First of all, I'm not a fan of either of the bands but if I had to pick one of the two it would be Nickelback and if I had to pick best song from either one of them it would be Creed with "My sacrifice". The type of music I listen to is: Green day, Foo fighters, Red hot chili peppers, Nirvana, Creedence clearwater revival, The offspring, Guns n roses and more.
Pearl Jam is often considered as a great band though I don't really care for them but from what I've listened to I can almost not tell them apart from Creed. The singer has been blamed many times for copying Eddie Vedder's singing style. But when people then say that their music sucks and sounds bad... Then shouldn't the same go for Pearl Jam? Or is it simply because they were first and then Creed kinda stole their style? Because if you just listen to the music (ignore the music videos, that the singer might be a douchebag and so on) is Creed really that bad or is it just mainstream to hate them? If Creed came before Pearl Jam would it be switched positions? I think "My sacrifise" is a great song but it's the only one I like from the band. Why isn't it? I think if Pearl Jam released that song it would be consider great and one of their best. I mean for example Oasis sounds like a wannabe The Beatles band and the singer is a douchebag but people still consider them good.
And Nickelback. I think they have a few good songs (the hits in the top of their spotify page) but people hate them more than anything else. Their singer is far less annoying than Creed's singer and atleast they play instruments and can perform.
So why are these bands so ****? or are they good? I don't want to hear "the singer is an idiot (because Axl Rose was too). I also don't really understand what people mean when they say "generic" because a lot of bands can fit into the description of that.
