Nickelback

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 12 2005, 11:12 AM
Subjectively, they're perfectly entitled to their opinion, but objectively, they're clearly wrong. Casablanca is indisputably a better film than Deuce Bigelow.

Objectively, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "objectively."

Saying it doesn't make it so:

Canada is indisputably a better country than America.

[MarchHare]

Do you really think a fan of Nickelback will enjoy listening to the Weakerthans?

Quite possibly...songs like Aside, Confessions of a Futon-Revolutionist, and Watermark are just as rockin' as anything Nickelback puts out, and maybe listening to the Weakerthans might expose our Nickelback fan to carefully-crafted lyrics and creative instrumental work, thus broadening their musical tastes. If all someone listens to is top-40 radio, they have no way of knowing that there's some really great stuff out there. In high school, my favourite bands were Pearl Jam, Gun 'n Roses, and Nirvana (and I'm not saying anything against those bands; I still like some of their songs). It wasn't until I got to university and made a few friends at the campus radio station that I realized there was a veritable treasure-trove of fantastic music that I'd never even heard of (and yes, lots of really crappy stuff I'd never heard of too).

Imagine if the only movies someone ever sees are the big blockbusters at the multi-plex. That person will never discover all the great lesser-publicized films playing at the art-house theatre or the classics available on DVD. I've met many people who outright refuse to watch a film if it's in black and white.

[Cube Inmate]

Heck...I'll add something more productive than my last post. If art can be rated objectively, please rank the following movies from best to worst. Since this will be an objective ranking, we can then phone up the folks at Encyclopedia Brittanica and have them publish this as the definitive list:

Batman
Superman
Apocalypse Now
Saving Private Ryan
Star Trek IV
The Ring
Fifty First Dates
A Clockwork Orange

Now, see if you can rank the following from tallest to shortest:

Calgary Tower
Mount Everest
A pencil
CN Tower
Yourself

That's the difference between "objective" and "subjective." If that doesn't make it clear enough to you, then I'll have to assume that you're either a lawyer or a politician.

[sketchyt]

Originally posted by troutman@Oct 12 2005, 10:16 AM
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)

From Wikipedia:

"Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity and/or imagination. It is a form of outer expression of a person's true feelings. There are many different forms of art, even though many people belive art to consist only of painting, such as music & photography."

Nickelback wrote This is How You Remind Me. I would have preferred they didn't, but they did. Someone wrote the lyrics, strummed out the chords, sung it, meant it and recorded it. It was a form of expression. No one else in the world created a song exactly like that and it became one of a kind.

What happened afterwards is a different story, but what Nickelback does is very much art.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 12 2005, 11:24 AM
Objectively, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "objectively."

objectivity

n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Casablanca is a better film than Deuce Bigelow. That statement is based entirely on observable phenomena, and is uninfluenced by my emotions.

I'm not so sure that Casablanca is a better film than Citizen Kane (Edit: I think this is what Cube Inmate was getting at with his list of films). I personally prefer the latter, but I can't objectively state that one is better than the other since the craftsmanship of both is at relatively equal level; it'd be like comparing Mozart to Beethoven.

Or to put it a different way, I like Goldfinger better than Casablanca. That is purely a subjective opinion, but objectively I recognize Casablanca is the better film.

Saying it doesn't make it so:

Canada is indisputably a better country than America.

Objectively, Canada has a greater life-expectancy and lower rate of violent crime than America. So in those narrowly-defined aspects, yes, Canada is a better country than America. Subjectively, though, someone might prefer America for any number of reasons. There are also plenty of objective areas where the US is better than Canada.

The same cannot be said about Deuce Bigelow vs. Casablanca. In every conceivable category, such as acting, writing, cinematography, directing, music, and so on, Casablanca is clearly the better picture...unless you want to make "number of penis jokes" a measurable category.

[MarchHare]

No one else in the world created a song exactly like that and it became one of a kind.

Actually, if you listen to the link I posted on the first page, Nickelback themsleves wrote another song exactly like that!

I do agree with you though; Nickelback is certainly art...I just don't think it's very good art.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 12 2005, 11:46 AM
The same cannot be said about Deuce Bigelow vs. Casablanca. In every conceivable category, such as acting, writing, cinematography, directing, music, and so on, Casablanca is clearly the better picture...unless you want to make "number of penis jokes" a measurably category.

Finally, you've hit the point. To classify things objectively, you have to have a measurable metric for comparison. You just kept saying that "Casablanca is better than Deuce Bigelow" without any such metric.

That said, all of those things you mentioned are measured in the eye of the beholder, and are therefore measured against a subjective ruler. If you're going to say that the acting is objectively better, you need to have a way of measuring that, rather than just saying "it's obvious!"

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 12 2005, 11:51 AM
Finally, you've hit the point. To classify things objectively, you have to have a measurable metric for comparison. You just kept saying that "Casablanca is better than Deuce Bigelow" without any such metric.

That said, all of those things you mentioned are measured in the eye of the beholder, and are therefore measured against a subjective ruler. If you're going to say that the acting is objectively better, you need to have a way of measuring that, rather than just saying "it's obvious!"

I would contend something that is subjective can be objectively rated as well. Figure skating, for instance, is rated subjectively (or at least the artistic score). For that reason, many people think it should be removed from the Olympics. But is it not perfectly reasonable to state that objectively Kurt Browning is a better figure skater than I am? Or that Jimi Hendrix is a better guitarist than I am? Heck, subjectively someone might prefer my songs to his, but objectively he had more talent in one finger than I'll ever hope to have. I use these extreme examples to illustrate my point. Comparing Jimi Hendrix to Eric Clapton becomes more challenging and subjectivity comes into play, much like my comparison of Citizen Kane to Casablanca. But when comparing Hendrix to me it becomes obvious who is better, much like Deuce Bigelow vs. Casablanca.

[Bobblehead]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 12 2005, 11:46 AM
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Casablanca is a better film than Deuce Bigelow. That statement is based entirely on observable phenomena, and is uninfluenced by my emotions.

Even though I agree with you about these films (and I tend to like potty humour movies) I don't agree that this is an objective opinion, however I thing the argument has come down to semantics. I don't think there is a "checklist" you can go down to come up with the concrete evidence that one is better than the other. It largely depends upon experience and culture. For example, in France Jerry Lewis was/is considered a comic genious, whereas in North America he may be revered, I doubt many would classify him as a comic genious. It all depends on perspective.

So while there is a vast weight of subjective assessment that agrees with you about Citizen Kane/Casablanca/Deuce Bigelo, I don't think that makes it an objective truism.


As an aside MarchHare, you seem to be a film buff. In university English we watched Citzen Kane and Days of Heaven. While I like Citizen Kane I despised Days of Heaven. Have you seen it? What were your thoughts.


Edit: And you got to my point while I was typing. D'oh!

[Cube Inmate]

You're referring to technical skills, not art:

Kurt Browning could do triple axels, and a bunch of other things that are included in the objective definition of "olympic figure skating." I assume you can't, so by that metric, I'll agree with you.

Jimi Hendrix could do things with a guitar that you can only dream of. To put it objectively, I would say that Jimi Hendrix had the skills to do anything that you could with a guitar...on the other hand, you probably don't have the skills to do all that he did. Objectively, he was a better guitarist. These things are technical skills though.

Music involves not just "what Nickelback can do with a guitar," but what they have chosen to do--that's what makes it an art, and completely subjective. There are people who like those choices, and they are not wrong, as hard as it might be for you to believe.

No more posts from me today...that's as well as I can make my point. I'm sure we're boring the audience.

[Bobblehead]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 12 2005, 12:37 PM
I'm sure we're boring the audience.

Keep going, this is one of the better debates I've watched lately. Well reasoned, passionate without resorting to personal attacks. I wish more threads were like this. (even if it is OT)

[MarchHare]

You're referring to technical skills, not art:

Ah, but the two are very much intertwined. Michaelangelo would never have been able to sculpt David or paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel if he lacked the technical skills to do so. Even the filmmakers of Deuce Bigelow wouldn't have been able to create their movie if they didn't know how to frame a shot or perform non-linear editing. Likewise, songwriting is also very much a technical skill. John K. Sampson is capable of composing far more creative and intelligent lyrics than Chad Kroeger, which is one of the reasons The Weakerthans are a better band than Nickelback. Based purely on technical skills, I'm sure both bands could do faithful covers of each other's work, but artistically one is clearly (objectively) better.

Jimi Hendrix could do things with a guitar that you can only dream of. To put it objectively, I would say that Jimi Hendrix had the skills to do anything that you could with a guitar...on the other hand, you probably don't have the skills to do all that he did. Objectively, he was a better guitarist. These things are technical skills though.

Agreed completely. Of course, I bet I could find someone who likes my songs better than his. That's subjective and has nothing to do with either of our technical capabilities, but does that mean I'm a better musician than him? Or even in the same league? Certainly not! This is precisely my contention with Nickelback; technically, they are proficient musicians, but artistically they are decidedly lacking. You would never know this, though, if you only listened to top 40 radio. If all you heard was Nickelback and Jessica Simpson and the like, you might think Nickelback is pretty good, but if you expanded your music library to include The Weakerthans or Wilco (or whoever else) you might realize that Nickelback isn't so great afterall.

Music involves not just "what Nickelback can do with a guitar," but what they have chosen to do--that's what makes it an art, and completely subjective. There are people who like those choices, and they are not wrong, as hard as it might be for you to believe.

I think this just further proves my point. That Nickelback voluntarily chooses to record derivative songs that all sound the same should be ample demonstration of their relative merit as songwriters. Then again, I would also contend that Nickelback isn't capable of doing anything more than they do; I certainly don't think they could craft a song like The Weakerthans' Pamphleteer or Our Retired Explorer (Dines With Michel Foucault in Paris, 1961).

The same can be said about the people who made Deuce Bigelow. If this is how they choose to express their artistic talents, God help them. But again, I think it's obvious that they do not possess the capabilities, both technical and artistic, to make a film the likes of Citizen Kane or Casablanca. Also, even confined within the genre of gross-out comedies Deuce Bigelow is a poor film. There's Something About Mary and the American Pie movies are examples of movies in this genre done right; Deuce Bigelow is not.

I also must stress the point that I don't think it's wrong for someone to enjoy Nickelback (or Deuce Bigelow). I think people should watch and listen to whatever they (subjectively) find appealing. The point I'm trying to make is that art can be objectively poor or of a lesser quality than the works of other artists.

Keep going, this is one of the better debates I've watched lately. Well reasoned, passionate without resorting to personal attacks. I wish more threads were like this. (even if it is OT)

Thanks.

And cheers to Cube Inmate; we may not ultimately agree, but at least we've remained civil and (hopefully) caused the other to rethink and refine their position. Far too often internet debates devolve to petty name-calling, obscenities, and (worst of all) pointing out spelling or grammar mistakes in your opponent's posts. I've always thought that once any of that becomes part of the discussion, it's pretty much an admission by the opposing side that their position has become untenable. Kudos for rising above that and providing a highly stimulating conversation.

As an aside MarchHare, you seem to be a film buff. In university English we watched Citzen Kane and Days of Heaven. While I like Citizen Kane I despised Days of Heaven. Have you seen it? What were your thoughts.

I certainly am a film buff. In fact, I'm taking a film course at SAIT currently. We shot my student short film last week and are editing it tonight; I'm quite anxious to see how it all turns out. Actually, this just reinforces a previous point I mentioned about artists being in a better position to critique their peers. I know that since I've started taking this course I notice subtle techniques in movies that went entirely unappreciated before. I suspect the average movie-viewer wouldn't recognize the skill required of the filmmakers either.

Sorry, I haven't seen Days of Heaven, but I will check it out.

[Cube Inmate]

Ok...one more reply, then to do some real work!

Agreed that there's going to be no resolution to this one. Just wanted to make it clear that while I don't like Nickleback at all, there is some merit to their noise in some people's eyes..er ears.

To simply say that those people's tastes are "objectively" lacking in some way, is insulting and closed-minded, and IMO a mis-use of the word "objective." It's essentially saying, "you have every right to have bad taste!" Just like a sign we had up on the wall in my family's cabin (relating to sailing):

"Be tolerant of the skipper. He has a right to his ridiculous opinion."

Sorry folks...I'm trying to stop debating and get out of here, but I'm not very good at that. I'm out...

[Winsor_Pilates]

I'll call it a draw, but Nickelback still sucks. Both objectively and subjectively. B-)

[4X4]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Oct 12 2005, 10:32 PM
I'll call it a draw, but Nickelback still sucks. Both objectively and subjectively. B-)

He's right.










This thread is DEAD!

[Scrambler]

Almost dead, but there is something everyone should here before we officially put this topic to bed. Visit this link for some amazement on their 'reproductive' talent:

http://www.thewebshinguarde.net/nickelback.htm

[4X4]

The link doesn't work for me, but I am amused by the 'shinguarde' in the URL.

[Scrambler]

Oops, that is because it contains profanity. the link is actually:

http://www.thewebsh*te.net/nickelback.htm

if you put in the 'i', it should work

Enjoy!

[Hakan]

Yeah just get it through your heads. Nickelback sucks. You may like them, that's fine, but they still suck regardless.

Oh and all this crap in this thread about 'indie' music sucking because it isn't played on the radio is a bunch of total crap. There are thousands of indie bands out there that YOU (yes you) will enjoy. You just need to find them. Don't let the corporate radio dictate your taste in bands. You're sitting at a computer connect to the goddam internet for christsakes! Go out and find good music and leave the Nickelback in the $5 dollar bargain bin where it belongs!

[rockstar]

Originally posted by Hakan@Oct 12 2005, 11:56 PM
Yeah just get it through your heads. Nickelback sucks. You may like them, that's fine, but they still suck regardless.

Oh and all this crap in this thread about 'indie' music sucking because it isn't played on the radio is a bunch of total crap. There are thousands of indie bands out there that YOU (yes you) will enjoy. You just need to find them. Don't let the corporate radio dictate your taste in bands. You're sitting at a computer connect to the goddam internet for christsakes! Go out and find good music and leave the Nickelback in the $5 dollar bargain bin where it belongs!

THANK YOU.

People need this advice. Especially when a "Nickleback" thread goes into it's third page.