Nickelback. Purely a hate train?

Cock rock.

The reason we get all up in arms is that Nickleback and bands like them are diluting and subverting something we love and hold dear to us.

Appleseed wrote: Cock rock. The reason we get all up in arms is that Nickleback and bands like them are diluting and subverting something we love and hold dear to us.

But see even that term I apply to Motley Crue and the like. Mick Mars and Tommy Lee are some of the best on their respective instruments from that time.

I want to know hoe many people who are proficient at playing a musical instrument like Nickleback. This isn't an elitist question but I would be willing to bet somebody who has played and understands music (how it works, chord progression, composition, etc) has a MUCH lower chance of liking Nickleback because they see how amateur they are. I've played multiple instruments for over 20 years and there is loads of music I'm not into but I respect some artist for what they do. Nickleback doesn't fall into that category because they remind me of the progression of bands around the 8th grade talent show level.

If you just like music in a casual way then you don't get why some folks can't stand Nickleback. It's same for people who aren't into cars and think an Accord is fine and can't understand why people spend more energy making other decisions.

If music were cars:

Black Flag = 1980 Z/28 , faded paint , no mufflers

Rush = Ferrari F50, complex, tight, sometimes confusing, work of art

Hank Williams = 1950 Ford F100, hay in the back

George Clinton= 1977 Lincoln Continental, purple on gold, good funky time

Nickleback = 2005 F150 - fake beadlock wheels and a Yeti coolers sticker.

In reply to crankwalk:

Music Ed major at college. Don't mind them for what they are: entertainment.

Its all subjective, to each his own, live and let live. Except for you guys hating on pearl jam. Youre wrong, you just sit there being wrong in your wrongness. I don't play music, I tried learning and couldn't do it, so I don't know any of the technical stuff about it. But pearl jam rocks. Listen to the dissident. Listen to Given to fly. Listen to Yellow Ledbetter. Come back when you are ready to admit your wrongness to the world.

Rush sucks.

Pink Floyd sucks. You shouldn't need drugs for music to sound okay.

Van Halen feels like if you asked a 6 year old what rock music should be Van Halen is what they would come up with.

I like Godsmack before everything started sounding like voodoo.

Fat bottom girls by queen and the stroke by billy squire should be on the mount rushmore of rock.

In reply to crankwalk:

Ya know, the other day I saw a black flag sticker on a Cadillac...

Wouldn't Hank be a Cadillac?

mtn wrote: Wouldn't Hank be a Cadillac?

No, that would be Johnny Cash.

Nickleback may be fairly mediocre, but I can't bring myself to hate them. They have one or two songs that are instant hit-another-preset type songs, but there are others that are, well, I'll listen if it comes on the radio.

On the other hand, the story about how they got their name is pretty dumb. When I heard of them, I assumed they had named themselves after a fifth defensive back in football, which would make a much better origin than the real story.

crankwalk wrote: I want to know hoe many people who are proficient at playing a musical instrument like Nickleback. This isn't an elitist question but I would be willing to bet somebody who has played and understands music (how it works, chord progression, composition, etc) has a MUCH lower chance of liking Nickleback because they see how amateur they are. I've played multiple instruments for over 20 years and there is loads of music I'm not into but I respect some artist for what they do. Nickleback doesn't fall into that category because they remind me of the progression of bands around the 8th grade talent show level.

As a hypothetical, say you're the best musician in the world. Amazingly talented player with a great grasp of the deeper theory.

A record label sits you down and says:
1.) You can keep playing your own music, be vastly underappreciated in your time, and play for scraps in bars across the country.
2.) We will pay you $100million dollars a year to pump out the same tired crap we tell you to play, over and over again.

How many of us would take option 1, honestly? Could you put out average Pop rock for 10 years if you knew it would buy you a leno- sized garage full of supercars, multiple mansions across the world, and an unending stream of fans? How much would that eat at you internally?

No right answer, but there's a reason it's called "selling out". You make lots of money. If that's your goal, I get that.

In reply to Flynlow:

But really, if this were the case you could put the three manufactured singles on the album, then The rest of the tracks could be the stuff you're proud of. I don't think that's case here though.

And just how many people appreciate finely crafted music anyway? Remember that experiment a few years ago where one of the best concert violinists played on the street corner in New York? People just walked past a performer that usually commands $250 a seat.

Then there is the issue of taste, if I enjoy something don't tell me I shouldn't because it doesn't conform to your idea of "taste". Some of the metal bands that have been held up as good/creative/etc sound like grizzlies fighting inside a dumpster to my ear but to each their own.

mtn wrote: Wouldn't Hank be a Cadillac?

One Cadillac in particular

my 2 cents,
TL/DR i find it to be all a matter of personal opinion

having played many kinds of music on many instruments (woodwinds, guitars, drums, keyboards, rock bands, concert bands, orchestras, solo recitals) myself for a bunch of years (jazz, classical, progressive metal, various others), the question comes up sooner or later (as it did in my music history classes in college....performance major here),

what makes music good ?
is it good if it's complex ?
is it good if it's simple ?
does it need to follow rules ?
is it good if someone likes it ?
is it good if lots of people like it ?
who makes the rules about what's good and what isn't ?
should it require great skill ?
does it have to be unique ?
can music be too simple or too complex ? too ordinary or too unique ? too easy or too hard ?
is it more or less valid if the performer writes the piece ?
all philosophical questions that may not really have answers, just opinions.
but opinions are fine too.
we can quantify the elements of music (how many notes, how fast, high or loud they are, compare their harmonies to other music, classify it is common or unusual, create various metrics), but people will not necessarily agree that more of one metric or less of another is what makes music good or bad.
although, many people do like to measure music in various ways, and they find it interesting or gain some satisfaction from it, so that's okay too.
music is just a thing that exists, that has positive or negative effects on different people.

to me, if you like it, that's great. i don't have to relate to, enjoy or be impressed by it for it to have validity to someone else.
In this case, Nickelback doesn't really stir up feelings within me. But some people love them and some people hate them, and some people are unaffected by them.
Lots of people like what their friends like, and hate what their friends hate, and it gives them something to have in common.
So, the Nickelback haters may consider themselves "discerning" in their tastes... but being discerning in itself is a certain type of closed-mindedness and perhaps self-elevating judgementalness too.
Seems to be a sort of futile philosophical exercise in the end, attempting to rate musical quality, but I suppose that shouldn't prevent anyone from undertaking such a journey :P
carry on !

KyAllroad wrote: And just how many people appreciate finely crafted music anyway? Remember that experiment a few years ago where one of the best concert violinists played on the street corner in New York? People just walked past a performer that usually commands $250 a seat. Then there is the issue of taste, if I enjoy something don't tell me I shouldn't because it doesn't conform to your idea of "taste". Some of the metal bands that have been held up as good/creative/etc sound like grizzlies fighting inside a dumpster to my ear but to each their own.

I don't really like that experiment. When I go to a concert, or to a bar with live music, that is the plan. When I see a band playing on the subway, and I do pretty often, I have somewhere to be. I didn't plan for the "concert", I can't always make time to stop and watch.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Nickleback is an interesting study. They are basically a business experiment to build a band that churns out top forty hits that appeal to a mass market to make dollars.

You mean like these guys?

My god!! Bands making music that people actually enjoy and want to listen to? Those rotten bastards. Burn in hell scum. By that standard, a musician that everyone hates must be truly talented.

Flynlow wrote: As a hypothetical, say you're the best musician in the world. Amazingly talented player with a great grasp of the deeper theory. A record label sits you down and says: 1.) You can keep playing your own music, be vastly underappreciated in your time, and play for scraps in bars across the country. 2.) We will pay you $100million dollars a year to pump out the same tired crap we tell you to play, over and over again. How many of us would take option 1, honestly? Could you put out average Pop rock for 10 years if you knew it would buy you a leno- sized garage full of supercars, multiple mansions across the world, and an unending stream of fans? How much would that eat at you internally? No right answer, but there's a reason it's called "selling out". You make lots of money. If that's your goal, I get that.

I think that this is what happened to John Mayer. Heard a bunch of the air-friendly stuff he did....then saw him in a stripped down 3 piece blues trio. Man could he play! But that doesn't sell even if it is more, erm, musical.

I could rattle on for hours on this subject. My own thoughts are wildly varied and conflicting.

So I will leave it at this.

You don't get a choice about whether or not you like something.

I wasn't consulted by my mouth when it decided that canned peas are the most revolting substance it could imagine, but other people sure seem to like them. The same could be said for any number of musical acts.

Music, good music, should make you feel something when you hear it. Anger, joy, lust, love, hate, something. I feel nothing when I hear Nickleback.

Flynlow wrote:

crankwalk wrote: I want to know hoe many people who are proficient at playing a musical instrument like Nickleback. This isn't an elitist question but I would be willing to bet somebody who has played and understands music (how it works, chord progression, composition, etc) has a MUCH lower chance of liking Nickleback because they see how amateur they are. I've played multiple instruments for over 20 years and there is loads of music I'm not into but I respect some artist for what they do. Nickleback doesn't fall into that category because they remind me of the progression of bands around the 8th grade talent show level.

As a hypothetical, say you're the best musician in the world. Amazingly talented player with a great grasp of the deeper theory. A record label sits you down and says: 1.) You can keep playing your own music, be vastly underappreciated in your time, and play for scraps in bars across the country. 2.) We will pay you $100million dollars a year to pump out the same tired crap we tell you to play, over and over again. How many of us would take option 1, honestly? Could you put out average Pop rock for 10 years if you knew it would buy you a leno- sized garage full of supercars, multiple mansions across the world, and an unending stream of fans? How much would that eat at you internally? No right answer, but there's a reason it's called "selling out". You make lots of money. If that's your goal, I get that.

I'm not mad at Nickleback for making money just like I'm not mad at Justin Bieber for making money. Money and success don't correlate to talent.

If I saw Nickleback at a Applebees open mic night and they weren't famous or rich, I'd still think they were very musically stunted. Musically they are average, lyrically sub par, stage presence..... do they have one?

Cock rock like Van Halen at least had so much talent and stage presence that even if you didn't like the music, I would think most could at least least see why there is an appeal.

Nickleback just doesn't bring anything to the table worthwhile to me. I'm not just picking on them but they embody that style so well. The Guy Fieri of modern safe rock.

Not just picking on Canada either. I realize my examples were both from there. Here's an olive branch to Canada: Thanks for Neil Young.

My $0.02.

3 pages about Nickelback? I TL;DR'd this thread so this might be a rehash.

Everybody hates them, but everybody owned silver side up. Now it's cool to hate them. I quit listening to them when one day I heard one of their songs and mistook it for another one of their songs. That and I don't own the studded jeans or affliction shirt necessary to be a fan. When I look back to the previous decade's music and try and pick out songs that define the time, yet stand the test of time, they aren't on that list.

Music is supposed to make you feel something like appleseed said.

When i listen to nickleback i feel bored. Their revolution song is really really bad....