Big-Selling Artists And The Critics Who Despise Them
The AP examines the phenomenon of "critic-proof" bands: those that are drawn and quartered by music writers and "cool kids" alike (hitting close to home?), yet go on to sell millions of records and play to sold out arenas. Call it "The Nickelback Effect."
Yet these acts have sold millions upon millions of albums. So are the critics wrong? Do music buyers have bad taste? Is this karmic payback to all the haters?So who's buying? Ladies, a Blender editor says it's all your fault."There are some bands that, let's face it, are critic-proof," said Nathan Brackett, a senior editor at Rolling Stone. "Just like there are some movies that are critic-proof. Nobody is really reading the reviews for `Norbit,' you know? And nobody's reading Nickelback reviews either."
That might be a good thing. Nickelback's "All the Right Reasons," which debuted at No. 1 on the charts in the fall of 2005 and was still number 16 this week, was called "hard-rock ridiculousness" by The New York Times and "unspeakably awful" by Allmusic.com. Even the late Nirvana frontman and grunge icon Kurt Cobain would disapprove, suggested Rolling Stone, which called the disc "so depressing, you're almost glad Kurt's not around to hear it."
Post-grunge outfits like Nickelback and Hinder continue to be popular — or wreak havoc, whatever your opinion — in part because they appeal to the estrogen set, said Craig Marks, editor in chief of Blender magazine. A "slightly hipper band" will sell more albums to guys than girls, he said.Add to that the geographical bias of insular, coast-based music writers, and you have yourself a self-perpetuating circle of "cool."...
When "teenage girls or tween girls like an artist, that's often a sign that ... the artist isn't cool," said Marks, who also gives Spears as an example. "You know, `My little sister likes them.'"
Often, bands that are popular in places like Wisconsin get dissed by snobs on the coasts. "There's a real danger with ... writers being in their kind of music-critic clique, you know, in either New York or L.A. or San Francisco, and kind of ignoring these bands just because all the critics they know and all the kind of so-called cool kids are ignoring these bands," Brackett said.Well we weren't really writing (or alive) when those particular acts launched their debuts, but we invite you to set the record straight; which acts in recent memory proved the critics and bloggers wrong? But we aren't done with The Nickelback Effect just yet; to the insufferable post-grunge pretenders, the article adds Hinder, Black Eyed Peas, and Britney Shears to their list of slam-proof record sellers. Who else fits the bill?He points out that classic acts like Led Zeppelin, the Doors and
Billy Joel were at first ignored by critics. Then again, he said, "there are a lot of times when music critics are right."
Posted at 11:54 AM
Tags: Nickelback
i add the killers. i actually sorta like them, but shitty reviews did nothing to abate their insane sales (and popularity).
Score = 0
yeah, why must they blame this on girls? I'm a girl and I've been listening to britpop and indie rock since I was 15! come one people! stop with the stereotyping!
Score = 0
uhhh, Chris Daughtry anyone? How about all the American Idols? Aren't they all fueled by teen girls?
Score = 0
I take exception to the idea that hating Nickelback or some of these other terrible artists somehow makes one a "snob" (or a critic). I don't think people who actually give a fuck about what they allow into their eardrums are really deserving of such a negative characterization. As if Nickelback fans represent some sort of populist, anti-elitist, all-inclusive ideal. Bullshit.
The dim bulb from Madison who gets quoted in the article is a great example of someone who doesn't really care about music at all; let's not confuse her with some sort of open-minded perspective on the opposite end of the spectrum from "snob." Anyone who just wants to bob their head and sing along is probably not very well-listened and is probably inclined to hate unfamiliar sounding music.
Score = 0
Also, while I'm sure they make up a portion of the audience, I refuse to believe that teenage girls are somehow more responsible for the popularity of 'tard rock like Nickelback and Hinder than guys. Black Eyed Peas and Britney, sure. But it takes a certain sort of pent-up misogyny to really buy Hinder.
Score = 0
Speaking to Dana, and any other girls who share your sentiments really, your comment and thought process is ridiculous. You're saying "but I'm a girl and I don't do that!" Well good for you. You still don't speak for the overwhelming section of your gender who buys this type of "music."
I'm sick of the people who cry over stereotypes as if an entire culture is singling them out. There's a reason why stereotypes typically exist, and while some of them may be morally wrong, the basis of them lies on typical evidence. In this case, it's blatently obvious, yet you're still bitching.
Get over yourself and realize that there is an entire world outside of your personal bubble.
Score = 0
Just 'cause you're a green banana doesn't mean most aren't yellow, Dana.
Score = 0
The article almost made some valid points, and then...
- Hating Nickleback is a tribute to their success
- Fall Out Boy are popular AND actually good.
Way to take a stand against all those "uncool" bands and their "head bop" fans.
Score = 0
well they don't sell a lot of records, but I think
the Dandy Warhols are, to me, a band that the critics judge too harshly. Rolling Stone gave their last one a 1-star review. one star! meanwhile, actual crap like Black Eyed Peas gets 3 or 4-star reviews. I don't get it.
Score = 0
Rolling stone can't get out of panning led zeppelin that easily.
Score = 0
The Black Eyed Peas are terrible, but they're good at what they do. The suck at making (for lack of a better term, or one less prone to being completely undefinable) "art", but they're great at making people's ears happy. So if that's your criteria, then they make 3 to 4 star albums.
Score = 0
you people will never get it.
Score = 0
Disregard what I posted above. I will never get it.
Score = 0
I'm sure there are people in Wisconsin who hate Nickelback as well. It's not snobbery, it's taste. They're a trite and predictable band with a formula. I'd even say it's marketing over songwriting. But then again, I am a snob.
Score = 0
Slow news day, anyone?
Score = 0
I'm a Wisconsinite and can personally verify that there are people in Wisconsin who hate Nickelback - a lot of people who hate Nickelback. In fact, I have never had a conversation with anyone that would indicate any sort of like for Nickelback. I'm sure I have acquaintances who like them (co-workers, friends of friends, etc.), but they're not people with whom I talk about music. More often than not, the bad taste around here tends more toward the commercial country side of things.
Score = 0
As someone who lives and works in Kansas City, the town where Styx is still huge, I can tell you there is a large gulf between the Nickelback fans and those with taste. Nickelback fans, like those who listen to Puddle of Mudd and thier ilk, will buy a CD because they heard a single over and over on the annoying "rock" station that plays post-grunge tripe all day, excepting for the "mandatory Metallica" and some AC/DC. This demographic likes music to be loudish, hardish, and non-challenging. That is why so-called "rock" stations don't play anything interesting, they play pablum. People who want pablum don't read reviews. They don't think about the music they listen to. They just want noise in the background.
Oh, and way to totally support the "indie misogyny" I always hear about.
Score = 0
Sorry people, it's all my fault. After my trip to Best Buy yesterday, I now own 1.4 million Nickelback cds. No, they don't have many fans, it's just me buying them all up. I used to buy nothing but Black Eyed Peas cds, but now it's Nickelback. The doctor told me I should be on my medication to control my OCD, but I don't like the taste of it. One of my wealthy relatives left me a ton of money, and I don't know how to spend it. The next band I'm am going to obsessively buy is Flickerstick. It shouldn't take me too long to get their cd up the charts.
Score = 0
Oh come on, get over it. What about The Arcade Fire Effect, or The Shins Effect?
Listeners can be a little more disconcerting than we give them credit for. Maybe not often, but sometimes.
Score = 0
I think the article is missing the point. Critics are looking for all the things that people admire in bands and musicians over the course of their career: originality, evolution, complexity, songwriting (but not writing the same song over and over again), etc.
That is NOT what most people in the world want. Only the really involved (potentially obsessed) music fan wants to be consistently challeged with the music that they listen to.
I would volunteer (just my two cents) that most people don't want to listen to music that "takes a while to get", "grows on you", "challenges you", etc. Most people want to sing along to a song that for all intensive purposes they have probably hear a million times in a million slightly different ways.
Nickelback writes the same song over and over again, and before they released their first song all they were doing is re-writing '90s alt-rock meets metal songs that had been heard tons of times before.
All music is influenced by something else, but the critcs attacke when the influence is blatant, while the masses don't care...
Score = 0
My introduction to music came when I was 14 via the rock radio station. Since they were my most trusted tastemaker, my taste was shaped by the quality of their playlist. And I used to have some enthusiasm for shitty bands.
We forget that rock radio is still powerful. And the quality of their playlists have never been worse (Nickleback, Hinder, Three Days Grace, etc).
Rock radio 10-15 years ago played Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Metallica, Guns N' Roses, etc ... bands with a million times more artistic merit. But people liked them because they were what was on the radio.
Score = 0
I agree with several commenters above: I find that listeners can be disconcerting, and I sing along for all intensive purposes.
Score = 0
Sorry, typo. I meant 'discerning'. :)
Score = 0
I really disagree with the statement that it's all teenage girls' fault that everyone is subjected to awful music, and that no one else things that it's a pretty misogynistic way of thinking. I agree that the Britney Spears and Black Eyed Peas are mainly due to females, but to say that Nickleback has a majority of girl listeners? The first thing those types of bands makes me think of is that guy with a pre-shredded baseball cap who brags about drinking mad beers. They don't call it bro rock for nothing people.
Score = 0
"Slow news day, anyone?"
Waste of comment-space, anyone?
Score = 0
populist/Paperslut, the correct phrase is "all intents and purposes."
Score = 0
Another thought that adds to this (and builds on CravinforClavin's comment) is that to the large majority of the population, music is not necessarily about individual taste or appreciations. It's more about a shared experience. Rock radio and MTV, for better or worse, limited the options for many (especially those outside of large cities or college towns) but also created a shared experience. Now with so many sources for hearing new music, it makes having that shared experience much more difficult.
The Zune sharing option was created specifically for this purpose - the creators know that for many people, music is much more fun when it's more than just you singing along.
That's also why some of the truly great artists and songs that made it through to rock radio are still being played today. I can remember when a few seminal albums came out (Ten, Nevermind) every party I went to was playing them. And even if those don't still live on as my favorite albums, it created a few favorite moments.
Score = 0
If we're going by CD sales then yes, the Nickelback effect will always be a problem for the quality of music. But I think the bigger problem with this is the Walmart Effect. Rock radio just gives options to people that don't really like music at all and that's what Walmart will carry on their shelves.
I think this is becoming more and more obsolete though. People that like music for the sake of the art such as the fan base on here don't listen to rock radio or buy CD's from Walmart. I would like this study to be done on albums downloaded.
If you still need hope and better proof on which artists are significant, just look at concert statistics. Nickelback, 3 Doors Down, etc, aren't selling out concert festivals. Radiohead, Tool, White Stripes are selling out the biggest concert festivals in the world like they deserve. We'll just have to leave it up to the big mainstream Walmart Effect artists that are actually good and hold artistic merit (Metallica, Green Day, Chili Peppers) to evolve the Nickelback effect into something more artistic.
Nonetheless, Stereogum and other bloggers enjoy the snobbery and we wouldn't really have a life and would be worthless if we didn't have the mass audience listening to shitty music so we can laugh at them.
Score = 0
Are the critics wrong? It all depends on WHY you listen to music. Not everyone has the same selection criteria, and that is what accounts for most differences. I would argue that Nickelback listeners place little to no value on characteristics that are admired by most critics (ability to challenge convention,diverse instrumentation,etc.), and thus there's little surprise that a discrepancy exists between these two groups.
An interesting aspect to note though is that each person's selection criteria can include variables unrelated to the actual music itself. For example, a song's ability to challenge convention is a cultural construct. It has nothing to do with the music itself. Imagine living in a culture dominated by bands that played nothing but white-noise freakout jams. A band like Nickelback (if never heard before)would be revolutionary in terms of style to them. Same music, but different result based on context. This, in turn, begs the following question...are there any characteristics inherent to the music itself one could criticize a piece of music for that have relative universality amongst listeners? If so, maybe critics should start using these instead, but good luck finding them.
Score = 0
blame people listening to crappy music on the midwest and the south. nickleback and hinder are probably the most popular bands in those regions. girls and guys both listen to this crap so i would just blame it on bad taste. what ever floats your boat. this music is pushed down their throats.
Score = 0
I agree with much of whats been said above.
But I'd also like to point out that the opposite phenomenon also happens and is equally annoying. Anybody who occasionally reads the British music press (NME, Q, etc.) knows that they are always heralding some shit band as "the next Beatles/Oasis/Supergrass" who in reality do nothing but suck and will be gone in a few years (e.g. The Vines, Kasabian, Arctic Monkeys).
Also, the countless music blogs are very guilty of this (sorry Stereogum, I'm not talking to you, I guess). Nobody has anything negative to say about any indie record released in the last 2-3 years; everything is 'amazing' even when its not. I call this "The Tapes 'n Tapes Phenomenon". Maybe this is because indie labels are now sending these guys (and gals) free CDs/mp3s all of the time, but it is hard to believe there are so many unheard-of bands out there that don't deserve to remain unheard-of.
So, in conclusion, it happens both ways, so I don't know what is worth complaining about. These bands spoken of sell simply because they are on the easiest-of all accessible media formats - the radio. The only reason Sujan, Bright Eyes, and LCD Soundsystem are not on the radio is because of financial collusion between the major record labels and major media outlets. The indies can't compete, financially speaking.
Score = 0
There's lots of crap that's popular, and there's even more crap that's not popular. But there's no accounting for taste, and I've heard rabid reviews of "indie" stuff that I thought was pretty godawful, too (although nothing leaps to mind right now), but at least the production values on a Nickelback album are high and it probably makes for a nice sturdy coaster.
Some people will drink Bud Light and nothing else. If it makes them happy, who cares? Live and let the philistines live.
Score = 0
nickelback. sigh. i call it poodle rock. but maybe i'm a snob
Score = 0
Don't you find it at all suspicious that the "blame the girls" argument is coming from the guy at music lad-mag "Blender"? Please. It has nothing to do with estrogen and everything to do with lazy listening. I'm sorry, but your average guys music taste is just a bad as that of the average girl.
Score = 0
The concept of girlfriend-rock and boyfriend-rock has been around for ages. Let's put aside the notion of being too politically correct and just 'fess up: there are bands that just appeal to your girlfriends that you can't stand, mostly because of a physicality. We'll say Def Leppard was a girlfriend-rock band.
On the other hand, a majority of girls during that time period despised AC/DC, so let's dub them boyfriend-rock, 'cause a dude's always ready to throw horns for the Young Family.
Does it mean girls didn't like AC/DC, or that guys couldn't like Def Leppard? No, of course not, but there was certainly a matter of demographics involved. What the Blender article so haphazardly tries to say is that many of the new and most popular rock bands play hard to the demographics. Young girls like Hinder because the lyrics to "Lips Of An Angel" could be sung to or about them. That attempted connection is no accident. Other bands, like perennial metal bands that drift in and out of the culture wars, go for the guys with the "hell bent, hate fueled" testosterone charge it insists.
And as for Nickelback, every last one of you has it all wrong: THEY'RE A COUNTRY BAND. Replace the crunch pedals and Marshall stacks with pedal steel and you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying this as a defense, since I can't stand them, but Joe Sixpack Pickup Americana certainly relates.
DwD
Score = 0
the very fact that you say you hate a band shows that you have invested a certain amount of time to that band. you can't hate something you don't acknowledge. it's pretty simple: pay attention to the stuff that you like, and not the stuff you don't.
also, there are stupid people everywhere. people buy nickelback albums because they aren't challenging in any way. a lot of people in the midwest aren't looking for anything challenging when they listen to music. they just want something to keep their mind off that shitty 10 hour day at the factory.
Score = 0
^^^Thanks, grammarian.
Score = 0
It should be noted that factories, and nickelback fans apparently, do not exist outside of the midwest.
Score = 0
It should be noted that factories, and nickelback fans apparently, do not exist outside of the midwest.
Score = 0
Some thinking points:
-It is not a matter of steak vs. hamburger. THere is such a thing as bad steak and good burgers.
-YOu might want to try chicken or seafood sometimes.
-Taste is subjective but only to a certain degree. The fact that there are lots of shades of grey does not mean that at the extremes you'll find black and white.
-Your pallate (for music, design, clothes, people of the opposite sex, cigars, wine, cars, literature, etc ad infinitum) can be educated. DO it.
-G.
Score = 0
"Do music buyers have bad taste?"
Does this question even command a response?
Alright, I'll give one. The number 1 selling genre of music is Contemporary Christian.
Score = 0
"The number 1 selling genre of music is Contemporary Christian." Michael, do you have data to back that up? I quickly found people citing data to the contrary. In 2005, sales of hip hop were at 13% while "religious" were at 5.3% of the market and "religious" covers things other than Christian Contemporary. Rock was at 31%.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/10/11/have_we_lost_fa.html
and
http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/pdf/2005consumerprofile.pdf
It's okay, you were only off by a factor of about 6.
Score = 0
As a Canadian, i find the discussion here interesting because we have no support at all for our great bands like Wolf Parade, Rufus Wainwright, Arcade Fire and Feist on the Radio. Bands like Nickelback or any other white male 20-something group that sings manufactured, angry ballads really do well in Alberta.
Personally I don't know how you can enjoy someone's music if you can obviously tell it isn't an honest expression of their art. This is the source of why indie music touches so many people these days, when the rest of the world kind of all blurs out to a meaningless mass of terrorism and consumerism. Listen to "My Body is a Cage" from Arcade Fire's Neon Bible, when the church organ rolls in on the bridge, if your hair isn't standing on end, well, you're probably dead.
I know for a fact that there is a huge group of people who don't experience music like this, but I can't help but feel that the true measure of "worth" in music is an emotional one. A perfect case in point is The video for Bright Eyes' "First Day of my Life", where the couples listen to the song? I was always a fan but the video nearly brought me to tears just cause it reminded me how good I had it with my own girlfriend. That's a powerful effect, I think, and something I would never get from radio bands.
Score = 0
I think these crap bands sell a lot of records b/c it's one of those things where ppl that aren't "avid" music fans, buy the CDs. Housewives, etc, that could give a shit about the *shutters* "blogosphere," are, in my opinion the ones buying this crap up.
Score = 0
Fuck that girl who gave Madison a bad name! We had TVOTR last week (life-changing) and we've got Triple M (AAA format, but still more listenable than anything else). I probably work with whoever it is that had the bad taste in music...
Score = 0
Without bad music there would be no good music.
I completely agree with the girl who said that frat boys listen to shit like Nickelback - the only reason girls would have a Nickelback cd is because her fratboyfriend bought it for her.
Score = 0
"the only reason girls would have a Nickelback cd is because her fratboyfriend bought it for her."
Or because they're both driving back from the hoedown. I'm tellin' ya!
DwD
Score = 0
I don't really like dissing other people's music because it is a rather personal thing like the toilet paper you use, some people can handle the single ply and some people need the double and triple ply. I really mean that because some of the stuff that a few of you expose as being good music I look at as being icky like Fall Out Boy? I mean really it's alright if your girl friend grabs your shirt in the mourning to wear, but please don't think you can pull off those pants she wears with the butterfly on the ass.
Score = 0
Um. McDonald's sells millions of meals every day and I suspect they're not getting rave reviews in Food and Wine.
Anyone who said Nickelback is terrible was proven wrong because of their commercial success? Yeah, because money and terrible never run together.
Score = 0
you don't necessary have to equate good with popularity. you can be a terrible, shit band with absolutely no talent at all, and still be popular if the members are goodlooking and dumb enough. look at the millions of manufactured pop bands out there that only last one or two albums and then faded away into obscurity, anyone remember westlife? they were a total waste of space and they were still popular for a while.
Score = 0
Does anyone else dig that "animals" song?
Cause i totally do.
Sure, the lyrics are terribly sexist,
but the song is catchy as all hell.
It's a good song.
Admit it.
Score = 0
I'd just like to point out to Rachel there that sadly, Westicles still exist. They're still playing sellout shows and having record breaking run after record breaking run in Dublin's Point Theatre.
The argument about shit bands will run and run. I disagree with the comment that in order to "hate" a particular band, one has to spend a lot of time listening to them. The reason why the person can hate a band like Nickelback so vehemently is exactly because of their ubiquity. Like the way the Chili Peppers are fucking terrible now. They were good 16 years ago, but, since they ditched the smack, they've veered off course and find themselves mired in mediocrity.
The point about good vs bad music is that you've got to be aware of as much music as possible. Otherwise, how are you supposed to know that you really love The Unicorns?
Score = 0
"I'm sick of the people who cry over stereotypes as if an entire culture is singling them out. There's a reason why stereotypes typically exist, and while some of them may be morally wrong, the basis of them lies on typical evidence."
I'm sorry, *what*? "I'm going to say stereotypes are morally wrong so I don't sound like a racist redneck fuck, but girls are responsible for Nickelback because they're STOOPID GIRLZ! Yarrr!"
Jeff: you're a sexist douchebag. Do us all a favor and stay out of this discussion, and the gene pool in general. For fuck's sake.
Score = 0
Color me confused, but I have to say that the way a lot of people feel about Nickelback is the exact same way I feel about Maroon 5 or Matchbox 20. I will never understand their popularity. Such shitty shitty music!
Score = 0
Yup, alas westlife are still going strong *shudder*
WHATS WITH THE MISOGYNY?!
You take a sexist quote from Blender...the magazine thats current issue has a feature on "hottest women in music" and reproduce it ad lib, with no critical stance at all at all...
i'm not mad stereogum.
just disappointed.
*maebh
PS just as many men have dodge taste as women...don't deny it...
Score = 0
re: "The only reason Sujan, Bright Eyes, and LCD Soundsystem are not on the radio is because of financial collusion between the major record labels and major media outlets. "
interesting theory, but there's no record label going to radio stations and saying "if you play this new Bright Eyes song, we'll never send you a Nickelback CD again!" The fact is, there's a lot of what we consider "indie" bands on major labels, and they'd love more than anything for radio to play them.
The main reason you don't hear Sufjan, Bright Eyes, or LCD Soundsystem on the radio is because they simply don't sound like rock radio right now, both in terms of sonics and hook.
Go up to the average Joe Sixpack Pickuptruck Truckerhat and play him the new single from Modest Mouse and LCD Soundsystem, and the odds are by far in favor of him liking the former, just because it sounds more like, well, Nickelback.
A note on sonics & hook: the appeal, as far as I understand it, of much indie music is that it rejects the conventions of mainstream rock. Call Nickelback formulaic, but this formula exists for a reason. It works. A lot of indie music has low recording quality- sometimes for aesthetic reaons, sometimes practical- singers have voices that sounds pretty different from the "mainstream", songs have different and "challenging" structure, etc.
It's been proven that indie bands that sound close enough to mainstream rock can achieve some measure of popularity on the charts (and a marketing budget can't hurt either).
Score = 0
1) I think we can all accept that Rolling Stone, if it is not already, is well on the way to being completely washed up and therefore can be generally disregarded.
2) Yes, stereotypes exist because of a basis in fact but the problem with them is that they often persist long after the period of relevancy has passed. It's like "American Graffiti"-- can anyone relate to that movie anymore? No. But when my dad saw it he thought it capture his generation perfectly. Things go out of date. The point being that a stereotype may apply but is not a decent way to judge the content of a person's character.
3) Tween girls like crap, and buy crap. Admit it. I have a 13-year-old sister and I think she owns, like 10 CDs: six soundtracks, 2 Hilary Duff CDs, and two NOW albums. And all her friends? About the same. Unless you've got an older sibling to give you their old Ramones albums, you're pretty much destined to spend your tweenage money on shitty music until you discover that the Internet is more than just good porn. And I'm not just basing this on her. I was once a tween girl too.
4) I fail to understand how everyone managed to make this a discussion about misogyny, since numbers don't lie. It's like how you were really angry when you got your first car and the insurance was that much more expensive because you were a young driver. Despite the fact that it sucked, it made sense. Being offended by statistics is just stupid.
5) What does radio have to do with anything? At all?
Score = 0
re: Sarah's points
I guess I agree with all of that except your last point, which was about radio. It really matters to the majority because for them, radio is their musical world. They'll go through life just responding to what jumps out at them through viral marketing (magazines, radio, tv, internet) - all pointing to next tuesday when That Band With One Song You Kinda Remember comes out with a 55 minute turd.
The difference with most of the people on this posting is that we will take a recommendation from someone, or some site, or even (although rare) actually stumble upon a band. And we will give it a chance, even if it doesn't work. I just did this with Panda Bear and The Knife, and I'm happy I did. Problem is lately their seems to be too many bands, if you tried to through all of SXSW's offerings this year, you'd agree.
Score = 0
Rolling Stone's been washed up since the eighties
Score = 0