Puddle of Mudd sucks more than Nickelback. However, my dislike for Nickelback is greater because of the fact that I'm exposed tot hem more than I am to Puddle of Mudd.

First of all, the small peice of what I've heard from Shakira is great.

On topic: I notice that you're slagging people who condeming them yet you can't describe them without being derogatory. I don't think everything they do sounds the same. Whats derivitive? People played those two songs together once and they sounded the same so now everything is the same?

Come on guys, Breath doesn't sound like how you remind me, doesn't sound like animals doesn't sound like rock star.

Is it so preposturous to think an artist makes similar sounding music to the music they made before? its called a style. I think the deftones all sound the same, John Fogerty got sued for sounding like himself. Tom petty has been ripping off half the number one artists for about 30 years now.

If you hate them so much why do you listen to so much of their "similar" sounding ****?

Tom petty's sh*t is good. Nickelback's isn't

However I do like their image.

nickleback sucks ass

POM is sooo much better

Shakira is good. I dance to her all the time..

No no stripping.

I thought they were the same band.

Wrong.

Puddle Of Mudd is better then Nickelback, I prefer a bad nirvana rip off over soft rock.

I'm not sure if that in its totality was directed at me, but I'll answer all the same.

When I say a band are derivative, I don't mean that the basic sound of all their songs seems to be the same. That, as you say, is just a style. I can live with that (well...unless there's so little to tell most of their songs from each other that it gets ridiculous! and yeah, there are plenty of bands like that). What I do mean by "derivative" is that a band simply rips off the basic sound (or style, as you call it) from some other popular, well-known and probably well respected act (or a few). Let's take probably one of the absolute best examples of this that comes to mind: Bush. Now, Bush were absolutely shameless Nirvana mimics. They got pretty much their entire early sound from them. Hell, there were even songs on which they supposedly borrowed the (uncommon) chord progressions of certain Nirvana songs - which would've been alright if it were merely coincidental, but hey, it was not. Bush aside, actually the entire post-grunge genre is filled with acts who simply sought to recreate the sound of early Pearl Jam and Nirvana.

Now, to address another point: does a band being "derivative" and a mimic act necessarily mean that they are "bad"? I wouldn't say so at all, I mean, they might do the mimic job pretty well. But what it does mean is that they don't exemplify much creative talent and don't really have their own face or identity. And generally speaking, a real dedicated long-term fan of rock/hard rock music (as opposed to casual listeners) will be looking to get a little more out of a band - something that is evidenced by the general response in this board whenever the name of Nickelback comes up.

About Shakira - I wasn't really saying she is "bad" as such (though I do think she is awful, make no mistake; this judgment boils down to her horrible voice) - but rather that the English songs of hers that I've heard have been bland, derivative and about as unoriginal as any pop material I've ever heard. Best example in question: "Illegal".

The real point was... if you're reviewing POP music (and Nickelback essentially fall under the category of "pop act"), then there are two approaches. You either review it in order to tell readers whether or not they'll like it...or you review it according to how original/innovative/clever it is. What irks me is that critics are happy to review Shakira and other pop-rock acts according to what the pop audience reading the review might like to listen to, and then when it comes to Nickelback who fall under the same banner, they tear them to shreds because it's "redundant". Hello? No sh*t, Sherlock! That's what it's damn well SUPPOSED to be!

My efforts are proving futile. But as someone pointed out, you're subjected to Nickleback more (cause their better cough), so to anyone who actually voted POM, I hope that your hell is the second POM CD on loop forever.

are not, big3.
to be fair, i dont really know either OVERLY well cause theyre both a bit crap & arent worth the money OR time, but yeah.
puddleofmudd are better. more fun.
nickleback are beige & dont vary & just lack something.
big time.
but yeah.
pom if i have to listen to either.