Why Do People Hate Nickelback So Much? A Statistical Analysis
statsignificant.com
statsignificant.com
So I suspect that a large portion (certainly not all) of the "hate" is simply a social expression unrelated to the merits or demerits of their actual work.
So it's not that they're a bad band, or bad at writing songs, we just got tired of that one formula and they kept doing it as long as it made them money.
Also I can't find the quote at the moment, but I believe one of the band members basically straight up admitted they would copy whatever sound was popular at the time so it would sell more - i.e. they were basically businessmen first, musicians second.
This is most pop music (which is by definition whatever style happens to be popular at the time), though, so why would that cause them hate when it doesn't cause the others the same?
It's the formalization, homogenization, cookie cutter, autotuning, algo-music, enshitification that is almost all you can hear anymore. It's all business first, music second. Acquaintance I know plays in a touring band, and it's depressing talking to them.
"Well, Spotify changed they're algorithm, so we're gonna have to change our sound to get on the curated lists with the next single." 'Huh. Do you even enjoy being in band.' "Nah. Not really, touring sucks, and it's the only way to make money. Deal with egotistical headliners and then sit at a table and sell t-shirts."
The most I can say for Nickleback, is at least they don't sound like they're trying to have mean, hurtful sex on tape.
Go to breakfast, and they're playing barnyard sound "ugg, ugg, get your sugar bowl with my hot sauce" music while I'm trying to eat.
Edit: Also, why is Taylor Swift the only modern band that's "supposedly" quality on the list? Fleetwood Mac? They're over half a century old. Even Drake started a decade and a half ago.
The rock guys in my HS lab would sit at the only PCs with speakers and blast it loud to everyone else's misery. They did the same with Evanescence/Nightwish, bands for which I developed gratitude from sparing me of those guys same deep raspy voice.
So it became kind of like a Christian rock band. Something parents would let their kids listen to
Probably another nail in the coffin for radio, especially when stations can just play the same Canadian Content over and over instead of developing it like the regulators all hoped.
My personal hypothesis is that Chad Kroeger looks weird and that’s it.
Every giant band has either a frontman, or a set of people who comprise the ethos that people attach to in a band
Everybody has their favorite beatle or they love the lead singer of band x or whatever.
I’ve literally never heard somebody say Chad Kroeger’s their favorite artist, Or he’s such a hunk, etc.
meanwhile, bands with smaller followings have rabid fans like my daughter and this obscure band with rabid following.
Nirvana wouldn’t have been shit if Kurt Cobain wasn’t such an icon.
So in my estimation, it comes down, purely to the fact that nobody in the band was worth emulating or being excited about given the size of their musical presence.
And in the early 2000's, when I still listened to radio, it was as if every 4th song was Nickelback. Being forced to listen to music you dislike creates utter hatred and contempt.
Nickelback does have ONE song that I actually really like, and it sounds nothing like anything else they made: Animals
https://youtu.be/yAWo0DV03Ng (Lyrics are NSFW, but the video is work safe)
If all of their songs sounded like this, they'd be one of my favorite bands.
tldr - prior to the 90s radio stations were largely independent and had local DJs constantly searching out and playing new and original local music as that DJ was incentivized the find the “next big thing”, I.e. a DJ could say “I was the one” who broke Some Big Band on the national scene. However, in the 90s legislation was passed that allowed for the monopolization of radio stations. Many were bought out by large central corps. This resulted in the demise of the local DJ searching for new music, instead replaced by the DJ who is told by those “up top” what to play. Thus we witnessed the death of new and creative acts, replaced by bands that were “formulated” by corp minds.
Just like how Jazz Fusion had its day of reckoning in Kenny G, Pop Rock had Nickelback
I still remember Pat Metheny calling Kenny G wacked out and fucked up, and everything he says applies just as much to Nickelback
Clear Channel took over, basically the Disney of Radio -- they own it all, kinda like how Sinclair owns all of the local TV stations.
Besides that, their music is really boring- in the sense of being extremely predictable. Lots of other music you hear on the radio is boring too, of course. But it’s a double whammy.
I wonder what Dave Grohl would make of that statement?
Kida related - https://www.metalsucks.net/2020/01/22/that-time-chad-kroeger...
Everyone I've met that's met him, says Chad is an a class prick, for context I live in southern Alberta.
Anyway, Primus sucks!
I had no horse in this race, but now I do. What a missed opportunity.
Stopped reading here
Fleetwood Mac changed their sound a couple of times and they are at the bottom of the ranking as well. Just shows how hard is to measure stuff like this
I think much of the Musk hate is something similar. Here in Sweden we actually have a conflict with Musk-- the labour union network that almost all Swedes are part of are striking and Tesla are bringing in strikebreakers from outside Sweden to overcome this, something no company has done for a very long time and something which is a threat to the way we've ordered our society, but even we don't hate him. Rather, you see quite rabid Americans go on about him, who much less of a conflict with him than we do.
But then he started to make it all about himself, with his atrocious stewardship of Twitter (and increasingly, Tesla), his loud foray into authoritarian politics, and generally being an erratic asshole. He's proven himself to be exactly the type of person that abuses their wealth and power to further enrich themselves without regard to who or how it affects others. He was the richest man in the world, and it wasn't enough.
> But then he started to make it all about himself, with his atrocious stewardship of Twitter (and increasingly, Tesla), his loud foray into authoritarian politics, and generally being an erratic asshole. He's proven himself to be exactly the type of person that abuses their wealth and power to further enrich themselves without regard to who or how it affects others. He was the richest man in the world, and it wasn't enough.
No, he was always "being erratic asshole". For instance: I disliked him before it was cool because of his constant lies about self-driving technology, how he treated his workers, etc.
He stopped getting a pass, and Musk-hate really got going when he entered the polarized political environment and started to annoy Democrats by not conforming to their ideological requirements. Only then did many people start paying attention.
Lying about self driving capabilities? Common business hustling. "Pedo guy"? Message board squabbling. Worker treatment? Basically every business. Articles that his immediate reports' job is basically managing his ego? Hit piece. And so on. It's not that these situations definitely are these things, but rather that they can possibly be explained by them - thus they aren't really objective things to hang my judgement on.
But buying Twitter for $20B+, whether a regretful instance of "drunk" shopping or not, and then immediately going to work destroying the user base, its customers, and the company organization itself? That's midlife crisis buys a new red Dodge Viper and crashes it into a tree on the way home territory. I don't see a way to explain away any of that in nicer "4D chess" terms - any of these arguments about worthwhile changes could and should have been done gradually and behind the scenes, because those "soft assets" were all the business was. And so mismanaging Twitter into the Xitter sticks as a pretty poignant example that the guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, or at the very least has a debilitating social media addiction... which then damages this aura of being the lead visionary from whom all innovation flows at his other companies.
Since we're already in the political arena, I did the same thing with Trump. I was the one telling all my aghast friends in 2016 that there was a good chance he was going to win, because he was actually saying what a lot of people felt. I didn't believe his schtick and didn't vote for him nor the other team's talking head, but I was still hoping that any of the "4D chess" arguments would have some merit. Despite the endless barrage of "You'll never believe THIS bad thing Trump did", it took me until June 2020 to finally write the guy off as irredeemable - that's when Covid was solidly indisputable as capital-P Problem, yet he continued to deflect and equivocate. All the guy had to do was address the problem and lead, and he would have had the shoe-in second term of the war/crisis time president. But alas he kept on doubling down on his divisive reality distortion field, and we all know how that ended up.
They want their heroes and devils neatly wrapped and separated.
In my experience a big part of the American identity is hating something (or someone). You’re with us or against us, black or white.
There is little tolerance for the middle ground or discussion.
See: public healthcare, dems v republicans, gun ownership, reproductive rights. Hate, hate, hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4ojvSuhAko
The article even calls out the Colin Quinn episode above. But it's like 2/3 of the way down, and let's be real, no one on HN reads that articles.
But more broadly speaking it was overplayed mid-tier generic rock with a tinge of country and metal, aimed explicitly to get radio play. Posehn calls out Imagine Dragons and Kid Rock for the same reasons.
srsly, tiny dancer does not improve with the 9,607,366th play over the Walmart PA.