The Juno's...what the hell?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

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.

That's not true. . . . .

If you were tapping your toe to something in 2005, there's a good chance you'll tap your toe to the same thing in 2025.

Hence the proliferation of golden oldies stations, golden country stations, all those infomercials selling golden collections, etc, etc. There's a buck to be made there because there's a strong demand from the consumer.

Simply put, what you consider to be "good" music might better be described as "eclectic," has limited appeal and likely won't survive an inter-generational transfer. There's no demand now and there probably won't be a demand in the future.

I think I've heard one (1) Nickleback song in my life so I really don't care but its a pretty easy bet figuring out which songs are going to stand the test of time over a 20 or 30 year period . . . . . and those would be the one's that are commercially successful, not the one's being played in obscure bohemian cafes where the artists are handing out their CD's for a few bucks.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ha ha. You got me there. You didn't compare them to Led Zeppelin. The name came up in your post so that's where I got that.

You think they are talented songwriters, I don't. It's got nothing to do with "respect from a critic". I can hear the words. Although I do think you might be hard pressed to find a critic that really digs Nickelback. I don't read much music criticism (or really any for that matter) but I'd be surprised if there are many actual critics that are Nickelback fans.

Anyhow, habernac pointed out that Jethro Tull did indeed win a Grammy that's really all I need to know. Winning a Grammy doesn't tell me something is good and it certainly doesn't mean it's critically acclaimed. How many Grammys has Kelly Clarkson won?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

That's not true. . . . .

If you were tapping your toe to something in 2005, there's a good chance you'll tap your toe to the same thing in 2025.

Hence the proliferation of golden oldies stations, golden country stations, all those infomercials selling golden collections, etc, etc. There's a buck to be made there because there's a strong demand from the consumer.

Golden Oldies? I was debating whether Nickelback will be a well respected, influencial band the likes of Led Zepplin or Pink Floyd. That they for sure will not. it's not even debatable.

Do you think up and coming artists get their inspiration from golden oldie stations or infomercial compilations? Zeppelin and Floyd have die hard fans who weren't even alive when they were making albums, let alone tapping their toes back then. Their music goes well beyond toe tapping. These are not golden oldie bands.

If Nickelback becomes and oldies band that is only listened to by old people who no longer have any influence on the music industry and hold on to Nickelback like mullets, because they havn't progressed beyond them...so be it. I'm not saying they won't accomplish that, but that hardly makes them a good/great band.

Simply put, what you consider to be "good" music might better be described as "eclectic," has limited appeal and likely won't survive an inter-generational transfer. There's no demand now and there probably won't be a demand in the future.

How do you know what I consider good music?
I havn't even named any bands that I think will survive generational transfer. Amazing how you can call them "eclectic" when I havn't even said who they are.
So lets name some...
U2, Radiohead, REM, Pearl Jam.
You probobly havn't heard of these bands but if you take the time to look them up, you will see that they all have "demand" and "appeal".

I think I've heard one (1) Nickleback song in my life so I really don't care but its a pretty easy bet figuring out which songs are going to stand the test of time over a 20 or 30 year period . . . . . and those would be the one's that are commercially successful, not the one's being played in obscure bohemian cafes where the artists are handing out their CD's for a few bucks.

Cowperson

You've heard 1 song, but somehow you know they have the ability to last the test of time and still be a strong presense in the music industry 20 years from now? How rich, must have been 1 hell of a song.

As for the second part of the statement, I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has suggested obscure unknown bands will be the big influencers in 20 years. We have simply stated that Nickelback will not.

To have a prolonged artistic influence over a wide audience, a band must have precisely those 2 things. Artistic influence and a wide audience.
Nickelback clearly lacks the first, and the "cafe bands" as you call them clearly lack the second. The next generation of Zepplins are the bands that do both.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ha ha. You got me there. You didn't compare them to Led Zeppelin. The name came up in your post so that's where I got that.

You think they are talented songwriters, I don't. It's got nothing to do with "respect from a critic". I can hear the words. Although I do think you might be hard pressed to find a critic that really digs Nickelback. I don't read much music criticism (or really any for that matter) but I'd be surprised if there are many actual critics that are Nickelback fans.

Anyhow, habernac pointed out that Jethro Tull did indeed win a Grammy that's really all I need to know. Winning a Grammy doesn't tell me something is good and it certainly doesn't mean it's critically acclaimed. How many Grammys has Kelly Clarkson won?

Come on! Is there another song like Photograph out there? Do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with something original when everything's been beat to death? Kelly Clarkson has also never won an award for her songwriting, she wins for her singing abililty. Much like Mariah Carey. They're talented singers, not songwriters. You just don't like the kind of music they sing.

I'm really quite surprised that you're having a hard time seeing the tree for the forest. Was Elvis a great songwriter? Ummmm... not overly. he was exciting though, with sex appeal, and a nice voice. He appealed to the masses. He was no composer, he was a hip shaker, that's why people liked him. I've already concluded AC/DC was not that talented either. Bon Jovi is another great one. That would be a fair comparison I'd imagine. Very successful, but not overly original. Bon Jovi will be on the radio for many, many years. Why? Because of popularity. They put out what the masses enjoyed and will be rewarded with eons on the radio for it.

It's not really about talent, or Bach would still be on everyone's radio. Cause really, no one compares to the great composers when it comes to talent. Sure they've endured forever, but they aren't overly popular anymore. Why? The masses don't enjoy it anymore.

The problem with hard rock is that people who like it will be forever stuck in the 80s. They just don't move on. (Musically) Hell, those who liked the Beatles and Doors and Elvis may bust out the old records now and again, but they don't necessarily listen to golden oldies radio stations the way metalheads listen to 80s stations. Did you know that Q107 is the most popular station in Calgary? Why is that? Not because music today is not good or better than the stuff they play on Q, but because those who listen to Q will not give it up and move on. It's dead. Get over it. CJay cannot compete because as a Standard Radio company they are forced to play new music as well. The people of Calgary don't want new music and this is the only major centre in Canada that has a hard time keeping a new music station alive, bunch of redneck bangers live here... Perhaps if Calgarians showed any interest in new music, they may get more different new music. But instead, all they want is their AC/DC, Pink Floyd, and Led Zepplin.

[FireFly]

Because RadioHead and REM are influential?

[Cowperson]

[quote=Winsor_Pilates]Golden Oldies? I was debating whether Nickelback will be a well respected, influencial band the likes of Led Zepplin or Pink Floyd. That they for sure will not. it's not even debatable.

You're off on quite a tanget there bucko.

I couldn't care less about the Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd comparison debate. I never referenced it and its irrelevant to my point.

There's trashing here of Nickelback while putting forward obscure - let's call them eclectic - names that few people have heard of, the latter claiming it as "better music".

As others have noted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, taste is a personal thing and commercial success, particularly prolonged success, is relevant and shouldn't be dismissed so arbitrarily.

How do you know what I consider good music?

I'm not aware of any comment on your personal music selections in my post . . . . I was speaking generically.

You've heard 1 song, but somehow you know they have the ability to last the test of time and still be a strong presense in the music industry 20 years from now?

That's pretty easy. A no-brainer. As others have noted, Nickelback has been around for 10 years with plenty of top ten hits.

To say their fans will be listening to stations which play them 20 years from now is obvious given pre-established trends which indicate nostalgia is "always in," usually 20 years in arrears.

You don't have to listen to Nickelback at all to make that point.

All you have to do is note which groups or individuals have commercial success TODAY and agree the nostalgia trend will be waiting to bring them back to life in the future as people reminisce about their younger days.

You can bet the farm on it.

How rich, must have been 1 hell of a song.

Not really.

See, I don't have to like them or hate them to comment on them. I just need to see the numbers to guess if they'll be on the radio 20 years from now.

Just to help you out, I buy about two or three CD's a year, whether I need to or not. In the three years since I've inherited my father's rather keen stereo system, I've never turned it on. Not once . . . . although I suspect Mrs. Cowperson uses it occasionally during the day. Any CD's I have are in my truck but I usually listen to the radio. AM. Not FM. Usually talk, not music.

I'm about as far from a music expert as one can get. But that's irrelevant to my point. If we're talking about who will be remembered 20 years from now, all we need to do is look at the numbers of today.

As for the second part of the statement, I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has suggested obscure unknown bands will be the big influencers in 20 years. We have simply stated that Nickelback will not.

I've never commented in this thread on bands which might be influential on young artists in the future.

I've said the "eclectic" bands favoured by some self-described music experts in this thread would be long forgotten before Nickelback ever fades from the public consciousness . . . . . simply a statement of fact.

Unless you have commercial success, you'll disappear forever and be influential only to those who might have heard you at the time and probably nobody in the future.

In fact, you appear to be agreeing with me on that.

Since you brought it up, Ryan Peake of Nickelback lists his early influences as Metallica and Megadeth but lately its been Brad Paisley, Bob Marley and Coldplay. Commercially successful all.

To have a prolonged artistic influence over a wide audience, a band must have precisely those 2 things. Artistic influence and a wide audience. Nickelback clearly lacks the first, and the "cafe bands" as you call them clearly lack the second. The next generation of Zepplins are the bands that do both.

Who would argue? Not me. That was never my point.

Also, its merely your opinion Nickelback lacks the first. Their sizeable audience would disagree. You, in fact, are in the minority, something you should concede.

If the music experts in this thread like the more eclectic things in life, more power to them. Snobby comments about "better music" do open them up for debate though.

Cowperson

[Bobblehead]

Just because a band is popular does not mean they are "good" or "bad". They are popular. I think of it like beer. When I first started drinking beer, it was the stuff that was found everywhere; Canadian, Blue, Ex, Golden (!). As time passed I had the chance to try a number of brands, and now find myself preferring stuff brewed by micro-breweries, or some of the european types that aren't common. I don't like it because it isn't common, I like them because they have an added flavour that I enjoy. But it is precisely that flavour which will probably prevent them from gaining mass appeal, since that is a characteristic that some people will like, and others will not.
Same thing in music, some styles/bands have things that really resonate with certain people, and will turn off others at the same time. The fact that some people are turned off almost automatically eliminates chances that it will become "popular". However, those who do like the sound will enjoy it more than other music; for them it will be "good music" versus the rest of the options. I say again; for them it will be "good music". Occassionally, a band with a bit of a different sound will get heard by enough of a crowd, and their music will grow on the general populace, causing a subtle shift in what music is popular. One thing I've wondered is if the musical mainstream shifts, and a band that was alternative is now popular, are the "sellouts" if their next song/album maintains the same style?

I watched "Classic Albums" the other night and they were talking about Nevermind. One thing I didn't expect to hear was Dave and Krist both saying that the band would always tell themselves "Keep it Simple" and "Simple is better". Not that Nirvana was overly complicated, but I don't think I would have classified Nevermind as "simple".

Matthew Good has an interesting quote on his blog

Take a look at those Canadian acts that are currently producing most of this country’s most creative and innovative music; they’re predominantly all on independent labels. And what of new Canadian artists on major record labels? Most of them are like I am now – boring and predictable. They will unwittingly entering into situations in which their desire to grow and experiment will be crushed not by drugs or alcohol, but by the business affairs department. A sad reality given the supposed spirit of this thing we like to call Rock & Roll.
I’ve been saying this for years – this country needs to worry about developing Canadian talent and should not have to check with New York or Los Angeles to okay cheques over 5,000 dollars. The demise of Canadian music rests in its loss of identity and the willingness of the Canadian music industry and the Canadian people to allow it to be silently assimilated once and for all into the American corporate musical landscape.

And to bring the in a final quote from Matt Good about the Junos (just to tie in the OP)

People have, for quite a few years now, asked me why I refuse to attend the Junos. The answer is rather simple. Because they’re not really about supporting or celebrating Canadian artists, they’re about supporting and celebrating an industry that doesn’t really have Canadian artistic interests at heart. They’re actually about celebrating an industry that has foreign shareholders interests at heart. I have yet to figure out what that has to do with supporting and helping develop Canadian talent, let alone why it warrants a television broadcast.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You're off on quite a tanget there bucko.

I couldn't care less about the Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd comparison debate. I never referenced it and its irrelevant to my point.

Fine, but I was talking about the abillity of a band to last like they have, and you quoted me, so I assumed you were respoding to that topic, when in fact you were the one who went off on a tangent. Since that's not your point, we can drop that.

There's trashing here of Nickelback while putting forward obscure - let's call them eclectic - names that few people have heard of, the latter claiming it as "better music".

As others have noted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, taste is a personal thing and commercial success, particularly prolonged success, is relevant and shouldn't be dismissed so arbitrarily.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholer, taste is personal, and success to should not be completely dismissed.
However success should not be the only criteria for judging talent either. And the effects of marketing and money on taste and beauty shouldn't be dismissed either. The reality is that major labels in the industry can sell anything they want, despite the talent levels of the musicians. Sales and popularity should not be over-rated either. e.g, Ashley Simpson

I'm not aware of any comment on your personal music selections in my post . . . . I was speaking generically.

Well, you quoted me and said you in your post, so I understood it as directed at me.

To say their fans will be listening to stations which play them 20 years from now is obvious given pre-established trends which indicate nostalgia is "always in," usually 20 years in arrears.
You don't have to listen to Nickelback at all to make that point.
All you have to do is note which groups or individuals have commercial success TODAY and agree the nostalgia trend will be waiting to bring them back to life in the future as people reminisce about their younger days.
You can bet the farm on it.

I don't disagree that some people will still listen to Nickelback, just as some people still listen to Poison.
The important distiction for me is who will be listening to them and why.
There's a huge difference between being a "nostalgia trend" and a band who is still respected and influencial. Some people in this thread are arguing that Nickelback will be the latter and that is where I took issue. To be the latter takes more then comercial success. There are plenty of musicians that have huge comercial success and are not cares about 20 years later.

See, I don't have to like them or hate them to comment on them. I just need to see the numbers to guess if they'll be on the radio 20 years from now.
...
I'm about as far from a music expert as one can get. But that's irrelevant to my point. If we're talking about who will be remembered 20 years from now, all we need to do is look at the numbers of today.

That's not irrelevant at all.
If you admittedly know very little about music, how do you know which bands are likely to be remembered? If you were a bigger music fan you would know that these things aren't as obvious as you are making them out to be. Comercial success does not automatically equal longevity. There are many musicians who were huge 20 years ago and are not listened to anymore...also the musical climate from 20 years ago is not the same as today and will likely not be the same 20 years from now. There are way too many factors that come into play, to say that the numbers of today will tell us who is remembered in 20 years.
I'm not saying that the bands I expect to be remembered in 20 years are guarentees either, but I know I'm making a much more educated guess.

I've never commented in this thread on bands which might be influential on young artists in the future.

You have commented on which bands will be remembered. With any artist/entertainer there influence is one the most crucial aspect of their legacy. The 2 can't be seperated.

I've said the "eclectic" bands favoured by some self-described music experts in this thread would be long forgotten before Nickelback ever fades from the public consciousness . . . . . simply a statement of fact.
Unless you have commercial success, you'll disappear forever and be influential only to those who might have heard you at the time and probably nobody in the future.
In fact, you appear to be agreeing with me on that.

Yup, with some exceptions I agree. I think that is at the heart of the issue for many of us "eclectic" fans. We want to share this "great" music we know of so that it can be enjoyed by more people and have a longer lasting impact. That's why we get ticked when outlets like radio play the same stuff all the time.

Also, its merely your opinion Nickelback lacks the first. Their sizeable audience would disagree. You, in fact, are in the minority, something you should concede.

I don't think most Nickelback fans care about art. There reasons for liking nickelback aren't because they're good artists.... But yes, I am in the minority. However amogst, people who spend a lot of time around music, and critics etc. I am in the majority.... and those are the people I believe prove most important for the long term "remembering" of bands.

If the music experts in this thread like the more eclectic things in life, more power to them. Snobby comments about "better music" do open them up for debate though.

I agree. Debate is great. I don't personally consider myself to be a music snob. I don't care if people listen to Nickelback or anything else. My own music collection is full of things that most "music snobs" would hate. I'm not always in the mood for someone groundbreaking and inventive.

I have my 50 Cent CDs as well, but I would never suggest that he's a great musician/artist or deserves to win awards because he sells a lot. That's a the part about Nickelback fans I don't get.

Like the example I already gave in this thread. To me it's like saying Star Wars Episode 1 should have won best picture because i like Star Wars and it sold a ton...or Fast and the Furious is a better movie then Million dollar baby. If the Oscars don't ignore things like acting, writing and art direction, why should the music industry?

err, Sorry about length

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Because RadioHead and REM are influential?

yes, disagree?

[Dynamic]

Originally Posted by kermitology

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.

I don't need you to explain to me why you think they are now boring and shallow to you, using Ed the Sock to somehow defend your point.

Their last album is musically above what they have ever done before.......the massive amount of awards and accolades pretty well illustrate my point.

Secondly I would never check out GC's music so I would not know. Other than GC has been around for only a few years and literally know nothing about them, well other than their only almum that they did get airplay was trashed by the critics. Very much unlike GD's lastest that was praised for its originality and design.

As for comparing two songs that where released 10 years apart..........ummmmmmm ya bands do change. Obviously you don't like the change, and many people I know share the same thoughts........but I can tell you among the people I know that know that Dookie WASN'T their first album, AI is a welcome change to the tried and true 3 chord GD style that they are more well known for. And the world took notice.

[Dynamic]

opps I guess the 1st one posted

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

yes, disagree?

why yes, yes I do.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Come on! Is there another song like Photograph out there? Do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with something original when everything's been beat to death? Kelly Clarkson has also never won an award for her songwriting, she wins for her singing abililty. Much like Mariah Carey. They're talented singers, not songwriters. You just don't like the kind of music they sing.

And This is where I went to school
Most of the time had better things to do
Criminal record says I broke in twice
I must’ve done it half a dozen times

Okay now I know tastes differ, but do you really think this stuff is well written and original?

We used to listen to the radio
And sing along with every song we’d know
We said someday we’d find out how it feels
To sing to more than just the steering wheel

I guess we know what Kroeger bought with a few of his millions. He purchased the only known prototype for the long-ago scrapped Bryan Adams Patented Cliché Machine.

I'm hardly stuck in the 80's. I don't know what format Q107 is and I would rather listen to fingernails on a chalkboard than a classic rock station.

Anyhow, my original point was that Nickelback is not in fact today's version of Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin or AC/DC as someone else suggested. They aren't.

I concede that people may be listening to a few Nickelback songs in the future. Much like people might turn up the radio and listen to "Rosanna" today. Toto won a few Grammys as well.

[calf]

I guess we know what Kroeger bought with a few of his millions. He purchased the only known prototype for the long-ago scrapped Bryan Adams Patented Cliché Machine.

I was trying to figure out who in the 80s would be Nickelback's equivielent. Thanks for solving it.

While the lyrics to Photograph are unique, which requires a semblence of creativity, the idea of a song about reflecting upon childhood, growing up, etc definitely isn't creative. Look to, like Rouge said, Summer of '69...or listen to Country 105 for half an hour.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by FireFly

why yes, yes I do.

Care to elaborate?

I've heard many bands point to them as influences. Especially to Radiohead.
Here's a small sample.... (taken mostly off Wikipedia)

"Radiohead's mid-1990s albums, particularly The Bends, have been influential in popularizing emotional, melodic, multilayered British Rock music, whose current adherents include such popular bands as Coldplay, Travis, Muse and Keane."

"Chris Martin of Coldplay is known as a huge fan of Radiohead and Thom Yorke, going so far as to describe his own band as "eager dogs yapping at their heels"

"Acclaimed novelist Michael Cunningham cited OK Computer as an album, which "for reasons I can't begin to explain... subtly but palpably helped shape" The Hours."

"Dave Matthews wrote of wanting to give up whenever he hears a new Radiohead album and realizes it's as good or better than the last"

"Listening to Radiohead makes me feel like I'm a Salieri to their Mozart." Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins)

They have also been covered in concert by artists such as....
-The Darkness
-John Mayer
-Jamie Cullum
-Moby

The album OK Computer....
-Named the best album of the past 20 years by Spin magazine
-Best album of all time by a British TV poll
-Voted best album of all time in Q magazine
-Even Muchmusic placed it #3 on the top albums since 1980 (funny how they won't play a video though)

[FireFly]

And songs about love and rockin all night are also rather original.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Care to elaborate?

I've heard many bands point to them as influences. Especially to Radiohead.

Hey. OT, but if you like Radiohead, vote for them on the national playlist. I want them to say on there for a while.

http://www.cbc.ca/nationalplaylist/

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And songs about love and rockin all night are also rather original.

Well obviously they can be. Its not the premise of the song that I find unoriginal.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Care to elaborate?

I've heard many bands point to them as influences. Especially to Radiohead.
Here's a small sample.... (taken mostly off Wikipedia)

"Radiohead's mid-1990s albums, particularly The Bends, have been influential in popularizing emotional, melodic, multilayered British Rock music, whose current adherents include such popular bands as Coldplay, Travis, Muse and Keane."

"Chris Martin of Coldplay is known as a huge fan of Radiohead and Thom Yorke, going so far as to describe his own band as "eager dogs yapping at their heels"

"Acclaimed novelist Michael Cunningham cited OK Computer as an album, which "for reasons I can't begin to explain... subtly but palpably helped shape" The Hours."

"Dave Matthews wrote of wanting to give up whenever he hears a new Radiohead album and realizes it's as good or better than the last"

"Listening to Radiohead makes me feel like I'm a Salieri to their Mozart." Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins)

They have also been covered in concert by artists such as....
-The Darkness
-John Mayer
-Jamie Cullum
-Moby

The album OK Computer....
-Named the best album of the past 20 years by Spin magazine
-Best album of all time by a British TV poll
-Voted best album of all time in Q magazine
-Even Muchmusic placed it #3 on the top albums since 1980 (funny how they won't play a video though)

I don't really get your point anyways. I suppose they have influence then. That's really nice of you to point that out. And because they've been around for a lot longer, it's also really nice that they've influenced other artists, they've had more time to do it. So because an artist isn't influential, they suck? Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying that those they've influenced are now not original as they're jsut using the work of others to make their own?

I enjoy Bach but he doesn't influnce my writing... does he suck? I enjoy Eminem but can't rap so he hasn't really influenced what I sing, does he suck? What constitutes an influence?

Basically what you're trying to say is because other bands don't want to be like Nickelback, they suck. Well do other bands want to be like Alexisonfire? Does that mean they suck? Does the talent a band have necessarily reflected in others being influenced by them?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Dynamic

I don't need you to explain to me why you think they are now boring and shallow to you, using Ed the Sock to somehow defend your point.

Their last album is musically above what they have ever done before.......the massive amount of awards and accolades pretty well illustrate my point.

Secondly I would never check out GC's music so I would not know. Other than GC has been around for only a few years and literally know nothing about them, well other than their only almum that they did get airplay was trashed by the critics. Very much unlike GD's lastest that was praised for its originality and design.

As for comparing two songs that where released 10 years apart..........ummmmmmm ya bands do change. Obviously you don't like the change, and many people I know share the same thoughts........but I can tell you among the people I know that know that Dookie WASN'T their first album, AI is a welcome change to the tried and true 3 chord GD style that they are more well known for. And the world took notice.

Did you even read what I said? I'm not comparing albums, I'm comparing musical styles. Tracks off of American Idiot sound to me like the boring, "make some **** up" songs that Good Charlotte spit out.

I'm not using Ed The Sock to prove a point, I'm re-stating his comments on the "dye your hair black, put on mascara and have an attitude" style that Green Day and Good Charlotte now seem to share.

Believe everything that the critics tell you and don't form you're own opinions. Got the message!

I'm not saying that bands can't change, but that Green Day has tried to become something that is shallow and boring compared to what they once were, when they were popular the first time. I haven't listened to Green Day since Dookie, but someone told me that American Idiot was amazing. Frankly, I thought it was boring and trite.

As for the change in style from tried and true three chord punk... consider the songs of American Idiot and compare that to Dookie. I'll venture that the complexity is greater in Dookie, lord knows it's at least played faster.

Who cares if someone knows that Green Day had albums before Dookie, or that Welcome To Paradise is on two of them in succession? If you've listened to Green Day what the hell is wrong?

I'm not saying that Green Day is ****. I'm saying that the accolades that Green Day gets for producing something "different" are unfounded. You want to see something different, look at something like Coheed and Cambria. Forget the concept album (I mean, Green Day are the only ones who ever thought that up) CAC are a bloody concept band. They're not everyone's cup of tea, but that's more original than American Idiot.

But as far as I'm concerned, the most original thing I've heard recently is Ben Folds covering Snoop Dog's song Bitches Aint ****.