Nickleback

does it really make a difference? All I know is it ain't from these shores (we have other kinRAB of musical evils). I just can't believe I'm talking on a forum about Nickelback... in 2009! So much for progress
 
You're both right and wrong at the same time.

A lot of grunge was awesome. Nirvana and Pearl Jam are way up there for me. Alice in Chains and The Melvins are also cool with me. Soundgarden I'm not too crazy about but they have some great stuff and they were super talented so I can't complain about all the people that think they're the best grunge band.

And Mudhoney are very much grunge. They were one of the bigger influences on Nirvana. And like Urban said we wouldn't even have the damn term "grunge" if it weren't for them. Either way I think it's pointless to argue over weither a band is grunge based on their "sound".

It's more of an image based movement kind of thing rather than a serious genre. Seriously, do you really think The Melvins and Pearl Jam sound anything alike?
 
well they're not really half as popular over here (not since like 2001 anyway), and we get your product by default because American labels own most of the British music industry. So yes, the American card!
 
I don't know where you're from, man. But Radiohead is only somewhat popular in the states.
Nickelback is pop, pure and simple. Their sound is clearly industry studio formula. They're right along with Creed, Puddle of Mudd, Trapt, Staind, and Fuel. All over the radio, had their time on MTV, always playing at the bar. If they actually write their own songs, then they write them radio friendly to make a big living off of them. That's why I suggest that it be moved to the Pop section.
 
They write their songs to appeal to the #1 spot on Itunes. They write their songs for cash plain and simple. Maybe not all of them suck. But if the majority do then you write mostly bad music.
 
Well when i hear a band like Days Of The New I think grunge as they are heavily influenced by the movement & doesnt that go fot every genre there is always some sort of image to go with the style of music. For instance Metal back in the day (with the exception of Metallica during their sell-out period) people would associate people with long hair and tatoos as 'headbangers' or whatever.
As for the image side of things it does add character to the music but in my honest opinion it doesnt really bother me what the artist looks like, its more whether the music does anything for me.
& I have got 3 of the Melvins albums I downloaded (havent listened to yet) but they came up as Hardcore Punk & I didnt really download them thinking they were grunge in the first place.
 
Not in the grand scheme of things, no. But you were saying something about their singing style being an American thing or something. We already have the horror of Creed to contend with, don't go lumping foreign atrocities like Nickleback on us too. :p:
 
Back
Top