Everybody knows that Coldplay was the real band of the decade.
Everyone knows you love them more than your own wang. You always start Coldplay topics, and always tell us their poop doesn't stink.
But I don't like Coldplay myself, I think their songs are boring. Call me "poor taste" but I loved Nickelback before the newest album came out. I also became a fan in 1998, before any of the people who "hate" them even knew they existed. I still like their old stuff, but I don't even listen to the new stuff because it does get repetative and dumb. That being said, you can't blame them for finding their formula, perfecting it, and being THE band that every popular rock band strives to be like. That's called being successful.
__________________ REDVAN!
The Following User Says Thank You to REDVAN For This Useful Post:
I am not a fan. I didn't mind their first album "The State" but I haven't bought anything from them since. Too much airplay, songs mostly sound the same etc etc.
However, I'm sure that Kroeger and the rest of the band went into this saying "Let's try to make a crapload of money playing music, wouldn't it be great if we could do that?" Lo and behold, they've done just that.
I'm also sure that the guys in the band don't really care if a lot of people hate them or their music, because enough people have bought their tunes and went to their concerts that they get to do what is only a dream for most people, they get to play music for a living and make tons of money doing it. Like them or not, they've made some pretty smart decisions.
I'm also sure that the guys in the band don't really care if a lot of people hate them or their music, because enough people have bought their tunes and went to their concerts that they get to do what is only a dream for most people, they get to play music for a living and make tons of money doing it. Like them or not, they've made some pretty smart decisions.
They still suck though.
I highly, highly doubt they made any decisions at all actually... A label picks up on some schlock-rock band (usually under the "advise" of a "Person in the know") and pushes them down everyones throats... That's the nature of the scewed up music industry... It's who you know and getting the "right people" to push your crap... Sad but true
I highly, highly doubt they made any decisions at all actually... A label picks up on some schlock-rock band (usually under the "advise" of a "Person in the know") and pushes them down everyones throats... That's the nature of the scewed up music industry... It's who you know and getting the "right people" to push your crap... Sad but true
Marketing-wise, yes. Their label is to be blamed for oversaturating every conceivable market moreso than the band members themselves, I'm sure.
But Chad writes almost 100% of Nickelback's songs, so he's the one to "blame" for the music and lyrics that make the label's marketing schemes possible in the first place.
It started off as rock music. More and more, it has become pop music. Maybe it's no surprise then that true "rock" fans have liked Nickelback less and less over time, while true "pop" fans continue to eat up their increasingly over-produced, uncreative releases like there's limited quantities available or something.
I am sure that everybody that hates Nickleback listens to music that I would hate. But I will allow them to listen to what you enjoy. So in regards to Nickleback .. STFU. Thanks.
I am sure that everybody that hates Nickleback listens to music that I would hate. But I will allow them to listen to what you enjoy. So in regards to Nickleback .. STFU. Thanks.
Who's saying you shouldn't be allowed to listen to Nickelback?
I am sure that everybody that hates Nickleback listens to music that I would hate. But I will allow them to listen to what you enjoy. So in regards to Nickleback .. STFU. Thanks.
Getting made fun of from people whose opinion doesn't matter to me is a non-starter for me. I just get tired of some of those people thinking their opinion is the only opinion.
people s*** on Nickelback a lot. Im not their biggest fan but they have some catchy tunes. I kind of look at them like this generations ACDC. Yeah a lot of their stuff sounds similar, but its great party music and gets everyone going.
disclaimer: I did NOT say they were as good as ACDC
I'm also sure that the guys in the band don't really care if a lot of people hate them or their music
Don't be so sure of that, a huge part of what musicians strive for and hold in high regard is the respect of their peers.
Of which Nickleback have none.
Any band with an ouce of artistic integry and talent know the difference and treat Nickelback as a joke, as they should.
Ol' Krogs might have tons of cash but his only contribution to music is a laughable, cheesy and horrid band who will be remembered along the lines of the Monkees or the Bay City Rollers.
people s*** on Nickelback a lot. Im not their biggest fan but they have some catchy tunes. I kind of look at them like this generations ACDC. Yeah a lot of their stuff sounds similar, but its great party music and gets everyone going.
disclaimer: I did NOT say they were as good as ACDC
I think alot of people s*** on Nickelback because they are just following the trend. They don't really know why they disliked them but they do.
people s*** on Nickelback a lot. Im not their biggest fan but they have some catchy tunes. I kind of look at them like this generations ACDC. Yeah a lot of their stuff sounds similar, but its great party music and gets everyone going.
disclaimer: I did NOT say they were as good as ACDC
I actually take issue with the fact that people think they have catchy tunes. They do not have catchy tunes. I would actually give them credit as a pop act if they did. Other pop acts have way more catchy tunes than Nickelback have ever had. No memorable riff's, no great hooks, no great vocal melodies, nothing.
Nickelback's music is so sub-par on every level.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
I think alot of people s*** on Nickelback because they are just following the trend. They don't really know why they disliked them but they do.
I said alot of people. Not all the people.
They were just named the band of the decade. Wouldn't that suggest the trend is to like them?
Music fans s*** on Nickelback because they suck. There's nothing more to it.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
I'm not an English major by any means, and yes their stuff can be pretty simple. But at least its understandable. When I used to listen to a lot of rock music back in the early 90's (Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana, etc), oftentimes I would have no idea what they're singing about. Maybe it's too deep for my understanding.
Musically, I am not a musician at all, so I cannot comment one way or another how good or bad their technical music skills are. But some of the stuff is pretty catchy, and that's how I judge whether it's good or not. If I enjoy listening to it, it's good, if not, then it's bad. And I can't be the only one who thinks that if they've sold millions of albums.
It seems like it's the in thing to bash Nickleback, just like it's the in thing to say MacDonalds is gross (which I beg to differ btw).
People who are saying that Nickelback is bad music isn't following the crowd, they are saying that for them it's bad music. Period.
It's all derivative. I remember there's a formula you can follow to make a Nickelback song. They are all the same. And that guy's voice is one of the most annoying voices ever.
Like others have said, it's a cleverly hidden crappy pop act masquerading as a rock act. There's nothing memorable in the lyrics. Nothing listen-able or remarkable musically.
This should happen to Nickelback everytime they take a stage:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
A band's value is determined by the subjective interpretation of a listener. A player's value is determined by performance. If a scout is telling the fan which player he likes watching the most, it is a different conversation than talking about who is the best player.
That's an unsupported assertion. I don't agree with it and that is the source of all the subsequent divergence of opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
It is a relativistic argument. We're talking about the subjective experience of listening to music. The only truly relevant matter is the intensity of enjoyment that an individual derives from listening.
Saying it multiple times doesn't make it so. The world is not a binary place where things are either relative or objective - most ideas, thoughts, feelings and objects partake of both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
So where do we peg Beethoven's 9th? 9/10, 47/50, 106/113? There is no scale. Once you move beyond the initial questions of 'do you enjoy this?' and 'how much do you enjoy this?', the argument becomes academic. And the usefulness of a 'scholarly analysis' of art is dubious anyways, because any quality that goes into the production of it that does not contribute to making the piece more enjoyable (in the general sense) is worthless to anyone who is not a music aficionado.
There doesn't need to be a single "scale" on which all works are ranked - there are multiple scales, and each is useful to some extent. As long as the scale incorporates some objective means of discrimination between good and bad, it can be useful. Some scales are flawed by over-simplicity, over-complication, vagueness, internal inconsistency, and so on. The scale of "I just like it" goes beyond being flawed to being useless as it is not objective in any way whatsoever. You don't care because you don't think there ARE any objective measures of musical quality, but in that you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
Yes, it does. If there were a large group of people who absolutely loved the kid banging the stick, it would be because in their own experience that particular music has greater value than Beethoven's 9th. If the group were somehow larger than the Beethoven fan base it would not mean that kid w/ stick's music is intrinsically better, just as the more realistic opposite situation does not mean that Beethoven's music is intrinsically better.
Ah, but you fail to take into account that the kid banging his stick would NOT gain a group of admirers. Humans are not blanks upon which arbitrary values can be imprinted; music has innate structure which derives from our very perceptions and drives. Do you think it is a coincidence that all cultures - even the most isolated - have complex music?
The stick-banging fails the very first objective test of worth - it is boring. Music must move and change with time to hold the listener's attention for long. This is universal across all cultures and times that I know of. Why do YOU think this is true, if not that music is not arbitrarily valued, but instead has intrinsic, objective qualities that all humans value?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
That is not what you are arguing in regards to Nickleback. You are stating that everyone's opinion is not equal because "there's a very simple way to ensure your opinion is respected: know something non-superficial about the subject." Perhaps I have a coherent theory behind my reasoning that I do not need anything more than a superficial understanding of music to enjoy it to as full of an extent as is possible for me (let's go with: music should be upbeat, with vocals I can understand and lyrics that I can relate to... beyond that a song need only meet the criteria that I find it enjoyable to listen to). You may not care about the opinions of somebody who holds these values but simply having more complex criteria does not give precedence to your opinions... especially when I am still the one who has to listen to the music.
All that renders down into this: "Shallow understanding is sufficient to validate my opinion." I disagree for the reasons I have already stated - need I go over them again, or does this distillation suffice: "The deeper the understanding, the more relevant the opinion." These are axioms, and thus we could argue forever without resolving which should be held true. I must point out, however, that your axiom leads us to consider all opinions equally worthless just as well as it leads to them being equally of worth. Usually an axiom leading to two incompatible conclusions contains a flaw; this I hardly think is any exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
Why would you need someone else to tell you how to appreciate music? This stinks of snobbery. It's like when a kid shows an art connoisseur their favourite comic book art, only to be disregarded because "low-art" cannot possibly compare to the "high-art" of Picasso or Rembrandt.
Why do we need to taught anything at all? To learn something we didn't know before. That's not "snobbery", that's humility. I don't go around disrespecting rap music because I don't know enough about it. How you twist that into snobbery is hard to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
Who says it's useful knowledge? You already established that people inevitably value different aspects of music, so why should opinions on rap music matter to you, other than the instances where your values overlap?
This is so wrong-headed I hardly know where to begin. Understanding someone else's values allows you to gain a deeper understanding of your own values in the process. True arrogance is assuming your opinions are good enough as they are and independent of everyone else's. They are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
I think you're misunderstanding people. It's not that after a careful review the quality of every individual's opinion adds up to the same value, it's that there is no need for a comparison at all.
Hah! People are naturally drawn to comparison, you might as well decree that there is no need for ranting on the Internet either, so we should all stop. I don't think it is me who misunderstands people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
You're right, but a person saying that Nickleback is their favourite band is not the same as saying that they have recorded some of the finest vocal performances. You're breaking down the reasoning behind liking the band when a lot of people who like them are not.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. And that's why my opinion on their musical quality is better grounded than theirs. It doesn't mean my opinion is RIGHT, it means my opinion is much more LIKELY to be right. If the vast majority of other informed opinions agree with me, that likelihood turns into near certainty. This isn't snobbery or elitism, this is consensus.
Again, I don't CARE if someone likes Nickleback or not! Might I mock them? I might. Might I discard any other opinions on music they could offer? I might. Will I look down upon that person as a hopeless cretin unworthy of further conversation? No, because there are undoubtedly areas in which they are more expert than I, in which case I will listen to what they have to say and not discard it automatically because "everyone has a right to their own opinion", and mine disagrees with theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
That's not really less arrogant. There are people who actually do not need validation for their personal tastes and I don't see why that should make them a target for ridicule.
Oh noes! Someone's being ridiculed! We aren't children, a little ridicule about what band you like is hardly a crisis. No one is suggesting we curtail the rights of the Nickleback lovers and fill the gutters with their unholy blood - yet.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
