14 of 18 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Here And Now (Audio CD)
I'm a Nickelback fan. But honestly? The biggest impression this left on me was "wow, they're really phoning it in". It's been three years since Dark Horse, and in those three years they've only written 11 songs? 39 minutes of music? 13 minutes per year? And the thing is... they're not even particularly good. I can't put it any better than to say, most of the songs seem to be mostly chorus. Very repetitive. They're catchy choruses, don't get me wrong, but... There's no spark. It's all so formulaic. Feel quite let down by this honestly. But distinctly missing is the lack of a special edition, with a second disk, and a few more songs...
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 23 Nov 2011 17:07:30 GMT
Mr. S. Mackenzie says:
dude i imagine they wrote more than 11 songs in three years!. no band is that lazy!. you will find bands write about 30-40 odd songs before choosing which ones go on the album. Nickelback are repetitive cos thats what works. look at acdc for a prime example.
Posted on 27 Nov 2011 03:13:37 GMT
Nicholas Green says:
They've probably 30-50 songs and then the "best cuts" or the best single. Some bands are always writing but you find modtk about 75% of the stuff you hear on the album are just songs that they've worked and worked at.
Posted on 27 Nov 2011 03:14:07 GMT
Nicholas Green says:
Sorry, I meant to say *mostly
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2011 19:13:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2011 19:14:00 GMT
Matt Ritchie says:
No they didn't have any more songs written than you hear on the album. Here's what bassist Mike Kroeger said in an interview on the Roadrunner website:
Q-There are 11 songs on the record; how many did you record that didn't make it?
A-We are never gonna get caught with a vault full of songs. We go in with the express attitude of writing and recording as many songs as we need to fulfill our contractual obligation, and that's where we stop. The very idea of bonus tracks or whatever you call 'em, B-sides, is kind of offensive to an artist, to think they're getting asked to put throwaway songs on-you're kind of condemning these songs as filler from the get-go, and we're not really into that. We want to record everything with a like amount of emphasis, a like amount of effort, and if it doesn't make the cut to be recorded by Nickelback, we don't record it.'
Posted on 4 Dec 2011 10:56:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Dec 2011 11:04:33 GMT
Fair comment on whether you like it or not, but to suggest more songs, more discs, more more more is a bit daft if you aren't that wrapped with the ones that have released!!
How many they release should not be the issue at hand - who would not work for 13 minutes a year if it paid great wad of cash anyway? Of course they worked more than that, but that is not the point. Its the output that is all anyway cares about, and its quality. Some of the greatest songs ever written took the authors minutes to create - does not make them any less great songs.
I like the band, but I do agree that they do churn out some fairly samey stuff when all's said and done - mostly on its own it sounds great - but trying listening for more than a hour and you will decide they could do with more range (based on Dark Horse and All The Right Reasons).
That all said, there are still few bands working and writing new stuff this side of year 2000 that sound this good.
What I do think is great is that you can get a CD now for barely over half the price a grotty piece of vinyl cost me as a kid. But I am drifting off the subject, although the point is I suppose, you are not risking a huge amount. CD's these days are great value for money.
Pays your money ...
‹ Previous 1 Next ›