Quote:
Originally Posted by jackhammer
Stop changing the subject. You started a thread concerning Tool and Nickleback, obviously knowing nothing about each. Why?
|
Stop changing the subject? I had been DISCUSSING it. You asked me an off-topic question. I answered it.
Now, on to your current question. While it is true that I know little about Nickelback's post-millenium work other than what the rest of y'all know - that is to say, the hits themselves - I had listened to them prior to their becoming successful.
As for Tool, they used to be my favourite band and I once thought of them as the best thing pretty much ever. I have all of their albums and have probably listened to each at least three dozen times including Opiate. I've been to live gigs. It sounds awfully pathetic and a sad thing to say, but since it kinda fits into the discussion context, please "don't dispute my Tool credentials". I now conclude, however, a few years on, that they're really not much better than Nickelback. What the two bands share in common is that they are both the biggest and most commercially important within their given subgenres. I made this clear in the opening thread.
The Tool of today are largely the embodiment of the classical victim of commercial demand. Reasons for this have been stated elsewhere. They're also outrageously overrated from a creative perspective, Maynard being given God-like status for his often mediocre lyrics (and before he obviously must have taken some sort of vocal training programme in the last 6 years, a ghastly voice too), and the remainder for their having come up maximally with about 18 good songs in coming on 20 years.
As for Nickelback I have been descriptive above all. I state with an intent to point out what their fans think of them. But I'll admit that Nickelback, on the basis of some of the very worst of their lyrics, are a cut below Maynard and buddies really.
On the genre question, Nickelback are often classified as post-grunge, though it's not really accurate and the only reason it holds is because of Kroeger's vocal style. They have more to do with late 70s/early 80s pop metal. Hell, when it comes to their mid-tempo balladry they really have more in common with the likes of Aerosmith than any typical band deriving from grunge (that's not to say they weren't influenced at all, though). If Kroeger had a high pitched voice, nobody would assocaite them with post-grunge.