Why are Nickelback regarded to be the worst band ever?

I think the band is neither one of the best nor really bad. They actually have some very decent songs such as "Lullaby" (an anti-suicide anthem) or "If Today Was Your Last Day". I believe bands like Green Day or U2 are way worse. I also don't get why Chad Kroeger supposedly was such a bad vocalist (and the same people see Ozzy Osbourne and Brian Johnson as outstanding ones). Is there a real reason for the hatred against this band? Of couse they have bad songs, but also many decent ones.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 weeks ago

    Well, I guess I’ll be a contrarian. . Because I always kind of liked them. I think that song “Photograph”

     is quite moving and the lead singer’s gravelly voice is a pleasure to listen to. They are Canadian as well, and musicians like them and Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, etc., almost make up for Justin Bieber. At least they’re trying...

  • 3 weeks ago

    Its not their music that gets a lot of people. Its how Kroeger treats people. He thinks hes better than everyone else. And he starts stuff with other musicians, fights that he clearly lost yet he still thinks he won. Corey Taylor of Slipknot murdered him, and Kroeger still acted like he won. Taylor even pointed out Kroegers attitude. The music of Nickelback may not be as bad as some may say. Kroeger may be a better vocalist than some of his counterparts. But he is still an unbelievable as*hole, who has been getting worse by the month. In music there is an accepted amount of it, but he is taking it to a whole other level. And attacking people for no reason. Also none of the other members of Nickelback, are anywhere near Kroeger in the douchebag department. He brings the entire band down. Its more than just writing hit songs. And winning awards. Its how you treat others. And Kroeger has a long history of not being kind. It has an affect on people. Kroeger is the reason the hate is there.

  • Andrew
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    I think that they get a lot of hate because they embody and represent the worst aspects of modern rock - the soullessness of it... the commercial nature of the music industry... the sanitized, antiseptic, artificial crispness to their sound... the total and complete lack of substance... There's just no meaning to what they do. Of course, there are worse culprits, but they are a convenient scapegoat for how incredibly whitewashed and hollow modern rock has become. They're generic. They're forgettable. There's absolutely nothing edgy about them. There's no character to what they do. 

    Admittedly, their songs aren't irredeemably godawful. But then again, they're not really worthy of any analysis either. There's just nothing to appreciate. Their entire catalogue consists of these songs that are essentially just variations on the same unimaginative, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian framework for building songs. They're all capable musicians for playing the type of stuff they play - one doesn't need to be a virtuoso to hold down those weak, predictable songs. 

    I think most of the backlash comes from the fact that real rock fans resent them being put in a position to represent the modern rock movement. People think that the people at the forefront of the rock genre ought to be a bit more in-your-face, have a bit of gritty charm, have a sense of bravado and danger to them. Nickelback are like the nerds in class forming a band and everybody's mum keeps asking the rest of their classmates why they can't be more like them. With their perfectly pressed jeans and their preppy fecking shoes and their sculpted facial hair, looking as though they're getting ready to pose for a J-Crew clothing advert, they're the type of cvnts who would get teased on tour - the opening band would piss in their champagne or put talcum powder in their bass drum and they'd whinge about how everyone is so immature. 

    Personally, I'd love to spit in their faces, but even I must concede that there are worse bands out there. But considering that they've become the target of everybody's ire, might as well keep it up at this point. No reason to change a horse midstream and all, yeah? 

  • 3 weeks ago

    When they first came out, they were alright. They were just early 00's top-40 rock like Creed, Fuel, Succubus and stuff like that. 

    After that, they developed this really cheesy Junior High sex-rock thing that's hard to appreciate for people with any semblance of taste. 

    Theory of a Deadman is far worse. Same with Buckcherry and Hinder. People over 15 should never admit to liking that nonsense. 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 weeks ago

    😄

    Sorta post Grunge kinda.

  • Binks
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Nickelback were far from being the worst band ever, but it was easy for self professed music aficionados to hate on them because they were popular with the mainstream crowds. I liked their first album especially.

    • Linus3 weeks agoReport

      I would say their main problem is that in every album they have a couple decent songs, but also several dull ones. I wouldn't be able to listen to a whole album of them. Two, three, maybe even four songs of them yes, but not a whole album.

  • Will
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    I think it is because they tried to produce rock music, but it fell short and didn't sound like it belonged to any genre at all. They do have some good tracks, but most were the failed attempt of rock. 

    I have neutral-to-positive feelings for the band. I don't think they suck, but aren't my first choice. 

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.