it boring and far over reated, but that doesnt mean the bands/musicians do. In fact, just the opposite.

I love old 70's funk and R&B...but clearly that wouldnt make me any good at judging todays R&R bands beyond whether I like them or not.

No different with music snobs.

Telling someone else what they should like/listen to/support is nothing short of obnoxious and self-serving. It's not their place to tell me what I like, nor what I consider good.

Well it is the internet. Someone asked an innocent question about a CD (or really anything at all that they like) and of course people jumped in with "what you like SUCKS"!. Kind of lame (and I'm obviously guilty) but what are you gonna do? It's the nature of the beast it seems.

It's all about opinions I guess. You and I know as well as anyone on this forum that we all have some pretty different opinions of things. It's not a lot of fun if we didn't. It doesn't mean it's snobbery. I don't think someone is a snob if they don't like a favorite of mine.

Anyhow, (and this is for everyone), you think the hatred for Nickelback is crazy, but what about the love? I don't think we'd get the same response from supporters if someone said they hated Elvis Presley.

[MarchHare]

Telling someone else what they should like/listen to/support is nothing short of obnoxious and self-serving. It's not their place to tell me what I like, nor what I consider good.

Eh? When did I ever tell anyone not to listen to Nickelback? In fact, I said at least twice in this thread that people should listen to whatever they like, and I won't begrudge them.

What I did say, however, is that even though somone's taste in music is entirely subjective, it is certainly possible to objectively rate a band. 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.

As I said earlier, there are people who think that Deuce Bigelow is a better film than Casablanca. Am I a pretentious film snob to say that they're wrong? Is it just my personal opinion that Casablanca is the better picture? Absolutely not; it's completely objective to state than one is demonstrably better than the other. Likewise with music.

Dont be a music snob...with age comes the realization that whatever you consider "sucky" today, changes in time.

You're quite correct that musical tastes change with time. What I liked 10 years ago is not what I listen to today (although some music is timeless). I will; however, always think that Nickelback sucks. I'm not going to suddenly appreciate their musical genius five years from now.

You may have also mistaken me for someone who *only* likes indie music and loathes anything mainstream entirely on principle. Quite the contrary, as you're just as likely to find U2, Coldplay, The Beatles, and Simon & Garfunkel on my iPod as you are any of the other bands I mentioned previously. There's also a ton of really crappy indie music.

Unless of course your an "age snob" as well.

What does that mean?

[Scrambler]

Unbelievably, I found myself singing along to their latest release. Not my favorite, but they seem to have a way of making catchy tunes. Besides, you have no choice but to like their 'song-of-the-month' if you listen to Cjay.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Cheese@Oct 11 2005, 09:08 AM
I can pretty much guarantee you that Nickleback will be around long after these groups die a quick death.

I'll take that bet. Nickelback is almost done already. They will fall hard and fast without much notice.

The other bands will develop loyal fanbases and will still be listened to in many years. They may not get big, but they will influence loyal fans in ways that Nickelback could never do and I'm sure that is good enough for them.

Most nickelback fans, are likely very casual music fans. Not the kind of people who stick with bands reguardless of popularity. If Cjay stops playing it, they will stop listening.

In 5 years, go to Tramps and see how many Nickleback CDs you can find.

[sketchyt]

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."

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Oct 11 2005, 10:17 PM
I'll take that bet. Nickelback is almost done already. They will fall hard and fast without much notice.

The other bands will develop loyal fanbases and will still be listened to in many years. They may not get big, but they will influence loyal fans in ways that Nickelback could never do and I'm sure that is good enough for them.

Most nickelback fans, are likely very casual music fans. Not the kind of people who stick with bands reguardless of popularity. If Cjay stops playing it, they will stop listening.

In 5 years, go to Tramps and see how many Nickleback CDs you can find.

Very true. Not knocking Nickelback fans but their music isn't the deepest stuff out there. There are levels of music just like anything else. Nickelback is not comparable to say Radiohead or Wilco. OK Computer took me awhile to get into but now I can't stop, Nickelback has the opposite effect.

[MarchHare]

This smells of the Frustrated Artist Syndrome.

Hardly. I've played a grand total of one gig in my life, and that was over five years ago. I play music as a hobby because I enjoy it, not because I'm trying to earn a living from it. I certainly don't loathe those who gained success despite their lack of talent. More power to them. I'd never dream of leaving my job to chase a career in the music industry.

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.

Of course it's a stupid analogy, but this is a hockey forum...I was trying to find something everyone could identify with.

Calling Nickelback whatever you want will never be objective because the qualitative industry they live in is a completely subjective one.

So you don't believe it's possible to objectively state that Casablanca is a better film than Deuce Bigelow? Or that the Mona Lisa is a finer work than the fruits of my third grade art class? The work of one artist most definetley can be objectively better than another. If someone chooses to enjoy the lesser work more, that's their subjective opinion and they're fully entitled to it. Saying, "I like Nickelback better than Wilco" is a perfectly valid statement. Saying, "Nickelback is better than Wilco" is not.

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.

There's a vast difference between broadening one's musical awareness and trying to find some merit in unmitigated crap. Am I supposed to try to pretend that there's something of worth in the latest Nsync single? Some music is just undeniably bad.

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.

Do I think I'm a better person than someone who listens to Nickelback? Absolutely not. But I do think I have better taste in music than they do.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sketchyt@Oct 11 2005, 11:54 PM

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.

Fans of Nickelback have in this very discussion said that music they don't like/does not sell millions is crap.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Nickelback Party? How many members would agree with the statement "rap is crap"?

Do I have Frustrated Artist Syndrome if I believe that Liz Phair was once made great music but the music she makes now is not as good? She'd probably agree with me. Does she have FAS?

I like the Beastie Boys. If you think they suck or you don't like them then you are a music snob.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 12 2005, 12:18 AM
So you don't believe it's possible to objectively state that Casablanca is a better film than Deuce Bigelow? Or that the Mona Lisa is a finer work than the fruits of my third grade art class? The work of one artist most definetley can be objectively better than another. If someone chooses to enjoy the lesser work more, that's their subjective opinion and they're fully entitled to it. Saying, "I like Nickelback better than Wilco" is a perfectly valid statement. Saying, "Nickelback is better than Wilco" is not.

Somebody's gotta jump in here and point out how stupid your argument is. You are arguing that ART can be objectively rated, and that's just objectively wrong. Do you understand the meaning of "objective?" It means evaluating things without the influence of emotional or personal prejudices. Do you understand what art is? It's something whose value is in its "aesthetic" value, which is by definition measured in the eye/ear of the beholder.

Here's a good test of objectivity: could a reasonable person argue with you about your opinion?

"Reasonable" doesn't mean that person has to be an expert in music like you are, but only that they understand the basic premises of facts vs. opinions. You clearly do not understand that distinction.

[Bobblehead]

I have to agree with Cube Inmate here. Art is entirely subjective. Some people are better at emoting or communicating through their art, but that does not necessarily mean it is better.

And back to the original topic, I like Nickelback until they were overplayed along with Creed. For a while I stopped listeniing to radio because it seemed every second song was one or the other. Now, whenever I hear their style of music it all sounds the same and makes me change stations. In 5 years maybe I'll be able to enjoy them again, but for now I avoid them.

[MarchHare]

"Reasonable" doesn't mean that person has to be an expert in music like you are, but only that they understand the basic premises of facts vs. opinions. You clearly do not understand that distinction.

I clearly do, just as I understand the difference between rating something subjectively or objectively.

There are people who think Deuce Bigelow is a better film than Casablanca. That's their subjective opinion. They find vulger humour to be more appealing than great dialogue, acting, cinematography, and a timeless story. Subjectively, they're perfectly entitled to their opinion, but objectively, they're clearly wrong. Casablanca is indisputably a better film than Deuce Bigelow.

I'm not even above having guilty pleasures. There are music and movies I certainly enjoy even though I recognize they're not very good. Subjectively, I love James Bond movies, but objectively I know they're not nearly in the same league as Citizen Kane or The Godfather.

[sketchyt]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 11 2005, 11:18 PM
There's a vast difference between broadening one's musical awareness and trying to find some merit in unmitigated crap. Am I supposed to try to pretend that there's something of worth in the latest Nsync single? Some music is just undeniably bad.

Do I think I'm a better person than someone who listens to Nickelback? Absolutely not. But I do think I have better taste in music than they do.

Don't try to pretend to find something good in N'Sync. Do it because there is something good in there. If you can't hear it, then it's sad because you will have a very one-sided understanding of music.

Do you really think a fan of Nickelback will enjoy listening to the Weakerthans? It's kind of like getting a Celine Dion fan to listen to Aphex Twin. It's just not going to happen. At least not right away.

It's clear you have a very deep knowledge of music and have great passion for the music you like. You enjoy seeing others introduced to the music you also enjoy. I just think your opinions would be better served and far more effective if you try to open up and hear what others hear.

[troutman]

Do you understand what art is?

What Nickelback does cannot be considered "art" by any definition. It is coldly calculated commercial "product". There is no invention, intelligence or humor in any of it.

art, artistic creation, artistic production -- (the creation of beautiful or significant things)