Nickleback - Burn It To The Ground

Why do people compare Nickelback and Creed? If you listen closely there really is no comparing them. Just because they right pop hooks doesnt mean anything. Songwriting is the key to a bands success.

Also Creed is much more musically oriented and people seem to miss that.

I'm not saying Creed and Nickelback are musically the same other than that both put out bland, radio friendly, corporate hard rock.

Schbopo wrote:

Neuropete wrote:

I'm sorry. I respect everyone's tastes, but personally I think that Nickelback is a cancer in today's music scene. They are absolutely horrible... talentless hacks. What is worse is that they have actually started a legion of sound-alike bands that have picked up the same crappy, corporate sound. I'm serious... they are a cancer.

"Talentless hacks"? Yeah....no they're not. How are they cancerous, just because you don't like them? They write their own songs (which are damn catchy and you know it) and play their own instruments, don't they?

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

I just wonder why and how the sound this band has started, why bands
are so fascinated with it, and when it will end and stop being called rock music. Most of what this band has, and bands that sound like this, is just an indiscernable wall of big-chord-sound with vocals from the grave of the grunge era carrying the song with semi-melodic scale antics. Their lyrics make it even worse. Calling this one decent is really not much more than throwing slightly less s*** than usual on an already heaping s*** pile.

I'll go out on a limb and say you're not a fan. And if it isn't rock, what would you call it, because what I hear is rock. Certainly pop-rock mind you, but still rock.

To answer your question, they are talentless hacks because (A) They lack talent (hence, "talentless") and (B) they perform dull and routine songs solely for money (hence "hacks").
The fact that they can pick up an instrument and can write a song does not automatically make them proficient at what they do. I don't care if millions like their dribble... I do not. Are they cancerous because I think so? Yes. To me they are. Of course, that is my own opinion... obviusly, others do not agree with me. If you find their tunes "catchy" and wish to stand in line to buy their latest release or to buy tickets for their concerts (as if anyone still stands in lines for tickets, right!), don't let my cancerous opinion of them stop you!

Addy wrote:

Quote :

'm sorry. I respect everyone's tastes, but personally I think that Nickelback is a cancer in today's music scene.

I would think that title would be saved for all the brittany spears, etc type artists

That title is reserved for all bands and artists that SUCK!

tohostudios wrote:

I'm not saying Creed and Nickelback are musically the same other than that both put out bland, radio friendly, corporate hard rock.

Toho you should def look deeper into the Creed catalog there is some amazing music in there provided by Mark Tremonti and not everything is as pop as the songs you might know.

Eh, it's a catchy enough tune that I'd probably listen to it on the radio and not change the station were I to hear it while driving out to the country to dispose of some corpses, but nothing I'd spend my hard-earned money on.

MetalRob331 wrote:

Why do people compare Nickelback and Creed?

Because they are very similar to each other.

Metallic Blaze wrote:

MetalRob331 wrote:

Why do people compare Nickelback and Creed?

Because they are very similar to each other.

Other then hooks there music couldnt sound so different IMO.

Nickelback's popularity is from their simple, singalong vocal melodies and simple guitar hooks. They are the poster band for commercial, radio friendly, happy music.

The only thing that i can see that seperates Creed from Nickelback is... Creed has a good guitar player.

Neuropete wrote:

To answer your question, they are talentless hacks because (A) They lack talent (hence, "talentless") and (B) they perform dull and routine songs solely for money (hence "hacks").

First off, anyone calling them talentless probably doesn't understand the dynamics of talent. Secondly, suggesting they're only doing this for money is absurd. It's purely speculation on your part. And the fact is, it's a job, so they're clearly doing it for money. That's what nearly all bands do, or hope to do. That doesn't make someone a hack.

Quote :

The fact that they can pick up an instrument and can write a song does not automatically make them proficient at what they do. I don't care if millions like their dribble... I do not. Are they cancerous because I think so? Yes. To me they are. Of course, that is my own opinion... obviusly, others do not agree with me. If you find their tunes "catchy" and wish to stand in line to buy their latest release or to buy tickets for their concerts (as if anyone still stands in lines for tickets, right!), don't let my cancerous opinion of them stop you!

To me, to me, to me. Now that we've got that sorted.

Eyesore wrote:

Neuropete wrote:

To answer your question, they are talentless hacks because (A) They lack talent (hence, "talentless") and (B) they perform dull and routine songs solely for money (hence "hacks").

First off, anyone calling them talentless probably doesn't understand the dynamics of talent. Secondly, suggesting they're only doing this for money is absurd. It's purely speculation on your part. And the fact is, it's a job, so they're clearly doing it for money. That's what nearly all bands do, or hope to do. That doesn't make someone a hack.

Quote :

The fact that they can pick up an instrument and can write a song does not automatically make them proficient at what they do. I don't care if millions like their dribble... I do not. Are they cancerous because I think so? Yes. To me they are. Of course, that is my own opinion... obviusly, others do not agree with me. If you find their tunes "catchy" and wish to stand in line to buy their latest release or to buy tickets for their concerts (as if anyone still stands in lines for tickets, right!), don't let my cancerous opinion of them stop you!

To me, to me, to me. Now that we've got that sorted.

I am defining talent here as having a special aptitute. Since, I find their songs completely pedestrian (lacking originality or excitement...not someone who can walk), then I think I am well within right and reason to refer to them as talentless. As far as being hacks, noticed that classification had two qualifiers to it. One, doing routine and dull work, the second was doing it solely to get paid. Certainly, all professional musicians do perform to get paid. It would be ridiculous not to. By definition, beign a profressional means you are paid for your work. Musicians who say they don't do it are full of crap. But, what makes you a hack is if you do it for the money, and suck at it pretty bad, as is the case with Nickelback. Hope this clears things further!

Neuropete wrote:

I am defining talent here as having a special aptitute. Since, I find their songs completely pedestrian (lacking originality or excitement...not someone who can walk), then I think I am well within right and reason to refer to them as talentless. As far as being hacks, noticed that classification had two qualifiers to it. One, doing routine and dull work, the second was doing it solely to get paid. Certainly, all professional musicians do perform to get paid. It would be ridiculous not to. By definition, beign a profressional means you are paid for your work. Musicians who say they don't do it are full of crap. But, what makes you a hack is if you do it for the money, and suck at it pretty bad, as is the case with Nickelback. Hope this clears things further!

Well, then every artist is a hack, I guess. Because 99.9% of them do unoriginal work for monetary gain.

Eyesore wrote:

Neuropete wrote:

I am defining talent here as having a special aptitute. Since, I find their songs completely pedestrian (lacking originality or excitement...not someone who can walk), then I think I am well within right and reason to refer to them as talentless. As far as being hacks, noticed that classification had two qualifiers to it. One, doing routine and dull work, the second was doing it solely to get paid. Certainly, all professional musicians do perform to get paid. It would be ridiculous not to. By definition, beign a profressional means you are paid for your work. Musicians who say they don't do it are full of crap. But, what makes you a hack is if you do it for the money, and suck at it pretty bad, as is the case with Nickelback. Hope this clears things further!

Well, then every artist is a hack, I guess. Because 99.9% of them do unoriginal work for monetary gain.

Good point. I think the biggest thing with Nickelback is that they don't seem to push themselves in their songwriting. All their albums sound the same. You can tell that they have talent; it's the fact that they don't use it to push their boundaries. I'm not going to lie; their songs are catchy. They've got their "hit formula" working for them nicely; however, I think it would be interesting to see them shake it up and take a couple of risks.

Quote :

Good point. I think the biggest thing with Nickelback is that they don't seem to push themselves in their songwriting. All their albums sound the same. You can tell that they have talent; it's the fact that they don't use it to push their boundaries. I'm not going to lie; their songs are catchy. They've got their "hit formula" working for them nicely; however, I think it would be interesting to see them shake it up and take a couple of risks.

They are smart in a way because they know what sells... (formula) and if it ain't broke...

Troublezone wrote:

The only thing that i can see that seperates Creed from Nickelback is... Creed has a good guitar player.

Yes Mark Tremonti is what separates Creed from most modern rock bands and its not just him. Those guys all are very talented guys and showcase it throughout Alter Bridge.

Nickelback seem to have a great time doing what they do and who cares if the guys arent amazing musicians. To sellout arenas everywhere is a compliment to there songwriting skills. Chad K has the pop hooks in a rock band and that works well in todays age.

Eyesore wrote:

Neuropete wrote:

I am defining talent here as having a special aptitute. Since, I find their songs completely pedestrian (lacking originality or excitement...not someone who can walk), then I think I am well within right and reason to refer to them as talentless. As far as being hacks, noticed that classification had two qualifiers to it. One, doing routine and dull work, the second was doing it solely to get paid. Certainly, all professional musicians do perform to get paid. It would be ridiculous not to. By definition, beign a profressional means you are paid for your work. Musicians who say they don't do it are full of crap. But, what makes you a hack is if you do it for the money, and suck at it pretty bad, as is the case with Nickelback. Hope this clears things further!

Well, then every artist is a hack, I guess. Because 99.9% of them do unoriginal work for monetary gain.

Just like every artist is a thief. They all kill their inspiration, and sing about their grief.

Those are U2 words, not mine!

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

Good point. I think the biggest thing with Nickelback is that they don't seem to push themselves in their songwriting. All their albums sound the same. You can tell that they have talent; it's the fact that they don't use it to push their boundaries. I'm not going to lie; their songs are catchy. They've got their "hit formula" working for them nicely; however, I think it would be interesting to see them shake it up and take a couple of risks.

They are smart in a way because they know what sells... (formula) and if it ain't broke...

I never said they were smart... just hacks!