# Nickleback Slagged Again



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

So what else is new? The new whipping boys of rock and roll. It matters not a whit to them with their big bankrolls though. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-keys-nickelback-criticism-rolling-stone.html


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm probably considered old by most people on GC so my opinion might not be to valid, but this carping by the Black Keys about Nickleback sounds to me like a dog barking up a dead horses ass, the horse didn't care, I doubt if Nickleback will either.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm not a Picklesack fan either, but if we concentrated on positive stuff instead of negative stuff...oh, never mind.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## cwittler (May 17, 2011)

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/nickelback_thank_black_keys_for_insult.html


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I have voiced my opinion in other Nickleback threads, and I get way too angry in the threads and end up offending Nickleback songs. I will just say I agree with the Black Keys' guy 1000%.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

A band that has sold 2M albums insults a band that has sold 50m albums....OHHHHHHHH BURRRRNNN!!!!


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Diablo said:


> A band that has sold 2M albums insults a band that has sold 50m albums....OHHHHHHHH BURRRRNNN!!!!



As is said, there's one born every minute; too bad most of them end up on city counsel, running condominium corporations becoming lawyers, and the worst of the bunch the PTA. Some days humanity looks a lot like Australia; a thin green frill filled with a lot of empty brown. Guess what colour those 50m are 

[video=youtube;aOZPBUu7Fro]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZPBUu7Fro[/video]


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I was going to respond to this thread and then thought, "Why bother."


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I dislike Nickleback. If there is a thread about them I will typically stop in and say so, as I would about Katy Perry's music if there were a thread about her music. I generally don't go around looking to comment about the stuff that I don't like because there is no use wasting the energy - it isn't constructive.

The greater statement is that sure the one band has sold 2m and the other has sold 50m. Sales is popularity. The most popular is often aligned with the poorest taste. That's the business. I'd love to have the money but I'd hate to have to sing Photograph or whatever song a couple of times per week.

Bottom line is that they don't HAVE to get up in the morning if they don't want to.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I cannot stand Nickleback and I like the Black Keys (have about 4 or their albums). BUT . . .

The Black Keys license their music for just about any product out there (just tune in some commercials and you will here them). Before you start accusing other band's of "selling out" practice a bit of reflexivity.

NB gets slagged because they are supposed to be a "rock band" and are not predominantly marketed to/for teenage girls. But if you think of them like any other popular star/act, instead of Led Zep or Metallica, how are they any worse than most of the other music you hear on the radio?

TG


----------



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

I'm not a fan of Nickleback but its not that band that's killing rock and roll. Its the record industry that is only interested in how many units they can sell. If musical merit alone decided what was popular or not then you might actually get to see some more musicians on the radio or at the Grammy's. Instead we get a bunch people who are "good" at rhyming words over pre-recorded beats. 
There is a ton of great music out there and places like youtube has made it so easy to find out about it. I don't listen to commercial radio or watch music channels anymore. Like it or not the last time decent rock music dominated the airwaves was the grunge era.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Video killed the radio star.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Roryfan said:


> Video killed the radio star.


 
Sadly, I think Boney M did:



> *Boney M.* is a singing vocal group created by German record producer Frank Farian.


The important part isn't anything else in that entire wiki page (other than the reality revealed by the leaving of


> Claudja Barry – tired of merely lip-synching


So why is Frank of interest? Well, Boney M was a super group made for their look and not voices. Frank sang their parts, sped up and slowed down, layered or backing. I have heard from people that have claimed that some songs were entirely done by him. Frank made a mint doing this and that raised him to the peek of manufactured bands


> In 1990, he admitted orchestrating the events which led to the Milli Vanilli scandal, a musical equivalent of ghostwriting.


However, that set the stage for others to say "_ho there I see, get some pretty boys out front that can dance and are sexy, doesn't matter if the can do squat more and we get rich_" and what followed were SO many sad states of the nation of music that it's heart breaking to list them.

Ok yes, there were a few made bands prior to Frank. The Monkeys, Sex Pistols etc. Frank showed how to do that AND make gobs and gobs of money.


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

It begs the question, what is rock and roll? To me rock and roll swings. It was born from the shuffle. Nickelback plays rock music or pop music but not rock and roll.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

It's the media who should be slagged here. They took one comment by another performer(Matthew Goode), and for lack of other material to publish, they put it out there, hyped it as 'controversial', and kept it out there because they had nothing better to write about. It's like writing about Paris Hilton versus Nicole Ritchie. Same thing with the Black Keys. NB sell tons of records, lots of people like them, just as they like music from other beer and babe bands. There's lots of simple music out there that people enjoy. So now the whole thing has gone viral which is totally ridiculous. It's complete nonsense. Bottom line - they sell records to people who like their music.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

keeperofthegood said:


> Roryfan said:
> 
> 
> > Video killed the radio star.
> ...


Agreed. The problem with the music industry is the fact that it has become an industry. Industries design, manufacture & market product. Call me naive, but I always thought that music was about artists creating art.

This bring said, my boogie oogie boogie woogie dancin' shoes still keep me dancin' all night.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> As is said, there's one born every minute; too bad most of them end up on city counsel, running condominium corporations becoming lawyers, and the worst of the bunch the PTA. Some days humanity looks a lot like Australia; a thin green frill filled with a lot of empty brown. Guess what colour those 50m are
> 
> [video=youtube;aOZPBUu7Fro]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZPBUu7Fro[/video]


I dont buy in to the phony elitist attitude that some have "Oh my tastes are so much more refined because I listen to obscure bands and not the same bands that the millions of unwashed plebes listen to" or even thinly veiled sexist comments "ohhh...that band must suck because a lot of girls dig their music".
I just dont see the logic that something with limited appeal must inherently be "better" than something with mass appeal.
By that reasoning, the average street busker must be vastly superior to led Zep and The beatles, based on his limited fanbase.
Similarly,there should never be any debate about who the "best guitarist/band" etc is, just simply pick the one with the LEAST sales and fewest hits  So that would likely mean, Yngwie is better than Eric Clapton, Hendrix or EVH by a long shot! All bow to YJM! 

The least popular girl in high school must have been the most beautiful...damn, what was I thinking, I should have asked her out!

Its like music snobs live in bizarro world.

Its one thing to not like something, but a completely ridiculous thing to say "I dont like it even though millions of others do, and therefore i must be right/superior". Theres no basis for qualifying a subjective experience that way. Its a stupid way to unenecessarily justify ones own tastes, while putting down those of others.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I dont buy in to the phony elitist attitude that some have "Oh my tastes are so much more refined because I listen to obscure bands and not the same bands that the millions of unwashed plebes listen to" or even thinly veiled sexist comments "ohhh...that band must suck because a lot of girls dig their music".
> I just dont see the logic that something with limited appeal must inherently be "better" than something with mass appeal.
> By that reasoning, the average street busker must be vastly superior to led Zep and The beatles, based on his limited fanbase.
> Similarly,there should never be any debate about who the "best guitarist/band" etc is, just simply pick the one with the LEAST sales and fewest hits  So that would likely mean, Yngwie is better than Eric Clapton, Hendrix or EVH by a long shot! All bow to YJM!
> ...


Very well said!


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

there is more history of reason for the expression "mewling masses". Without them B T Barnum and Bailey would never have made a buck. Just because it is the popular thing in no way makes it right, good, or even healthy to do.

Heard mentality is a natural part of the human animal and marketers and promoters know this. It is so predictable that there are mathematical formula applied to humans in behaviour prediction that are pretty accurate. When everything is quantified, codified, and catalogued what's being sold? Your predetermined predictable response.

And I have seen some great players that have started out as buskers. Not ones who come first to peoples minds too. Not had a coffee yet but Loreena McKennitt comes easy to mind as one such. Her I knew of when she was a busker and was one of a series of musicians interviewed on a TVO special. That was a good five years before her first album was out when she was taking her harp on street cars to go find places to play.

To me popular simply does not immediately equate to good, or even reasonably worth while bothering with. Never has; though popular is not by that virtue bad. There is a lot of great things/places/people/events etc that are recognised by many people across age/gender/ethnicities etc as being great.


So, 50 million bought their albums. That says more marketing success than quality product. Many such millions also buy Oreo cookies. Should I pass on something that really does taste good and not leave me with roiling indigestion in favour of an Oreo because the those millions simply couldn't have been wrong?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> there is more history of reason for the expression "mewling masses". Without them B T Barnum and Bailey would never have made a buck. Just because it is the popular thing in no way makes it right, good, or even healthy to do.
> 
> Heard mentality is a natural part of the human animal and marketers and promoters know this. It is so predictable that there are mathematical formula applied to humans in behaviour prediction that are pretty accurate. When everything is quantified, codified, and catalogued what's being sold? Your predetermined predictable response.
> 
> ...


Thanks I was too tired to address Diablo's points with anything coherent lol. The other factor is there is a huge audience out there who still listen to radio, and will still listen to whatever is shoved into their ears 5 times a day. Or get beaten into submission by it. And to further your point, just because something is played on the radio 5 times a day it does not mean it's 'good'. Everyone knows there are plenty of criteria, most of them involving money, that leads to bands getting radio play. Especially nowadays with the confining formats.

I like a lot of mainstream music. In fact, some of the things I like would be embarrassing for me to admit on this forum. My dislike of Nickleback has nothing to do with music elitism.


----------



## prodigal_son (Apr 23, 2009)

I 've heard The Black Keys, older and newer. They aren't much better than Nickelback IMHO. To say that they are killing rock and roll, though? Hardly. Nickelback just have superior legal representation. Duh.. 

It really is just a big piece of shit calling a bigger piece of shit a piece of shit. Could you imagine if they jammed or formed a super group? Serious shit, eh?


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> Thanks I was too tired to address Diablo's points with anything coherent lol. The other factor is there is a huge audience out there who still listen to radio, and will still listen to whatever is shoved into their ears 5 times a day. Or get beaten into submission by it. And to further your point, just because something is played on the radio 5 times a day it does not mean it's 'good'. Everyone knows there are plenty of criteria, most of them involving money, that leads to bands getting radio play. Especially nowadays with the confining formats.
> 
> I like a lot of mainstream music. In fact, some of the things I like would be embarrassing for me to admit on this forum. My dislike of Nickleback has nothing to do with music elitism.


This type of thing has been going on for years.....

Interesting story that happened to me this week. I don't consider myself and elitist but more eclectic. When the masses were listening to CHUM.. of course the eclectic were listening to CHUM FM. I have always been attracted to things that were off the beaten path. 

So fast forward a couple of decades.. I have been playing with some friends that trying to get serious about playing. They mostly are die hard old country fans... a genre that I have not listened nor cared for much. My tastes tended toward that ALT country styles of New Riders, Graham Parsons, Burrito Bros etc etc... which I always thought more of a parody. 

Being a huge fan of Ry Cooder I quickly learned that song "He'll have to Go " I know that version in my head ( it's been around since 77'). At the beginning of this week I couldn't even tell you who the original artist was. 

When I presented it to the group ( I hadn't spent any time learning it )... I was even asked if I had heard the song before?? Mostly because I was playing is slowly feeling my way through the song. Funny thing is that when I did look up the original it's even slower than the Cooder version. 

Anyway there was a person there just listening. He asked me.." How come you know all this stuff about music but you don't know any of the good old country ?"

The curse of being non mainstream? I do know that I get over exposed to a lot of music courtesy of radio. That's what turns me off of many artists. Nickelback is high on that list. My favourite artists have no problem making their way through different styles and experiments. I don't know the Nickelback catalouge but I bet you could put the early stuff and the new stuff on the same record and nobody would know the difference. Where's the growth? Hell, even Willie Nelson and Sinead O'Conner made stabs at reggae styles.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

[video=youtube;TlP6tixELbQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlP6tixELbQ[/video]


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

keeperofthegood said:


> So, 50 million bought their albums. That says more marketing success than quality product.




Actually, I think it means that a lot of people like their music.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> True. A lot of people are pretty easily swayed, though. I can't tell you how many people I know who, when you ask their favourite music, *they say something along the lines of "whatever is on the radio"*. Most people on a guitar board are going to be pretty "into" music. Regardless of our respective tastes, music is pretty important to almost everybody here. The vast majority of the population are not really "music people", though, and won't go out of their way to find music or really have very strong opinions about what they like and don't like. They'll listen to whatever they're fed. Those are the people that marketing works very well on.


Exactly. We are musicians and a lot of us have eclectic music tastes. It's easy to forget there is a whole market out there who basically listens to exactly what they are told to listen to. They hear the same song 5 times a day on the radio to really drill that into their brains as well. I know plenty of people who still have no desire to seek out any music beyond what they hear on the radio. That market really does still exist.

The simple fact to remember is Vanilla Ice sold MILLIONS of albums. That was pure marketing genius. There is no one out there, even him, that would make the argument that he was making incredible music. It was just sold well.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> The simple fact to remember is Vanilla Ice sold MILLIONS of albums. That was pure marketing genius. There is no one out there, even him, that would make the argument that he was making incredible music. It was just sold well.


Yo, V.I.P. let's kick it.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Interesting comparison. Ok, lets go with Vanilla Ice VS Nickleback.

Vanilla's best hit (and only one I know and it had 6 #1 positions) Ice Ice Baby sold in the US 1,000,000 copies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Ice_Baby#Certifications


Nicklebacks best hit (had 6 #1 positions) How you Remind me sold in the US 500,000 copies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_You_Remind_Me#Certifications

The rest of the global certifications are lower for Nickleback as well...


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Also, it should be clarified that my point above is solely posted to counter that just because music sells, it means it's good artistically. And that when it comes to mainstream music there are all kinds of factors for what sells. I am not saying it's right or wrong to like Nickleback or any other music. I like some music that is horrible, but I can admit it is lol


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> Also, it should be clarified that my point above is solely posted the counter that just because music sells, it means it's good artistically. And that when it comes to mainstream music there are all kinds of factors for what sells. I am not saying it's right or wrong to like Nickleback or any other music. I like some music that is horrible, but I can admit it is lol


 I know I have said it here before. I do like Yoko Ono. BUT SHHHHH you didn't hear me say that out loud LOL


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> Also, it should be clarified that my point above is solely posted to counter that just because music sells, it means it's good artistically. And that when it comes to mainstream music there are all kinds of factors for what sells. I am not saying it's right or wrong to like Nickleback or any other music. I like some music that is horrible, but I can admit it is lol


Define "good music, artistically" please.Also,define "horrible music". Criteria, etc.Other than obvious things like being out of tune, off key, or unable to keep a beat, I don't think I can, which is why I think a lot of posts in here labeling bands as one or the other, are elitists talking out their asses.The difference between being elitist and eclectic, is the value judgments that are made by elitists.But I'm happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Define "good music, artistically" please.Also,define "horrible music". Criteria, etc.Other than obvious things like being out of tune, off key, or unable to keep a beat, I don't think I can, which is why I think a lot of posts in here labeling bands as one or the other, are elitists talking out their asses.The difference between being elitist and eclectic, is the value judgments that are made by elitists.But I'm happy to be proven wrong.



I think part of it is blindfolds. If you hear 5 songs you've not heard before in a row while blindfolded and you cannot name what band did what song because they all sound enough alike as to be pretty much interchangeably indistinct that you do approach the musical equivalent to beige.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> I think part of it is blindfolds. If you hear 5 songs you've not heard before in a row while blindfolded and you cannot name what band did what song because they all sound enough alike as to be pretty much interchangeably indistinct that you do approach the musical equivalent to beige.


Hmmmm.....that doesn't work for me....I think the example you give could apply to ANY genre one doesn't normally listen to....in my case, as someone who doesn't like country, jazz or hardcore punk, I couldn't distinguish between any handful of songs in each genre you played for me. That doesn't make them "bad" artistically or musically. in fact, the deficiency is on my end for not being able to discern the differences, not any fault of the musicians or songs themselves. And I certainly don't deserve to think of myself having highly refined or superior tastes due to this deficiency. Nor should anyone else. All genres are derivative. And mainstream, commercial rock, pop etc is a genre unto itself.

So again, if someone cannot provide the definitions I asked for previously, then the labels like bad, horrible, etc are pure BS. Its a pisspoor attempt to pass off something entirely subjective as matter of fact.
Big difference in saying "I don't like something" and "this is garbage".
I don't like liver and onions...it doesn't make it garbage, just because little old me cant appreciate it.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> Also, it should be clarified that my point above is solely posted to counter that just because music sells, it means it's good artistically. And that when it comes to mainstream music there are all kinds of factors for what sells. I am not saying it's right or wrong to like Nickleback or any other music. I like some music that is horrible, but I can admit it is lol


So are the Rolling Stones " good artistically"? They've sold an awful lot of albums, and would be considered mainstream. Are they the sellout Nickelback of their generation?This is the problem with this argument....it's hypocritical...you pick and choose who is a trashy sellout and who is simply immensely good/successful, whenever it mirrors your personal taste, with no rhyme or reason to it eg. The Stones success is because they are great, Nickelbacks success is because they suck. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

I've followed this thread and a couple of others here on GC slagging Nickleback and I have to ask these musicians one question would you accept an offer to be the opening act for Nickleback, think before you answer, there would be a lot of money and exposure for any band that got this kind of chance, if you refused this you might never get another chance to break in to what is called the big time. Everyone has to decide if getting a big break is what you want or are you willing to let a dislike for someone stop your career. I know money isn't everything but a chance like that doesn't come along every day. You might dislike them but damn those crowds and big paydays sure do look good. Think twice before you answer. I really don't give a shit about Nickleback either way.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Professional music is a double edged sword. On the one hand it is art and something you are good at and enjoy doing. On the other hand it is the way you make a living. You have no control over market forces so you either go with the flow or fight it. If you choose to fight it and you also want to make a living at it, you had better have a better and better marketed product than the mainstream offerings to alter the flow to your advantage. Only a handfull of musicians have ever really been able to do that and even then it mostly coincided with other cultural events and upheavals.

As a business person, you manufacture what sells. If you make red widgets and green widgets and the red ones sell but the green ones don't, you make lots of red widgets and quit making the green ones.

However, nobody should be making crap and marketing it to a gullible public as candy.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

bluzfish said:


> If you make red widgets and green widgets and the red ones sell but the green ones don't, you make lots of red widgets and quit making the green ones.


So if red widgets are "mainstream" and green widgets are "alternative", where am I going to buy green widgets if you quit making them. You should just reduce the number of green widgets you make to reflect market conditions. I personally like green widgets however, I am leaning towards the new stainless widgets that have become popular as of late.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

And just wait til you get a load of the new paisley widgets!

My tastes run toward anything but mainstream. If it's fashionable, I run the other way. But unfortunately the music business is just that - a money making business. That being said, one has to admire bands like Archade Fire who stuck by their unusual form of music for many hungry years before breaking the barriers. We always need great bands with that kind of FU courage.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

fredyfreeloader said:


> I've followed this thread and a couple of others here on GC slagging Nickleback and I have to ask these musicians one question would you accept an offer to be the opening act for Nickleback, think before you answer, there would be a lot of money and exposure for any band that got this kind of chance, if you refused this you might never get another chance to break in to what is called the big time. Everyone has to decide if getting a big break is what you want or are you willing to let a dislike for someone stop your career. I know money isn't everything but a chance like that doesn't come along every day. You might dislike them but damn those crowds and big paydays sure do look good. Think twice before you answer. I really don't give a shit about Nickleback either way.



No way! Despite the great exposure, Nickleback fans would HATE my music!!


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

bluzfish said:


> That being said, one has to admire bands like Archade Fire who stuck by their unusual form of music for many hungry years before breaking the barriers. We always need great bands with that kind of FU courage.


I went to see Arcade Fire last summer and man, was that a show!!


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Hmmmm.....that doesn't work for me....I think the example you give could apply to ANY genre one doesn't normally listen to....in my case, as someone who doesn't like country, jazz or hardcore punk, I couldn't distinguish between any handful of songs in each genre you played for me. That doesn't make them "bad" artistically or musically. in fact, the deficiency is on my end for not being able to discern the differences, not any fault of the musicians or songs themselves. And I certainly don't deserve to think of myself having highly refined or superior tastes due to this deficiency. Nor should anyone else. All genres are derivative. And mainstream, commercial rock, pop etc is a genre unto itself.
> 
> So again, if someone cannot provide the definitions I asked for previously, then the labels like bad, horrible, etc are pure BS. Its a pisspoor attempt to pass off something entirely subjective as matter of fact.
> Big difference in saying "I don't like something" and "this is garbage".
> I don't like liver and onions...it doesn't make it garbage, just because little old me cant appreciate it.



 I said beige not bad. Yes, ALL genres of music do suffer their fair share of marketed beige bands too.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Diablo said:


> So are the Rolling Stones " good artistically"? They've sold an awful lot of albums, and would be considered mainstream. Are they the sellout Nickelback of their generation?This is the problem with this argument....it's hypocritical...you pick and choose who is a trashy sellout and who is simply immensely good/successful, whenever it mirrors your personal taste, with no rhyme or reason to it eg. The Stones success is because they are great, Nickelbacks success is because they suck. You can't have it both ways.


Rolling Stones have put out some albums that they will admit themselves are horrible. Any many of their later albums were completely driven by the marketing machine and made simply to push out another tour. But, to further some other's arguments regarding music quality earlier in the thread, they also broke ground, tried new things, and put out a huge chain of greta albums early in their career. They did not follow a single formula just to repeat hits. That will mean more to some people that others. For someone like me, I respect that more and yes, I will say that is more what music is about for me. But, it's also not relevant to the marketing point made in earlier posts in any way.

And I am not saying Nickleback are sellouts, and I don't think anyone else has used that term either. You just seem to want to keep adding new elements to the discussion. Nickleback always wanted to play whatever pop oriented rock would make them money. So they didn't sell out. They are doing exactly what they choose to do. They have a formula, and they will follow it to repeat their successes. The reason their music is as successful as it is, is as much related to marketing (radio, promotion, payola) then it's quality though. Bands have been marketed to success forever. This is not some new concept. There are bands created and promoted simply to fill some niche in the market.

Also, I don't 'pick' anything. My opinion on Nickleback as a band is not relative. Especially not to this part of the discussion. In this thread in fact, you will see I haven't said anything nasty about the band in any way. I and a couple of others are only making posts about the marketing machine.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> Rolling Stones have put out some albums that they will admit themselves are horrible. Any many of their later albums were completely driven by the marketing machine and made simply to push out another tour. But, to further some other's arguments regarding music quality earlier in the thread, they also broke ground, tried new things, and put out a huge chain of greta albums early in their career. They did not follow a single formula just to repeat hits. That will mean more to some people that others. For someone like me, I respect that more and yes, I will say that is more what music is about for me. But, it's also not relevant to the marketing point made in earlier posts in any way. And I am not saying Nickleback are sellouts, and I don't think anyone else has used that term either. You just seem to want to keep adding new elements to the discussion. Nickleback always wanted to play whatever pop oriented rock would make them money. So they didn't sell out. They are doing exactly what they choose to do. The reason their music is as successful as it is, is as much related to marketing (radio, promotion, payola) then it's quality though. Bands have been marketed to success forever. This is not some new concept. There are bands created and promoted simply to fill some niche in the market. Also, I don't 'pick' anything. My opinion on Nickleback as a band is not relative. Especially not to this part of the discussion. In this thread in fact, you will see I haven't said anything nasty about the band in any way. I and a couple of others are only making posts about the marketing machine.


Well first of all, i should have used the word "critics" instead of "you", I didnt mean to single you as an individual,out. For that, I apologize.I keep "bringing new elements" into the discussion, because the topic has many facets. Otherwise it should have been simply called "Nickelback sucks", and would have not been a very interesting read or discussion...at least not 5 pages worth. 

So, if Nickelback isn't a sell out, and are just "manufactured" by marketing, then why didn't the so-called much better "artistically" bands win the record label lottery and get the prilivige for their superior work to be pushed down the mainstream Medias throats? It sure as hell ain't their looks 

What is this "formula" you speak of? Do the stones songs not have an intro, a verse, a bridge and a chorus, and maybe a guitar solo, repeat to fade, or some combination thereof? Are your songs that different? I think you're parroting a buzzword that some hipsters coined long ago that sounds cool, but really has no meaning.

you say The stones had a chain of "great albums"....as determined by what? 
Still waiting for a definition of good, great, bad, horrible etc music, so I'll be able to spot it correctly next time.....anyone? Bueller? Bueller? 
Help me understand, please!

Disclaimer: in spite of my arguments position, I am not a Nickelback fan....I think a handful of their songs are catchy, but can't say I spend a lot of time listening to it. But analyzing and questioning things is a lot more fun than just jumping on a trendy hate-on bandwagon.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> I said beige not bad. Yes, ALL genres of music do suffer their fair share of marketed beige bands too.


Fair enough, let's explore that....who, in nickelbacks genre, is "less beige"?


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Diablo said:


> So again, if someone cannot provide the definitions I asked for previously, then the labels like bad, horrible, etc are pure BS. Its a pisspoor attempt to pass off something entirely subjective as matter of fact.
> Big difference in saying "I don't like something" and "this is garbage".



Am I being subjective or can we agree on this??


not garbage











garbage


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

hardasmum said:


> Am I being subjective or can we agree on this??not garbage
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol! Maybe....but what about the vast gray area in between?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> Some people really take this stuff too seriously.I'm sure Nickelback don't care about this nearly as much as some people on is thread do.


If I had money for cocaine, strippers and lamborginis, I wouldn't be over analyzing things either, lol!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Diablo said:


> Well first of all, i should have used the word "critics" instead of "you", I didnt mean to single you as an individual,out. For that, I apologize.I keep "bringing new elements" into the discussion, because the topic has many facets. Otherwise it should have been simply called "Nickelback sucks", and would have not been a very interesting read or discussion...at least not 5 pages worth.
> 
> *So, if Nickelback isn't a sell out, and are just "manufactured" by marketing, then why didn't the so-called much better "artistically" bands win the record label lottery and get the prilivige for their superior work to be pushed down the mainstream Medias throats? It sure as hell ain't their looks *
> 
> ...


Well, plenty do. Theory of Deadman pretty much did what you describe to the letter lol. It's done in every genre. There is music created solely to be marketed. A lot of bands simply want no part of it. It's not a case of just not wanting to make money or being successful, but a case of wanting to do it differently.

Regarding a formula, the formula is as much or more related to the marketing as any song writing. You keep wanting to use terms like 'hipster' , thinking that coy jabs help strengthen your argument. This is just the music industry. It's not some current trend. And it's nothing personal, which is where you try to take the discussion with your references like 'hipsters'. 

If you want strictly my personal views. From my definition 'chain of great albums' in the case of the Stones is that those albums cross the genre boundaries, and are still considered vital, fresh albums 30 years later. Maybe Nickleback albums will be the same (as far as vital and fresh, definitely not genre crossing so far)? I personally don't feel that will be the case. And from solely an 'artistic' view of great, bands like the Stones and the Beatles desire to experiment and push the boundaries is what summed up the 'art' side of music for me. They were willing to take chances, and those chances created some hits and some misses.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Come on!! We didn't even stay on the Vanilla Ice topic long enough for me to say "word to your mother".


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

To find a sell out from my generation you don't have to look farther then John Lennon; he's also a hero to many. During his time with The Beatles he played music he didn't want to make and played out a role that he didn't see him self in. He saw himself as a rock and roll rebel, more of a Gene Vincent type then a Beatle. He mellowed by Double Fantasy time but the first albums he made after leaving The Beatles reflected his vision of himself as a rebel. 

I don't know anything about Nickleback. Some people don't have to sell out to look like they did because they're doing what it is they want to do. Not many people think of John Lennon in those terms and I don't know if it matters. If he hadn't sold out we might never have heard of him.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> Well, plenty do. Theory of Deadman pretty much did what you describe to the letter lol. It's done in every genre. There is music created solely to be marketed. A lot of bands simply want no part of it. It's not a case of just not wanting to make money or being successful, but a case of wanting to do it differently. Regarding a formula, the formula is as much or more related to the marketing as any song writing. You keep wanting to use terms like 'hipster' , thinking that coy jabs help strengthen your argument. This is just the music industry. It's not some current trend. And it's nothing personal, which is where you try to take the discussion with your references like 'hipsters'. If you want strictly my personal views. From my definition 'chain of great albums' in the case of the Stones is that those albums cross the genre boundaries, and are still considered vital, fresh albums 30 years later. Maybe Nickleback albums will be the same (as far as vital and fresh, definitely not genre crossing so far)? I personally don't feel that will be the case. And from solely an 'artistic' view of great, bands like the Stones and the Beatles desire to experiment and push the boundaries is what summed up the 'art' side of music for me. They were willing to take chances, and those chances created some hits and some misses.


I guess I'm just not hearing all the risqué chances you mention, in the stones and Beatles library. Seems pretty run of the mill to me, just some catchy tunes mixed in with some duds.In terms of the marketing formula you mention, I don't see how it pertains to Nickelback. Nsync, Beyonce and Britney spears, yes, but Nickelback, hmmmm....not really. Back in the 80s, poison and bonjovi would have been far better examples of the formula you mention, than Nickelback today, who seem more like a black sheep on the charts, IMO, than a mass produced formula. If anything, that's what I applaud them for....if not for them, a guitar would scarcely be heard on the radio today, aside from the dinosaur AOR stations.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

I don't buy the whole marketing thing. If it were true, then every American Idol winner would be selling millions of albums. If anyone has a marketing machine behind them it's an Idol winner. Did I say marketing machine? Come on, millions of viewers watch Idol every year. Thats a uber-machine. The machine to end all machines. It doesn't get better than that. But how many winners go on to sell millions of albums? One person, Carrie Underwood? Others have done reasonably well. (I don't know the exact figures) The rest are for the most part forgotten. 

I'll say this one more time: if a band is selling that many albums it's because people like their music!!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I guess I'm just not hearing all the risqué chances you mention, in the stones and Beatles library. Seems pretty run of the mill to me, just some catchy tunes mixed in with some duds.In terms of the marketing formula you mention, I don't see how it pertains to Nickelback. Nsync, Beyonce and Britney spears, yes, but Nickelback, hmmmm....not really. Back in the 80s, poison and bonjovi would have been far better examples of the formula you mention, than Nickelback today, who seem more like a black sheep on the charts, IMO, than a mass produced formula. If anything, that's what I applaud them for....if not for them, a guitar would scarcely be heard on the radio today, aside from the dinosaur AOR stations.


This is not a debate anyone can 'win'. If you notice, some people in this thread are saying they don't like Nickleback. Not personally insulting the people who do like them. I am explaining one viewpoint that many people share, including myself. But many don't. That's just the way it is. I believe in the viewpoint I am expressing, and all I am debating with people is the perceived "elitism' involved with not liking Nickleback.

RE American Idol albums sales, the ratings have been dropping and with it the albums sales. But the winners in the past have sold a fair amount of debut albums. The problem is most of them run out of material, or choose to leave the marketing machine they are a part of with bad results. Basically, no one managing them cares because they just move on to the next artist from the next season. But for what they are going for (American Idol) a lot of them are successful. They get a year of ad revenue and network money (where the real money is) and make back any of the money they spent producing an album at a minimum. If they sell 500,000 copies of an album, which a lot of them do, it's worth it. That is the marketing machine THEY run.

You gotta remember, 1 millions albums is the old 10 million albums. Success in the music industry right now is kind of redefined. I won't deny that it's impressive when a band like Nickleback can sell what they sell. I just don't have to like them because of it


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm not a Nickelback fan by any stretch, but what I've heard from the Black Keys didn't have me rushing out to grab the Cd.

In a year or two it will be some other flavor of the month taking shots at the established bands.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Milkman said:


> I'm not a Nickelback fan by any stretch, but what I've heard from the Black Keys didn't have me rushing out to grab the Cd.
> 
> In a year or two it will be some other flavor of the month taking shots at the established bands.


I am not a fan of either band but want to point out that The Black Keys are not a "flavour of the month". Their first release was in 2002 and their fifth "Attack & Release" (the record that arguably "broke them") was released in 2008.

They also sold out Madison Square Garden among others in 2010. Not bad for a band you don't consider "established".

just saying...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hardasmum said:


> I am not a fan of either band but want to point out that The Black Keys are not a "flavour of the month". Their first release was in 2002 and their fifth "Attack & Release" (the record that arguably "broke them") was released in 2008.
> 
> They also sold out Madison Square Garden among others in 2010. Not bad for a band you don't consider "established".
> 
> just saying...


Easy big fella.

They may have released an album in 2002, but I didn't start hearing the name until last year and their music is no more earth shattering than Nickelback's IMO.

Anyway, personally I don't think it makes them look great to publicly slag a well established and popular band.

Whether we like Nickelback's music or not, their fans sure seem to.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Easy big fella.
> 
> They may have released an album in 2002, but I didn't start hearing the name until last year and their music is no more earth shattering than Nickelback's IMO.
> 
> ...


I do dig the Black Keys alot. One thing that I have noticed about them? Their management (or whoever) doesn't mind whoring their music out to TV. I have heard their songs figure prominently in several tv shows and movies. Could be a bit of Pot Meet kettle here, as SOMEONE is trying hard to make them "mainstream"


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

Starbuck said:


> I do dig the Black Keys alot. One thing that I have noticed about them? Their management (or whoever) doesn't mind whoring their music out to TV. I have heard their songs figure prominently in several tv shows and movies. Could be a bit of Pot Meet kettle here, as SOMEONE is trying hard to make them "mainstream"


Might as well get used to it. People don't want to buy CD's so the industry figures the new model for success is licencing, or as you put whoring their music out to TV.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

hummingway said:


> Might as well get used to it. People don't want to buy CD's so the industry figures the new model for success is licencing, or as you put whoring their music out to TV.


LOL!! I just can't believe how much I have been hearing them lately. Like I said, I really like them and maybe this is how you get out there and get recognised. I don't listen to ANY radio, so I don't know what format they fit into. Just watched a couple of seasons of Sons of Anarchy and their music was a great compliment to that show. Sounded great!


----------



## TubeStack (Jul 16, 2009)

hummingway said:


> Might as well get used to it. *People don't want to buy CD's *so the industry figures the new model for success is licencing, or as you put whoring their music out to TV.


Exactly, I don't blame the BK at all, even though it is a bit annoying for the fan.

FWIW, they state in the new RS article that they struggled w/ the decision to license out a song to a commercial, the first time, but figured they were basically unknown and broke, and needed the exposure. I think he also says they're not going to do it much, now that they're selling out arenas in 10-15 minutes...


----------



## TubeStack (Jul 16, 2009)

Starbuck said:


> LOL!! I just can't believe how much I have been hearing them lately..!


It is almost comical. There are even BK soundalikes in commercials now, too.


----------



## TubeStack (Jul 16, 2009)

Though, they have been doing it for a while. They're even in School Of Rock (love that movie), where he brings the principal to the bar to ask about a field trip.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I guess the old adage "don't throw stones when you live in a glass house" isn't far from the mark here.

Whether Nickelback makes shitty music is a matter for their fans to decide. At some point we may be discussing what a bunch of sell out corporate shills the Black Keys are. I don't feel strongly one way opr the other about the Black Keys music.

At any rate, it doesn't reflect well on someone building a career when they talk trash about their competition. That's true for any industry of course.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Rival bands trash talking each other is just good publicity. 

Stones vs Beatles

Sex Pistols vs The Clash

Oasis vs Blur


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hardasmum said:


> Rival bands trash talking each other is just good publicity.
> 
> Stones vs Beatles
> 
> ...


Maybe in wrassling, but real pros in any other occupation tend to avoid such greasy kid stuff. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I never listened to a Black Keys song before this thread so i guess their methods worked?
They do not play my preferred style of music and it sounds like they recorded with an old cassette deck in their garage.
They won't be getting laid as often as the guys from Nickleback either.

They won't be around in 10 years.


----------



## TubeStack (Jul 16, 2009)

hardasmum said:


> Rival bands trash talking each other is just good publicity.
> 
> Stones vs Beatles
> 
> ...


... Exactly.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I guess the old adage "don't throw stones when you live in a glass house" isn't far from the mark here.
> 
> Whether Nickelback makes shitty music is a matter for their fans to decide. At some point we may be discussing what a bunch of sell out corporate shills the Black Keys are. I don't feel strongly one way opr the other about the Black Keys music.
> 
> At any rate, it doesn't reflect well on someone building a career when they talk trash about their competition. That's true for any industry of course.


I think I can safely say there aren't a ton of people who love both Nickleback and Black Keys lol. So I don't think trash talking is going to hurt them. They are doing very very well. But, overall I agree that trash talking in general is kind of lame.

As for the Black Keys production etc., I think it's fantastic as well. I actually don't own an album by them and don't consider myself a big fan. My bass player listens to them though and the stuff he shows me is pretty cool.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I guess what's of interest to me is not so much the merit of either group.

It's how someone can really come off as a dickhead when they disrespect another artist.

I'll be the first to say that the quality (if such a term really applies) of music should not be judged primarily on how many copies are sold, but you can't completely ignore the fact that Nickelback has sold a gazillion records.

They figured out how to succeed and made it happen.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I guess what's of interest to me is not so much the merit of either group.
> 
> It's how someone can really come off as a dickhead when they disrespect another artist.
> 
> ...


My only point this whole discussion was that the quality of music can't be judged by copies sold just as you said. It's very impressive how well they have done. I just don't agree with anyone who says that simply because music sells a lot, that it means it's quality music though.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> My only point this whole discussion was that the quality of music can't be judged by copies sold just as you said. It's very impressive how well they have done. I just don't agree with anyone who says that simply because music sells a lot, that it means it's quality music though.


And I do think it behoves everyone to not underestimate, poo-poo or dismiss the power of marketing for any bands success or failure.


As is often said, a good salesman can sell a drowning man a glass of water, a great salesman can sell a refill.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> And I do think it behoves everyone to not underestimate, poo-poo or dismiss the power of marketing for any bands success or failure.
> 
> 
> As is often said, a good salesman can sell a drowning man a glass of water, a great salesman can sell a refill.


Exactly. I am surprised when people underestimate the power of marketing. I guess it's because I took marketing school for a year lol. Real eye opener.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> My only point this whole discussion was that the quality of music can't be judged by copies sold just as you said. It's very impressive how well they have done. I just don't agree with anyone who says that simply because music sells a lot, that it means it's quality music though.


 
...have you ever encountered anyone who makes such a bizarre claim?


----------



## JimiGuy7 (Jan 10, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> I have voiced my opinion in other Nickleback threads, and I get way too angry in the threads and end up offending Nickleback songs. I will just say I agree with the Black Keys' guy 1000%.


I have to say say I agree as well.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Hey, all we commoners need someone to slag, just as everybody needs someone to love. Why not nickelback. They are rich, play music that appeals to lowest and most common denominater. And they don't seem to mind. Except when the crowd throws rocks at them (remember Portugal?)


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Yes yes, well it is the name of the game is it not? Crowd throws the rocks, the band rolls about and we all enjoy the Rock and Roll on youtube


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> Hey, all we commoners need someone to slag, just as everybody needs someone to love. Why not nickelback. They are rich, play music that appeals to lowest and most common denominater.


WHOOOA!!! And there are guys here claiming there is no Elitism going on here? 

You sir are a DICK HEAD!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> Hey, all we commoners need someone to slag, just as everybody needs someone to love. Why not nickelback. They are rich, play music that appeals to lowest and most common denominater. And they don't seem to mind. Except when the crowd throws rocks at them (remember Portugal?)


It doesn't matter how much I dislike a band, I do not wish to see rocks thrown at them lol.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> It doesn't matter how much I dislike a band, I do not wish to see rocks thrown at them lol.



I admit, I laughed my arse off with the beeb beaned by a bottle. In his case he was not overly injured and the tosser was probably mortified (having seen panties fly a lot, gotta wonder if she threw from the wrong hand).

However, there have been some REALLY bad accidents and some REALLY bad crowds that have been caught on tape. I cringe to watch them and feel really bad for the people injured. Be it beaning by the audience or falling off stage.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

What I don't get is why would you be at a concert and bean a performer with anything.
Wouldn't you be a fan if you were to attend one of their concerts?

I think that someone nailed Colin James with something at a concert here in town once.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> WHOOOA!!! And there are guys here claiming there is no Elitism going on here?
> 
> You sir are a DICK HEAD!


I guess we need a tongue-in-cheek smiley. You have obviously taken this seriously when no seriousness was intended.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

You know, I've noticed that people on the forum that don't like something (eg Nickelback, Tim Hortons coffee) speak up and post their thoughts a lot more than people that do like something and yes, they have every right to do so. I say, stand up and be counted no matter which way you think. That said, I listened to a Nickelback tune on the radio today while out in my truck and I must say. "It was a great tune and I think they are all very good musicians" The tune: *How You Remind Me *'GO Nickelback'


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

If I could stand the sound of Chad Kroeger's voice, (Chuck Kroeger?) I might be able to make it through a Nickelback song from start to finish. I'm sure they don't really suck as badly as some say. But to the best of my knowledge, I have never listened to a NB song all the way through, as I either turn off the radio or change channels upon hearing Mr. Kroeger's voice and thus, have no opinion to offer here. Not that it would be worth anything...


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

sulphur said:


> What I don't get is why would you be at a concert and bean a performer with anything. Wouldn't you be a fan if you were to attend one of their concerts?


I saw them in concert 10 years ago in Peterborough and Kroeger threw beer on the people standing in front of the stage. He thought it was funny. That might be a reason to reciprocate.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Funny, when someone we like is successful, it's because their talent could not be held back, but when it's a band like Nickelback, journey or Toto, it's because the public is too stupid to know better and is being mind washed by the corporate powers and marketing specialists.

In an sense, by jumping on the "I hate Nickelback" band wagon, we're just as sheep-like as the fans who, according to some accept whatever they are fed.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

Would someone please declare this thread officially dead. What's that you say Maudey old dear, you want to flog it first. Ok get he old bull whip out and give it a good one. Hey it's still moving, flog it again Maude, now give it one more for good measure, damn it Maude it just wont die.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

fredyfreeloader said:


> Would someone please declare this thread officially dead. What's that you say Maudey old dear, you want to flog it first. Ok get he old bull whip out and give it a good one. Hey it's still moving, flog it again Maude, now give it one more for good measure, damn it Maude it just wont die.


A public hanging? What fun!

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

fredyfreeloader said:


> Would someone please declare this thread officially dead. What's that you say Maudey old dear, you want to flog it first. Ok get he old bull whip out and give it a good one. Hey it's still moving, flog it again Maude, now give it one more for good measure, damn it Maude it just wont die.


LOL, and yet you continue too post....


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

fredyfreeloader said:


> Would someone please declare this thread officially dead. What's that you say Maudey old dear, you want to flog it first. Ok get he old bull whip out and give it a good one. Hey it's still moving, flog it again Maude, now give it one more for good measure, damn it Maude it just wont die.


OK *"I Declare This Thread Officially Dead"*


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I must watch my humour and make sure appropriated smileys inserted. Even if I have find them on an image bank. My sense of humour> Hell, look at my signature line.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Some people just have to get the last word. LOL - lets try again

*"I Declare This Thread Officially Dead"*


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

It's not dead...it's resting.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2012)

I'm not dead!

[video=youtube;Sh8mNjeuyV4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8mNjeuyV4[/video]


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wow, such power.

To be able to declare a subject dead when you didn't even start said thread.

I declare Marijuana legal!

hey, I'm on a roll.


I declare the current federal government fired.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Milkman said:


> Wow, such power.
> 
> To be able to declare a subject dead when you didn't even start said thread.
> 
> ...


LOL

I'm on board!


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

It's not dead unless it comes with a fried egg on top and SPAM.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Wow, such power.
> 
> To be able to declare a subject dead when you didn't even start said thread.
> 
> ...


Should I assume you were at the Liberal convention ?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

shoretyus said:


> Should I assume you were at the Liberal convention ?


No, but I do tend to vote liberal.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

LOL this is fun! Love 'em, hate .em, third option, don't give a shi...


----------

