Reply With Quote
Neither, as the Pixies.
Dude, they do suck. But ac ulating gy hipster facebook points for hating on Nickelback only works on Facebook and not Spurstalk.
as?????? nickelback??? creative???
Neither, as the Pixies.
Dude, they do suck. But ac ulating gy hipster facebook points for hating on Nickelback only works on Facebook and not Spurstalk.
Mike Portnoy says hi.
I was just laughing at someone saying Nickelback have more talent than Nirvana.
I just learned how to play guitar 10 minutes ago. And now I can play all of nickelback's songs.
Most of you may not know that actually the Spurs come out (starting lineup song) to Nickelbacks Burn it to the Ground
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxgeSv88c2w
Well, that's just embarrassing.
It is the instrumental version though....Atleast it is more of a "rocker" song of nickelbacks and not the "ballady" stuff that usually gets put on the radio by them.
Ive notice that there recent albums have half "rock" songs and the rest "ballad" stuff.
If I ever owned a team, I'd make this song the intro:
If you'd play any instruments you'd realize that Kobain's guitar works have nothing to be desired, nor is their bassist a virtouso. Outside of Dave Grohl who, everyone else is less talented on their instrument than nickelback.
I was just laughing at someone saying Nickelback have more talent than Nirvana.
Now everything else is a matter of taste.
And if you want to mention lyrics of both bands...X100000000000000
gtown loves mainstream. the mookie crew scoffs at everything mainstream, especially haley baby.
I get the hatred and rivalry now. Intensity. Passion.
cROFL
it's almost as funny as usc's tings and the reggie bush lateral. i said.
Dirk4ATM, i'm not with nickelback here. Just trolling the one's who on obvious music who have just as ty taste.
Surely you can understand that.
dude, you're an idiot.
no one is saying nirvana was a band of instrumental virtuoso's. You said nickelback was better. I said you're an idiot. They both play mainly power chords. One changed the music scene. The other has made some ty records. Riffs and structure can be simple if everything else is in line. Obviously you are not a musician.
I am a musician, and chord progressions are not the single criteria for a talented band nor a good song.
Bach's Cello suite prelude 1 has at most 4-5 chords, having intricate chords progression doesn't mean . Everything in Music is based off V-I, if you don't count atonality that is. It's all the same , I-vi-IV-V forms the basis for many pop/rock songs. Nobody has changed the name of the game since Schoenberg. And the last mainstream genre which featured complex chordal structures and modulations was Swing.
So that brings me to nirvana. They didn't invent . They blended some forms of new wave, punk, and hard rock. Bands like the Pixies and others were already doing that crap since '82. They were at the right place at the right time. So you went from using digital delay, chorus and hard tube screaming distortion on jap guitars in the 80's to using tube amps and overdrive with whiny lyrics in the 90's. Nothing has changed. It's all just a bunch of regurgitated featuring the same music principles.
So you want to label Nirvana Avante Garde because their lyrics were incoherent and they dressed like lumberjacks.
Kill yourself.
im not so sure we disagree on what you're stating here. I said they both use power chords. which is obviously not intricate chord progression. I did say those elements of music can be simple IF everyhting else is in line. Nirvana! Simple riffs, incoherent lyrics, regular clothes. It was EXACTLY the right place and right time. THAT changed the scene of MAINSTREAM music. Every band is influenced or does something similar to what they listen to or hear growing up. To make it seem as if Nirvana was the first band to emulate another is ridiculous. It adds nothing to your argument.
Again, i don't think we're disagreeing on the simplistic nature of Nirvana's riffs. We're disagreeing on the point that Nirvana is more talented than Nickelback.
So now we disagree on subjective taste or rather lack of.
I'll leave it there.
i haven't listened to nirvana in years but do respect their contribution.
anyway, what kind of music do you play and or listen to?
Walsh, dammit, no one likes Nickleback
I listened to Nirvana back in the late 90's, but enjoyed pearl jam and smashing pumpkins a little better. Deftones, Incubus, Muse, some Radiohead in the millenium, but now i just listen to Brahms, Schubert, and Charlie Parker.
i haven't listened to nirvana in years but do respect their contribution.
anyway, what kind of music do you play and or listen to?
I play both electric and i play classical.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
