I didn't say it was a good thing - I don't listen to them. I just don't see much point in hating them for trying to make money when that's all they've really ever tried to do.

Unless you think that maybe they have some untapped artistic ability that they are depriving us of for the sake of a buck? So selfish. If only Kroeger wasn't such a cowardly sellout, then maybe he would stop writing lyrics about his penis and finally make that masterpiece we all know he has up his sleeve.

and that masterpiece is giving up making music

pos'd. great review.

@PaperTigers:
People hate because the music sucks. Also, Nickelback making money this way influences more and more bands to make the same type of music in order to make money. And that's why mainstream rock radio is in the sad state that it's in. And that's why they can be hated for "trying to make money."

Most people thought Silver Side Up was a pretty solid album when it came out. It was almost cool to like them. But that was when they got successful and so Kroeger's just been writing slight, weaker variations of that same album over and over. That's why all their music since has gotten worse reviews and whatnot.

So maybe he could do something better if he tried.

Those 5 ratings better be troll ratings...

Album Rating: 1.5

Actually listened to half of this...that was a mistake.

"Also Aids, you know I like you, but in no way shape or form is Vancouver the worlds greatest city lol"

have you been to Vancouver?

I don't like this review. You can write well but that doesn't constitute a strong review in my
opinion.
It seems like you've taken this album way, way too seriously. For God's sake it's a Nickelback
album, and it feels like you've done too much analysis here. I fail to believe you listened to this
album enough for that deep analysis. Stuff like:

These two are pretty jarring when played in
tandem; one being a stupid alcohol-induced mess and the other an ecstatic plea for change. These
ideas are strung together so carelessly that it comes across as contrived - something to rouse a
crowd and make their fans happy more than to serve as something important they wrote for themselves.

Let me address a few things here:

1) The 'you take this way too seriously' retort feels a little ridiculous to me... Are you saying that just because Nickelback suck immensely it's not warranted to approach their albums seriously? I'm targeting them out for essentially refusing to grow as a band and because Kroeger's ongoing ignorance is infuriating and worthy of note.

2) You can't operate under the assumption that I didn't attentively listen to this or whatever - I most certainly did, several times. If that didn't come off clearly enough in the descriptions of these songs then I apologize.

3) "comes off as disingenuous because you've already stated your dislike for the band (implicitly or explicitly). And really, who's going to seriously analyze a band they already dislike?" Well, by that logic why would we review bands we dislike at all? And I don't see how that comes off as disingenuous - I mean, I'm adding descriptors to further portray the sound of the album. How would you go about it?

4) Those aren't contradictions, I had thought I made it pretty obvious that they're anything but subtle...

And finally, I didn't do this to be some kind of 'attention-seeking' review, otherwise I would have obviously been a lot more scathing, probably slapped a 1/5 on this, and definitely wouldn't have written anywhere near as much as I did. But at any rate, I'm glad to see some diverging opinions coming in. If you have any suggestions for me I'd certainly appreciate them.

Album Rating: 1.0

Per this paper tiger fellow's dictum, if you're in the business of songwriting purely for financial gain (as Nickelback have all but proven themselves to be) you should thereby be granted an immunity to any sort of criticism. I would like to see him expound on this logic.



I could tear apart xtoxin's critique of this review, but unfortunately it is not my review so I will not.

"Are you saying that just because Nickelback suck immensely it's not warranted to approach their albums seriously?"
No, what I'm saying is that seriousness and humor aren't black and white. It's not that you take this band seriously what I find fault with; it's that you take this band too serious.
Obviously the band isn't going to show any growth; you, I, and the rest of the world know this. So you don't have to spend 40% of your review talking about the lack of growth and the ramifications of it (Paragraphs 3+5, really)

"You can't operate under the assumption that I didn't attentively listen to this or whatever - I most certainly did, several times. If that didn't come off clearly enough in the descriptions of these songs then I apologize."
Theoretically, no I shouldn't. But the fact of the matter is that you spent 2 or 3 paragraphs writing the band off. You talk about how many people hate them and why, and there is no indicator that you're differently. So then suddenly you take one out of five paragraphs to talk about the album itself, and I'm supposed to believe that you attentively listened to this when a) you have no reason to and b)there is no evidence you did?

"Well, by that logic why would we review bands we dislike at all? And I don't see how that comes off as disingenuous"
Here's the thing. The way I look at it, reviews should be from a source of inspiration, not obligation. You should only review an album/band you dislike if you found it so vehemently bad/disgusting in some facet that you had to write about it. You kind of touched upon how disgusting and misogynistic the album is on your review, but the tone of the review still feels more obligatory than it should.

And yeah, organization is more subtle than you think it is, as far as Nickelback goes. I don't think they purposefully placed those songs back to back to create controversy. It can be a useful observation to use as an analogy for all that's wrong, but when it's one of your few actual critiques of the album then we have a problem.

And it doesn't matter whether or not you did it as an attention-seeking review or not; you knew that as an established member of Sputnik you'd probably get featured and get a lot of attention to it. And whether or not this was intentional doesn't change this fact

(I think a TL;DR version of this could be that most of the problems of the review stem from your spending way, way too much time talking about the background and spending just one paragraph on the actual album on hand)

"Per this paper tiger fellow's dictum, if you're in the business of songwriting purely for financial
gain (as Nickelback have all but proven themselves to be) you should thereby be granted an immunity
to any sort of criticism. I would like to see him expound on this logic."

If I made it seem like my point was that "Well Nickelback sucks so don't take this seriously" then I
apologize because that wasn't it at all. In fact, in this statement

"For God's sake it's a Nickelback
album, and it feels like you've done too much analysis here. I fail to believe you listened to this
album enough for that deep analysis"

I should retract the first statement completely. Yeah, they should change their sound, but they're
not going to. So you might as well just mention the point once and move on instead of dwelling on it
for so long. There are too many comparisons to the band's previous works here.

Also I have no interest in carrying on this discussion, so good day to you

I listened to a bit of 'Holding On To Heaven' and 'This Means War' and I couldn't tolerate more than 30 seconds of either song. I will probably never listen to any more from this album unless I am some how forced to do so. I have always hated this band, even before I had "good" taste in music. I used to like crappy radio music, but I've always known this band was particularly shitty.

you don't have to spend 40% of your review talking about the lack of growth and the ramifications of it

...I didn't. And it doesn't matter how 'obvious' the notion is, the point is, we can't just have these preconceived notions, because every band in the world has the capacity for musical growth.

"and I'm supposed to believe that you attentively listened to this when a) you have no reason to and b)there is no evidence you did?"... Again, my intent for listening to the album is to see if it varied from their other releases and write a review on it. Also, I have a question for you: have you listened to this attentively? Can you present solid evidence that suggests that I didn't listen closely enough?

""Well, by that logic why would we review bands we dislike at all? And I don't see how that comes off as disingenuous"
Here's the thing. The way I look at it, reviews should be from a source of inspiration, not obligation. You should only review an album/band you dislike if you found it so vehemently bad/disgusting in some facet that you had to write about it. You kind of touched upon how disgusting and misogynistic the album is on your review, but the tone of the review still feels more obligatory than it should."

This whole paragraph makes zero sense to me. I had a pretty laid-back tone throughout this review, man: "Well, shit, Chad - way to..." so I'm a little lost as to how you think it felt more obligatory than written for fun - I was hoping the inclusion of humor would do the complete opposite, to be honest. At any rate, I can't bash that point much, because at the end of the day you just can't please everyone.

Those back-to-back songs I touched on, I never once said, nor meant to insinuate that they were 'intentional' - that seems like you reading too far into what I was getting at. By 'contrived' I had mostly meant forced, not planned.

"And it doesn't matter whether or not you did it as an attention-seeking review or not; you knew that as an established member of Sputnik you'd probably get featured and get a lot of attention to it. And whether or not this was intentional doesn't change this fact"... Um, okay - guess that I can't review things that will get attention, because I'm an established member of Sputnik.

Personally I think this review could've been about half the length and gotten the same point across. It's just that at a certain point you're just beating a dead horse when you have 5 mammoth paragraphs of Nickelback criticism. Not an "unnecessary" or bad review by any means though, I pos'd. Just my two cents.

Fair enough man. Truth be told, I had to stop myself because I was going to keep writing about it, but then I thought: 'Holy shit... I've written far too much as is".

Album Rating: 1.0

"Per this paper tiger fellow's dictum, if you're in the business of songwriting purely for financial gain (as Nickelback have all but proven themselves to be) you should thereby be granted an immunity to any sort of criticism. I would like to see him expound on this logic."



If I made it seem like my point was that "Well Nickelback sucks so don't take this seriously" then I apologize because that wasn't it at all."



No, I was talking to that paper tiger fellow.

I'll give this a 1 to be all cool and edgy and fit in.

Album Rating: 1.5

I can't wait until my college paper publishes my review of this so I can post it here