Why does everyone here hate Nickleback?

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Why does everyone here hate them? Ive only heard them once or twice, but it isnt complete shit or anything.

[CelesJessa]

I'm not sure. I generally like Nickleback. My roommate has a ton of their music and plays it all of the time and it's generally a good listen. And a lot of their songs are actually pretty good. I was thinking about asking her for her ipod so I could put some of her Nickleback songs on my computer, even.

Maybe I just have really weird music taste. XD

[Lumenskir]

Well, I've personally never been a fan of Nirvana, and Nickelback is just Nirvana after being watered down for mass consumption for a decade or so, so that's my reasoning. I'm sure somebody will stroll along and post the link to the "All Nickelback songs are the same" demonstration, but I've always believed that that was just a way to show that Nickelback are dicks and doesn't really have anything to do with the music quality per se.

[Fifthfiend]

People hate Nickelback because where most shitty music acts have at least several different shitty songs, Nickelback has one shitty song that they regurgitate over and over and over again. The same groaning dirge, bereft of anything resembling passion or verve or spirit, forever and ever unto eternity. When you arrive in Hell's waiting room*, Nickelback is the song they will play.

Nickelback is just Nirvana after being watered down for mass consumption for a decade or so

Setting aside the particular question of Nirvanna's merits I don't think it's illustrative of Nickelback's shittiness to compare them to Nirvanna because Nickelback churns out the same arena-rock crap that was being churned out two decades before anyone ever heard of a Nirvanna and will continue to be churned out two decades from now.





*The joke is you're not actually waiting for anything, Hell is the waiting room.

[Mike McC]

Nickelback is just the epitomy, the embodiment of record industry formulated and produced pop-rock drivel. For the most part, they sound like some American Idol winner (see: Chris Daughtry), and while they aren't from the abysmal depths of horror (fuck you, J. Lo), they are nothing more than pure, industry friendly, safe mediocrity. They never push any boundries, they never get adventerous or experimental, they never evolve. Everything they do is essentially the same as everything they've done before, and while that may be fine for a one-hit, one-album wonder, most of us want variation, want change, want evolution. They don't have to be a Radiohead in that respect, but at least give us some variation, and we may start to consider them.

Until then, I think that the famous track edit from the SA forums says it all. Two different songs, yet not different at all. It just goes to show that if you've heard one of thier songs, you've probably heard them all.

[Invisible Queen]

I've only heard one of their songs, so I guess I'm at the Nickelback appreciation plateau. It can only go downhill from here.

[Mirai Gen]

I'd just like to say that I enjoy telling people who like Nickleback about the famous edit right when they're ready to go to a Nickleback concert.

I've only heard one of their songs
then you've heard them all.

[POS Industries]

To illustrate.... (http://www.thewebshite.net/nickelback.htm)

[CelesJessa]

most of us want variation, want change, want evolution.
Ah that must be it. Because if I want to listen to something different, I generally listen to a different artist. It might also have something to do with I just listen to music. I don't really pay attention to the artists, I just hear a song and decide if I like it or not.


It just goes to show that if you've heard one of thier songs, you've probably heard them all.

Other than a few of them(like from POSs example, which actually doesn't work for me because one of my speakers doesn't work XD but I've heard it before and it IS pretty terrible), I think that a lot of their songs do don't all (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zJQrR297QU) sound (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Uk-kSTmAg&feature=related) like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BX2Q-yFnZY) the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbCGyJoHymo) same (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAtblBTkTHY) song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Uk-kSTmAg&feature=related)

Similar, yes, but not as bad as some people make it out to be.

[Ugainius]

Having listen to one (or possibly more, I'm not entirely sure) a couple of times, the most annoying thing about them was the lead singer. Now I have a much higher tolerance for wangst-ridden then most people but that mans voice hits me need centre on the “Annoying whingy bastard must kill” part of my mind. The words are irrelevant for me I can’t get past the guys uuuuuuugh inducing melodrama voice. This itself is probably a personal thing but it prevented me from actually listening to the song. The music itself disappears into the background of the lead singers jet engine whine and the words themselves lose all meaning and indeed in my mind actual sound. Then again this jus me and I’m hardly the basis of the average teenager.

[TDK]

I agree with Ugainius about the whiney jet engine thing, the lead singer's voice.

Its not morosely unenjoyable, but it is recycled pop-punk-emo trash garbage. I mean like, I won't complain if my sister puts it on the radio or something, but I wouldn't actively listen to it or have it on my mp3 player or anything.

[Ugainius]

I agree with Ugainius about the whiney jet engine thing, the lead singer's voice.

Its not morosely unenjoyable, but it is recycled pop-punk-emo trash garbage. I mean like, I won't complain if my sister puts it on the radio or something, but I wouldn't actively listen to it or have it on my mp3 player or anything.

Yeah, to be fair it does blend into the backround well enough; You wouldn't exactly be driven into a rage whenever it plays.

[Eltoshin]

I don't like Nickleback really, but I do enjoy the singers voice, has that raspy kinda thing that i find pretty cool...if you let someone else play in the backround and have him sing, hes pretty good...Such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7amYNaPTRI) =p (granted it's Carlos Santana playing, which makes it awesome anyways)

[Mike McC]

It's like I said. They're not horrible, just mediocre and really not deserving of the attention they recieve.

[Fifthfiend]

Similar, yes, but not as bad as some people make it out to be.

In fairness the vast majority of musicksy things aren't as bad as people make them out to be. But if people didn't have music we'd have to divert our tribalistic impulses into like, politics, and then you just end up having massive wars and shit. Or alternately broad-based activist movements that work to change society for the better. And who wants any of that shit?

... I guess we could all just start caring about sports, but I mean, fuck caring about sports.

[Mondt]

Ah that must be it. Because if I want to listen to something different, I generally listen to a different artist. It might also have something to do with I just listen to music. I don't really pay attention to the artists, I just hear a song and decide if I like it or not.There it is though, you might like an artist for more than one CD's worth of sound. You get a band and they release a CD, and everyone loves the CD. But then they release another CD with a different sound (Even if its by artist, not industry, choice) and everyone gets pissed, but then everyone says Nickelback is shit.

Nobody knows what they want.

[Mirai Gen]

I think they get hated because their music is so mediocre and typical radio-played music that it makes people angry, since instead of encouraging experimentation and new stuff like Radiohead's been totally about their whole career (To the point of not playing their own hit songs in concerts) they are essentially encouraging generic music.

Also, like...you can have music that sounds like your music and not get hated on. I'm positive that - singer aside - any Boston song that gets played is instantly recognizable.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Experimentation isnt always neccesary though. I mean, is it really a bad thing if a band sticks to one style? A lot of people seem to rag on Metallica for changing it up, so I dont see the point in this argument.

[Bells]

I for one would like to point out that Nickelback is not all that shitty, as per shit we define to be "Linkin Park"... and Nickelback sounds better.

Yeah, you take one song from each one of their albuns and Nickelback sounds a lot like "replay" band. Static style and song congifuration. Their set pieces are quite alright, i dont see anything bad on them. The Lyrics can be really weak or lame ( "Animal" "This is how you remind me" ) and even a little kiddy, in the point that it aims STRAIGHT for young "rockers".

The problem i see here is that people dont seem to have a "Medium" today, it's either "SOOO FUCKING AMAZING" or "WAAAY FUCKING BAD", there is no "good" or "ok"... For me, Nickelback is Ok.

I can load in a few of their songs on the background, it will play, Someday, Save me, Follow you home, Far Away... it's not bad. They know their stuff and they choose to ride with what works, play safe. Eventually they will just fade away... hey, a lot of people praise Metallica and Nirvana like they were the Alpha and Omega, and still know only a couple of Songs (the more popular ones) each... it just fades away with time.

Hey, i have a couple of songs by P.O.D. they are worst then Nickelback too... but nothing is all that bad, they could really gamble with their Lyrics and Concepts and trully evolve, but, who can gamble like that nowadays?

[Lost in Time]

If you want something Nickleback-y that isn't totally full of suck, I'd recommend you to listen to Theory of a Deadman. The music style is about the same, and with about the same lyrical content, but for some reason I can listen to them more. Maybe because they're slightly more obscure?

[POS Industries]

I for one would like to point out that Nickelback is not all that shitty, as per shit we define to be "Linkin Park"... and Nickelback sounds better.
What do you mean "we", paleface?

[greed]

Yeah I'll take Linkin Park over Nickelback anyday. I think their actual music isn't bad, it's their inane lyrics that are the problem. Plus they are willing to experiment, change and screw around(it's arguable if they succeed, but they do try). Even their singer wouldn't be bad if he wasn't singing/rapping teenage angst.

Nickelback has the same problem with adolescent angst and crappy lyrics, and compounds it with a complete lack of instrumental and compositional talent, a crappy singer and no ability to change or evolve.

[Krylo]

Things

Actually the issue with Nickleback is that they're SO mediocre that it's completely soulless and devoid of life.

Music is art and expression. All Nickleback is capable of expressing is how much they love money, and how much they're willing to allow themselves to stagnate to hold onto their pop-emo-industry sound that is so easily able to cash in.

They are the definition of sell out.

1996: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OccjJXkNuE

Yes, it's pretty... well it's pretty terrible honestly. Disharmonic and unmelodic.

Compare to POS's link, or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvlWFb2zn0s).

This is what all of their current stuff sounds like.

This is what pretty much everything after their first CD in 1996 sounds like.

They found something that made them money and they sucked it dry like a cheap syphilis ridden whore.

Their sound isn't terrible. As has been said; It's completely mediocre, like it's been scientifically designed to be as unoffensive to our ears as humanly possible. It's just there to soak up money.

It's not art.

It's not a representation of human emotion.

It's not poetry.

It's not anything that music should be.

It IS soulless, calibrated, endlessly regurgitated anti-music.

Nickleback represents everything that is wrong with the music industry. They represent why you can't find good music on MTV anymore. They represent the death of culture in the modern music world.


THAT'S why people hate them.

[Mondt]

We are extremely proud of the "concept" album that we have created, we pulled from a lot of influences for this record and we have created an album that doesn't sound like anything i have ever heard. For everyone who wants us to create another Nocturne... keep on listening to Nocturne... because we will never write and record the same record twice. It makes sense... bands find a sound that sells, and they copy that same sound with different songs OVER AND OVER AND OVER to guarantee a similar paycheck... where is the creativity or ingenuity in this? Pulled from their myspace. People are being bitchy that the new album isn't the same as Nocturne, that's its too light and that they lost their heaviness and that A.J. made the band (A.J. Minette is the old lead guitarist who wrote most of hte music for Nocturne). One album led people to believe that that would be the norm for them. But since they were so different from other things on their first album, why would they continue to be different in the same way?

Again, people don't know what they want.

[Mirai Gen]

Creating music that's consistently interesting and producing a bad album are two completely and unrelated things, and they have no bearing on what the band's 'sound' may or may not be, or what that sound was/is for this/the last album. You can't make a comparison like that out of context.

Cause, like, then I could just say that the often-quoted CD of cats having sex is a follow-up from my first awesome album, but I deviated from my sound and I suck, so I can't say that Nickleback sucks.

Unless I'm misreading your post.

[Mondt]

Creating music that's consistently interesting and producing a bad album are two completely and unrelated things, and they have no bearing on what the band's 'sound' may or may not be, or what that sound was/is for this/the last album. You can't make a comparison like that out of context.

Cause, like, then I could just say that the often-quoted CD of cats having sex is a follow-up from my first awesome album, but I deviated from my sound and I suck, so I can't say that Nickleback sucks.

Unless I'm misreading your post.You said: "When you've heard one song you've heard them all"

Other people called it mediocre.

Other people called it mainstream whoring.

Other people don't like the vocalist.

I'm talking about what you said.

[Cid Highwind]

And yet, they are richer than hell, because they sell a lot of music.

A lot of people dont want change in a band (read: Korn). But a lot of the complaints come from when the experimentation drives the music from really good or bad or mediocre (read: Metallica) very quickly. And a lot of people dont like when a band doesnt change very much (read: Green Day) but most of the time, they are just catering to their fans desires (read: Linkin Park).
Not everyone can continue to crank out the same hits, especially when music tends to change more rapidly with each generation, I mean, do you want Motley Crue, still doing the same shit, 25 years later? Yet, we still need a throwback once in a while from some of the more enduring bands. They need to cater to the fans that got them there; not changing their music every chance they get for the hell of it, forgetting what they've learned before. Its obnoxious. Once again, its just finding a happy medium.

[POS Industries]

A lot of people dont want change in a band (read: Korn).
Though I guess on that first one I'm not sure if he's saying Korn hasn't changed (which is wholly untrue. Compare Life is Peachy to Untouchables, for instance) or if people simply don't like Korn's changes (which is also fairly untrue)

Though I will agree that their last couple albums have been fairly lackluster, but I think that had less to do with a stylistic change and just them putting out too much material in too short a time without making the effort to prune out the more mediocre pieces.

But a lot of the complaints come from when the experimentation drives the music from really good or bad or mediocre (read: Metallica) very quickly.
Metallica had been going downhill and getting more generic since the mid-90s at the latest. If you're referring to the fact that St. Anger wasn't very well-received, I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that people were just plain sick of Metallica's bullshit anyway, not to mention the fact that the only one in the band that was actually trying to stop the band from sucking (bassist Jason Newsted) just gave up and left kind of hurt them all the further on that album.

And a lot of people dont like when a band doesnt change very much (read: Green Day)
I'll admit that they've stayed pretty true to their original style, but they have evolved a great deal as performers and songwriters, not to mention that American Idiot was a fairly experimental undertaking as far as they're concerned and it was their most successful album since Dookie, if I recall correctly.

but most of the time, they are just catering to their fans desires (read: Linkin Park).
Except that most of their fanbase raged like no other at the fact that they weren't doing the same old nu-metal rapcore thing they'd been doing since 2000, which was pretty innovative as far as instrumentation for the time, as well.

[Cid Highwind]

* No, I was referring to how much Korn has changed, and how much it isnt liked.

* And I'm aware of exactly when Metallica started to suck. Somwhere between the end of track one and the start of track two on the black album. By the start of Load, all hope was lost.

* I should have been more clear-- green day staying true is not a bad thing, and, even if you dont like them, or their genre, what they are doing is pretty close to how it should be done.

* Yeah, but some fans have grown past craaaaaaawllllllliiiiiinnnggggg iiiinnnnnnn myyyyyyy skiiiiinnnnn.


Mostly what I was trying to get at, is that A: there really isnt a bad way, not matter how much a sellout or failure they may seem to be, they still are filthy rich and famous (read: Paris Hilton). What does matter is where they go from there, and how they cater to their fans. Nickleback... caters to their fans, so they sell albums. It may seem terrible, but some people out there like that crap. B:No matter what they do its gonna seem like "most people" are complaining.

[Mirai Gen]

* Yeah, but some fans have grown past craaaaaaawllllllliiiiiinnnggggg iiiinnnnnnn myyyyyyy skiiiiinnnnn.
Like me, I suppose. I like them and I have for a while - their lyrics never really stuck out to me, though I suppose you'd have to write lyrics that are mind-bogglingly awful for me to not want to listen to a song.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Okay, seriously, why does everyone hate Load and ReLoad?

[POS Industries]

I dunno, I thought Load was all right.

[Mirai Gen]

Same. I never had an issue with Linkin Park at all, actually.

I felt they just got too popular and the inevitable "FUCK (popular band name) CAUSE THEY SUCK!" happened.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

I actually do like a few LP songs. Not my musical preference, but they do have a couple solid numbers.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Linkin Park are not that bad musically but their lyrics annoy me and I saw them advertise themselves as the greatest band ever and fuck that.

Note: You can claim to be the greatest band ever if you are smashing up a whole lot of stuff (instruments, hotel room, cops) at the time because then you are clearly badass. If it's just in a placid interview, nope.

[Mike McC]

Okay Mondt, Here's the thing. People want a range. They want things to fit in that range, but also they want enough variation within it so that there's actually point in listening to more than one song. And, if a new direction is more favorable than older stuff, people will probably want more stuff from that part of the range.

Coldplay, for example. They have a definate, recognizable sound, and they'd probably alienate people if they strayed from it. But they vary from album to album, tweak thier sound, and try new things, so they don't stagnate. In fact, most bands, while sticking to a specific style, will have evolution or variations.

Nickelback, however, has no variation, no change, no evolution. They churn out exactly the same stuff over and over again. They may as well have only 5 or 6 songs, because everything they have sounds so alike to everything else they have. They are everything Krylo has described them to be.

I apologize for the delay in reply, but my router decided to eat itself.

[GARUD]

First off, out of all the songs you chose to compare, you chose Window Shopper? Jeeze, way to look for a way to condemn a band. Not every one of their songs has to be good (see: Justin Timbercrap).

Personally, this (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=35aO4xtJWf4&feature=related)would have been a better example, simply because its a better song. But if you want to talk evolution, compare it to:

Savin' Me (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Uk-kSTmAg&feature=related)
Next Contestant (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LMk-S8bA-mA&feature=related)
Leader of Men (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNKDTVDwLU&feature=related)
Rockstar (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DmeUuoxyt_E)

Now while not in chronological order, these songs prove that they are at least doing something different, if not evolving. And they are playing back to their fans.

This is what all of their current stuff sounds like.

This is what pretty much everything after their first CD in 1996 sounds like.

They found something that made them money and they sucked it dry like a cheap syphilis ridden whore.

Their sound isn't terrible. As has been said; It's completely mediocre, like it's been scientifically designed to be as unoffensive to our ears as humanly possible. It's just there to soak up money.

It's not art.

It's not a representation of human emotion.

It's not poetry.

It's not anything that music should be.

It IS soulless, calibrated, endlessly regurgitated anti-music.

Nickleback represents everything that is wrong with the music industry. They represent why you can't find good music on MTV anymore. They represent the death of culture in the modern music world.


THAT'S why people hate them.

First off, how does this make them any different from ANY band/musician since the beginning of time? There hasnt been culture in music for years. To say Korn, Metallica, Silverchair, Linkin Park, Motorhead, Zebrahead, or any other rock band brought CULTURE to the music industry, well its a moot statement. Hell, guys like Flo Rider, T-Pain, Usher and Timberlake churning out the exact same thing seems to go completely under the radar to everyone. Yet I see no hate on them.

Besides, since when is making songs to make money a bad thing? Heaven forfend people actually go out and buy a song. Provided the music is good, I dont care if they evolve, or stay the same, provided the songs on their album are good. In the end, thats what it comes down to. Not history. But now. A song's quality is measured by the song itself, not by anything else. If a band makes one good song, its not a crap song just because the rest of their songs are.

Its one thing if you dont like the music they play, but to call them a crap band is not for you to say. They please their fans, and thats all they need to really do. You dont see their fans complaining about being repetitive. Everyone is entitled to their individual tastes. Dont like a band? Just do not listen to their songs. Simple solution right?

[Mike McC]

First off, how does this make them any different from ANY band/musician since the beginning of time? There hasnt been culture in music for years. To say Korn, Metallica, Silverchair, Linkin Park, Motorhead, Zebrahead, or any other rock band brought CULTURE to the music industry, well its a moot statement.Metallica actually brought quite a lot to the table in thier earlier days, pretty much before Load came out. And there are a TON of bands out there that have tried new things, tried to fuse different styles of music, have tried to make thier music into a platform for many different ideas and ideals. To say that no rock band has ever brought culture in, well, that's just foolish. Hell, guys like Flo Rider, T-Pain, Usher and Timberlake churning out the exact same thing seems to go completely under the radar to everyone. Yet I see no hate on them.Oh, there is, it's just they fall out of the genre range of your average internet forum posting nerd, while Nickelback tends to fall right smack dab in the middle. It's the most noticable target for them, so it gets hit the most.

Besides, since when is making songs to make money a bad thing? Heaven forfend people actually go out and buy a song. Provided the music is good, I dont care if they evolve, or stay the same, provided the songs on their album are good. In the end, thats what it comes down to. Not history. But now. A song's quality is measured by the song itself, not by anything else. If a band makes one good song, its not a crap song just because the rest of their songs are.No, there is nothing wrong with a band wanting to make money. And no, one good song isn't crap because all of the band's other songs are crap. However, one good song does not make a band that has 99% crap songs a good band.

Its one thing if you dont like the music they play, but to call them a crap band is not for you to say. They please their fans, and thats all they need to really do. You dont see their fans complaining about being repetitive. Everyone is entitled to their individual tastes. Dont like a band? Just do not listen to their songs. Simple solution right?Everyone is entitled to thier opinions. And opinions include calling a band crap. If you have the right to tell us to not call a band crap, then we have the right to call a band crap as much as we please. Don't like it? Well, then just don't read our rants. Simple solution, right?

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Personally, this (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=35aO4xtJWf4&feature=related)would have been a better example, simply because its a better song. But if you want to talk evolution, compare it to:

Savin' Me (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Uk-kSTmAg&feature=related)
Next Contestant (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LMk-S8bA-mA&feature=related)
Leader of Men (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNKDTVDwLU&feature=related)
Rockstar (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DmeUuoxyt_E)

Now while not in chronological order, these songs prove that they are at least doing something different, if not evolving. And they are playing back to their fans.

Thats true. None of those are really similar, but they have the same style. Actually, those arent half bad for wussy grunge rock.

[NonCon]

An example I'd give is compare say... Never Wanted to Dance from MSI's new album to Wack or Pantyshot, one of their earlier songs... I'd say there is a fairly big difference. I never have problems with bands changing style. I like LP old stuff, though I do have to be in the mood for it, and I also liked their new CD, though not as much.

The thing is, you have essentially two groups, and you can't please both. Either one group will complain that you don't change or experiment enough, or another group will complain that you changed your sound and now either suck, or sold out, or both. Some bands play it safe, other bands experiment anyway.

I have a lot more respect for a band willing to risk some of it's older fans to try something new than for a band that never tries anything new.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

I personally dont care what a band tries as long as I like the sound. Im actually glad Metallica started doing the Blues-Metal stuff, because I like it a lot more the nthe regualr old Thrash Metal. On the other had, Scorpions did some pretty shitty ballads in the 90s, and then went back to their old sound, and were better for it.

[Mondt]

Okay Mondt, Here's the thing. People want a range. They want things to fit in that range, but also they want enough variation within it so that there's actually point in listening to more than one song. And, if a new direction is more favorable than older stuff, people will probably want more stuff from that part of the range.

Coldplay, for example. They have a definate, recognizable sound, and they'd probably alienate people if they strayed from it. But they vary from album to album, tweak thier sound, and try new things, so they don't stagnate. In fact, most bands, while sticking to a specific style, will have evolution or variations.

Nickelback, however, has no variation, no change, no evolution. They churn out exactly the same stuff over and over again. They may as well have only 5 or 6 songs, because everything they have sounds so alike to everything else they have. They are everything Krylo has described them to be.

I apologize for the delay in reply, but my router decided to eat itself.I just don't like how its more or less catering to the fans rather than writing all new music with an all new sound, which would make me, at least, feel much more accomplished and well versed. You don't have to be as weird as like Candiria about it, but eh.

[Mirai Gen]

Most bands follow their own central theme and experiment with music.

Nickleback plays songs in the same pattern. The music always sounds similar. His voice is identical. The drums progress the same. The guitar progresses the same.

Even Boston - whom everyone criticizes for having the same pattern used in lots of their songs - doesn't sound identical with lyrics and chorus and instruments. Nickleback does.

Listening to it is just boring. That's why I hate them.

[Azisien]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa...Hold on a minute. Nickelback has multiple songs? Good lord...

And that pretty much sums up my feelings on Nickelback.

[Mauve Mage]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa...Hold on a minute. Nickelback has multiple songs? Good lord... Yeah. One is "My girlfriend made my life miserable and everyone hates me," and one is "My dad made my life miserable and everyone hates me," and one is "I made my life miserable and everyone hates me." Oh, and for added variety, one is "Hey I found a photo of my old school and it reminds me of how my life was made miserable and by the way, everyone hates me."

[Mirai Gen]

Especially since the song (ahem) 'writer' is like 40. Bet he must remember exactly what its like back in high school!

[Mauve Mage]

Back when children respected their elders and gas cost a quarter and life was perfect and everyone walked to school uphill, barefoot, in the snow, both ways.

[Azisien]

Back when children respected their elders and gas cost a quarter and life was perfect and everyone walked to school uphill, barefoot, in the snow, both ways.

And those were on the good days!

[Krylo]

Its one thing if you dont like the music they play, but to call them a crap band is not for you to say. They please their fans, and thats all they need to really do. You dont see their fans complaining about being repetitive. Everyone is entitled to their individual tastes. Dont like a band? Just do not listen to their songs. Simple solution right?

I don't feel like responding to the rest, and Fencer already did.

However, this is a thread specifically asking why people hate Nickleback.

Telling people not to complain about Nickleback in a thread specifically created for people to say what they don't like about Nickleback is retardilicious. It's like going into a thread about, I don't know... Mario, and telling people not to talk about fat plumbers.

It's ridiculous.

[Fifthfiend]

I'm kind of sad that I didn't catch that statement until after Krylo responded to it, as that would have been a great opportunity to quote Garud, followed by the thread title, followed by an image of a Star Trek cast member expressing stern disapproval and/or disbelief.

[BitVyper]

And yet, they are richer than hell, because they sell a lot of music.

There's a difference between being popular and being great. I don't think a band like Nickelback is capable of the latter. That's fine though, the extraordinary is extraordinary for a reason, but Nickelback doesn't even aspire to it. They aren't trying to be great; they're trying to make money. Complacency leads to mediocrity.

[Nique]

So their Song "I wanna be a rockstar" either is SUPER-Ironic, or not ironic at all?

It makes me really happy that you guys all hate Nickelback. It feels like joy in my heart.