The Shrine

<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~dcm25/nick ... ck.html</a>

Anybody else here not like Nickelback?</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Eh, I liked their song, nothing against them.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>On a sidenote, that sounds like a cool remix, even if they're really just comparing the two. lol. :P</div>

<div style='font: 9pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Meh. Not a big fan of Creed.</div>

<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I like the stuff I've heard on the radio. My friend has their latest CD and likes it a lot.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Don't care one way or the other, but the wifey likes them</div>

<div style='font: 12pt georgia; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>Ha! Creed minus all of the Jesus poses.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I like them (Can't get your page to load, so I don't know what it is). One of the only rock bands I liked from a few years ago</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>You mean looking away from the camera, acting like you don't care?</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>For the most part, yes, I don't like them.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "arial narrow"; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>I like a couple of songs. The problem with Nickelback is that all of their hits sound the same, and on top of that, they signed a band to their label that sounds exactly like Nickelback.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>They're Medio-core, definitely, but there are plenty of bands more worthy of hatred.</div>

<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Yeah, that's why I like them as a driving music in the car, but have never taken the initiative to listen to anymore than that.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt georgia; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>Nothing so subtle - he's always doing the crucifixion!</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Question; why so much hatred towards music?</div>

<div style='font: 9pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Don't forget the industrial strength fan for the wind effect!</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>I don't hate music, I hate mediocrity. And insincerity. Nickleback is mediocre, but at least they seem sincere.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>'Cause you just can't escape the bad stuff, unless you watch no TV, movies, and never listen to the radio. Also, MANY people are greatly interested in music and have a lot of emtion in it, thereby leading to a lot of negative emtions as well</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>"Nickleback is mediocre" Nope, they're actually one of the top bands of this decade.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Would you like a bat for that dead horse?</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>And Bush is one of the top presidents this decade. Who's counting?</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Yeah, and so is Cradle of Filth. Nothing like a nude chick with big tits hung up on a cross.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>I'd prefer to think of it as driving a car into their music.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>No, they are mediocre. What you don't understand is that most people *like* mediocre things because they are familiar and non-threatening and don't require any critical appreciation. Same reason why most little kids hate coffee and beer.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Just because you don't like them does not mean they are a mediocre band, because they are a great band, it just means that they are a great band that you don't like.

>"What you don't understand is that most people *like* mediocre things because they are familiar and non-threatening and don't require any critical appreciation."

And I suppose you expect me to believe that this is strait from Signumd Freud and not strait from a bull's ass?</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Because their songs are bland, uninteresting, and unoriginal. Their lyrics are cliche, predictable, and unmoving. Their music is far from influential and in time they will amount to little more than a blip in the history of rock. They are just so much white noise on the radio along with all the other faux-neo-grunge crap like Staind, 3 Days' Grace, 3 Doors Down, etc., etc., etc. They are mediocre, Q.E.D. And, like I said, I don't hate them. They're legitimate argists doing the best they can to make it and they've gained some popular appeal (though they've done this mainly by riding on the wave of the neo-grunge trend), but it doesn't make them a great band by any means.

What you are refusing to understand (and you have to be refusing to understand it, because it's such an obvious concept that I feel like a fucking idiot just having to point it out) is that popularity (and especially marketable success) doesn't make greatness in art. In fact, it's often the opposite. The fact that Jimi Hendrix is one of the founding father's of modern rock, yet the only time he ever hit the pop charts was with a Bob Dylan cover should be more than enough to illustrate that. Truly great art challenges the listener, it creates elements that are surprising and unpredictable, and it often forces us to redefine the way we think about music.

These aspects aren't <I>necessarily</i> mutually exclusive with popular appeal, of course (see Modest Mouse's latest), and I think some of the greatest musical accomplishments are when a band can make complex and challenging music that is still highly accessible to a large audience. However, what record companies are usually looking for is stuff that isn't challenging or complex, but rather, what they can turn into an easily marketable commodity. Songs that people can get into without thinking too much about what makes them "good" songs. Music that reinforces current trends and common conceptions rather than attempting to challenge or transcend them. You don't need to be Freud to understand this concept. The popularity of a band like Nickleback is based on the fact that their songs are easy to "get into" and don't require any further contemplation or appreciation. They sound like the other bands that people nowadays are into. If you give people a choice between something that's easy and that doesn't require much thought, versus something challenging that forces them to question long held beliefs, generally more people are going to choose the former than the latter. It's not because people are "stupid" or anything like that, it's just the path of least resistance. But making great art has nothing to do with the path of least resistance.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Because their songs are bland, uninteresting, and unoriginal. Their lyrics are cliche, predictable, and unmoving. Their music is far from influential and in time they will amount to little more than a blip in the history of rock. They are just so much white noise on the radio along with all the other faux-neo-grunge crap like Staind, 3 Days' Grace, 3 Doors Down, etc., etc., etc. They are mediocre, Q.E.D. And, like I said, I don't hate them. They're legitimate argists doing the best they can to make it and they've gained some popular appeal (though they've done this mainly by riding on the wave of the neo-grunge trend), but it doesn't make them a great band by any means.

What you are refusing to understand (and you have to be refusing to understand it, because it's such an obvious concept that I feel like a fucking idiot just having to point it out) is that popularity (and especially marketable success) doesn't make greatness in art. In fact, it's often the opposite. The fact that Jimi Hendrix is one of the founding father's of modern rock, yet the only time he ever hit the pop charts was with a Bob Dylan cover should be more than enough to illustrate that. Truly great art challenges the listener, it creates elements that are surprising and unpredictable, and it often forces us to redefine the way we think about music.

These aspects aren't <I>necessarily</i> mutually exclusive with popular appeal, of course (see Modest Mouse's latest), and I think some of the greatest musical accomplishments are when a band can make complex and challenging music that is still highly accessible to a large audience. However, what record companies are usually looking for is stuff that isn't challenging or complex, but rather, what they can turn into an easily marketable commodity. Songs that people can get into without thinking too much about what makes them "good" songs. Music that reinforces current trends and common conceptions rather than attempting to challenge or transcend them. You don't need to be Freud to understand this concept. The popularity of a band like Nickleback is based on the fact that their songs are easy to "get into" and don't require any further contemplation or appreciation. They sound like the other bands that people nowadays are into. If you give people a choice between something that's easy and that doesn't require much thought, versus something challenging that forces them to question long held beliefs, generally more people are going to choose the former than the latter. It's not because people are "stupid" or anything like that, it's just the path of least resistance. Mediocrity thrives in the path of least resistance, but great art has nothing to do with it.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Knee deep in a tar pit, Gentz thinks "I think I'll walk into it further."</div>

<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>In fact, I'm darn happy that bands like 3 Doors Down and Nickleback and Staind exist. Why? Because, sometimes, I enjoy the "path of least resistance" (as Gentz put it). I'm not always in the mood to think when I listen to music, just like I'm not always in the mood to think when I watch TV.

And I totally agree that they are a mediocre band by your definition. And they have their place in the entire scheme of things: to be mindless entertainment.</div>

<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Well, all he needs to do is pull his legs out with his arms, and then pull his arms out with his face.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Exactly.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Idle hands, etc... : )</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>And it's all thanks to this feisty feline!</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>That famously horrible version of the National Anthem he played at Woodstock, which Best Of albums can't seem to get enough of, is a perfect example. He played it bad on purpose, detuning his guitar and overall ruining the tune. Of course, him being Jimi Hendrix was all the audience cares about, and the hippie drugged up population cheered on. Yet, he did not understand the hungry populous demanding anything and everything rock (and Jimi), while ignoring his actual talent. He wanted critism for playing bad shit, and he never got it. This pissed him off to no end.

This was one of those grossly misunderstood moments on rock history.</div>