Nickelback is the band of the decade

[calgaryred]

Nickelback band of the decade? Wow was music that bad in the last ten years?

[Hack&Lube]

I for one am both mightily impressed and deeply disturbed that you guys are able to have an academic discussion on the objective worth, subjective interpretation, and the social valuation of music in a Nickelback thread.

Nickelback sucks. The more people that say Nickelback sucks, the higher the likelihood that they do suck. That's the all the flawed logic I need to sleep soundly knowing that I'm not the only one who think that they suck. I find comfort in the fact that I am not alone and can find kinship in others who also acknowledge just how much they absolutely suck.

[Kerplunk]

Yeesh jammies, that's some wall text you've written. Be careful; I don't want you to fall off your high horse and hurt yourself.

[Itse]

I have a method for judging what is essentially annoying pop.

To start with, we can safely assume that there will always be sucky pop crap (ie. Nickelback) playing everywhere.

The question then becomes: if this band would get accidentally icepicked and get replaced on the airwaves by some other band, how propably is it that you would like that change?

For example, I like the Backstreet Boys because they take airtime from other boybands, most of which are truly unbelievable scheit.

On the other hand I absolutely hate Metallica these days because their post-Puppet material suck in comparison to just about any other metal you can hear on the radio or in a rock bar (in Finland anyway, luckily in here Nickelback doesn't really qualify as rock )

I'd still propably rather listen to Metallica than the Backstreet Boys, if I had to make the choice. But that's never really the choice is it?

If you'd want to quantify how much a band sucks, you could do a poll. Like this:

If Nickelback would simply disappear as of right now, do you expect that it would be replaced by something that's a) better b) pretty much the same (My expectation) or c) worse.

Judging by most people's comments, Nickelback is one of those bands that's popular, but wouldn't really be missed. Most propably the bulk of their listeners would just drum their fingers to something else, while those that hate them would propably be relieved for about six months before they start hating the next big thing.

To put it in other words, Nickelback's relevance one way or the other is propably smaller than the length of this post, they're just the flavor of the day, no better or worse than most varieties.

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Yeesh jammies, that's some wall text you've written. Be careful; I don't want you to fall off your high horse and hurt yourself.

Did you even read what he said or did you just scroll past it thinking he was just piling on the guy he quoted?

[Ren]

Yo Nickelback, I'm real happy for you, Imma let you finish, but Kanye is one of the best artists of all time. OF ALL TIME!

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's an unsupported assertion. I don't agree with it and that is the source of all the subsequent divergence of opinion.

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.

Nobody said that the world is a binary place. We're specifically talking about the act of experiencing art. To say that music is experienced subjectively is not an unsupported assertion... the divergence of opinion on what good music is should be enough support right there.

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.

The scale of "I just like it" isn't useless to those who use it. It's just useless from your perspective. Again, there may be objective measures of musical quality but they are academic measures that do not hold precedence over subjective interpretation.

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?

No, its not a coincidence but it is interesting that music from different cultures sounds so dissimilar. The fact that all people enjoy music does not lend credibility to your claim that music is objectively evaluated by all people.

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?

What you are describing is what makes music what it is. That's like saying that a having a seat and back are intrinsic, objective qualities of a chair. Moving and changing music is not enough to hold every persons attention for a minimum amount of time. That's what makes the experience of listening to music subjective.

All that renders down into this: "Shallow understanding is sufficient to validate my opinion."

There is no need to validate personal taste. Your quote works fine for other types of opinion, like what action should be taken when there are consequences involved.

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.

What is the difference between being equally worthless and equal in worth? The reason that opinions of personal taste are worthless is that they are incompatible due to the subjective nature of art. Your opinion of a band is worthless to me because I can't experience listening to music from your perspective. If I decide that I will use another persons criteria to judge music for my own listening, then I am being disingenuous or phony.

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.

Rewriting my question of "Why would you need someone else to tell you how to appreciate music?" as this is ridiculous. There is an enormous difference between being taught how to do long division and being taught how to listen to music. You do disrespect Nickleback's music and their fans because you think they don't know enough about music... that's the snobbery.

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.

The person who is telling other people what music they should or should not listen to (or at least how they should rate it in comparison with other music) is accusing a person who believes that everyone should be left to judge music how they want of arrogance. I think you must mean ignorance. What you're really saying is that a person should not feel confident in their opinion if they are ignorant about the topic.

The problem is that nobody is an expert on music from any perspective but their own. Nor is anybody ignorant of what they themselves enjoy. It's arrogant to assume that you can fix somebody else's taste because you're just trying to make their taste more like your own.

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.

I don't think people should compare things that are incomparable. It is definitely you who misunderstands people.

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.

There is no right. That's the point. What you're talking about is pure elitism.

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.

You're not an expert trying to teach someone how to play music, or even how to listen to music. You're trying to tell others what to enjoy about music. It's impossible to be an expert in that.

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.

My comment must have come off wrong. I don't mean that you should stop ridiculing people over their taste in subjective experiences because you are hurting their feelings. I mean that you should aspire to live without seeking validation for your own opinion in those matters because that kind of validation isn't important.

[Lithium]

Didn't feel like reading 8 pages of people telling me why Nickelback suck, I know they do.

This link agrees with me.

http://www.chartattack.com/news/7746...d-in-the-world

Best of the decade? Pfft. Worst in the world.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Nickelback is the Budweiser of music

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Nickelback is the Budweiser of music

Nothing wrong with that either

[Ren]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Nothing wrong with that either

Of course not. Plenty of people drink and enjoy Budweiser. It's sold almost anywhere you can buy beer and the parent company spends tons of money on promotion and marketing to make sure it stays at the top. It's completely generic which is why it's so appealing and the same is true of Nickelback.

Of course, if you gave me the choice I would drink pretty much anything else, and thankfully good music is a lot easier and cheaper to find than good beer.

[Igottago]

Coldplay is the bud light lime of music.

[algernon]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

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.

So, you weren't joking in those other threads about this band? Consider yourself un-thanked.

[jayswin]

I like some of Nickelback's older stuff, and I've always had a soft spot for them as their old drummer was my drum teacher.

[SeoulFire]

Somebody must like them - 30 million is no small number.

The thing that gets me is why do you care? 90% (unsubstantiated number that I pulled out of my butt) of the stuff on the radio is simplistic drivel. No better or worse than anything else.

Finally, there is no question about it - given the ranking criteria, they are the band of the decade.

[Daradon]

^^^ People just like to rip on what's popular to show how different they are. You're right. There is no real reason to care.

Besides, if people really wanna bitch about pop music, why not put your sights on the constant stream of bubble gum pop and endless R&B that pollutes the rest of the stations and the TV. You know, the ones where you HAVE to use voice modulation and/or Autotune and dress like a stripper or you don't make it on the air anymore.

There's way more of that, and it's far worse.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Nobody said that the world is a binary place. We're specifically talking about the act of experiencing art. To say that music is experienced subjectively is not an unsupported assertion... the divergence of opinion on what good music is should be enough support right there.

That's not the assertion you made. This is: A band's value is determined by the subjective interpretation of a listener. Everything is experienced subjectively - what's interesting is whether this means everything must be valued subjectively. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

No, its not a coincidence but it is interesting that music from different cultures sounds so dissimilar. The fact that all people enjoy music does not lend credibility to your claim that music is objectively evaluated by all people.

I made no such claim. I said a partly objective evaluation of musical quality is more likely to approach truth than a completely subjective one.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

What you are describing is what makes music what it is. That's like saying that a having a seat and back are intrinsic, objective qualities of a chair. Moving and changing music is not enough to hold every persons attention for a minimum amount of time. That's what makes the experience of listening to music subjective.

The "moving and changing" inherent to music is only one part of what makes it music. My point was to illustrate that the usual rhetorical trick of saying "ah but what if someone DID like (particular example of non-art as art), doesn't that prove that art is relative?" is simply refuted by the observation that you are really saying, "what if this impossible thing happened? Huh? What then?"

Originally Posted by Savvy27

What is the difference between being equally worthless and equal in worth? The reason that opinions of personal taste are worthless is that they are incompatible due to the subjective nature of art. Your opinion of a band is worthless to me because I can't experience listening to music from your perspective. If I decide that I will use another persons criteria to judge music for my own listening, then I am being disingenuous or phony.

So you've never listened to something because a friend with similar tastes recommended it? I find that highly unlikely. You are assuming that all perspectives are not only equal, but incompatible, and this is another mistake.

One of the qualities of being human is empathy - the ability to understand someone else's perspective. We are not limited to being misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

The problem is that nobody is an expert on music from any perspective but their own. Nor is anybody ignorant of what they themselves enjoy. It's arrogant to assume that you can fix somebody else's taste because you're just trying to make their taste more like your own.

Among others, I guess the people taking musical theory in university on the way to getting degrees in the subject will be disappointed to find this out.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

There is no right. That's the point. What you're talking about is pure elitism.

There are many rights, and an infinite number of wrongs. That's the point. What you're talking about is pure relativism.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

You're not an expert trying to teach someone how to play music, or even how to listen to music. You're trying to tell others what to enjoy about music. It's impossible to be an expert in that.

I'm not telling anyone what to enjoy about music. People can enjoy bad music all they want, it makes no difference to me. I just want to be able to say, "This or that example of music is bad, and here's why," and not have the counter-argument "But I like it, and therefore it's good music" carry equal weight in the minds of the undecided.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

My comment must have come off wrong. I don't mean that you should stop ridiculing people over their taste in subjective experiences because you are hurting their feelings. I mean that you should aspire to live without seeking validation for your own opinion in those matters because that kind of validation isn't important.

Do I strike you as the kind of person who cares whether or not my opinion is validated? If that is your concern, rest easy - I wouldn't care if everyone in the world disagreed with me, as long as I was reasonably certain I was right and they were all wrong.

[InstantDeath]

Sorry to pull this dead thread up here…But I had to ask this.

Does anyone know anybody that is a ‘fan’ of this band? This is a serious query… I literally do not know a single person who, when asked what bands they like, replies ‘Nickleback’. This is like Kenny G to me – I seriously have never in my 27 years on this planet met someone who said Kenny G was a favorite artist of theirs…..Yet he goes triple platinum somehow.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by InstantDeath

Sorry to pull this dead thread up here…But I had to ask this.

Does anyone know anybody that is a ‘fan’ of this band? This is a serious query… I literally do not know a single person who, when asked what bands they like, replies ‘Nickleback’. This is like Kenny G to me – I seriously have never in my 27 years on this planet met someone who said Kenny G was a favorite artist of theirs…..Yet he goes triple platinum somehow.

I'm a Nickelback fan. Started following them in '97, but have somewhat stopped the last 2-3 years due to their new music no longer being my taste.

Still love 'The State,' their second album

[narbeZ]

I have met alot of people in my day, and have NEVER came across a person that proclaimed to be a nickelback fan. Usually people just bash them hard. Funny thing is when they come to alberta their shows are sold out...I'd kind of like to go and take pictures of people who go to these shows, then make a group on facebook and see how many tags I get. I would no doubt ruin a lot of peoples credibility. Their music is ABSOLUTE garbage.

The thing about some 'working class' people in Canada who people are saying are their fan base, is alot of people dont know good music. I'm lucky since my mom loved music and I got attuned to all the hits from her generation. IMO, you can judge music if you can tolerate each genre and be open to new bands.

I can spot a turd when I see one, let alone hear one.

Nickelback is garbage, and i'm sad they represent the province in which I live in.