It's not about the tempo so much....
It's the formula.
The exact same amount amount of measures for the intro, the verses, and the choruses...
And where the bridge is placed. And how long it lasts. Same for the solos. All are identical.
And the simularity of the melodies.
It's the same song, basically, with different words and a slightly different melody.
I did some recording up in (er, down in, now) Vermont at this old hippy dude's studio. One thing he said I've always remembered. He said "Every band has just one song. One song, and they sing it over and over. They may seem different, but they're not."
Springsteen has spent the last umpteen years singing pretty much the same song.
Neil Young? Same thing. Think about it.
Pick any band, and it's the same song done differently.
That's not a knock... because the variations are a beautiful thing.
In Nickleback's case, though, it's a bit different. I recorded with Chad and he's one smart muther*****er... and his "one song" is no accident. He has everything calculated.
(He's gonna be a pretty big player long after people are sick of his band).
That's not a knock either. Getting to his level of success, even if you DO have the most brilliant calculations and a winning formula is still tantamount to winning the lottery. People are buying his records, which means they like them, which is pretty much what it's all about at the end.
The mix of the two songs just sort of shines a light on it. Doesn't mean it's neccessarily bad.
If you listen to any radio station that plays Nickelback, you're basically asking for it.
