Nickelback: Why So Much Hate?

[An Enemy Spy]

I am not a fan of Nickelback. I think they have a few decent songs, a few lousy songs and a whole bunch of songs I don't care about. How You Remind Me in particular is a song I enjoy. All in all, I consider them a basically middling musical group with a couple of decent songs.
Yet for all I hear about them, they are a horrid dark abbysal black hole of musiv which will destroy the world if left unchecked. Whenever anyone mentions bad bands, it's always Nickelback. Anyone who likes Nickelback is apparently a brainless fratboy with less appreciation for real music than a deaf banshee. I've even heard them described as the worst band of all time!
How? Why? what makes them so horrible? Is it because they're so well known and high profile that it makes them an easy target? Surely there are are many many less talented musicians in the world!
What makes them so horrible?

[Avilan the Grey]

Hey from where I come from we don't like them because from our point of view they were part of the "Whiny-Rock" that USA* produced from 1995 onwards.

It is actually quite fun; the Brit-Pop that came out of England at the same time as a reaction to that... For once Europe wasn't blindly eating anything pop-culture that the US tried to export. :smalltongue:

*And I know they are from Canada! :smallsmile:

[Liffguard]

I am not a fan of Nickelback. I think they have a few decent songs, a few lousy songs and a whole bunch of songs I don't care about. How You Remind Me in particular is a song I enjoy. All in all, I consider them a basically middling musical group with a couple of decent songs.

This is basically my response to them as well. They're a bland, samey, mediocre rock group who put together a couple of songs I think are ok, a couple of songs I think are awful and a whole bunch of songs that don't even register. My only major complaint about them is that the lyrics for a few of their songs come across as pretty misogynistic.

Nickelback are like Twilight. Actually, no, that's not true. The internet's response to Nickelback is like the internet's response to Twilight. A massive, self-reinforcing over-reaction that continues to grow and exaggerate over time until the entire sub-culture of hate has become a thousand times more annoying than whatever it was trying to rail against in the first place.

[SaintRidley]

Utter mediocrity that managed to get high profile, but is so bland and flavorless that it's treated as if it were completely inoffensive, mindless, typical radio schlock (when in actuality it's more often than not about getting drunk and banging groupies, but just so completely uninteresting about it that nobody notices - again with the mediocrity).

It is resented for being so completely bland and yet managing to somehow be popular.

It is mediocre. It is popular. There is a contradiction in that. The desire to cleanse the earth of it seems to be the reaction to that contradiction.


The same thing can largely be said about the Black Eyed Peas, too.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Pretty much what others have said. The dissonance between their high popularity and their unremarkable artistic quality causes causes larger-that-usual negative feedback that then gets amplified by resonance within the internet's tubes.

End result being that they get a whole lot more hate than they probably deserve. Which makes a certain amount of ironic sense, since they also have a whole lot more fame than they probably deserve.

[Yora]

It's popular. And there's an internet. Result = Hate!

[Traab]

I like them. Ive got about 5 cds of them on my mp3 player, (though in all honesty I generally only listen to 2 of them completely) They have a nice mix of harder rock type music and the softer stuff which I like because I dont enjoy listening to the same style all day. Its why I have 80s rock, country, and disco on my player as well as some All 4 One. So I can listen to Burn It To The Ground and then This Is How You Remind Me.

[Bayonet Priest]

It's weird, a few years back I kinda liked them. Now I can't listen to that CD I bought because I just don't think it's good anymore. I guess musical tastes change the more you listen to music. It isn't horrible but it's so... not good that I can't listen to it. So I guess the answer is that Nickleback is incredibly mediocre and the internet hates when something bad-to-mediocre becomes extremely popular.

[Psyren]

Bland, samey, dull, the key points were covered already. I'll take Breaking Benjamin or Red Jumpsuit Apparatus over them any day.

[Whoracle]

For me, it's mostly because of this (http://web.archive.org/web/20070420144535/http://www.theweb****e.net/nickelback.htm) Releasing the SAME effing song twice and getting away with it.

That being said: They're not really popular anymore afaik, and the above linked example is a couple years old, so they don't get any more hate from me nowadays.

[nyarlathotep]

For me the reason is simple. The band and its songs are range from mediocre to terrible, but my local rock station plays nothing but Nickelback and Nickelback imitators 90% of the time.

[The Durvin]

Let me preface this by saying I think they suck.

It's not just that they're mediocre; lots of bands are mediocre. I think the problem people have with Nickelback is that (A) they're a lot more country than most rock bands, especially the singer, and a lot of people have a knee-jerk revulsion against the style; (B) they sing some pretty intense, lonely, sad, wailing emotions, and one cannot but think they are affected by an international rock-band that sings about flunking out of high school. Also, nothing good ever came of making this face:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7pLhCb5ZbOHmaPFeXXZTYIuIp7jcxu iQdQ5DIr6KbDnkmVSYX

[Joxer t' Mighty]

Alright now, I don't like more than a couple or three songs from any one group except for a 'very' small handful of exceptional bands (maybe three?) that I can appreciate the majority of.

As for Nickelback, I've been exposed to almost none of the craze, or of the hate, or any of the covers. Like most songs I ran across a couple once and I liked the dude's voice.

It seems the dislike is exactly the same as the like. Peer influence. If I hadn't heard of people gnashing at Nickelback I'd have never thought to consider them a bad band. I just enjoyed the song.

Mediocre? Compared with what? The dude has a voice and it comes out pretty good. No different than almost any other group that gets raves even from the 'underground'. There's some with huge cult followings out there who don't have half the talent, but for some reason folks love them, perhaps for the lyrics, which when boiled down seems to have the same message as anyone else. Also, since when did 'mediocre' become the same as 'untalented hacks'?

Really, despite the claims, I'm still pretty certain they aren't liked because others don't like them which was originally started by someone whose tastes were completely opposite. He then infected all other listeners.

Again, nothing for or against Nickelback, and would argue this exact same point with many other 'bands we love to hate'. Don't let others influence you in either direction. If you like it the first time you hear it, keep liking it. If you don't like it, don't try to force it.

[Vacant]

Worse lyrics than techno songs sung with insipid, execrable "Is that a goat?" vocals over a backdrop of tired, vapid post-grunge somehow even more lackluster than the entire abysmal genre which exists seemingly only to embarrass the myriad of decent things beginning with "post-".

[Gaelbert]

It's popular. And there's an internet. Result = Hate!

Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen King, John Steinbeck, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Alexandre Dumas, George Orwell, Toni Morrison, Edward Said, J.R.R. Tolkien. All are popular authors (some more than others) and none have much Internet hate. Tolkien has some, but not very much at all. You'll really only find Tolkien bashing on the most pretentious forums.

[Vacant]

Hey, I bash Orwell on the internet all the time. Certainly more than I bash Nickleback. To the point of making this post to bash Orwell.

[Gaelbert]

Hey, I bash Orwell on the internet all the time. Certainly more than I bash Nickleback. To the point of making this post to bash Orwell.

Sure. Individuals may hate on those authors. But the hate hasn't formed a community of people who loathe the authors, and even if it has, it's not a major group and it hasn't spilled over into the Internet as a whole.

Curious though, do you hate on 1984/Animal Farm, Orwell's other books, or Orwell as a person? I find that most people who loathe Orwell based on the former change their mind after reading his other, less well known books.

[Traab]

Sure. Individuals may hate on those authors. But the hate hasn't formed a community of people who loathe the authors, and even if it has, it's not a major group and it hasn't spilled over into the Internet as a whole.

Curious though, do you hate on 1984/Animal Farm, Orwell's other books, or Orwell as a person? I find that most people who loathe Orwell based on the former change their mind after reading his other, less well known books.

I bash on king all the time. Since I only like The Stand, that means all his other books suck.

[Velaryon]

All the criticism that's been leveled against Nickelback in this thread rings true to me, but I'll try to put it into my own words anyway.

I've never liked Nickelback. When they first hit the scene they struck me as a bland knockoff of bands like Creed who were in turn bland knockoffs of actual talented bands. All their songs sounded the same back then, too. I remember a youtube video floating around where two of Nickelback's songs from their first album were played over each other, and most people couldn't tell the difference.

They've never had the least shred of uniqueness or individuality. They're just mediocre post-grunge that's trying to copy Nirvana and not succeeding. They get the level of hate they do simply because they've risen higher than the other lame knockoff bands that play the same things they do.

[WhamBamSam]

I know that my little brother - an aspiring metal guitarist - hates them because they apparently strip the instruments in favor of simpler synthesized beats to get their songs played on pop radio, which he considers to be a sacrilege and the greatest shame that someone could bring upon themselves as a musician. I'm not sure if this is actually true (and don't care enough to Google it personally), but it's certainly not something I would put past them based on the general impression I get from the band.

As for me? I'm not really bothered by Nickelback because I'm not in High School anymore, and thanks to the internet, iPods, etc, I can listen to and discover music without ever being exposed to the horrors of mainstream radio. They have essentially no impact on my life, so I don't let them concern me most of the time. However, if I am forced to give an opinion on the group when discussing music out in meatspace, that opinion will be negative.

[Lord Seth]

The internet's response to Nickelback is like the internet's response to Twilight. A massive, self-reinforcing over-reaction that continues to grow and exaggerate over time until the entire sub-culture of hate has become a thousand times more annoying than whatever it was trying to rail against in the first place.I don't have any opinion whatsoever on Nickelback, but I think you described the reaction to Twilight nearly perfectly here.

[Traab]

It seems to me that the majority of the "hate" comes from various types of music purists who look on music as an art form and greatly dislike the style used by nickelback and all other groups like them. It isnt so much that specific group they hate as it is that style of music. People like whambams brother who take music VERY seriously (not saying thats bad) Its sort of like english lit majors and people who make a living deducing the meanings behind classic literature hating on redwall abbey for whatever reason. (Picked the first title that popped into my head, please dont derail this) The story isnt bad, its just not the style they prefer and to the standards of the late great masters therefore its drek. Everyone else who doesnt like the group seems to be in the mediocre group. They dont precisely hate it, but they would rather listen to something else. Either way it isnt a huge deal. Basically, they are just one of a hundred groups that dont play the style of music they prefer.

I also believe that a lot of the online hate is due to constant repetition of how much they suck until people just start to believe it. Its along the lines of how you will often see political ads stating something that is twisted slightly to make the opponent look bad. It isnt accurate, and everyone knows it, but because it gets repeated over and over and over again, linked to message boards, chatted about on facebook, etc, it starts to lodge in your mind until you associate the candidate with the incorrect statement.

[Coidzor]

Honestly, I can't remember who Nickelback are or what got them famous or infamous.

[Draconi Redfir]

i dont care what anyone says. Nickleback, i love you.

[Moff Chumley]

It's not quite as simple as "they're popular, therefore they suck", it's a little more complicated than that. Nickelback and Creed and all those sorts of bands all stem, fundamentally, from Nevermind, by Nirvana, which was, to my knowledge, the first album to mix "underground" alt rock with poppy studio production. The tradition that spawned bands like Nirvana (The Pixies, The Melvins, Sonic Youth, etc) were, for the most part, decidedly anti-commercial, intentionally abrasive, and in some cases, hard to listen to. That's, the way I see it, the entire appeal of that sort of music. It's damn cathartic, for the performer and the listener.

Nevermind works because Cobain was an excellent songwriter and his songs would've sounded great no matter how they were presented, and the band delivered, well, cathartic-sounding performances.

Obviously Nevermind was rather successful, and its formula of "sensitive sounding, melodic alt rock with pop production" has made bands like Nickelback lots and lots of money. In essence, they took all of the qualities of a great album like Nevermind that weren't important, without taking any of the aspects that made it great.

[Dexam]

I don't hate Nickelback, I just dislike them. I find their music and lyrics bland, unoriginal, and derivative to the point of being irritating. If Nickelback were any more "middle of the road", they'd be in danger of getting run over.

To make matters worse, many of local rock radio stations seem to be in love with them and have their songs on high rotation.

I guess a lot of the "hate" stems from those who consider them undeserving of the success and popularity they receive when there are much more creative and original musicians out there who people believe deserve greater recognition; and Nickelback are an obvious (and easy) target for their ire at the celebration of unoriginality by the music industry corporations.

[Traab]

Honestly, I can't remember who Nickelback are or what got them famous or infamous.

If I had to guess, it was a combo of This Is How You Remind Me and Rockstar. Both used to get played ALL THE TIME on the radio.

[An Enemy Spy]

If I had to guess, it was a combo of This Is How You Remind Me and Rockstar. Both used to get played ALL THE TIME on the radio.

I really like the first of those two. The second one is a very good example of why I'm not a huge fan of this band.
I don't begrudge a band of their success. It's hard to get recognition in the music industry, and if a band manages to find an audience, I say all the power to them. Music is a business like anything else.

[Traab]

I really like the first of those two. The second one is a very good example of why I'm not a huge fan of this band.
I don't begrudge a band of their success. It's hard to get recognition in the music industry, and if a band manages to find an audience, I say all the power to them. Music is a business like anything else.

You know, when I first started getting into them I used to listen to all the cds and try to figure out which ones would never be on a standard radio station. Songs like Next Contestant, Animal, and S.E.X. I always wondered how many people got caught off guard by listening to this is how you remind me, thinking they had an interesting sound, then getting caught by hearing Next Go Round when they go out to buy a cd.

[The Extinguisher]

Because they make the rest of our country look bad. When I go travelling to other countries, I have to sew an American Flag onto my backpack, or else people will start yelling at me about Nickleback.

[kpenguin]

This parody song is relevant to this thread. (http://www.thefump.com/fump.php?id=113)

[Fri]

I read somewhere in the internet before that mediocrity combined with popularity incites more hate than something that's actually bad for some reason.

[Vacant]

Sure. Individuals may hate on those authors. But the hate hasn't formed a community of people who loathe the authors, and even if it has, it's not a major group and it hasn't spilled over into the Internet as a whole.

Curious though, do you hate on 1984/Animal Farm, Orwell's other books, or Orwell as a person? I find that most people who loathe Orwell based on the former change their mind after reading his other, less well known books.

I actually don't think Orwell's a terrible writer, he's an okay writer and a terrible novelist. He seems like a decently cool guy, and all, I just side more on the Nabokovian perspective of fiction. I haven't read Down and Out in Paris and London, though, to be fair, which is the work of his I'd probably like the best. I do have to agree, 1984 is the most egregious exemplar of what I don't care for about his writing.

[Lifeson]

You know, I find Nickleback fans are like the Conservative Party of Canada. Apparently, they're really freaking popular, but I've never actually met anyone who likes them. And usually, when they do, it's because they were told to like them rather than any conscious choice.

It's just a really ****ty band that people vaguely like so it gets a lot of radio play thanks to a law that makes radios play mostly Canadian music.

[Psyren]

I read somewhere in the internet before that mediocrity combined with popularity incites more hate than something that's actually bad for some reason.

That's because truly bad things that are popular are fun for everyone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0) :smalltongue:

[Lord Seth]

Because they make the rest of our country look bad. When I go travelling to other countries, I have to sew an American Flag onto my backpack, or else people will start yelling at me about Nickleback.Really? About Nickleback? I thought the standard Canadian artist to hate on currently was Justin Bieber.

[Talya]

I liked a couple Nickelback songs.

Problem is, they just keep releasing the same 2 or 3 songs on every CD, repeatedly. I swear they only actually have two or three songs. If they actually have more than that, I can't tell the difference between them.


You know, I find Nickleback fans are like the Conservative Party of Canada. Apparently, they're really freaking popular, but I've never actually met anyone who likes them.


I cannot make any comments I would like to make in response to this. :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

I forgot to include Photograph. Thats another song that got played alot, and I think it was pretty decent. So thats three I can think of off hand that got a lot of radio time. I think there were a couple more, but they are less well known as nickelback songs.

[An Enemy Spy]

That is perplexing though. They are a super popular band that everybody hates. Something is wrong with this picture.
Realistically, most Nickelback fans are probably like the rest of us. I am a massive Pearl Jam fan and I don't spend all my time extolling their virtues on internet message boards. They are probably happy to listen to their band and don't much care what anyone else thinks.

[mrzomby]

I don't like any of nickel back that I've heard, but it feels like linkin park. IF you like them, why buy the CD when you can get one song(or the free sample 10-20 seconds of it) and put it on repeat over and over, and not know the difference?

[The Extinguisher]

Really? About Nickleback? I thought the standard Canadian artist to hate on currently was Justin Bieber.

Sssh. Don't tell anyone that. We're trying to keep it secret.

[warty goblin]

I don't like any of nickel back that I've heard, but it feels like linkin park. IF you like them, why buy the CD when you can get one song(or the free sample 10-20 seconds of it) and put it on repeat over and over, and not know the difference?

Be fair now, Nickelback has three kinds of song.

In all seriousness, I rather liked Nickelback back when I listened to pop radio frequently. Unlike most everything else on the radio they were pretty much always listenable without causing mind rot, and their lead singer can actually, you know, sing.

In a world that contains Ke$ha, Nickelback probably deserve some sort of award by comparison.

[Moff Chumley]

I'd take Ke$ha over Nickelback. At least Ke$ha's aware that she's ridiculous. :smallannoyed:

[VanBuren]

and their lead singer can actually, you know, sing.

Let's not get crazy here.

[Rockphed]

I'd take Ke$ha over Nickelback. At least Ke$ha's aware that she's ridiculous. :smallannoyed:

Okay, so you don't like Nickelback. I think that was evident from your previous post. However, saying you would rather have "I wake up in the morning feeling like P-diddy...I brush my teeth with a bottle of jack" than the derivative trash you claim Nickelback to be amazes me.

Personally, I would rather have Nickelback than Kesha. At least their lead singer has a voice that doesn't remind of nails on a chalkboard.

[Shyftir]

Repetitive mediocrity. Nickelback was pretty good at first. (Even then they sounded generic.) But eventually people got kinda tired of the same sorta-okay stuff over and over.

[TheArsenal]

Kesha just goes too far. It just becomes unpleasant rather then funny.

[Moff Chumley]

Kesha just goes too far. It just becomes unpleasant rather then funny.

To clarify, it'd take quite a lot to get me to sit through a Ke$ha song. It'd take slightly more to get me through a Nickleback song is all.



Personally, I would rather have Nickelback than Kesha. At least their lead singer has a voice that doesn't remind of nails on a chalkboard.

And that's fine. Personally, if my vocals are gonna be absurdly overcomped and tuned to the point of lifelessness, I'd prefer 'em in a genre that doesn't require some amount of emotion in the vocals, but I agree that at least Nickelback's vocals aren't quite as grating.

[Traab]

Repetitive mediocrity. Nickelback was pretty good at first. (Even then they sounded generic.) But eventually people got kinda tired of the same sorta-okay stuff over and over.

See now this? This I take as legitimate. This is an honest to god complaint, and one that is backed up at least in general, by facts. I am a fan of the band, I like their music, but even I have to admit that in a few cases their songs sound very similar. I mean, I can instantly identify about 2 dozen of their songs with the opening riff of music, but there are a few that cause me to have to stop and listen longer before I can tell which song it is. So while I disagree that its nothing but repetition, there are times where yes, they basically seem to repeat the music from other songs. However, when you consider the fact that they have over 80 titles to their names, I cant be surprised that they repeat themselves from time to time.

[Mewtarthio]

I'm fairly certain that Ke$ha is part of some Pygmalion-style power trip, where her agent is deliberately taking the most horrible singer in the world and making her a pop star, just to prove he can.

[Gullintanni]

I cannot make any comments I would like to make in response to this. :smallbiggrin:

Right there with you. :smallamused:

Nickelback, I think, is so widely loathed for three reasons, two of which have been touched on.

One - is that they're blatantly mediocre. I think they're generally regarded as having decent music, but being undeserving of their popularity.

Two - their music is seriously repetitive. And this leads into number...

Three - not only is their music repetitive, but it pirates other bands to do it. Where I'm from, we refer to Nickelback as "Theory of a Nickelfault", a term coined to describe a certain three bands whose music all seem to inherit from one another. And from there, Nickelback et al. have seemed to inspire a whole genre of bland rock music wherein an apparent pre-requisite is that each band participating in the genre must sound exactly the same.

It's not that they're mediocre. It's not that they're repetitive. It's that they've taken all of commercial rock music in that direction. I loathe them for the flavorless empire they spawned.

[ThePhantasm]

Because they make the rest of our country look bad. When I go travelling to other countries, I have to sew an American Flag onto my backpack, or else people will start yelling at me about Nickleback.

I won't yell at you for that, but I may yell at you for Justin Bieber. :smalltongue:

[Traab]

I won't yell at you for that, but I may yell at you for Justin Bieber. :smalltongue:

But... Ive got a FEVER! And the only prescription... is more justin beiber!


(Did I just ruin the snl skit forever with that line? I think I might have)

[GolemsVoice]

Realistically, most Nickelback fans are probably like the rest of us. I am a massive Pearl Jam fan and I don't spend all my time extolling their virtues on internet message boards. They are probably happy to listen to their band and don't much care what anyone else thinks.

I think that's also very important. People who dislike something will often be more vocal about it thatn people who like somehting, or find something to be ok.

I won't make a meme about how Nickelback is generally ok, but I will surely make a meme about how Nickelback is worse than Hitler and stuff. And I guess a lot of the hate come from the internet, where such things count.

[Traab]

I think that's also very important. People who dislike something will often be more vocal about it thatn people who like somehting, or find something to be ok.

I won't make a meme about how Nickelback is generally ok, but I will surely make a meme about how Nickelback is worse than Hitler and stuff. And I guess a lot of the hate come from the internet, where such things count.

Hitler mainly poisoned the minds of germany. Nickelback has poisoned THE WORLD!!!! :smallbiggrin:

[Juhn]

I'm fairly certain that Ke$ha is part of some Pygmalion-style power trip, where her agent is deliberately taking the most horrible singer in the world and making her a pop star, just to prove he can.

From what I've read/heard, this is almost literally the case. Except she's her own mastermind. The woman got a near-perfect score on her SAT, could have gone to med school if she felt like it, etc. She legitimately does not care about her career; she is actively trolling the music industry to find out how long she can get away with putting out music this bad and getting paid for it, and then she's going to go be a doctor or something.

As far as I know, Nickelback is legitimately convinced that they're good. Ke$ha is smart enough to know that she isn't, and her entire career is one grand experiment.

In short: Ke$ha is awesome.

Also, with regard to "brush my teeth with a bottle of Jack", etc. when questioned about being a bad role model and whatnot she responded with something along the lines of "I like to think my audience is smart enough to realize that that's not something anyone would actually condone. I mean, come on."

[TheArsenal]

* Clapping*

Kesha, you amaze me. I hate your music anyway. But knowing your laughing at the industry behind your empire is hilarious.

[kpenguin]

I recall viewing a couple videos of her just singing normally and she sounds quite nice. Not music sensation nice, but nice.

I can only assume her pop singing is part of this trolling strategy.

[Weezer]

I recall viewing a couple videos of her just singing normally and she sounds quite nice. Not music sensation nice, but nice.

I can only assume her pop singing is part of this trolling strategy.

Same thing is true for Lady Gaga, if you hear her singing before she adopted her persona.

Her whole career started as a demonstration of the inanity of the pop music industry and the vast majority of it is a troll. Despite not liking any of her music, I approve.

[Zen Monkey]

Bland corporate rock, and they only seem to have three songs:

'nostalgia song'
'we're cool rock stars'
'prostitutes are awesome'

I get the feeling that most of their supposed creative effort is actually the result of a board room committee reading over demographics numbers and trying to hit the good spot on the cost/income curve.

[warty goblin]

Bland corporate rock, and they only seem to have three songs:

'nostalgia song'
'we're cool rock stars'
'prostitutes are awesome'


Again to be fair, this puts them at least one song type above most artists on pop radio.

[Lord Seth]

Same thing is true for Lady Gaga, if you hear her singing before she adopted her persona.

Her whole career started as a demonstration of the inanity of the pop music industry and the vast majority of it is a troll. Despite not liking any of her music, I approve.I don't see anything particularly "trolling" about Lady Gaga's singing, or even her song lyrics (for the most part). The "trolling" is more her general persona and the goofy music videos.

[Weezer]

I don't see anything particularly "trolling" about Lady Gaga's singing, or even her song lyrics (for the most part). The "trolling" is more her general persona and the goofy music videos.

And where would her career be without those things? I feel that's essentially the reason she came into the limelight.

[AgentofHellfire]

I, unlike some on here, actually quite like Nickelback, but I can understand the problems people have with it.

The problem, in my view, is that everything Nickelback does is copied and then slightly altered in such a way as to make it more generic. After having heard this same, exact type of tune for a really long time on the radio, the kind that isn't quite good enough to enjoy, but is played as often as something truly great should...well...most people don't like the bands involved.

[Lord Seth]

And where would her career be without those things? I feel that's essentially the reason she came into the limelight.Your message indicated that it was her singing that was trolling. I see nothing particularly "trollish" about the singing.

[Weezer]

Your message indicated that it was her singing that was trolling. I see nothing particularly "trollish" about the singing.

Ahh, perhaps I was unclear. Her singing was definitely toned down in quality when compared to her pre-Gaga stage and the vast majority of her popular songs are by far her worst work in terms of vocal quality, but it's her performances (including stuff like music videos and her persona as a whole) that are the trollish behaviors.

[Juhn]

Same thing is true for Lady Gaga, if you hear her singing before she adopted her persona.

Her whole career started as a demonstration of the inanity of the pop music industry and the vast majority of it is a troll. Despite not liking any of her music, I approve.

See, this annoys me. Mainly as we don't need two people doing this same sort of trolling simultaneously and Gaga has more talent as an actual singer than Ke$ha does. She's squandering it to make a point when there's already someone else available for that job.

Admittedly Ke$ha's "hyper-trashy" MO is generally less entertaining than Gaga's "deliberately as weird as possible" MO, but I'm more sore over not hearing Stefani Germanotta not singing well.

[Moff Chumley]

Same thing is true for Lady Gaga, if you hear her singing before she adopted her persona.

Her whole career started as a demonstration of the inanity of the pop music industry and the vast majority of it is a troll. Despite not liking any of her music, I approve.

That may have been how it started, but Gaga takes her career way more seriously than kesha. She's a way more talented singer, granted.

Or I dunno, maybe Gaga's exploring heretofore unknown levels of irony and I just don't get it. :smalltongue:

[Raistlin1040]

Gaga is excellent.

The problem with Nickleback, in my opinion, is that they are so incredibly shameless about pandering to the biggest audience possible, in the most absurdly commercial way possible. Obviously, most artists want to be famous and make money, but it's rare that I would say a band sold out. Lots of people don't like "New" Green Day that liked "Old" Green Day, but they didn't really fundamentally change. They got older, smarter, more mature and started crafting a more adult sound, but railing against politics is still pretty punk. Did they capitalize on a political movement? Probably, although it was early enough that it was probably a gamble. Yes, the commercial appeal of American Idiot is greater than the commercial appeal of Dookie or Insomniac, but I believe Green Day has always made the music they want to make.

Same with artists that are legitimately weird (Gaga, David Bowie, Marilyn Manson, whatever). When they change their sound every album, you get it because you listen to David Bowie talk and go "Yeah, this guys seems like the kind of person who loves avant-garde jazz and also pop music". I'm not going to begrudge him "Let's Dance" because I can believe that he's legitimately interested in making that kind of music as much as he's interested in the piano solo from "Aladdin Sane".

Nickleback's older stuff wasn't actually that bad. It was decent and listenable, if derivative. They had an identity as musicians and people, and they've totally thrown that away. Their music and lyrics are not good enough to justify their commercialism and the fact that you can basically pick up a recent album of theirs and say "Odd numbered tracks are party rockers about drinking and having sex for the boys, and even numbered tracks are soft songs about love and heartbreak for the girls". If they're still making the music they want to make, it's declined heavily in quality, or they're bowing to commercial pressure in order to market to everybody. Either way, it's pretty awful.

[Lord Seth]

See, this annoys me. Mainly as we don't need two people doing this same sort of trolling simultaneously and Gaga has more talent as an actual singer than Ke$ha does. She's squandering it to make a point when there's already someone else available for that job.Except Lady Gaga hit the scene and started "trolling" over a year before Ke$ha released her first single. There wasn't anyone else "already" there.

[GolemsVoice]

Nickleback's older stuff wasn't actually that bad. It was decent and listenable, if derivative. They had an identity as musicians and people, and they've totally thrown that away. Their music and lyrics are not good enough to justify their commercialism and the fact that you can basically pick up a recent album of theirs and say "Odd numbered tracks are party rockers about drinking and having sex for the boys, and even numbered tracks are soft songs about love and heartbreak for the girls". If they're still making the music they want to make, it's declined heavily in quality, or they're bowing to commercial pressure in order to market to everybody. Either way, it's pretty awful.

While that certainly doesn't make them good artists, they just take the shortest route to the biggest amount of money, and music is a business, after all, so they're producing what sells. Doesn't mean that 's what everyone should do, and I certainly like musicians/bands whith a more individual style better, but I still think the hate they get is unjutified. Because most of what can be said about them is probably true for about 90% of everything that's on the radio, yet people somehow attribute a special malevolence to Nickelback.

[Moff Chumley]

Same with artists that are legitimately weird (Gaga..)

What's weird about Gaga's music? A lot of her songs, at least the ones I've heard, borrow pretty heavily from Annie Lennox/Madonna/etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that, really, but it's not what I'd call "weird"...


While that certainly doesn't make them good artists, they just take the shortest route to the biggest amount of money, and music is a business, after all, so they're producing what sells.
The music business is a business, but music is and always has been an art.

[Traab]

Clearly, enough people like nickelback to continue buying all this "derivative, repetitive, bland, soulless, mediocre, whatever other adjective you want to include here" type music they pump out. If it didnt sell, they wouldnt make it, and they wouldnt be around.

Look, im sure there are musicians out there who manage to make it big by putting their souls into every song they make. Everything they sing has a deep personal meaning, and this is how they express themselves, just as much as how breaking out the easel is how picasso expressed himself. But for every artist, i think there are a dozen or more musical businessmen. They pick a style of music, and they hit all the standard buttons. Take rap. They will write some piece of drek about being "gangsta" and how the police suck and sell a million copies. Or random country singer #65832 will make an entire album based around pickup trucks, hunting dogs, and the american flag. Its all derivative, its all cheap regurgitation of the standard format for whatever style they choose, and it makes them money for minimal effort. They likely wont hit quadruple platinum, or win 50 grammys, but they will get paid, a million people will buy the cd, and they will repeat the effort until their voices give out.

Nickelback is just one of hundreds of bands that all do this, spread across every musical genre, hating them for producing average songs is just silly. They dont suck, they dont rule, they are an average group churning out average music in a fence straddling genre that appeals to a wide assortment of people. For every Follow You Home, there is a Photograph. For every Animal there is a If Everyone Cared. It may not be high quality inspiring music, but it hits the right buttons for a large number of people to be satisfied as they wait for the next big artist to set our souls on fire with their heart wrenching musical expression of all that they are.

[Mewtarthio]

What's weird about Gaga's music? A lot of her songs, at least the ones I've heard, borrow pretty heavily from Annie Lennox/Madonna/etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that, really, but it's not what I'd call "weird"...

Watch a few of her music videos.

[Moff Chumley]

I've seen quite a few of her videos, and I wish from the bottom of my heart her music sounded like her music videos make it look like it should sound. :smalltongue:

[dehro]

about nickelback..this may have been said already, but aside the mediocrity shot to unexplained levels of fame.. what probably irks most haters is not the band in itself but the fact that their fans don't seem to be able to notice how mediocre the band is.
so in fact it's not the band people hate..it's the fans
pretty much like what happened with bieber, tokio hotel and twilight

scrap that... people hate twilight for its own sake too :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

Thats the thing though, a band doesnt have to evoke feelings of, "Oh my god, this is the greatest thing since mozart first touched a piano!" to be liked. They write "good" music. Not great, but "good" And considering that the people who like that style of music find it to be good, is it any surprise that they are fans? Once again, a band doesnt have to blow you out of the water with their amazing music to be enjoyed. The music is memorable, (if repetitive at times) and the lyrics are easy enough to learn to allow for singing along, which is always a plus. Hell, ive listened to killer queen dozens of times, while reading along with the lyrics and I STILL dont have the whole thing memorized properly. Awesome song, but damn is it hard to memorize.

Anyways, back on point, I dislike the term mediocre, its clearly aimed as being insulting towards things that are average. Average isnt bad, its average. The midpoint between great and terrible. A positive slant could be the term good. Like I said, good, not great. Not amazing. But good isnt bad. :smalltongue:

[Lord Seth]

about nickelback..this may have been said already, but aside the mediocrity shot to unexplained levels of fame.. what probably irks most haters is not the band in itself but the fact that their fans don't seem to be able to notice how mediocre the band is.
so in fact it's not the band people hate..it's the fans
pretty much like what happened with bieber, tokio hotel and twilight

scrap that... people hate twilight for its own sake too :smallbiggrin:...and the same is true for Bieber, Tokio Hotel, and Nickelback, so I'm not really sure what the point of the last sentence is.

[warty goblin]

Clearly, enough people like nickelback to continue buying all this "derivative, repetitive, bland, soulless, mediocre, whatever other adjective you want to include here" type music they pump out. If it didnt sell, they wouldnt make it, and they wouldnt be around.

Look, im sure there are musicians out there who manage to make it big by putting their souls into every song they make. Everything they sing has a deep personal meaning, and this is how they express themselves, just as much as how breaking out the easel is how picasso expressed himself.

Or, perhaps more intriguingly, maybe Nickelback really are putting their souls out there, and it just happens their souls are focused on loose ladies, various mind-altering chemicals, and their own awesomeness with the occasional bit of larger awareness thrown in for good measure. Hey, I've known guys like that.

[GolemsVoice]

It's not exactly an uncommon thing among rock, or general music stars, or even stars of whatever medium. And before somebody objects, "Star" is used rather loosely.

[Moff Chumley]

Yeah, "loose ladies, mind altering chemicals, and one's own awesomeness" isn't a huge jump from sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Thousands of examples teach us it's more than possible to sing about sex, drugs, and rock and roll without sounding like your song was assembled in half an hour in ProTools.

[GolemsVoice]

Yeah, "loose ladies, mind altering chemicals, and one's own awesomeness" isn't a huge jump from sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Thousands of examples teach us it's more than possible to sing about sex, drugs, and rock and roll without sounding like your song was assembled in half an hour in ProTools.

And thousand other examples show us that sounding mediocre while singing about unimaginative topics isn't something that Nickelback has invented, nor that they are the worst offenders.

[warty goblin]

And thousand other examples show us that sounding mediocre while singing about unimaginative topics isn't something that Nickelback has invented, nor that they are the worst offenders.

Exactly. As I said before, compared to a lot of the crap on pop radio, they're actually pretty good. This may be setting the bar pretty low, but when you're stuck in dishroom with a radio that gets only one channel, it's the bar you work with.

[Traab]

Exactly. As I said before, compared to a lot of the crap on pop radio, they're actually pretty good. This may be setting the bar pretty low, but when you're stuck in dishroom with a radio that gets only one channel, it's the bar you work with.

Its really a matter of this. I dont think anyone is crazy enough to try to claim that they are ungodly awesome masters of music and song. However, they are good enough to hit the above average range. They arent amazing or incredible, but they are decent, and thats enough reason to buy their music if you like that genre set they run with. And thats why the hate confuses me. They arent bad.

Even most of the haters dont try to claim that they suck. They use words like mediocre, formulaic, or other terms like that. You rarely hear phrases like. "I would rather listen to howler monkeys being bikini waxed with molten lead than have to suffer through the hellish torment of Leader Of Men." Why? Because they arent that bad. They are a popular group that got that way by NOT producing edgy amazing songs, but by producing generic work that people generally enjoy listening to. Its not incredible, but it doesnt have to be, to be worth listening to. The range of music is wider than 2 slots of amazing and horrible. You cant say, 'Since it isnt amazing, it must suck donkey balls" It doesnt automatically work that way.

[VanBuren]

Its really a matter of this. I dont think anyone is crazy enough to try to claim that they are ungodly awesome masters of music and song. However, they are good enough to hit the above average range. They arent amazing or incredible, but they are decent, and thats enough reason to buy their music if you like that genre set they run with. And thats why the hate confuses me. They arent bad.

Even most of the haters dont try to claim that they suck. They use words like mediocre, formulaic, or other terms like that. You rarely hear phrases like. "I would rather listen to howler monkeys being bikini waxed with molten lead than have to suffer through the hellish torment of Leader Of Men." Why? Because they arent that bad. They are a popular group that got that way by NOT producing edgy amazing songs, but by producing generic work that people generally enjoy listening to. Its not incredible, but it doesnt have to be, to be worth listening to. The range of music is wider than 2 slots of amazing and horrible. You cant say, 'Since it isnt amazing, it must suck donkey balls" It doesnt automatically work that way.

Can we define what their genre is? Wikipedia, for instance, says that they've been considered hard rock, alt-metal, and alt-rock. I would not consider them "above-average" in any of those categories.

[Traab]

Can we define what their genre is? Wikipedia, for instance, says that they've been considered hard rock, alt-metal, and alt-rock. I would not consider them "above-average" in any of those categories.

I really cant because they do a few different types of songs. They do the hard rock or heavy metal or whatever you want to call it stuff, like next contestant, or animal, then they switch to power ballad type stuff like if today was your last day, then they also do some really soft stuff, love song type music. I think it pretty much always falls under the general "rock" genre, but it varies in subgroup from song to song. As for not being above average, meh, its all a matter of taste really. Its hard to quantify something that is ok, or good, as everyone has a different opinion. Maybe the best way to label its quality is "good enough" with all the ways that phrase could be applied being correct. Its created by a group that says 'good enough" and its good enough for people who like that style to buy it. Their music will never change the world. You wont see a Freddy Mercury style good bye concert with a larger population than most small countries if Chad dies. But they are good enough to keep people buying their work because its better than not listening to music at all, or listening to the same old stuff from other, better bands, for the millionth time instead. Its not bad, its not great, its good enough.

[Moff Chumley]

Commercial alt-rock, or radio alt-rock. Some sort of alt-rock. Alt-rock's a pretty broad genre and they fall squarely into it. :smalltongue:

[Traab]

Commercial alt-rock, or radio alt-rock. Some sort of alt-rock. Alt-rock's a pretty broad genre and they fall squarely into it. :smalltongue:

You know what my first reaction was to reading these labels for it? Rock snobs who dont want to admit that nickelback is rock and roll, so they made up a new sub genre that they could shove as far away from the real thing as possible. They give it a few labels that show it isnt REALLY rock, its some crappy bastardization of rock. I dont totally disagree with this btw, this sure as hell aint no Poison or Aerosmith or whatever. I can see alt rock, but adding in extra qualifiers? It just seems like its trying to shove the group into an insulting little niche of its own, where they cant infect the "real" groups with their evil.

[GolemsVoice]

Ah, cut him some slack, sometimes I have the feeling that every band is it's own subgenre in their chosen borader field. Epic Hollywood Symphonic Metal, anyone?

[Whoracle]

[...]Epic Hollywood Symphonic Metal, anyone?

Ahhhh, it burnsssss!

To this day I maintain that Rhapsody deserves to be tarred and feathered for that one. The whole reason for putting bands into genres is to get at least some kind of common ground for comparisons... But that's Rhapsody for you, I guess :)

[Traab]

Ah, cut him some slack, sometimes I have the feeling that every band is it's own subgenre in their chosen borader field. Epic Hollywood Symphonic Metal, anyone?

Oh I wasnt calling HIM a rock snob, just the people who designed this label for nickelback and bands like them to try and distance it as far from THEIR favorite musical genre as possible. And yeah, you probably could do that, but there reaches a point where its a nit picking or meaningless distinction. Take species classification. Theoretically, you could break it down enough so that every single human is considered their own scientific classification of the human species. It becomes a meaningless complication rather than a useful identification tool.

[VanBuren]

You know what my first reaction was to reading these labels for it? Rock snobs who dont want to admit that nickelback is rock and roll, so they made up a new sub genre that they could shove as far away from the real thing as possible. They give it a few labels that show it isnt REALLY rock, its some crappy bastardization of rock. I dont totally disagree with this btw, this sure as hell aint no Poison or Aerosmith or whatever. I can see alt rock, but adding in extra qualifiers? It just seems like its trying to shove the group into an insulting little niche of its own, where they cant infect the "real" groups with their evil.


Oh I wasnt calling HIM a rock snob, just the people who designed this label for nickelback and bands like them to try and distance it as far from THEIR favorite musical genre as possible. And yeah, you probably could do that, but there reaches a point where its a nit picking or meaningless distinction. Take species classification. Theoretically, you could break it down enough so that every single human is considered their own scientific classification of the human species. It becomes a meaningless complication rather than a useful identification tool.

Well, if we're going to be perfectly honest, Poison is often considered to be "glam metal". Aerosmith is trickier, simply because of how much they've done over the years, incorporating elements of pop, heavy metal, and R&B, but their core is is a sort of blues-based "hard rock"

"Alt-rock" is not a genre snob distinction. It's a necessary sub-genre of Rock, because "Rock and Roll" as a genre exhibits the opposite of the problem you've identified. Whereas a classification might become too specific to be useful, "rock" as a genre has become too broad.

When a single genre encompasses everything from Elvis Presley to Chubby Checker, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Fifth Estate, The Everley Brothers, Eric Clapton, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, The Eagles, Yes, Weather Report, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Stryper, Patti Smith, Deborah Harry, U2, Iron Maiden, etc.--And that's not even touching on Grunge or anything beyond the 80s--then it might be time to accept that divisions within that genre are needed.


*Yes, heavy metal is a subgenre of rock. That has it's own subgenres.

[Traab]

Well, if we're going to be perfectly honest, Poison is often considered to be "glam metal". Aerosmith is trickier, simply because of how much they've done over the years, incorporating elements of pop, heavy metal, and R&B, but their core is is a sort of blues-based "hard rock"

"Alt-rock" is not a genre snob distinction. It's a necessary sub-genre of Rock, because "Rock and Roll" as a genre exhibits the opposite of the problem you've identified. Whereas a classification might become too specific to be useful, "rock" as a genre has become too broad.

When a single genre encompasses everything from Elvis Presley to Chubby Checker, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Fifth Estate, The Everley Brothers, Eric Clapton, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, The Eagles, Yes, Weather Report, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Stryper, Patti Smith, Deborah Harry, U2, Iron Maiden, etc.--And that's not even touching on Grunge or anything beyond the 80s--then it might be time to accept that divisions within that genre are needed.


*Yes, heavy metal is a subgenre of rock. That has it's own subgenres.

Alt rock isnt, but when you start adding stuff like commercial-alt-rock, you start getting into the sub genres of sub genres, and plus I find that some titles that get added on seem to be done so just to insult their music style. Take the term commercial. Its clearly put there to infer that they are basically just doing what they have to to turn a profit. But whats wrong about that? How many famous bands honestly arent out to make money with their music? Im sure that there are some bands that honestly do it to express themselves, or have some other non monetary reason for what they do, but I bet profit is a big factor for the majority of bands across all genres, so putting in commercial, as if its something new and unusual, to their genre, just strikes me as yet another attempt to knock nickelback down a few pegs through careful wording. Mediocre instead of average, commercial instead of, "No &^%$ they want to make money"

Or radio-alt-rock. What the hell does that even MEAN?! I think only half of all of nickelbacks music is even playable on the radio, unless you are talking about satellite. And every genre has tons of bands that produce music that gets played on the radio, along with another 50% of their songs that dont. It just strikes me as a meaningless distinction that once again is only meant to further shove the band away from established genres so people who dont like them, but like alt rock can pretend they are playing some other type of music.

[Moff Chumley]

\How many famous bands honestly arent out to make money with their music?

:smallconfused:

A hell of a lot of them.


I bet profit is a big factor for the majority of bands across all genres, so putting in commercial, as if its something new and unusual, to their genre, just strikes me as yet another attempt to knock nickelback down a few pegs through careful wording. Mediocre instead of average, commercial instead of, "No &^%$ they want to make money"

Except for Alt-rock. Alt-rock started as a decidedly DIY affair and a lot of its founding members were aggressively anti-commercial. The Replacements, Big Black, The Melvins, Husker Du, Sonic Youth, so on and so forth.
In most genres, it's not really worth commenting on if a band's commercial or not; Return to Forever was easier listening than Mahavishnu Orchestra but no one's calling Return to Forever "commercial fusion". However, with a genre like alt-rock where mainstream radio viability isn't exactly common, it's worth distinguishing.

Also, compare this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cQh1ccqu8M) to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDc9sRqYlAQ). The Strokes are hardly unsuccessful, but their success is in spite of their low-budget, unpolished vibe. As opposed to Nickelback's incredibly hi-fi, shiny-sounding stuff.

[Weezer]

:smallconfused:

A hell of a lot of them.



I would even say the vast majority aren't out there to make money. Of course we tend to hear about the ones who are making money or are out to make money, because almost every band never gets noticed beyond their local scene. The thing to remember is that most bands don't hit it rich, most bands don't even get beyond occasional gigs at the local pub or similar small scale things, and that isn't exactly the kind of thing that rakes in the cash.

[Moff Chumley]

Basically, if you really like money, "musician" is not gonna be your choice career path.