Nickleback and Creed: Why the hate?

more than likely yes it was. quite a few people there, doubt it was just nickelback. i've seen that vid before, still hilarious

 

Creed and Nickleback are both pretty good. Their music is well played, catchy, guitar driven, straight forward rock, and both bands have decent lead singers.

What I can't understand is how bands like Collective Soul ever became popular. Their music is complete crap of the highest order.

The 90's was the absolute worst decade for rock music.

 

Please tell me you're joking and have tongue firmly in cheek.

I'm not a a die hard CS fan but like a few of their songs. On the other hand, whenever I think of guys liking Crud and NB, I also wonder if they like drinking Smirnoff Ice, strawberry daiquiries, and like watching The View.

And the 90's weren't that bad, Nirvana, NIN, Smashing Pumpkins, the whole alternative scene took off...

 

I say it's partially true, but then I start to look at bands like Cold Play, Gnarles Barkely, Maroon Five, the Strokes and etc. There are a few bands that don't sound quite "cookie cutter" that break through and make it big. But as a business, companies are definitely going to exploit a formula because in the end, the public will like consumer friendly music and there is much greater likelyhood of financial success to go with a formula and trend. Also are there any music out there, even trully independent ones that isn't influenced by something at one point another that was popular? I think the music industry goes in cycles more than anything else.

On the flipside, there are plenty of bands out there that tries to be too "original" and "artistic" and then claims anyone who doesn't like their music "just doesn't get it". I think it's also ludicrous to expect corporate support if an artist isn't willing to create something that "will sell" because it will hurt their "artistic inegrity". I don't believe music companies have an obligation to help artists to start a music revolution. If you look at even some of the better selling "unique" bands like Radiohead, there's a ceiling and shelf life to their commercial success because their sound isn't going to win over 90% of the teenagers that actually go out and buy CDs. In then end, if you want to be an "artistic" that goes against the mold, do not complain about not have financial support. If you trully believe in art, be ready to starve for it, pain for it, and die for it. That's the romance in art. If you want a paycheck, then either get a job or be ready to sell out.

Also, there are avenues to learn new music that don't get air play, and if you really want them you can look for them. I found this site to be awesome: http://www.youaintnopicasso.com/

Edit: 2 more things

a) If any of you guys know any other place that I can download mp3s of unknown bands, I'm always open to knew music so please post some linsk.

b) There are more avenues than ever before to discover bands these days, from independent blogger sites, myspace music to youtube. I do believe that the music business will need to change in the future, but I don't think that necessarily means that in the future, big bands aren't gonna go with a formula. The masses will have similar tastes (we're not as much of individuals as we like to think, that's why both political parties tries to be the middle of the road and moderate), just that the process will be different. I posted this article in the Fergie post on where I think the music business will become in a few years in the US.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kevinmaney/2005-05-03-music-piracy-china_x.htm

 

This is a good question.

hearing one of their songs playing makes me change the station most of the time.

 

Never had a big problem with either one. But then, I don't really keep current on music anymore... I hardly ever listen to the radio. So it's easier for me to not get tired of songs that are overplayed. A lot of the time I'll hear something that's been huge for 6 months for the first time ever, and people give me funny looks when I ask who the artist is or what the song's called.

Guess I'm just not music-trendy. And I really don't care.

 

If you like the music blogs and/or indie rock, the better ones are brooklynvegan.com, stereogum.com and gorillavsbear.blogspot.com and also torr.typepad.com and http://blog.filter-mag.com/.

I particularly like the last three, since they have a Texas angle to them. The last two blogs are written by the same guy, and he posts alot of stuff from smaller bands.

 

Sincerely,
Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, The Who, and every other revolutionary band that didn't sell out.

Art has a funny way of bucking conventional trends....it will survive. The model will not.

Look, the point is that if corporations only go with a given formula, the business becomes stagnant. Sam Phillips. Ever hear of him? He discovered Elvis, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, and several others. Why? Because the model was different then. There were a million different radio stations pushing a million different labels which in turn were pushing a million different artists. The good ones rose to the top. The great ones became legendary. The key was competition, which virtually doesn't exist anymore amongst those with the money who make the decisions regarding what gets played. Why? Because there are only 2-3 companies that own EVERYTHING. That's why.

What used to be in the hands of the many now resides in the hands of the few. The result is no competition. The result of no competition is a cookie-cutter model of 'get me something that sounds like something hot.' The result of that is greater talent and exploration is passed on for lesser talent that sounds similar to everything else while fitting neatly into a specific little mold. The result of that is my bleeding ears and scratched knuckles from diving recklessly toward the radio in an effort to change the station.

Rocket River,
I think it was you who asked me a couple pages back my musical interests and/or experience. Sorry I didn't get back to you.

To sum up: my dad was a band director. He played trombone with Doc Severinsen and Maynard Ferguson a few times as well as other bands throughout the southwest back in the '60s and into the '70s. I played saxophone myself for over 15 years. I played classical, jazz, blues, swing, whatever. I grew up regularly attending the symphony, ballet, and opera right here in Houston, as well as seeing the same in New York and London. These were relatively frequent experiences for me growing up, and I still attend all of those whenever I can to this day. That said, I've been a metal-head most of my life. I'd just as soon go to a Mozart opera, symphony, concerto, whatever as a Megadeth concert, but metal has always been my favorite genre, with classical a very close second.

So yeah. I gots some knowledge.

To anyone: Find me a musician, an honest-to-god musician, who likes either of those bands, and I'll eat a giant helping of STFU. It doesn't have to be a Luciano Pavarotti interview, either. Just go out to a local place in town and hear some music. When the band takes a break, ask them if they like those bands.

Edit:
Website

 

excellent analysis right there.

 

One, I totally agree that the model will have to be change, and I see the internet as something that can push that change.

Two, I still believe that the masses have a certain sound that they like. I think you can be different and still have a consumer friendly sound. The earlier Beatle stuff (I want to hold your hand?) is very poppish. You can dance to "My Generation". The bands you listed have commercially viably sounds, just like a couple of bands I mentioned. So yes, bands that are unique can still make it in today's industry as long as they make entertaining music. Lastly, when it comes to something like art, beauty is in the eye (or the ear) of the beholder, so the definition of talent becomes blurred. The record companies will be hesistant to fund exploration, but if something new catches on, you can be they'll exploit the hell out of it (rap rock).

Three, in most industries, it moves toward consolidation, the weak is either beaten or absorbed by a few large companies. It happens in almost all industries. And once it becomes consolidated, it's hard for new companies to break in unless there is some sort of catalyst.

 

Lynus,

Great post man. I think you can ask this question: 20 years from now, will songs by Creed and Nickelback make the classic rock playlist? I mean I hear songs by U2 and The Police, so there are some classic rock stations that do play songs by bands/artists that didn't get their start or were really popular in the '70s. I can envision hearing songs by Nirvana and Pearl Jam and probably Soundgarden on these stations in the future, but I doubt that Creed and Nickelback will make the cut. But it is just my opinion.

 

I also don't get so the hatred for Nickelback. To each their own. It just seems like most on this board are not fans of typical pop or top 40 music.

I am a huge fan of Nickelback and think their music rocks. Rock Star is awesome and they have numerous songs that get the blood racing. Oh well. For those of you that hate their music, to each their own. I for one am glad that Nickelback is becoming more and more popular with each CD they release. I can't wait for their next album.

 

This is precisely correct.

I voted 'Other" because their music, lyrics and looks/style all suck. They're just the same stuff with nothing new. No talent. No originality. No creativity.

A small child could write the same quality of lyrics.
A small child could strum a guitar the same way.
And a small child would probably carry a tune better, have better vocal range, and be able to sing a more challenging melody.
The melodies aren't creative.
Nor are the rhythms.
The performance isn't creative.
The looks/style aren't creative.
Nothing about it is creative.
As Jeff said, they even copy themselves.
It's just the same thing over and over.
It's just the same thing over and over.
It's just the same thing over and over.
It's just the same thing over and over.
It's just the same thing over and over.

 

WizKid, I'll get back to your post....gotta get ready for something.

You're a lost cause.

Just kidding, man. I'll never tell anyone that their opinion on such matters is wrong. What you like is what you like, and you're entitled to it. I am curious as to one thing. Please don't feel obligated to answer as I'm not trying to call you out or make any disparaging point(s). Here goes:

What, if any, musical training/ability/experience do you have?

 

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cVz1hC_p2Jc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cVz1hC_p2Jc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I also like this Nickelback song. I don't believe I have bad taste in music, I just have my guilty pleasures. It's also funny that lyrics are exactly what they're doing

 

Didn't read the thread, but could it be because they both suck something fierce? They suck turds through a straw.

 

We agree. This is good.

I'm unclear as to what you're arguing here. Any band needs to be radio-friendly. What's your point, exactly? That a band can be different and still be consumer-friendly? I sure as hell won't disagree with that, but The Who and The Beatles were more revolutionary than different. No one had EVER heard or seen anything like them at the time. That ""poppish" Beatles stuff is only considered so in today's terms because, again, no one had ever heard anything like them at the time. They (The Beatles) were derided as long-haired hippies when they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. The Who were a bunch of "angry mods from England," to quote Pete Townshend. The Who's introduction to America was smashing their guitars after playing "My Generation" at the Monterrey Pop Festival in 1967, followed by Jimi Hendrix playing with his teeth and setting his guitar on fire.

Of the ones I mentioned....they grew; matured in their sound and abilities. And they had license to do so. I'm trying to understand your point, but to lump them in with the likes of Creed and Nickelback doesn't help your argument. Not in my mind, at least.

You are indeed right: Beauty is in the eye, ear, touch, and smell of the beholder. I already said I won't tell someone that their opinion is wrong. But talent? That is certainly something that is more measurable than taste. When I hear the same chords, the same chord progressions, the same key, the same time signature, the same melody, the same harmony, the same beats, the same vocals, and the same vocal range over and over and over and over and over, that, my friend, is not talent. That is regurgitation.

Or when people sell out. Or when they are forced out. One of those two things happened when all the smaller and/or independent labels were swallowed up by the conglomerates. And those conglomerates have refused and continue to refuse to adapt, which is why the RIAA is taking so much ******* heat from people. Trouble is, there are not enough people giving them heat. They're feeding us crap because they are being allowed to do so.

Kinda like in politics: they will only do what the people allow them to do, and until people get sick of it and start yelling, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!," they'll keep doing exactly that. In other words, until the masses educate themselves to what talent truly means and tell the record companies "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna listen to this crap anymore!," they'll keep force-feeding us that very crap for as long as we allow them to do so.

 

I kinda liked Creed when they first came out. Quite catchy.. although I never admitted it.

As far as Nickleback.. DISGUSTING! Their song to me is just noise that gets in the way before I switch to another station.

But at least they're better than these new movement of Fall Out Boy, Simple Plan.. etc.

I know they say when Richie Valence, Big Bopper, and Buddy Holiday died was the "day that music died." I say the day that music died was when MTV started controlling these crappy kiddie bands and forcing it down our youth's throat.

 

That would be Richie Valens and Buddy Holly.