Billboard Magazine named Nickelback band of the decade

smarchee · December 2009

isn;t billboard about sales? correct if I am wrong

then there is no subjective way to come up with their list

is it not Nickelback sold the most albums from 2000-2009 then any other band?

youngster · December 2009

I would tell Nickleback to suck my balls....

but I value my balls to much.

They are the epitomy of terrible music.

My shit floating in the toilet water has more talent than Nickleback.

I would wipe my ass with their CD cover but I don't for 2 reasons:

1. I don't own a nickleback CD
2. I value my ass too much.

smarchee · December 2009

cropduster82 wrote:

I would wipe my ass with their CD cover but I don't for 2 reasons:

1. I don't own a nickleback CD
2. I value my ass too much.

lol

scottstappsucks · December 2009

jimed14 · December 2009

g under p wrote:

Who would you choose as the band of the decade?

Radiohead immediately came to mind ... as did Coldplay. Say what you want, they had a huge decade and all their albums fell perfectly in the 2000s (whereas OK Comupter was what, '97/98? If that was in the 2000s, there'd be zero doubt).

White Stripes is a good call, but, the end of the decade would probably hurt them a bit.

The Arcade Fire could have made a run for it if they had a killer 3rd album, but, no way they get a vote with only 2 albums.

My dark horse (kind of my favorite for the overall decade), The Decemberists ... 5 fantastic albums with a killer EP in The Tain.

It's late, I'm sure someone will list a no brainer that I've missed tomorrow.

Thorns2010 · December 2009

If I had to pick a band of the decade I'd say Coldplay.

Not that I am a huge fan, although I do have all their albums.

The reason I wouldn't pick Radiohead is because to me a band of the decade has to come to prominence during the decade, and they were well known long before the year 2000 hit. That's just how I feel about it, not saying I'm right or wrong, just saying.

Got a hard hard head · December 2009

I hate music magazines in general and articles such as this. The best way, I find, to be given recommendations in music is to visit sites such as this.

Magazines give these pseudo awards to bands to either keep in check with, what they think, is the general opinion of middle class Britain/America/wherever and are basically sucking up to the status quo. Either that or, to appear as though they've got their finger firmly on the pulse of music, they laud the lesser known bands and discuss them as if they were discovered personally by their editor.

I listen to what I like and I like what I listen to.

Ricsard · December 2009

I agree, it was the decade of Coldplay...they have been around since 2000, shot to stardom immediately in Britain and have become always bigger and bigger worldwide. And they make the best mainstream music!

COLDPLAY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nickelback

dcfaithful · December 2009

I just had to come back and say the obvious

Fuck Nickelback.

dcfaithful · December 2009

Indifference71 wrote:

dcfaithful wrote:

As if I ever cared about Billboard's opinion in the first place, any chance they had of convincing me has definitely just taken a irreversable nose dive into a huge steaming pile. It's still a wonder to me that there are so many people who are comfortable with listening to molded, uninspirational music with thoughtless lyrics and an overall tasteless sound.

Nickelback = Failure of the decade.

It's pretty fucking sad, isnt it?

Totally. I mean if you choose to express your musical interests in such a commercialized piece of crap, then more power to you I guess? But it just seems much more appealing to invest your interests in artists who are actually unique and will be remembered as meaningful in 10 years. I know Nickelback will be remembered, but for all the wrong reasons.

Gardenparty · December 2009

Billboard isn't a magazine. It's an industry publication based entirely on numbers.

I don't think their writers took a vote and determined Nickleback wrote the best music of the decade. Wouldn't be suprised if they cringed knowing they had to print it

While they certainly do blow nobody can deny the bands numbers were quite remarkable this decade.

demetrios · December 2009

dcfaithful wrote:

Nickelback = Failure of the decade.

jr19 · December 2009

speechless

dcfaithful · December 2009

Gardenparty wrote:

While they certainly do blow nobody can deny the bands numbers were quite remarkable this decade.

No, I can't deny that, but the numbers of music buyers that obviously don't give a flying fuck about originality and taste were quite remarkable too.

Considering that bands like Nickelback, Hinder, Good Charlotte, Blink 182, and Limp Bizkit to name just a few were at the height of their popularity.

fife · December 2009

I don't understand why peopel get upset about this. you can't really blame the band for this as it is not there fault that peopel bought their record. Blame the peopel who went out to buy those records.

we have to undertsnd that not everyone loves music like us, lets not kill ourselves over this. for most people, music is just a possession not a way of life.

Keep RITFW

:ugeek:

Newch91 · December 2009

I just don't know what would've been worse though: Nickelback or Creed? They're both pretty awful.

Band of the Decade for me: Either White Stripes, U2, or Radiohead.

Leathe?ma? · December 2009

ahhhaahhaahhaaa.. nickelback.. and who's second? tokio hotel? ahhhahhaahhaa.. epic fail

Billboard Magazine named Nickelback band of the decade

Comments

Categories