Nickelback is the band of the decade

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think some people are confusing not liking Nickleback with not liking popular music. There used to be a time when popular still meant that the music acts were pretty damn talented....the Beatles, Queen, Beach Boys, Elvis, all had amazingly lucrative careers and record sales, and are still considered to be great bands by so-called music snobs. Can anyone seriously say that Nickleback belongs in this category?

Btw, I think Alicia Keys is great regardless if she's on this top-seller list or not. It's a little girly, but I've always like her stuff.

That and Michael Bolton. I celebrate his entire catalog.

Ok, not that last one, I just wanted to throw in some Office Space in there.

Thanks for taking what I was going to post...dick. But yeah, I agree. I listen to what a lot of people would call "artsy" music but I also like stuff such as Springsteen, Oasis, Alicia Keys, Michael Jackson, John Mayer, RHCP, etc.

Hell, I'd say a lot of the music that the so-called "indie" crowd likes ends up hitting the top 40 airwaves anyways, so I can't really say I hate it. I've been a Michael Franti fan for years, and never heard him on any radio stations outside of CKUA, yet low and behold this year he has a top 40 hit. I hate the song in question, but I still like Franti.

My point is, anybody who craps on people for hating Nickleback "just because their popular" is probably a misinformed or blatantly ignorant fanboy.

[Kerplunk]

Good lord, someone posted a Nickelback thread on CP. Duck and cover!

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Who pays for albums anymore?

*raises hand*

I have never downloaded an album. I spend a buttload of money on music.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Igottago

You're right. Be prepared to be called a music snob. Somehow people that buy "big shiny tunes" once a year seem to think their opinion of music should matter as much as people who spend time and energy digging up obscure new music, and go to lots of live shows, and spent money on a lot of music each year, as well as listen with a critical ear.

Like it or not, their opinion of music is equally as valuable as your opinion of music. Which is to say, bluntly, that neither is worth a fart in the wind.

Music is an individual taste. Just because some joker prefers indy/underground music does not make his opinion on music inherently more valuable. It just makes their opinion different than that of some of their peers.

No one who is a music fan of substance believes Nickelback is the greatest band of the decade.

I don't think anyone is arguing this, really. Billboard is merely pointing out that based on sales, Nickelback is the most popular rock band of the decade.

[MarchHare]

Like it or not, their opinion of music is equally as valuable as your opinion of music. Which is to say, bluntly, that neither is worth a fart in the wind.

Music is an individual taste. Just because some joker prefers indy/underground music does not make his opinion on music inherently more valuable. It just makes their opinion different than that of some of their peers.

On an individual level, music is, as you said, a matter of taste. That doesn't mean that everyone's opinions are equal, though. Some people simply have better taste than others.

I'm sure there are people in the world who think the best meal ever is a super-sized Big Mac combo. Do you really believe their opinion is equally as valid as that of a professional restaurant critic?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like it or not, their opinion of music is equally as valuable as your opinion of music. Which is to say, bluntly, that neither is worth a fart in the wind.

Music is an individual taste. Just because some joker prefers indy/underground music does not make his opinion on music inherently more valuable. It just makes their opinion different than that of some of their peers.



I don't think anyone is arguing this, really. Billboard is merely pointing out that based on sales, Nickelback is the most popular rock band of the decade.

Aesthetically, Kroeger ain't no Neil Young.

[ben voyonsdonc]

I don't hate Nickelback because they are popular (I quite like pop music)...I hate them because their music just is not very good. It's ok to have a bad song...but when all of your songs sound just like the last one...and the last one sucked it says something about your band. Their lyrics are often pretty misogynistic and Kroeger's voice is painful to my aural sense.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

On an individual level, music is, as you said, a matter of taste. That doesn't mean that everyone's opinions are equal, though. Some people simply have better taste than others.

I'm sure there are people in the world who think the best meal ever is a super-sized Big Mac combo. Do you really believe their opinion is equally as valid as that of a professional restaurant critic?

Yup.

What you define as having "better taste" is going to be different than what I define as such, which will be as different as what Fotze defines as such. Personally, I don't waste my time letting someone else define what is good and what is bad for me. If person A recommends a big mac, but person B recommends a dish based around foie gras, I may try both and make my own decisions.

Or, to put it another way, who's opinion on the Flames do you value more: Cowperson or Bruce Dowbiggin? Beyond that, do you let either of them define your opinion on the Flames, or do you prefer to form your own, which may or may not resemble that of either of them, and may or may not accept input from either?

[MarchHare]

Or, to put it another way, who's opinion on the Flames do you value more: Cowperson or Bruce Dowbiggin? Beyond that, do you let either of them define your opinion on the Flames, or do you prefer to form your own, which may or may not resemble that of either of them, and may or may not accept input from either?

We're getting a bit off-topic, but I'll answer your question thusly: if you were Darryl Sutter and wanted assistance evaluating talent, are the opinions of each of these three people equally valid: Cowperson, Bicycle Bruce, Tod Button?

[Hack&Lube]

this is why this decade sucked in music like no other since the 90s

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like it or not, their opinion of music is equally as valuable as your opinion of music. Which is to say, bluntly, that neither is worth a fart in the wind.

Not being able to define the "true" value of music doesn't mean that false values cannot be discarded. There can be multiple valid and different opinions about something without ALL opinions being valid.

It is a mistake to think that because you cannot definitively choose criteria by which to judge a thing's quality, all judgments are equal. There is such a thing as "informed" opinion and "uninformed" opinion. If I want to buy a "good" car, for example, should I consult my friend the mechanic, or my friend the fashion designer? Surely "good" is subjective, but unless I am only interested in the appearance of the car, the mechanic's opinion is the one that any reasonable person would trust if forced to choose between the two.

In music, "good" is similarly a fuzzy value, but the opinion of a trained musician, critic, or serious student has far more value than your average person on the street. Consensus amongst informed opinion is a good indicator of where truth likely lies; consensus among the uninformed means nothing.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

this is why this decade sucked in music like no other since the 90s

Thank goodness all those decades in between really made up for it.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Who pays for albums anymore?

I do. I'll download it, and if I find myself listening to it I'll buy the album. If I don't then I'll move on to something else.

I'm not sure if that saves me money or not. I think I generally buy as many albums, I just end up enjoying all the albums I buy a fair bit more.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Like it or not, their opinion of music is equally as valuable as your opinion of music. Which is to say, bluntly, that neither is worth a fart in the wind.

Music is an individual taste. Just because some joker prefers indy/underground music does not make his opinion on music inherently more valuable. It just makes their opinion different than that of some of their peers.

Its got nothing to do with indie/underground vs popular, its got more to do with an informed vs uninformed opinion.

Like I said before, I am more intersted in the opinion of someone who makes a considerable effort to find music from a range of sources, than someone who buys "big shiny tunes" each year or listens to CJAY 92 as their sole source of music. They are distinctly different types of music fans. I don't see why people find it so offensive to say they are a casual music fan. Its just the truth of it. Why is it so bad to think that a casual music fan's opinions should be weighted less than someone who eats, sleeps, and breathes music?

If people ask me an opinion about an issue in the NFL, I can give them an opinion, but probably not an informed one. I catch some of the superbowl each year. My knowledge of the NFL is limited to that. Why would my opinion on matters of importance in the NFL count for more than a hardcore football fan?

edit: Jammies beat me to it..made the same point about "informed" vs. "uninformed".

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

this is why this decade sucked in music like no other since the 90s

I wouldn't say that's true. Just that music has become sclupted to sell as a product more than ever before. Marketing has become so advanced that companies have found exactly what sells the best and use that formula to make song after song.

There is, however, still wonderful music being made that maintains the high quality of acts of past decades.

[Burninator]

I try not to worry so much about other peoples music tastes. Everyone values music differently. For some people it just isn't as important and for others it is their lives. All music has an appeal for some, but not for all. I think it's silly for someone who values music very highly in their life to chastise Nickelback fans who listen to them on the radio casually. It would be like an Iron Chef from TV spitting in my pot of Kraft dinner. Or J pold smacking the Kokanee bottle out of my hand.


However I think it is worth peoples time to look deeper into things and try something new. There is lots of good music out there that probably isn't getting much radio air time. Heck, there is lots of good music that isn't even from this decade that is definitely worth the time listening too. Same goes with food and beer. I've had lots of good beer from just picking something new and random off the shelf. Same with trying a new restaurant instead of the same old place. Same deal with music. But if people want to stick to the same old and the popular I won't fault them for it, but I think they are missing out.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

We're getting a bit off-topic, but I'll answer your question thusly: if you were Darryl Sutter and wanted assistance evaluating talent, are the opinions of each of these three people equally valid: Cowperson, Bicycle Bruce, Tod Button?

That's not a fair comparison.

A hockey player's talent is something that can for the most part be objectively evaluated. Becasue someone is better at recognizing it means that their opinion on the matter is more valuable.

Most people would argue that quality of music (not dificulty, or any of the technical aspects of music) is mostly subjective, so why is anyone's opinion more correct than anothers.

Yes for some people there is often a correlation between the technical aspect of music, and the subjecive quality, but that's a personal taste.

I worked at the bar downtown for several years and can recall the very first night Nickleback played.

I believe it was a Wednesday and didn't expect much considering the lineup of no names.

Low and behold, some 150 people came out, there was a 'mosh pit' and all kinds of shenanigans. Then I found out it was everyone from their hometown of Hanna, AB that came to see them play. I think I paid them $250 that night.

Moral of the story: BLAME HANNA!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That's not a fair comparison.

A hockey player's talent is something that can for the most part be objectively evaluated. Becasue someone is better at recognizing it means that their opinion on the matter is more valuable.

Most people would argue that quality of music (not dificulty, or any of the technical aspects of music) is mostly subjective, so why is anyone's opinion more correct than anothers.

Yes for some people there is often a correlation between the technical aspect of music, and the subjecive quality, but that's a personal taste.

It was Resolute, not me, that brought up the hockey analogy.

Clearly some people are better at evaluating hockey players than others, thus we should give their opinions more weight. Likewise, there are people who have more informed and valuable opinions when evaluating the merits of art or music or films or food or anything else "subjective".

[Muta]

I agree with Resolute... each person's musical opinion is just as valuable and worth no more or no less than anybody else's. It all resides in the interpretation of the beholder.

As a violin player since I was 4 years old, I've come to the opinion that it it's not appropriate to criticize one's musical tastes. It is whatever sings to that person's soul. While I personally wouldn't listen to Nickelback, I will never criticize someone's decision to listen to it. Everyone interprets music differently; because of this, it is easy to join the hate-brigade on Nickelback because of popular opinion.

To be quite honest, I'm not a fan of Nickelback because of their cheesy and high-schoolish lyrics. Kroeger's voice is also unique, so it gets tiring after listening to it continually. However, change the lyrics to some of their songs, and change the singer, and the tunes and melodies themselves are just fine. I think the Nickelback hate-train is as bad as it is, simply because of momentum... kinda like, the Phaneuf hate-train. It's the popular thing to do.

I like Tool because of their great guitar riffs and poetic, dark lyrics. That's the kind of stuff that I like. But I, in no way, will hate somebody like Britney Spears because she's the anti-thesis of Tool. I won't listen to her music, but I refuse to criticize her, since there are those out there that like her and appreciate her music. And I can appreciate that.