Nickelback - Rockstar

[macleodgrant]

i don't think nickleback is that bad...i mean hell, these guys are doing a lot better than many on gearslutz

i prefer 'breaking benjamin', i think those guys are very

[sonicdefault]

When I heard that Nickleback song, I thought it was a spoof. I guess it clarifies the sometimes obscure "Pop-Rock" genre. The ironic thing to me is that it seems to be mocking modern pop culture, but at the same time... they're associating themselves with it (kinda like guilt by association). I bet Jerry Springer likes it.


-SD

[emkay]

Originally Posted by allencollins

I think I hate nickelback more than pearljam

That's unfortunate. I heard that Nickelback and Pearl Jam think you're a nice guy......

[Goliath|Audio]

Originally Posted by bassist377

...also, seriously, does anybody seriously believe any of the guys in Nickleback are really into drugs? If they were, I'd honestly expect something much more creative than, well, their entire catalog.

[Resonant Alien]

Originally Posted by feck

I agree. But it is like a cold....at first, a sneeze here or there. Inconvenient, unpleasant, but you forget about it. Then a cough. But you have to go to work, so you do. Then, medication. Ignore it some more. Next thing you know, you have pneumonia. The shift of music's intent as an inspirational art form to that of a commodity comes with consequences. We can't underestimate the cultural responsibilities that ALL art has. From Mozart writing music for kings, to Jazz in the 20's, to Dylan in the 60's, art reflects what the public mindset is. The public mindset reflects what the state of art is. They are both entirely accurate, and responsible. You are right - not everyone has to or is expected to take music as seriously as I do. But if there weren't those who do as well as those who don't, music would really be ****ed.

No, I get it, and I really do agree with the points you raised in this post. Music as art is definitely important, and much more important culturally than music for strictly entertainment/masturbatory purposes, and I am not saying that all music should be respected to equal proportions. However, there has always been, and always will be at least two major classifications of music - music with a high purpose, and music for pure entertainment, and the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other.

It's like any other art form - books, photographs, paintings, film. Some books are masterpieces of artistic expression, other books are purely for entertainment value. Sometimes I want to read about Tao or Freud or the mysteries of the Mayan civilization - other times I just want to read some nonsensical fiction to wind down, to take a break from everything and chill out. Music is the same way - sometimes I want intricate well thought out melodies and insightful lyrics that make me think deeper into something - other times, I just want to put on "Cum on Feel the Noize" and freakin' chill out!!

When we think about the "good ole days", we tend to look back with rose-colored glasses as well. Many artists who are well-respected today did not achieve that status until after they died, and a lot of artists that are well-respected today received some of the same criticisms that we lump onto bands today. I don't believe Jazz was considered a respected art form during the 20s - it was considered the music of bootleggers, prostitutes and gangsters. I don't believe Blues was a respected art form until some white artists started playing it/ripping it off in the 50s and 60s. Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, even The Beatles and The Stones were not considered true artists by the majority of society at the time of their initial popularity - they were viewed as degenerate hippies who were helping destroy the "well-ordered" society of the 50s and early 60s.

Now, please don't get me wrong - I am by no means implying that we are going to look back in 20 years and suddenly think Nickelback were a insightful artistic band who had a major impact on the art form....to the contrary - I think 20 years from now, hardly anyone will remember who they were. But, taken as pure entertainment, taken in the context of what they are, what's the harm? There were plenty of crappy, never amount to anything artistically, bands throughout most of the 20th century, so I don't think we are seeing things change quite as much as it might seem.

Let's face it, "making it big" aka getting filthy stinking rich, in the music biz is a just about a total crap shoot, and has hardly anything to do with talent, artistic integrity, or skill. A good amount of it comes down to absolute pure luck. There are plenty of talented artistic people who made it big and become rich, and there are also plenty of talented artistic people who die penniless. Likewise, there are a lot of talentless boobs who make it big, just as there are plenty of talentless boobs who die penniless.

As long as the artist is doing what they truly believe in and not selling themselves out, I don't have a problem with any of it. Unless someone knows the guys in Nickelback personally, I don't think they can comment whether they are selling themselves out or not...they might truly like the music they are writing, even if it is crappy.

[feck]

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

No, I get it, and I really do agree with the points you raised in this post. Music as art is definitely important, and much more important culturally than music for strictly entertainment/masturbatory purposes, and I am not saying that all music should be respected to equal proportions. However, there has always been, and always will be at least two major classifications of music - music with a high purpose, and music for pure entertainment, and the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other.

It's like any other art form - books, photographs, paintings, film. Some books are masterpieces of artistic expression, other books are purely for entertainment value. Sometimes I want to read about Tao or Freud or the mysteries of the Mayan civilization - other times I just want to read some nonsensical fiction to wind down, to take a break from everything and chill out. Music is the same way - sometimes I want intricate well thought out melodies and insightful lyrics that make me think deeper into something - other times, I just want to put on "Cum on Feel the Noize" and freakin' chill out!!

When we think about the "good ole days", we tend to look back with rose-colored glasses as well. Many artists who are well-respected today did not achieve that status until after they died, and a lot of artists that are well-respected today received some of the same criticisms that we lump onto bands today. I don't believe Jazz was considered a respected art form during the 20s - it was considered the music of bootleggers, prostitutes and gangsters. I don't believe Blues was a respected art form until some white artists started playing it/ripping it off in the 50s and 60s. Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, even The Beatles and The Stones were not considered true artists by the majority of society at the time of their initial popularity - they were viewed as degenerate hippies who were helping destroy the "well-ordered" society of the 50s and early 60s.

Now, please don't get me wrong - I am by no means implying that we are going to look back in 20 years and suddenly think Nickelback were a insightful artistic band who had a major impact on the art form....to the contrary - I think 20 years from now, hardly anyone will remember who they were. But, taken as pure entertainment, taken in the context of what they are, what's the harm? There were plenty of crappy, never amount to anything artistically, bands throughout most of the 20th century, so I don't think we are seeing things change quite as much as it might seem.

Let's face it, "making it big" aka getting filthy stinking rich, in the music biz is a just about a total crap shoot, and has hardly anything to do with talent, artistic integrity, or skill. A good amount of it comes down to absolute pure luck. There are plenty of talented artistic people who made it big and become rich, and there are also plenty of talented artistic people who die penniless. Likewise, there are a lot of talentless boobs who make it big, just as there are plenty of talentless boobs who die penniless.

As long as the artist is doing what they truly believe in and not selling themselves out, I don't have a problem with any of it. Unless someone knows the guys in Nickelback personally, I don't think they can comment whether they are selling themselves out or not...they might truly like the music they are writing, even if it is crappy.

[RockDog]

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

No, I get it, and I really do agree with the points you raised in this post. Music as art is definitely important, and much more important culturally than music for strictly entertainment/masturbatory purposes, and I am not saying that all music should be respected to equal proportions. However, there has always been, and always will be at least two major classifications of music - music with a high purpose, and music for pure entertainment, and the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other.

It's like any other art form - books, photographs, paintings, film. Some books are masterpieces of artistic expression, other books are purely for entertainment value. Sometimes I want to read about Tao or Freud or the mysteries of the Mayan civilization - other times I just want to read some nonsensical fiction to wind down, to take a break from everything and chill out. Music is the same way - sometimes I want intricate well thought out melodies and insightful lyrics that make me think deeper into something - other times, I just want to put on "Cum on Feel the Noize" and freakin' chill out!!

When we think about the "good ole days", we tend to look back with rose-colored glasses as well. Many artists who are well-respected today did not achieve that status until after they died, and a lot of artists that are well-respected today received some of the same criticisms that we lump onto bands today. I don't believe Jazz was considered a respected art form during the 20s - it was considered the music of bootleggers, prostitutes and gangsters. I don't believe Blues was a respected art form until some white artists started playing it/ripping it off in the 50s and 60s. Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, even The Beatles and The Stones were not considered true artists by the majority of society at the time of their initial popularity - they were viewed as degenerate hippies who were helping destroy the "well-ordered" society of the 50s and early 60s.

Now, please don't get me wrong - I am by no means implying that we are going to look back in 20 years and suddenly think Nickelback were a insightful artistic band who had a major impact on the art form....to the contrary - I think 20 years from now, hardly anyone will remember who they were. But, taken as pure entertainment, taken in the context of what they are, what's the harm? There were plenty of crappy, never amount to anything artistically, bands throughout most of the 20th century, so I don't think we are seeing things change quite as much as it might seem.

Let's face it, "making it big" aka getting filthy stinking rich, in the music biz is a just about a total crap shoot, and has hardly anything to do with talent, artistic integrity, or skill. A good amount of it comes down to absolute pure luck. There are plenty of talented artistic people who made it big and become rich, and there are also plenty of talented artistic people who die penniless. Likewise, there are a lot of talentless boobs who make it big, just as there are plenty of talentless boobs who die penniless.

As long as the artist is doing what they truly believe in and not selling themselves out, I don't have a problem with any of it. Unless someone knows the guys in Nickelback personally, I don't think they can comment whether they are selling themselves out or not...they might truly like the music they are writing, even if it is crappy.

this thread should enter history after this comment

[blackwatch5805]

"i'll have the quesadilla"

[nyarlothothep]

Rockstar has to be one of the lamest songs about rock Ive ever heard, apart from that God Gave Rock N Roll To You song by Kiss. Now Let There Be Rock by ACDC, thats a good tune.

[Blearyoftimothy]

cranberries

[JoeHimself]

I can't wait 'till I suck so bad that people argue over my apparent lack of talent like this...I'd be rich !

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by JoeHimself

I can't wait 'till I suck so bad that people argue over my apparent lack of talent like this...I'd be rich !

LOL, exactly. Whether you care for them or not, the fact is they're laughing all the way to the bank.

[christmasjones]

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by CaliTone

I didn't know that you spoke for "Most Of Us". Maybe I shouldn't have intruded on this Nickelback bashing parade. Nirvana? C'mon give me a break. Is that the best you got? That's art?? Look what Da Vinci did. Now that's art!!!

lame.

like this response.