Is Nickelback the Least Talented Band in History?

  • Thread starter RiseAgainst
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Band
In summary, Nickelback is a talentless band that is Canadian. They are not good at all and are not worth your time.
  • #1
RiseAgainst
46
0
It has to be Nickelback. I know there are other talentless bands out there but Nickelback is completely lacking any form of talent.
Plus they're Canadian.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Nickleback aren't talentless, if you are talentless you don't get a record deal generally. It might work in the pop world but rock tends to be more discerning. What they are is appealing to the soft core metal fans, that don't want to muddy their shoes.

Worst band ever, probably the bands coming to a garage near you, that never made it because they were diabolical and pointless.
 
  • #3
The Dagda said:
Nickleback aren't talentless, if you are talentless you don't get a record deal generally. It might work in the pop world but rock tends to be more discerning.

They are in the pop world, you can't tell me that Nickelback is a rock and roll band. The people with "talent" are the song writers because they know what will sell.
 
  • #5
RiseAgainst said:
They are in the pop world, you can't tell me that Nickelback is a rock and roll band. The people with "talent" are the song writers because they know what will sell.

Unfortunately they are rock. And as always the ones with the talent are the song writers, in a perfect world they would also be the band members. Pop rock maybe **** IYO but it's still rock.
 
  • #6
The Dagda said:
Unfortunately they are rock. And as always the ones with the talent are the song writers, in a perfect world they would also be the band members. Pop rock maybe **** IYO but it's still rock.

Pop rock doesn't make any sense, you're either pop or you're rock, and they are definitely pop. All of their songs sound the same and they all sound like many other pop bands. When I hear them it doesn't remind me of bands like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin, I think of stereotypical pop bands.
 
  • #7
RiseAgainst said:
Pop rock doesn't make any sense, you're either pop or you're rock, and they are definitely pop. All of their songs sound the same and they all sound like many other pop bands. When I hear them it doesn't remind me of bands like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin, I think of stereotypical pop bands.

Pop as in popular.

I feel your pain fellow rock fan though. :smile:

Putting Back in Black next to whatever insipid Album they have recently released seems a traversty. But I don't define the genre.
 
  • #8
Hands down...Maroon 5
 
  • #9
RiseAgainst said:
It has to be Nickelback. I know there are other talentless bands out there but Nickelback is completely lacking any form of talent.
Plus they're Canadian.

I don't know about talentless, but certainly one of the most overrated. There are a lot of bands out there that really suck.
 
  • #10
Coldplay has far less talent.

"Oh look at me, I can dress in a sexually ambiguous way and sing softly as to cater towards thirteen year old girls! Give me a record deal!"

Nothing makes my blood boil faster than to know that Coldplay could release a CD with one track on it, a recording of them telling their fans off, and it'd still sell a million copies.
 
  • #11
All that emo garbage. They're all so bad it's hard to pick the worst.
 
  • #12
green day, master of the quarter and eighth note.
 
  • #13
I don't follow groups; I hear what I hear and only find out who it is weeks or months later.


I was right at the head of the line at the "Nickleback is such derivative crap" festival.

I liked 'Ruled the World' but then found out it was Coldplay, and tried to bite my own head off (OK, I had a preconception about this band).

Green Day I find actually has some music-writing talent.
 
  • #14
Dave, search Utube to find really old Fleetwood Mac videos, back when the band was headed by Peter Green. 1970 on, the pretty much sucked after the principals were MIA.
 
  • #15
turbo-1 said:
Dave, search Utube to find really old Fleetwood Mac videos, back when the band was headed by Peter Green. 1970 on, the pretty much sucked after the principals were MIA.
Name me some sucking FWM songs.
 
  • #16
I agree with daveyinaz, maroon 5 always was pretty bad, though id rather listen to it rather than any emo music, that stuff is terrible.

Most of my friends love rap and a few even like the emo stuff, I wish I could get them into the good stuff like Pink Floyd and the Eagles, but as of now they seem hopeless lol.
 
  • #17
What about the all the bands that play music that sounds like a blender or other small applicance, and singing that sounds like a combination of yelling and vomitting? What's it called, screamo? Ugh. I nominate every band that plays in that style.
 
  • #18
lisab said:
What about the all the bands that play music that sounds like a blender or other small applicance, and singing that sounds like a combination of yelling and vomitting? What's it called, screamo? Ugh. I nominate every band that plays in that style.

Mercifully those have never been on any playlist I've been subjected to.

And I have listened whole albums of John Cage. So I do have a reasonably high pain threshold.
 
  • #19
lisab said:
What about the all the bands that play music that sounds like a blender or other small applicance, and singing that sounds like a combination of yelling and vomitting? What's it called, screamo? Ugh. I nominate every band that plays in that style.

I second that.

Putting it in words like that makes me sound old, though. Haha.
 
  • #20
DaveC426913 said:
Name me some sucking FWM songs.
Compared with the stuff Fleetwood Mac was puting out in the '60's, you can just about take your pick. I should mention that after Peter Green and Jeremy Spencer had both flaked out and left, Danny Kirwan did as well as could be expected, resulting in the Kiln House album with its many Buddy Holly - inspired songs. If you want to see why Fleetwood Mac of Rumours fame (or shame) sounded the way it did, you must pick up a copy of Buckingham - Nicks. That album was a work in progress when Mick, John, and Christine were searching around California looking for somebody new to front the band. Cue up any song from Buckingham - Nicks, and I will guarantee you that people will say "Fleetwood Mac" if they are less than 50 years old or are entirely uneducated about British rock/clues of the '60's. BTW Black Magic Woman was a cover song, as was Green Manilishi, decades later.

Fleetwood Mac of the '70's and later was nothing like Fleetwood Mac of the '60's. Peter Green succeeded Eric Clapton in Mayall's Bluesbreakers, and after Mayall gave Green some studio time for Christmas one year, Green persuaded Mick Fleetwood to jump ship and form a new band. He had already named the band after the rhythm section, despite the fact that John Mac Vie had elected to stay with Mayall. Mac Vie relented and history was born.
 
  • #21
You guys need to get out more, and expand your horizons of badness. Think "The Shaggs" for pop and the "Portsmouth Sinfonia" for classical. For opera, little can compare to Florence Foster Jenkins.

Once you've listened to them, then you can talk.
 
  • #23
turbo-1 said:
Compared with the stuff Fleetwood Mac was puting out in the '60's, you can just about take your pick.
Yeah, I just don't know any but their popular ones.
 
  • #24
Nabeshin said:
All that emo garbage. They're all so bad it's hard to pick the worst.

daveyinaz said:
Hands down...Maroon 5

Both you are so right! Maroon 5 is over rated and emo... well...
 
  • #25
Code:
All that emo garbage. They're all so bad it's hard to pick the worst.

I think My Chemical Romance and Simple Plan are emo are they not?

I liked both enough to buy an album, which is saying a lot for me.
 
  • #26
The only music type with no redeeming features for me is dance (and even then there are one or two bands that put the effort in), particularly hardcore, trance, flip-flop, skance, and all that crap.

The worst bands are the remixers, put a drum beat in the background and re-release someone else's song, genius; now that is talentless, even the drum beat is done by a computer. :rolleyes:
 
  • #27
The Dagda said:
The only music type with no redeeming features for me is dance... particularly hardcore

What does hardcore have to do with dance music? H2O, Rise Against, and Minor Threat are hardcore. I do agree with the emo and dance bands/people. They are equally as bad as nickelback.
 
  • #28
RiseAgainst said:
What does hardcore have to do with dance music? H2O, Rise Against, and Minor Threat are hardcore. I do agree with the emo and dance bands/people. They are equally as bad as nickelback.

Hardcore dance, it's rubbish honestly. Not hardcore metal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_techno
 
  • #29
Lol I listened to the sample on that wikipedia page and it sounds to me like a lot of the music released with the older DDR games.
 
  • #30
DaveC426913 said:
Code:
All that emo garbage. They're all so bad it's hard to pick the worst.

I think My Chemical Romance and Simple Plan are emo are they not?

I liked both enough to buy an album, which is saying a lot for me.

No not really either of those. Simple Plan is a 90s punk band and MCR, while odd and dramatic, they're not emo.
 
  • #31
binzing said:
No not really either of those. Simple Plan is a 90s punk band and MCR, while odd and dramatic, they're not emo.
Hmph. My family - who likes to tease me - would beg to differ.
 
  • #32
DaveC426913 said:
Hmph. My family - who likes to tease me - would beg to differ.

I don't really like either of those bands, but I won't make fun of you.
 
  • #33
DaveC426913 said:
Hmph. My family - who likes to tease me - would beg to differ.

I'd tease you too for those :-p
 

FAQ: Is Nickelback the Least Talented Band in History?

What makes a band the "least talented" or "worst" ever?

This is a subjective question and can vary from person to person. Some may consider a band to be the "least talented" based on their technical abilities, while others may consider a band to be the "worst" based on their personal taste in music.

Are there any objective measures for determining the "least talented" or "worst" band?

There are certain measures, such as album sales, critical reception, and awards, that can give an indication of a band's success and talent. However, these measures do not necessarily determine a band's overall talent or quality.

Can a band improve and go from being the "least talented" or "worst" to being successful?

Yes, it is possible for a band to improve and become successful. Many bands have faced criticism early in their careers but have gone on to become highly successful and acclaimed.

Is it fair to label a band as the "least talented" or "worst"?

Labeling a band as the "least talented" or "worst" is a matter of personal opinion and can be subjective. It is important to recognize that every band has their own unique style and appeal, and what may be considered the "worst" to one person may be the favorite band of another.

How can a band overcome the label of being the "least talented" or "worst" ever?

A band can overcome this label by continuing to create and perform music that resonates with their audience. They can also work on improving their skills and evolving their sound to appeal to a wider audience. Ultimately, success and talent are subjective, and it is important for a band to stay true to their own style and vision.

Similar threads

Back
Top