The Juno's...what the hell?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Deelow

Why? Honestly who are you to say what other people should like? And who are you to decide what is good? The reality is different people have different tastes, and for some people as crappy as it may be in your eyes Chad Kroeger singing about finger blasts in the front seat of a car does the trick. If a band like Nickelback is so meaningless to the big artistic picture why do they bother you so much? I know the moment someone with Silver Side Up in his/her collection went and bought an Arcade Fire or Wolf Parade CD most of you would look down your nose and say something like "this music is too good for you, go back to Nickelback".

It cracks me up how many indie music fans claim to be such peace loving people but are absolutely the most judgemental folks I have ever met.

Not at all. I'd say good job and would pretty much make a bet that Silver Side Up wouldn't be getting a single play every again.

Nickelback bothers me because it is what is passed off for good Canadian music these days.

And Indie music fan?? My alltime favourite band is the Clash, hardly indie and quite mainstream, now I know that when I listen to the Clash it is a superior art form to 100% of what is out there. Do I exclusively and pretentiously hold onto The Clash? Of course not, that would be silly.

Peace loving people? What?

[Igottago]

Aren't Wolf Parade basically the Nickelback of indie rock?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Sure there are no absolutes when it comes to art criticism but there are good barometers of what 'good' art is and Nickelback aint it.

Yeah, people have called a urinal art, because someone put a label on it. Most even thought it was good and clever and the gentleman who did it ended up getting rich and famous over dumb **** like that. Does that make it good? Well art critics said it was....

Originally Posted by Hakan

You can like whatever music you like but all I will say is this: you are really short changing yourself if you limit your musical taste to the crap they play on CJ92. If you like Nickelback there are many bands out there that are WAY better than they. So sure, let Nickelback get you into a kind of music but then go exploring and find something that's well, actually good.

Let's put it this way: Millions of people think Nickelback is good, or they wouldn't buy their albums. Millions of people buy their albums and make Nickleback boatloads of money around the world. So are all of those people wrong and you're right? Well that would put you in the minority. Perhaps you're wrong. They MUST have SOME talent to sell so many albums. Other bands MUST be lacking SOMETHING or more people would like them, and whether or not you agree, they would end up on CJAY because of their record sales. CJAY has to make money too, and they can't do it playing **** people don't like. So they play the songs people do like. Nickleback is it. If Arcade Fire or whoever you think is so much better than them, actually were that much better, they would be selling more albums. They would then be the mainstream.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by LGA

Anyone that takes Nickleback as a serious band is seriously missing out. They'll never (and should never) be mentioned with Pearl Jam, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC but heck they are what they are, a fun band that doesn't take itself seriously.

I disagree...I often think some people listen to Pearl Jam and think "damn, Nickleback were good in the early days!"

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Deelow

It cracks me up how many indie music fans claim to be such peace loving people but are absolutely the most judgemental folks I have ever met.

I'm about as indie as you can get right now, but I won't tell you to stop listening to ****ty music. I'll just tell you that you should ALSO listen to other things. My gripe with bands like Nickleback is that they consitute the Canadian Content on the radio and that's taking away from other artists that could use the help and the popularity. Everytime a Canadian band gets played on the radio they get money. So when the only time you get to hear New Pornographers or Stars on the radio is on CBC radio 3...that hurts.

Is it fair that bands like Nickleback get to fly around the world because they're rolling in money while a band like Chixdiggit (for example) has to come back to Calgary and work ****ty jobs just so that they can pay for their next tour? I don't think so, sure Chixdiggit may not be what people want to hear, but the fact that they'll never get airtime on CJAY because it's easier to play Nickleback ****es me off.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by peter12

Bull****. So let's just chuck Britney Spears up along with Mozart and Bach? There is a talent standard, people don't have to like my kind of music... but they should like good music.

Sweet lord there are about 50 bands in the mainstream and I can safely say they all suck... or almost all of them.

Edit: Hakan has got it down. The whole point of music "snobbery" as some put it, is to explore different genres of music. Nickelback et al are easy listening clone crap that doesn't require any effort on the part of the consumer to actually find good stuff.

By the way, anyone who was at the New Pornographers last night at Mac Hall, how did you find it? AC Newman and all can sure play but MacEwan techs seemed to be having some serious trouble with just about everything from the lights to sounds.

Bull**** yourself.

There is a talent standard? Maybe for you and for other people but not for everyone. A lot of people loved and still love the Sex Pistols but they did not have a whole lot of talent now did they?

What is putting Britney Spears up against Bach or Mozart exactly intended to prove? A lot of people prefer Bach or Mozart to Britney Spears, and a lot of people prefer Britney Spears to Bach or Mozart. Notwithstanding that you can't compare them at all because the styles of music are so radically different, I'm not exactly sure how you are imputing a talent standard into this comparison. Bach and Mozart are certainly better at what they did (write music) than Britney Spears, but I've never heard Bach or Mozart sing (which is what Britney does), so I can't actually determine who has more talent. But the point is moot, since you have failed to prove that talent = objective quality of music.

There are 50 bands in the mainstream that you can safely say almost all of them suck. In your opinion.

As for snobbery, I don't see a point at all. If someone has explored all genres of music and still determined Nickelback is their favourite band it is not my place to fault them. That is their personal taste, and I'm not about to tell them what to think.

That you don't see anything wrong in so cocksurely imposing your own personal values on someone else in something so subjective as art is curious, if not troubling.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by icarus

Bull**** yourself.

There is a talent standard? Maybe for you and for other people but not for everyone. A lot of people loved and still love the Sex Pistols but they did not have a whole lot of talent now did they?

What is putting Britney Spears up against Bach or Mozart exactly intended to prove? A lot of people prefer Bach or Mozart to Britney Spears, and a lot of people prefer Britney Spears to Bach or Mozart. Notwithstanding that you can't compare them at all because the styles of music are so radically different, I'm not exactly sure how you are imputing a talent standard into this comparison. Bach and Mozart are certainly better at what they did (write music) than Britney Spears, but I've never heard Bach or Mozart sing (which is what Britney does), so I can't actually determine who has more talent. But the point is moot, since you have failed to prove that talent = objective quality of music.

There are 50 bands in the mainstream that you can safely say almost all of them suck. In your opinion.

As for snobbery, I don't see a point at all. If someone has explored all genres of music and still determined Nickelback is their favourite band it is not my place to fault them. That is their personal taste, and I'm not about to tell them what to think.

That you don't see anything wrong in so cocksurely imposing your own personal values on someone else in something so subjective as art is curious, if not troubling.

I'm not imposing my personal opinion on anyone. I don't walk up to someone with a Nickelback album, punch them in the face and force them to buy a Jon Spencer album. I don't even harass them, I just recommend other better music and 99/100 times people can see the difference.


The Sex Pistols, were Backstreet Boys of the late 1970s. The entire band was manufactured and dolled up to sell records.

As for quality, Bach vs Britney Spears... I guess Britney is better at singing, if you can call it that. My point was and I fail to see how YOU failed to recognize it, is that there is art (see talent) and there is manufactured ****.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by peter12

Bull****. So let's just chuck Britney Spears up along with Mozart and Bach? There is a talent standard, people don't have to like my kind of music... but they should like good music.

Sweet lord there are about 50 bands in the mainstream and I can safely say they all suck... or almost all of them.

Edit: Hakan has got it down. The whole point of music "snobbery" as some put it, is to explore different genres of music. Nickelback et al are easy listening clone crap that doesn't require any effort on the part of the consumer to actually find good stuff.

The profit motive would ensure the good stuff would eventually find the consumer if it were any good.

You're essentially saying these bands are poor and disadvantaged because the customer is wrong . . . . .

You sometimes see people or bands say, after commercial success, that it finally gives them the power to produce music they've always wanted to do . . . . . The Mavericks were on top of the world in the country genre and made such a statement then produced a few albums they considered a follow-up to their declaration . . . . . then fell faster than a comet when the consumer couldn't stand what they considered "good" music.

In that case, the snobs were wrong.

Cowperson

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Aren't Wolf Parade basically the Nickelback of indie rock?

Where'd you hear that? I mean, they were "discovered" by the Modest Mouse frontman, and I happen to think they sound like Modest Mouse, but I don't know about being the Nickleback of indie.

[mbrown]

Weird that people care about what other people listen to.
Some sort of personality disorder there I'd say.

Anyways, Canadian Bands get paid for radio airtime? Never heard that before! I know there are Canadian content rules, but I have never heard that they get paid for song selection other than to make people interested in their music and then buy the album.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by mbrown

Weird that people care about what other people listen to.
Some sort of personality disorder there I'd say.

Anyways, Canadian Bands get paid for radio airtime? Never heard that before! I know there are Canadian content rules, but I have never heard that they get paid for song selection other than to make people interested in their music and then buy the album.

I don't really care all that much, just a little bit of pity Mr. Brown.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by icarus

Bull**** yourself.

There is a talent standard? Maybe for you and for other people but not for everyone.

The industry believes in a talent standard. That's why they have awards shows. If you don't believe it talent standards, that's fine, but it's irrelevent to the discussion because the Junos do.
The issue is whether nickelback fits those standards, not whether standards exist.

If there's no talent standard, there would be no awards shows. They would just give album of the year or best picture to the biggest seller.

Star Wars episode 1 would have been the best picture of 1999. Is that how it should work? Should the little kid who played Anakin have been best actor becuase he was in the highest grossing movie?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by peter12

As for quality, Bach vs Britney Spears... I guess Britney is better at singing, if you can call it that. My point was and I fail to see how YOU failed to recognize it, is that there is art (see talent) and there is manufactured ****.

I failed to see your alleged point because your post made no mention about the dichotomy between art and manufactured ****.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Where'd you hear that? I mean, they were "discovered" by the Modest Mouse frontman, and I happen to think they sound like Modest Mouse, but I don't know about being the Nickleback of indie.

haha...I was just joking around man...I personally don't like Wolf Parade and can't understand the hype they're getting, so I took a little shot at them. Its probably not fair to call them the Nickelback of indie though, that was a joke.

It does raise an interesting point though...bands can blatantly sound like the Smiths or Joy Division, and they are heralded as indie rock heroes...there is a lot of crap in the indie scene that gets waaay too much hype/respect just because, well, its indie. I find that equally as annoying as Nickelback.

[calf]

Originally Posted by mbrown

Weird that people care about what other people listen to.
Some sort of personality disorder there I'd say.

Anyways, Canadian Bands get paid for radio airtime? Never heard that before! I know there are Canadian content rules, but I have never heard that they get paid for song selection other than to make people interested in their music and then buy the album.

yup - royalties are a big part of how mainstream bands get paid (why should a radio station make money off their work?)...those coupled with tours & merch are why bands really aren't hurting with the decline in album sales b/c of downloading

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The industry believes in a talent standard. That's why they have awards shows. If you don't believe it talent standards, that's fine, but it's irrelevent to the discussion because the Junos do.
The issue is whether nickelback fits those standards, not whether standards exist.

Well actually my comment was very relevant because it was made in the context of a discussion that had shifted away from the Junos and toward tastes in music in general, and whether an objective standard exists.

But even in the context of award shows, there is no objective talent standard. You have an academy or something of the like whose members vote as to their subjective preferences, and once the votes are tallied the winner is declared. When your choice is narrowed to a list of five nominees, it is possible they don't even have the opportunity to vote for their real favourites.

I personally don't put too much stock in award shows. Was Green Day's American Idiot really the best album of the year, as declared on the Grammy Awards? How can that be anything other than a subjective choice?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by mbrown

Weird that people care about what other people listen to.
Some sort of personality disorder there I'd say.

Anyways, Canadian Bands get paid for radio airtime? Never heard that before! I know there are Canadian content rules, but I have never heard that they get paid for song selection other than to make people interested in their music and then buy the album.

I'm pretty sure it's part of the Canadian Content that the CRTC enforces. It's not a lot that they get, but it does add up when you're being played to death.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'm pretty sure it's part of the Canadian Content that the CRTC enforces. It's not a lot that they get, but it does add up when you're being played to death.

I believe that whoever owns the publishing rights (often the song writers), gets paid some amount every time a song is played on the radio both in US and in Canada.

Part of Canada's problem is the CRTC is so limiting in granting radio station licences. It makes an FM frequency too valuable of a commodity. There aren't room for sub-genre niche stations. If start up costs were lower, and a FM frequency only cost what it should, there'd be a lot more room for niche stations. As it is, until recently, the only Cdn rock bands that got any air time are the ones that can be fit into the cjay-92 type format. There is no media outlet in Canada for those bands that don't fit.

Through technologies like the internet and sat. radio, and a thriving American indie infrastructure, Canadian bands that don't fit into cj's playlist are finally able to find an outlet to reach an audience, and are doing quite well at it.

Too bad though, that the Juno's don't pick up on the Canadian bands that people want to listen to, instead of the ones that CRTC is trying to force people to listen to. But, it is not a big surprise, really, as I am sure the CRTC/Juno nominators/Cdn corporate record labels/Canadian radio corps are all in bed together.

[Reggie Dunlop]

It's a tragedy that Rita MacNeil isn't bigger than she already is.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

There is no media outlet in Canada for those bands that don't fit.

Well that's not entirely true. Community radio stations such as CJSW in Calgary do their part to get indie music out. I think most people who seek the alternative to CJAY at least know about CJSW (or at least I hope so).