no no, i was just sayin that me sayin the Beatles suck is matter of my personal opinion, that doesnt mean they do. i was just answering your question that Brittney Spears isnt sucky to someone

they're both sh*tty bands in a huge pile of mediocre musicians fronted by an eddie vedder clone. theory of a dead man, creed, POM, and a ton of others, all sound the same, all have the same formula of catchy, bland lyrics and repetitive riffs. comparing them is like comparing falling to your death or getting shot. You can argue all you want about which is better, but in the end, they both suck horrible for all the same reasons.

Falling beats being shot simply because you get that moment to think "Oh ****! I fell!"

POM aren't grunge they are alt. rock, I agree that their music is influenced by many grunge bands or artists and it does sound alike. But it's not only them many other bands are the exact same way where people ofter confuse bands with the same sound or similar sound as grunge. I have to admit it's difficult to spot but POM is definatley missing parts in their music that is related with grunge.

Nickelback is defined as grunge......by about every source I know

Mainstream popularity should be thrown out the window when it comes to talent. I know people who can play guitar than any other pop-rco, grunge, whatever band you can think of. And according to the music they play it really isn't that hard. Not only that, but the creativity in mainstream music has died to the point where every song there is a major rip from something. Nobody mainstream plays music to advance music, they lay to get fans, money, and women. Now their are some circumstances (Tool, classic rock bands, etc,) which are talented mainstream, but lets not got here.

Talent is not a matter of taste and opinion

You do know they influenced just about every band you probably listen to.

I would agree with you on almost everything, but the lyrics part. Not all of theirs are like that, but either way the lyrics aren't good anyways.

What are those sources?

talent is a matter of taste and opinion, i think they have talent, others think they dont, alot of it has to do with taste and opinion.

obviously you have no clue what i all listen to, so dont go and say they influence everything i listen to

I really hate people that repeat this constantly.
I don`t see how two sh*tty generic MTV bands can be considered to have talent at all.

Did they do anything original? no.
Did they do anything groundbreaking? no.
Will they be remembered in the future for inspiring people to make interesting & thoughtful music? no.
Do people give a flying f*ck about 'hits' 2 or 3 years down the line? no

Are they bands that churn out middle of the road safe MTV grunge-lite crap that basically sounds like the worst excesses of 80s stadium rock repackaged as 'alternative rock' .......yes.

Seriously , save the word 'talent' for people who deserve it. Yes you do have the right to call anybody you want talented, but at least come up with something better than 'they had some chart hits' for your reasons or you will end up looking very very silly.

My thoughts on the "lolz its an opinion!" arguement.

Talent is a matter of taste and opinion to those who have a good ear that understands talent. When I listen to people talk about how talented those emo bands are I sit and laugh my butt off because they should not use talent in any sentence if they believe that.

Oh yeah and if you listen to these bands you have just accepted your music was influenced by the Beetles.

"those emo bands" is a broad category. And dont you mean The Beatles? And yes, almost all rock and roll has been influenced by them in one way or another, thats not a bad thing/

I am against all emo, pop-rock and mainstream music in general. So no matter how broad, my thoughts are the same. Second of all everything after that sentence mattered to the degree of 0%. Okay so I forget to capitalize "The." Well who gives? Not only that, but what does "Its not a bad thing" have to do with anything?"

wow all of it huh? So no Beatles, Rolling Stones, Nirvana etc. And i was only saying that because it seemed like you were making being influenced by the Beatles out to be a bad thing, which i don't understand...

You do know that "emo" was around before it had mainstream success right?

I belive I posted above that classic rock was a exception. And yes I knew emo was around, but overall emo music isn't demanding at all.

Now why would somebody make a daft statement like that?

Ah! There we go

I was going to make a witty reply but urban basically covered it. So i'll just say Inuzuka Skysword you fail and don't know what you're talking about.

Don't hurt me, but I actually kind of like both.

*hides*

what you mean 'kind of'? :p

Cause I haven't heard enough Puddle Of Mudd songs yet. In fact I'm looking them up now =)

Cool Cool, download some neuroticfish i refuse to let them ignore that thread anymore.

Nickelback might be the worst band to make it big. The lead singer sounds like he has been smoking a pack a day for 30 years. Puddle of Mudd was good back in the day.

Oh come on your not saying chad croger isn't a telented vocalist, if anyone on this forum can ****ing sing better than him i'll take my hat off to you.

Having looked some other songs up (don't ask me to name them <___<) I've decided that Nickelback > Puddle of Mudd.

lol he isn't a talented vocalist. Look at the guy's range I mean it is terrible.

They are the best genres....

Name one then, right now....

"Name one then, right now...."

name what? good mainstream emo bands?

the cure are good, and though not entirely mainstream-fugazi manages to have a pretty big fanbase.

And both of those bands have been dubbed "emo" which doesn't mean anything really.
*off subject*
didn't it used to stand for emotive hardcore? what exactly does that mean?

I have heard both and am not a fan of either.

And yes the definition has changed. Emotive hardcore is called screamo (wild guess.)

they are both complete wastes of the american publics time
screw payola bands

You don't know emo, and I havn't seen a single mainstream emo band either.

Nickelback does have a terrible vocalist, I can sing better then him. He has no range and his voice isn't anything great either. Also DontRunMeOver is a million times better then him. A_Perfect_Sonnet also.

nickelback songs are f*cking easy as hell to sing. Like someone else said, they've got a very shallow range. Any drunken hick in a kareokee bar can sound the same as nickelback. all you have to do is smoke for a few hours so your vocal chords are good and shot, then force the words out in a gravely half-scream, and voila! you are now the newest half-a**ed eddy vedder clone!

It doesn't matter how hard you pew pew this thread won't die.

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...tow/pewpew.jpg


pr00f

^try peow peow-ing it

I'd have to buy a new lazer.

your quite the artist. I liked your failure phone especially.

I stand by my claim, i've seen them live and the guy sang like a demon, and after listening in depth to nickelback some of his songs ARE vocally impressive, plus the range hardly can be considered the basis for how well he sings, i like his voice, some people say it sounds a bit put on, but when i think of voices like that i think more along the line of the phonics and i rate Kroegers voice far more so, i just wouldn't dismiss him as a vocalist and Ethan i've heard you sing and i'd hardly compare you to Kroeger, i can't believe anyone would go as far as to call him a karaoke singer. ****IN' RIDICULOUS I SAY!

I find bands like Nckelback annoying because the lyrics are so prominent. And it's not that thats a bad thing, but when your lyrics are roughly the same with every single released it gets pretty boring pretty quick.

Yeah, the main weakness with Nickelback is the lyrics really. The music isn't exactly terrible. It's a whole lot better than most pop-rock crap.

For pop-rock, basically, it's okay really.

What good quality does he have vocally. The tone is the only thing you may even be able to argue with us because tone is pure opinion.

I know how to sing, he does not and i'm sorry but I consider range a key thing to someone being a talented vocalists.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBR6A_A9ZS4

After listening to that I wouldn't consider him a good vocalist, his voice is boring and sounds like your typical 'rock' singer you hear on the radio. Plus after reading that all you basically said was that you like his voice, therefore hes a good vocalist.

He should sound that way because he is on the radio. I agree with you that he is boreing sometimes.

Sorry, I forgot the radio had audiences and stages.