Please remind me again....

2»

Comments

  • Hugh Freaking Dillon
    Hugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    keeponrockin wrote:
    One dimensional with terrible lyrics. No depth to the lyrics, very 'what you see is what you get'...

    They're my girlfriend's favourite band.

    if I wanted to compare them, I'd say they are Motley Crue without the hair and makeup.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    Their music is repetitive and in a style that I think is annoying and conducive to boredom. Mostly, I think it's a combination everything on that list that somebody put earlier in this thread. The sort of bands that they've helped allow on the airwaves by way of their success is another thing I have against them....5 Finger Douche Punch(and their horrid cover of Bad Company) and Theory of a Dead Man are probably even worse. And not that 3 Doors Down was ever great to begin with, but I found them much less offensive till they took on alot of Nickelback qualities.

    Another thing I once read a "60 Minutes" in a Guitar World magazine done by the singer, where he picked an hour of his favorite music.....Under one song by Metallica or Pantera, don't remember which, he wrote "when I sit down to write a riff I think one of 2 things...Hetfield or Dimbebag" I just have to ask, what the hell is he hearing when he listens to those bands that is comparable to the stuff he writes? He's either a poser or has the inability to differentiate between virtually any style of music...He may as well have said Bob Hope and Lindsay Lohan in Freaky Friday.


    I don't totally subscribe to the "they're so hated b/c they're so loved" argument either. The other bands mentioned that are like that(U2, KoL) also have other really annoying things about them and still aren't viewed as nearly the joke that Nickelback are. There's plenty of hugely successful bands that have gotten or get overplayed that don't have the backlash that they have.
  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,081
    DewieCox wrote:
    Their music is repetitive and in a style that I think is annoying and conducive to boredom.

    Yup, there's just nothing interesting about them good or bad. Complete middle of the road mediocrity.
  • drlovemonkey
    drlovemonkey Posts: 394
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    keeponrockin wrote:
    One dimensional with terrible lyrics. No depth to the lyrics, very 'what you see is what you get'...

    They're my girlfriend's favourite band.

    if I wanted to compare them, I'd say they are Motley Crue without the hair and makeup.

    I disagree - Motley Crue was at least entertaining if nothing else. Nickelback is boring as hell.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    drlovemonkey wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    keeponrockin wrote:
    One dimensional with terrible lyrics. No depth to the lyrics, very 'what you see is what you get'...

    They're my girlfriend's favourite band.

    if I wanted to compare them, I'd say they are Motley Crue without the hair and makeup.

    I disagree - Motley Crue was at least entertaining if nothing else. Nickelback is boring as hell.
    Motley Crue were leaders, trendsetters in their genre. If you don't like the genre, you don't like Crue. They borrowed from a few influences to create something relatively new (or at least new to the commercial market)....
    Nickelback rode the second wave of grunge wannabe's...they immitated the sound of bands who were immitating the sound of other bands....derivative of a derivative....zero innovation, zero originality. It's the same argument that I came up with to justify why I defend AC/DC against accusations of being one-dimensional, while not defending Nickelback for the same.

    That said...I do find myself turning the radio up to some of their more upbeat songs while driving...IF I'm in a really good mood and feel like doing ironic rockstar fist pumps.

    If you really need a reason to hate Nickelback, here it is:

    Harper_nickelback.jpg
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    drlovemonkey wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    keeponrockin wrote:
    One dimensional with terrible lyrics. No depth to the lyrics, very 'what you see is what you get'...

    They're my girlfriend's favourite band.

    if I wanted to compare them, I'd say they are Motley Crue without the hair and makeup.

    I disagree - Motley Crue was at least entertaining if nothing else. Nickelback is boring as hell.

    And MC could play the hell outta their instruments.
  • facepollution
    facepollution Posts: 6,834
    It's rock music for people who don't particularly like rock music. The only thing they've got going for them is that they know how to write really catchy songs. But it's all cliched, unimaginative and soulless.

    I'm listening to Mark Lanegan's new record as I type this - now this is a real artist. He knows he's not going to sell millions of copies, yet you can tell he's put an incredible amount of thought and effort into creating these songs. Nickelback on the other hand have been peddling the same tired music for years - boring, cliched lyrics, big cheesy chorus - sung by a guy who's trying to mimic the vocal stylings of the Seattle/90's vocalists before him - people who actually had something to say.

    I don't hate them, I just think their music is boring and lazy.

Categories