http://www.thewebshite.net/nickelback.htm
[URL="http://www.starwarsepics.com"]Star Wars Epics[/URL] :: Like Star Wars, but with better dialogue.
[size=1]"So the woman asked me what I wanted on the sandwich and I said I do not care it is for a duck, and she was like oh then it's free. I was not aware that ducks eat for free at Subway. It's like give me a chicken fajita sub, but don't worry about ringing it up, it is for a duck.”
-Mitch Hedberg
[/size]
Demosthenes X:No, there are many things wrong with Nickleback. They're a band with no composition ability and litterally have reused the same music pieces over and over again, which contradicts your fluid, stagnant statement. They're lazy, but pushed to the fore by a giant relentless marketing machine that simply thrives off lazy.
Kas, there's nothing wrong per say with Nickleback. Their music is catchy and well-liked. I simply fail to understand how people can really like them as a band. That 'Rock Star' is a popular song says very little - chances are many people who like it have not heard anything else by the band (as is often the case with people who listen to the radio but do not buy CDs).
Nickleback's songs are ridiculously predictable and, while good in and of themselves, do not represent a good band. I would rather be disapointed by a band that tries to innovate and actually show some artistic merit than listen to a band rehash the same themes and chords for six albums.
Simply put, if I were considering buying the new Nickleback album, I would stop and say "wait, I have one album, I can listen to that one" and get the exact same thing out of it.
To me, a band should be making music. Nickleback, on the other hand, is making music. Music is fluid, not stagnent. I can enjoy Nickleback, but I can't really support them as a band. They would almost better be described as a cover band - they sound good, they play well, but they don't bring anything new to the table.