EDIT: And congrats for not going the easy route...that was probably the best pick I can think of from his entire catalog.
Nonsense. Having a Roni is by far the bets tune.
Some hate it, some love it... but Take On Me was a breakthrough to me. Not only sonically, but visually. For it's time it was hella sweet. Now it just gets ridiculed.
They are fine as a band you sort of keep to yourself and enjoy but don't go recommending that shit to your friends.
After Juno came out the local modern rock station played the hell out of their songs.
Luckily they got so many complaints that I have not heard a single one again to this day.
I mean they play Linkin Park at least once every hour, yet the Moldy Peaches still garnered more ire. They should feel terrible for being less listenable than Linkin Park.
What the hell? Moldy Peaches were awesome. Now, that might have changed, because I listened to them back in 99. Back then they were awesome. Downloading Porn With Dave-O, Lucky Charms... What the hell!? I know it's not good production value, but who cares? Their songs beat the shit out of Britney Spears or any of the other top 50 shit-slurry on radio. Maybe I'm just a weirdo that likes good song structure over high production values. Low-fi fucking rules. Give me a tube amp any day. You don't like the hum? Then piss off. ;P
They are fine as a band you sort of keep to yourself and enjoy but don't go recommending that shit to your friends.
After Juno came out the local modern rock station played the hell out of their songs.
Luckily they got so many complaints that I have not heard a single one again to this day.
I mean they play Linkin Park at least once every hour, yet the Moldy Peaches still garnered more ire. They should feel terrible for being less listenable than Linkin Park.
What the hell? Moldy Peaches were awesome. Now, that might have changed, because I listened to them back in 99. Back then they were awesome. Downloading Porn With Dave-O, Lucky Charms... What the hell!? I know it's not good production value, but who cares? Their songs beat the shit out of Britney Spears or any of the other top 50 shit-slurry on radio. Maybe I'm just a weirdo that likes good song structure over high production values. Low-fi fucking rules. Give me a tube amp any day. You don't like the hum? Then piss off. ;P
A) Being better than Britney Spears doesn't say much.
Some top 50 is better than Moldy Peaches, hate to break it to you.
C) Your entire rant sounds like the exact kind of hipster indie bullshit elitism that makes people hate crap like the Moldy Peaches even more. And they're not bad because they're low-fi. But they certainly aren't any better because of it either.
Though yeah, they are at least better than Linkin Park. But again, not saying much.
I always joked that Nickelback only had one song, but I never thought they'd pulled anything quite that blatant.
You almost have to wonder if anybody's ever gotten confused in the middle of one of those songs on stage.
They're not exactly the same song, they just have a similar chord structure/progression. The intro is the same but then when the vocals come in they branch apart. Also, whoever put that together altered the key of one of the songs so they would be in the same key. I'm not really a fan of Nickelback but this has been floating around the internet for a long time and was put together by some person who decided that he was the only one to recognize that tons of rock is based on a simple chord progression.
I always joked that Nickelback only had one song, but I never thought they'd pulled anything quite that blatant.
You almost have to wonder if anybody's ever gotten confused in the middle of one of those songs on stage.
They're not exactly the same song, they just have a similar chord structure/progression. The intro is the same but then when the vocals come in they branch apart. Also, whoever put that together altered the key of one of the songs so they would be in the same key. I'm not really a fan of Nickelback but this has been floating around the internet for a long time and was put together by some person who decided that he was the only one to recognize that tons of rock is based on a simple chord progression.
You do realize that you can change the key of a song just by placing a capo anywhere on your guitar? So... so what if it's in a different key? It's lazy to keep the same chord progression, pop it into a different key and then change the vocals (which, though syncopated differently, still have the same grating and annoying "alternative rock" poser voicing).
You may not be a fan, but you also don't have to defend such laziness. Do we not have enough Kurt Cobain/Eddie Vedder wannabes? Do we really need an Excuse Squad for something which is such an obvious, shameless cash-in aimed at morons who can't tell that this band is sticking to a formula because they aren't creative in the least?
Using similar or I-IV-V chord progressions on every other song was okay in the 50s, when rock was still heavily influenced by blues and country. Nowadays, we should be demanding a little more than mediocrity.
You do realize that you can change the key of a song just by placing a capo anywhere on your guitar? So... so what if it's in a different key? It's lazy to keep the same chord progression, pop it into a different key and then change the vocals (which, though syncopated differently, still have the same grating and annoying "alternative rock" poser voicing).
You may not be a fan, but you also don't have to defend such laziness. Do we not have enough Kurt Cobain/Eddie Vedder wannabes? Do we really need an Excuse Squad for something which is such an obvious, shameless cash-in aimed at morons who can't tell that this band is sticking to a formula because they aren't creative in the least?
Using similar or I-IV-V chord progressions on every other song was okay in the 50s, when rock was still heavily influenced by blues and country. Nowadays, we should be demanding a little more than mediocrity.
I don't know, I think mediocrity is fine as long as its mediocrity is acknowledged. I break out Michael Crichton every once in a while if I'm bored and he's no Faulkner to say the least. Same with music - If I'm in a nostalgic mood I'm not above taking Enema of the State off the rack. I don't think it's good music by any means, but I listen to it for the same reason I sometimes eat potato chips - sometimes junk is all you're looking for.
That said, I'm not sure that Nickelback even qualifies as decent junk. They were pretty much the only thing on the radio when I got my driver's license and that criminal overplaying has turned me against them forever.
"I think that's remarkable for someone to notice that there's a hit quality. If all hits sound the same, then sorry. When you are a band that has a distinct style, such as us or AC/DC, that happens. When you have a distinct style, you run the risk of sounding similar."
JULES
Whoa...whoa...whoa...stop right there. Nickelback and AC/DC ain't even the same fuckin' thing.
VINCENT
Not the same thing, the same ballpark.
JULES
It ain't no ballpark either. Look, maybe your method of discerning good music differs from mine,
but being one of the most influental hard rock bands of the 70s and rippin' off every other wannabe heroin addict with an acoustic guitar and scratchy voice ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport. Nickelback don't mean shit.
AC/DC were being original. Their sound was something not heard before.
Nickelback is a copycat band. The band they make their living imitating is Creed.
2)
AC/DC has Angus Young, widely considered one of the most influential lead guitarists ever.
Nickelback has... um... Chad Kroeger? ...who is known for clunky, annoying, repetitive lead parts.
3)
It's true AC/DC has never changed their basic formula/sound (except for Back in Black, but that's due to a change in lead singers), but their fans would be annoyed with them if they did.
Countless critics and people around the world are pissed that Nickelback never seems to get the idea that knuckle-dragging chord progressions and idiotic lyrics are not okay with them.
Given the above, I'm slightly more willing to let some of AC/DC's lesser atrocities slide.
AC/DC were being original. Their sound was something not heard before.
Nickelback is a copycat band. The band they make their living imitating is Creed.
2)
AC/DC has Angus Young, widely considered one of the most influential lead guitarists ever.
Nickelback has... um... Chad Kroeger? ...who is known for clunky, annoying, repetitive lead parts.
3)
It's true AC/DC has never changed their basic formula/sound (except for Back in Black, but that's due to a change in lead singers), but their fans would be annoyed with them if they did.
Countless critics and people around the world are pissed that Nickelback never seems to get the idea that knuckle-dragging chord progressions and idiotic lyrics are not okay with them.
Given the above, I'm slightly more willing to let some of AC/DC's lesser atrocities slide.
Did I say Nickelback was better than AC/DC, or even that they were good at all?
No, no I did not. They suck. I'm just saying AC/DC aren't that great either.
1) Yes, AC/DC had a pretty original sound at the time. Then they made the exact same album over and over and over. Yes, Nickelback aren't original in any way. No one is denying that.
2) Angus Young isn't a great guitarist. He isn't bad, but he isn't great by any means. There were better guitarists before he hit the scene. Again, with Nickelback, yeah, they suck.
3) There's a difference between keeping the same basic style, and making the same fucking song over and over. AC/DC for most of their career have been doing the latter. Nickelback are basically the same thing with less skill and less energy.
I'm so confused, if I ignore how retarded the original song is and how stupid everyone in the band looks. It's actually kinda catchy. Does this mean I have to cut my dick off or something, how does this work?
Which is why I think the above makes up for AC/DC's shortcomings, but it doesn't excuse them. My basic point is that Nickelback deserves the mention in this thread, while AC/DC does not.
Which is why I think the above makes up for AC/DC's shortcomings, but it doesn't excuse them. My basic point is that Nickelback deserves the mention in this thread, while AC/DC does not.
Can we talk about K-Fed now?
I agree AC/DC doesn't deserve being in this thread, but I wasn't the one to bring them up.
Anyway, I agree, we should get back to the truly awful.
I love how Nickelback are almost universally reviled to the point where people throw rocks at them/boo them off the stage at festivals. I can't imagine why they're still making money.
One of my personal resentment foci of recent years is Maroon 5.
They are fine as a band you sort of keep to yourself and enjoy but don't go recommending that shit to your friends.
After Juno came out the local modern rock station played the hell out of their songs.
Luckily they got so many complaints that I have not heard a single one again to this day.
I mean they play Linkin Park at least once every hour, yet the Moldy Peaches still garnered more ire. They should feel terrible for being less listenable than Linkin Park.
I hated Juno. It was trying so hard to be another Garden State, but then just failed in absolutely every respect.
Oh God, lets cuddle! Our opinion of this film is in perfect union.
I love how Nickelback are almost universally reviled to the point where people throw rocks at them/boo them off the stage at festivals. I can't imagine why they're still making money.
That's one of the few things I'm not proud of in relation to my country. Motherfuckers are still charting with their latest album, which is apparently bad even by their standards.
It would be nice if bands with actual talent could chart like that, but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
I love how Nickelback are almost universally reviled to the point where people throw rocks at them/boo them off the stage at festivals. I can't imagine why they're still making money.
Nickleback is a war crime perpetrated by Canada against the US.
I'd say we feel bad but ... someones gotta suffer with us.
I love how Nickelback are almost universally reviled to the point where people throw rocks at them/boo them off the stage at festivals.
I saw that happen to Panic! At The Disco, they were playing Reading Festival and the singer was knocked out by a glass beer bottle. It was wonderful
I also saw MCR get bottled offstage twice at different festivals
I remember when we here in Toronto had that SARS concert. The SARS panic had killed tourism, so they combined a bunch of concerts into one mage concert.
This lead to the hilarious line up of:
The Guess Who, Rush, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones
And Justin Timberlake.
Who got bottled like you would not believe.
I did gain some respect for the man though. That motherfucker just kept going, despite the bottling.
I love how Nickelback are almost universally reviled to the point where people throw rocks at them/boo them off the stage at festivals. I can't imagine why they're still making money.
One of my personal resentment foci of recent years is Maroon 5.
I agree with my gf; Justin Timberlake should abandon music altogether and become an actor. I've seen the guy on SNL, and he's pretty funny. Musically, he sucks majorly. It seems like a no brainer.
Posts
Nonsense. Having a Roni is by far the bets tune.
Some hate it, some love it... but Take On Me was a breakthrough to me. Not only sonically, but visually. For it's time it was hella sweet. Now it just gets ridiculed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnjYrP5J6rE
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
What the hell? Moldy Peaches were awesome. Now, that might have changed, because I listened to them back in 99. Back then they were awesome. Downloading Porn With Dave-O, Lucky Charms... What the hell!? I know it's not good production value, but who cares? Their songs beat the shit out of Britney Spears or any of the other top 50 shit-slurry on radio. Maybe I'm just a weirdo that likes good song structure over high production values. Low-fi fucking rules. Give me a tube amp any day. You don't like the hum? Then piss off. ;P
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
Actually, so do I.
A) Being better than Britney Spears doesn't say much.
Some top 50 is better than Moldy Peaches, hate to break it to you.
C) Your entire rant sounds like the exact kind of hipster indie bullshit elitism that makes people hate crap like the Moldy Peaches even more. And they're not bad because they're low-fi. But they certainly aren't any better because of it either.
Though yeah, they are at least better than Linkin Park. But again, not saying much.
They're not exactly the same song, they just have a similar chord structure/progression. The intro is the same but then when the vocals come in they branch apart. Also, whoever put that together altered the key of one of the songs so they would be in the same key. I'm not really a fan of Nickelback but this has been floating around the internet for a long time and was put together by some person who decided that he was the only one to recognize that tons of rock is based on a simple chord progression.
You do realize that you can change the key of a song just by placing a capo anywhere on your guitar? So... so what if it's in a different key? It's lazy to keep the same chord progression, pop it into a different key and then change the vocals (which, though syncopated differently, still have the same grating and annoying "alternative rock" poser voicing).
You may not be a fan, but you also don't have to defend such laziness. Do we not have enough Kurt Cobain/Eddie Vedder wannabes? Do we really need an Excuse Squad for something which is such an obvious, shameless cash-in aimed at morons who can't tell that this band is sticking to a formula because they aren't creative in the least?
Using similar or I-IV-V chord progressions on every other song was okay in the 50s, when rock was still heavily influenced by blues and country. Nowadays, we should be demanding a little more than mediocrity.
That said, I'm not sure that Nickelback even qualifies as decent junk. They were pretty much the only thing on the radio when I got my driver's license and that criminal overplaying has turned me against them forever.
I'm sure the band members themselves think that they're mediocre...
JULES
Whoa...whoa...whoa...stop right there. Nickelback and AC/DC ain't even the same fuckin' thing.
VINCENT
Not the same thing, the same ballpark.
JULES
It ain't no ballpark either. Look, maybe your method of discerning good music differs from mine,
but being one of the most influental hard rock bands of the 70s and rippin' off every other wannabe heroin addict with an acoustic guitar and scratchy voice ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport. Nickelback don't mean shit.
AC/DC were being original. Their sound was something not heard before.
Nickelback is a copycat band. The band they make their living imitating is Creed.
2)
AC/DC has Angus Young, widely considered one of the most influential lead guitarists ever.
Nickelback has... um... Chad Kroeger? ...who is known for clunky, annoying, repetitive lead parts.
3)
It's true AC/DC has never changed their basic formula/sound (except for Back in Black, but that's due to a change in lead singers), but their fans would be annoyed with them if they did.
Countless critics and people around the world are pissed that Nickelback never seems to get the idea that knuckle-dragging chord progressions and idiotic lyrics are not okay with them.
Given the above, I'm slightly more willing to let some of AC/DC's lesser atrocities slide.
The NECRONOMICON of Musical Pain.
Did I say Nickelback was better than AC/DC, or even that they were good at all?
No, no I did not. They suck. I'm just saying AC/DC aren't that great either.
1) Yes, AC/DC had a pretty original sound at the time. Then they made the exact same album over and over and over. Yes, Nickelback aren't original in any way. No one is denying that.
2) Angus Young isn't a great guitarist. He isn't bad, but he isn't great by any means. There were better guitarists before he hit the scene. Again, with Nickelback, yeah, they suck.
3) There's a difference between keeping the same basic style, and making the same fucking song over and over. AC/DC for most of their career have been doing the latter. Nickelback are basically the same thing with less skill and less energy.
I'm so confused, if I ignore how retarded the original song is and how stupid everyone in the band looks. It's actually kinda catchy. Does this mean I have to cut my dick off or something, how does this work?
Can we talk about K-Fed now?
I agree AC/DC doesn't deserve being in this thread, but I wasn't the one to bring them up.
Anyway, I agree, we should get back to the truly awful.
One of my personal resentment foci of recent years is Maroon 5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dE2c9MnsKI
Just the most vapid, pointless pop-rock faeces imaginable.
Oh God, lets cuddle! Our opinion of this film is in perfect union.
I saw that happen to Panic! At The Disco, they were playing Reading Festival and the singer was knocked out by a glass beer bottle. It was wonderful
I also saw MCR get bottled offstage twice at different festivals
It would be nice if bands with actual talent could chart like that, but that seems like a pipe dream at this point.
Nickleback is a war crime perpetrated by Canada against the US.
I'd say we feel bad but ... someones gotta suffer with us.
I remember when we here in Toronto had that SARS concert. The SARS panic had killed tourism, so they combined a bunch of concerts into one mage concert.
This lead to the hilarious line up of:
The Guess Who, Rush, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones
And Justin Timberlake.
Who got bottled like you would not believe.
I did gain some respect for the man though. That motherfucker just kept going, despite the bottling.
Hey, do I get indie-cred points if I say I hated Maroon 5 back when they were called Kara's Flowers?