This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Unoriginal lyrics + Amateur level musical ability + Recycled song format + Love of money = Nickelback. Seriously, I’m embarrassed for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.208.6 ( talk) 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
As there aren't any actual criticisms in the criticism section, I renamed it to the one thing it does contain, "How You Remind Me Of Someday". Wikipedia:Criticism is not policy, it's just an essay, a personal opinion. Here's my personal opinion: you're all a bunch of pussies. "How You Remind Me Of Someday" has its notability verified a secondary source (i.e. the interviewer mentioning it and asking the band member about it). If you think that one single criticism somehow skews this article, then you're terribly insecure. Go did up some awards your band won and add them to the article, don't sit around bitching that there's a "criticism" section. a 81.179.126.207 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Add a criticism section. Critics hate Nickelback and that should be acknowledged. Add how some feel Nickelback is ultra-generic rock music. It's a part of the band's style, to be ultra-generic so it counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.0.16 ( talk) 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As I stated before on this talk page, criticism sections are against wiki policy. Instead, a reception section may be better, highlighting both god and bad comments on the band. Purplepurplepurple 11:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? The why does Green Day which is listed under Wikipedia:Good articles have a criticism section? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Kyalisu. Google-proof makes me want to stab people in the face. 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.150.78 ( talk)
seriously, nickelback is one of the OBJECTIVELY WORST BANDS EVER. empirical evidence can be shown to prove this. IF you want to read a glowing review of them, go to their shitty fan page. A dictionary entry should probably atleast mention the complete lack of respect from any one but bud light drinking larry the cable guy watching 16 year old wwf fans. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.223.214.42 (
talk)
18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a criticism section. You will find that most critics are highly critical of their music. Just look up any of their albums on Metacritic, and you will see. I am of the opinion that this page is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and reads more like a fan article than an Encyclopedic one. -- Marto85 ( talk) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering Nickelback is debatably the most criticized rock band of this decade and everybody knows it, taking out the criticism section is leaving out important details about the band. To truly complete an article about Nickelback, there MUST be a criticism section, or else it is omition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.76.152 ( talk) 03:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah their albums get terrible reviews, that can be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.97 ( talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The talk page for a band should not be used as battleground
WP:NOT . I agree that, (perhaps as a footnote) noteable options (both good and bad) could be mentioned.
Jadedhonor (
talk)
02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Being rather appalled by how many people use this page to trash Nickelback (what's the fun in doing that in here, where nobody who cares reads it?), I still think it's worth mentioning how they are hated by critics - with good sources of course. It just shouldnt be mentioned judgementally - I mean, I think it's cool that critics used to hate Zeppelin ;) - can't say the same for Nickelback, but that's my personal opinion and thus of no value. Btw, why is this article SO SMALL? Check any other wiki page on a band that's had multiplatinum albums by the buckets, and they're much longer. Especially since Nickelback STILL get multiplatinum in an age of declining cd sales? I don't really like Nickelback, but I think any band of such commercial size deserves a more detailed article. Or are their history so uneventful and boring, that there's nothing more to write? 62.107.24.213 ( talk) 21:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think of them, we are talking about ONE OF THE MOST CRITICALLY REVILED BANDS EVER. Not including a "Criticism" section would be like leaving Watergate out of the Richard Nixon article. (LTH, 3/19/09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.151.84 ( talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Nickelback is the most boring band in the world. There are quite a few videos on youtube of them being booed offstage in portugal. Another one has them covering "sad but true" by metallica, and they didnt even finish the whole song. When I have grandkids I am going to tell them stories of long car trips with my mom, she would turn on the radio, and I would hear nickelback CONSTANTLY, it became so droning. So tiring. So boring that I tuned them out, I heard a song the other day and I had no clue who it was, but it sounded very familiar, and boring. Then I find out that its NICKELBACK. They had been washed into my subconscious just like a song from a mcdonalds ad. That is MY proof of why nickelback sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.178.72 ( talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even going to read the above conversation, but I will add to it. I am of the opinion that this article would definitely not be a complete encyclopedic recollection of Nickelback's history if the critical response from their records was not included. You read an article like this, they have a quote from Rolling Stone, Blender, Allmusic, etc. All chronicling their negative opinions of the band (View links for their negative reviews). I skim this and people claim WP:NPOV, yes these ^^^ opinions are POV/ OR, but to exclude the critical response is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. It's excluding a widely accepted critical opinion, and the dominant/majority viewpoint. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 12:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
As earlier said, Nickelback are NOT under the genre of whatever you would call "pop metal". They have even confirmed they actually ARE a post-grunge/soft rock band, probably alternative rock/alternative metal, too, so stop changing it. Could someone find a good ref for these genre facts, cos' I suck at the techniques of referencing. A Powerful Weakness ( talk) 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness
God Dammit, I had a list of genres as well as a message to warn others against chaging the genres without valid sources. When the hell is any of you going to realize that what you are doing is NOT Wikipedia Policy. 71.229.47.238 ( talk) 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Bman was here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W0lverine 2524 ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Alternative? Alternative to what...good music? PeteJayhawk ( talk) 00:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
They are too maintstream to be alternative metal and yeah they aren't pop metal... lmfao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Nickelback is Buttrock. Other Buttrock bands are Daughtry, Hinder, Creed, Fuel, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.50 ( talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Pop-metal is more or less the style of Mötley Crüe/Poison/Def Leppard/Twisted Sister, etc. (don't go nuts just because one of those bands is your fave and you don't think it's pop metal, that's not the point). Whatever Nickelback are (i'd say post-grunge, but that's just my opinion), they're NOT pop metal. I mean, they're not Eighties, they're not glammed up, their lyrics are too dark (I mean, pop metal lyrics are usually VERY lightheart, party-kind), they lack the layers of synthesizers... I mean, that is what I've understood is pop-metal, so Nickelback don't fit the bill. I like pop-metal, don't really like Nickelback, but that's not the point. But listen to a Poison album (whom we must at least ALL agree are pop-metal), and then listen to Nickelback, and the difference is obvious ;) cheers 62.107.24.213 ( talk) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I considered nickelback Hard Rock, saw them in concert, not HARD at all. Just because they say they are does not make them Hard, or Post-Grunge. Needs to be classified as Rock/Pop or Alternative! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 ( talk) 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's Post-Grunge, a sub-genre of Alternative Rock. You have to be an idiot if you think Nickelback sounds like AC/DC, Kiss, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen ,Def Leppard, etc.
So you're saying that "Animals", and "Never Again" aren't Hard Rock? Adds more to your ignorance in music. 76.91.13.107 ( talk) 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No... I think what he's trying to say is that Nickelback plays shitty music and some idiots try to make them seem so special by putting in the "hard rock" tag to they genre just so they'll stand out with Def Leppard, Van Halen, Black Sabbath, etc.. 66.225.14.190 ( talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems someone is insisting on the genres being classed as "post-grunge" and "alternative metal". Now, post-grunge I'm not going to object to. But Nickelback are NOT alternative metal, not in the slightest. No, no, no, no, no. They are also the very definition of modern hard rock. Perhaps they don't fit in with hard rock from the 80s, but genres change over time. The point is they are most definitely not any kind of metal, even such a ridiculous genre as alternative metal, and unless someone can provide a -reliable- source for it (i.e. something other than allmusic), I'll simply dedicate my time to keeping the genres accurate. Prophaniti ( talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed their "alternative metal" tag. Allmusic is not really a reliable source regarding any kind of metal genre (see the current discussion on the source reliability noticeboard page), and if anyone wants a counter-source, the "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal" describes them as both rock and grunge (post-grunge will do) but never alternative metal. Prophaniti ( talk) 23:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The Hardest thing Nickelback plays are their covers of AC-DC. Not Hard Rock, they are alternative or pop/rock with a few "harder" songs, but that doesn't make them hard. Tupac had a few songs which were R&B but that doesn't make him an R&B artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 ( talk) 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You are all forgetting something important alternative rock,post-grunge, alternative metal whatever you want to call them are all sub-genres of hard rock. Besides they have loud guitars on alot of their songs and guitar solos on most. Those are things you need for hard rock. And look at all the hard rockers they have played with ZZ Top, Dimebag Darell , And Ace freakin Frehley. I dare someone to argue with me. -- User:Aceman97 —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC).
At first I want to say that the arcitles about Nickelback are great but the History is horrible, for example The Long Road isn't even mentioned. So I wrote a history, but I want you to correct it because I'm Austrian and I'm don't speak as good English as you do.
Nickelback's first release was a 7 Track EP called Hesher in 1996. In the same year Nickelback recorded their first full-length album Curb. Fly was released on Hesher and Curb and was the first single ever produced by Nickelback. It didn't get any chart attention and was only played on local radio stations. Curb sold record 100,000 copies as independent record.
The following album The State was recorded in 1998 and was released as independent record in the same year. Nickelback signed a record deal with EMI and Roadrunner Records. The State was then re-released in 2000 by EMI and Roadrunner Records and featured two top 10 singles (one being Leader of Men). It was certificated Gold in Canada and the United States.
Their third full-length album Silver Side Up includes the smash hit How You Remind Me which peaked in several countries on #1 and while it topped both the Mainstream and Modern Rock charts for 13 weeks. Too Bad, the second single, was in The Guinness Book of Records for peaking more than 20 weeks on #1. The following single Never Again also hit the top of the Billboard Hot Mainstream rock tracks. Silver Side Up was certificated 6x Platinum in the United States, 8x Platinum in Canada, 3x Platinum in the UK, 2x Platinum in Australia und Platinum in four other European countries. How You Remind Me became the Billboard Hot 100 Number one single of the year 2002.
The Long Road which was released in 2003 didn't do as well as Silver Side Up. Although its second single Figured You Out topped the Mainstream Rock charts for 13 weeks. Someday was criticized to have too many similarities with How You Remind Me and didn't get such a hit single. It was certificated 4x Platinum in Canada, 3x Platinum in the US and Australia and Platinum in Germany and New Zealand.
Nickelback's fifth studio album, All the Right Reasons, has sold over 6.7 million albums in the United States and over 9.5 million albums worldwide. It is the 16th album so far in the 21st century that has reach that level. The album produced five U.S. Hot 100 top 20 singles, "Photograph", "Savin' Me", "Far Away", "If Everyone Cared", and "Rockstar", three of them being U.S. Hot 100 top 10 singles. All the Right Reasons sold more than 6.7 million copies in the US and was found again inside the top 10 of the Billboard 200 in its 99th, 100th, 101st, and 102nd weeks on the chart. The album had never been below #30 on the Billboard 200 in 110 weeks, making Nickelback the first act to have an album in the top thirty of the Billboard 200 for its first 100 weeks since Shania Twain's album, Come on Over stayed in the top thirty for 123 consecutive weeks following its release. Billboard Magazine called the album "the biggest rock album of the century so far." In the UK, the album opened it's chart run at #13 before quickly leaving the top 75 with no top 20 singles, with "Savin' Me" being their first to miss the top 75 altogether. While being their smallest-selling UK album since "Curb", it experienced, in early 2008, a resurrection due to the single "Rockstar" becoming Nickelback's highest charting single ever in the UK. The album has now outpeaked its previous peak of #13, reaching #2. . All the Right Reasons has appeared in the top 40 of the United World Chart for 89 non-consecutive weeks making it the third album to stay in the chart for so long. It was certificated 7x Platinum in the US, 6x Platinum in Canada, 4x Platinum in Australia and New Zealand, 3x Platinum in Switzerland and Platinum in Germany and the UK.
According to Roadrunner Germany the 6th studio album by Nickelback will be released in Spring 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.219.70 ( talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet you also fail to mention the single "Side of a Bullet" released off of All the Right Reasons. This is something that needs to be added to make it accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.242.233 ( talk) 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
They only played "Burn it to the Ground" at the closing ceremonies for the Winter Olympics 2010. They were originally scheduled to play a medley of both but changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckofx ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I was there the YouTube videos of the performance will show the same. The refrence is wrong, written by some reporter that did not actually see the show just wrote it off the initial press release. So let's pull the reference all together and leave it as a statement of obvious fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.4.2 ( talk) 23:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And someone can add this citation from the aftershow press release. roadrunnerrecords.com/news/Nickelback-Say-Last-Nights-Performance-Was-Something-We-Will-Never-Forget-21017.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckofx ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The example template for bands uses br tags, and commas for solo artists. I have been following WP:MOS and separating the genre(s) by line breaks. User:Timmeh reverts my edits and said this is controversial, does anyone have a problem with following the example MOS provides? Landon1980 ( talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My IP address is none of your fucking business. 75.125.166.5 ( talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK thought I was still logged in. You now have my work IP, happy? To answer your question though. NO, you cannot have the IP address to my home computer. Landon1980 ( talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, what would I do if I were blocked from editing Wikipedia? My life as I know it would be over. Please spare me, I'm begging you. Landon1980 ( talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Landon, please see Template:Infobox Musical artist before you revert my edit again. It says in plain print that they can be separated by either commas or line breaks. Since there's argument over which to put, the one that was used originally should be used, and that's comma separation. You should know that I am absolutely not for all genres to be separated by either commas or line breaks. You have to use your judgement with these kinds of things. What you definitely should not have done is cite WP:MOS for your change because that template is not part of MOS. And you can't just use an example that happens to be separated by line breaks as a substitute for the template directly stating it. You shouldn't imply for unstated rules on guidelines or policies. I hope you understand now what I'm trying to say. Tim meh ! 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose adding references is "controversial" in the great Timmeh's eyes, so I better bring it here to discuss. Does anyone have a problem with content in this article being cited with a reliable sorce? Timmeh says it is cluttered to use sources for genres, so I guess if anyone out there wishes to add "Flintstone Rock" hell just add it, no need for the claim to be confirmed.
Landon1980 (
talk)
21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I am new here, but anyway, the tone of this article does not fit in with almost any other Wikipedia article that I've seen. It reads like a (very badly written) advertisement for the band. There are far too many positive adjectives for it to be an honest description of Nickelback. Incidentally, the above discussion where a Nickelback fan tries to suggest that the band is somthing other than a simple Pop band is quite amusing.
gracias Redemption Face ( talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone's obviously fixed this which is nice. Thankyou for your input, 'Altenhofen'. I'm going to assume you are being ironic when you say Linkin Park are any distance from being Pop, seeing as they are one of the most prominent bands guilty of making commercial Pop-Metal. If you are being serious, please avoid editing music pages. Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with Pop music per se, it can be both good and bad. Also, it's kind of making a mockery of the word 'Alternative' when it's attached to a group like Nickelback who sell millions upon millions of records. Redemption Face ( talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we please keep the musical elitism off of Wikipedia please? kthxbai -- TwilightDuality ( talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you last two guys I don't want to be rude but you guys ae acting like kids no offense. Lets just put this behind us and just call nickelback rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
if you have a look on http://www.nickelback.com/new/bio, you'll see that the History section of the Nickelback article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelback) has been copied almost word-for-word. I honestly think someone should try rewriting this section.
Bc.cho ( talk) 10:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, placed copy-paste template, it's directly copied from http://www.nickelback.com/new/bio#tabset-1 - how come no one reverted the edit that copied that in at the time? kiac ( talk) 07:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Since everyone feels the need to trash Nickelback in the discussion, I'd like to point out WP:FORUM. Also, see the top of the talk-page, this is not for discussing the subject of the article. /End Rant. -- Joseph Leito ( talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am new in this discussion! Nickelback is Alternative metal band!Alternative metal songs are:Flat on the floor,Because of you,Saturday night alraigh for fighting,Figured you out!Nickelback is post-grunge,alternative metal,Hard Rock band! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grungi17 ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Unfortunately AMG is accepted on wiki: it's published, and has hired "experts". Of course, these are the same "experts" who claim Nightwish are symphonic black metal. AMG is one of the absolute worst sources for heavy metal genres: if there's a patent mistake on wikipedia, I can guarantee you AMG will be at the root of it. But alas, there's nothing to be done about it. Wikipedia just reports such mistakes. Prophaniti ( talk) 10:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know whose supporting them on their newest tour for europe. I've also noticed this page hasn't got a lot written on it. And there is nothing about their tours. Despite them playing around the world. - Delete this if you like. I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.111.228 ( talk) 15:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I understood the "nickelback" name was from Tim Hortons not Starbucks.
~ Kristen March 18, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaray123 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That would make sense, given the band's Canadian roots 128.223.193.97 ( talk) 06:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I heard him say it was Starbucks, and in Vancouver there are more Starbucks' than Tim Hortons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.70.15 ( talk) 05:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
we have to put it back in the infobox, not only because it's one of the most frequent genres in the band's catalouge, but becasue if we don't wikipedia is contradicting itself. here on wikipedia, 4 out of the six albums they have released so far are correctly listed as alternative metal, whihc constitutes majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.13.236 ( talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with you, although it doesnt have much sources by the look of things. They do have quite a few notable Alternative metal songs, mostly on their first album it appears and some on later albums. Although they do seem more accurately classed as the genres currently stated, Alternative metal does seem present in their music style in certain albums so it deserves to be re-added. 86.166.248.9 ( talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
For some reason my reference to the concert in 2004 keeps getting deleted. I would not mind if it was irrelevent or non-neutral or copyright or violated some other rule, but it just gets undone without comment. Please can someone say why this concert is not worthy of mention on this page?
FWIW here is the text I inserted:
Mainstream failure: 2004
In Portugal Nickelback were part way in to their second song when the crowds started throwing debris at the stage, causing Chad Kroeger to put down his guitar and announce on the microphone "Are there any Nickelback fans in Portugal?". As this failed to elicit a positive response he added "Are you sure?". The crowd still failed to beg for more, and so Chad said "See you" before leaving the stage with one digit raised. [1] This film has been recognised as authentic by CTV Television Network who note "A YouTube clip shows the band storming off stage in Portugal after being pelted with rocks and water bottles. The video has been viewed almost two million times". [2]
The author of the article is stating criticism of the band along with other unfortunate mishaps (i.e. the Portugal fiasco) the band has been involved with, but the article does not mention any of the positive, charitable work the band is also a part of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.227.204 ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The editors which are insisting that Allmusic are claiming these guys are Pop/Rock are dead set incorrect. The "Genre" field on Allmusic is plain and simply, a categorising tool. The "Styles" field is what we are after, if you are going to list specific genres as you have now ( Hard rock, Alternative metal, etc). Now, this practice is against the "generality" that we should be aiming for, but if you insist on maintaining specifics, then you are mistaken. Allmusic also considers Lamb of God, for example, as Pop/Rock in their Genre field. It is not a critique on a band's actual musical style or actuall genre, just a general category of which that specific genre essentially belongs in. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe you should re-read all of that. Nowhere did I accuse you of anything, rather, I pointed out why your argument was wrong, and why genre warriors do what they do. If you can't understand how Allmusic works, then you shouldn't comment on it. The fact is Genres on Allmusic are genres period, not a way to "classify their database". 124.186.246.195 ( talk) 11:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You are reffering to popular music which is diffrent from pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprothro ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Nickelback is not pop rock so stop putting that they are post grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprothro ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Continuing the argument about Nickelback being pop rock and allmusic's styles (I heartily agree with that it SHOULDN'T be pop rock) I have removed pop rock genre from all thier albums. Putting "Do NOT put Pop Rock here. A discussion has been finalised on Nickelback's discussion page. Pop-Metal MAY be acceptable but a discussion needs to be made." tsunamishadow ( talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I´m completely agree. NICKELBACK IS NOT POP ROCK...Just hear the riffs...it is Hard Rock/Alternative Rock and PostGrunge. That's it! Stop writing that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asatvolca ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nickelback is pop rock. I'm not a metal expert so you can say what you will about the pop-metal/alternative metal thing, but Nickelback is not alternative rock or post-grunge. Just because some "Reliable" article says something doesn't mean its true. If you don't allow hardcore music fans to have opinions than you shouldn't allow crappy magazines to either. 69.136.97.61 ( talk) 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, these are what Nickelback's album genres should be. Im sure many Nickelback fans will agree!
Curb-Alternative metal, post-grunge
The State-Alternative metal, post-grunge
Silver Side Up-Alternative metal, hard rock, post-grunge
The Long Road-Hard rock, post-grunge, alternative metal, heavy metal
All the Right Reasons-Hard rock, post-grunge, alternative rock, alternatve metal, pop rock (maybe)
Dark Horse-Hard rock, alternative metal, post-grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.206.87 ( talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is correct...finally someone with musical senses —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Asatvolca (
talk •
contribs)
22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider Nickelback to be any kind of Rock. I don't mind that people enjoy their music, it's their opinions, I just want to clarify that this is at best a Country-music band or maybe Pop-Rock at best. I do not personally like them. 10.18.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.220.135 ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! The albums should tell the genre not the fans. God bless you. Aceman97 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a video out showing every time the Nickleback article was vandalized. Do expect a large increase in vandalism and consider having that protection tag on for a bit longer. ;) Calaka ( talk) 06:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Nickelback is just a band. Just because collegehumor.com has a video of all the horrible vandalism edits of nickelback-on-wikipedia (see: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1792877) is no reason to lock the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.19.217 ( talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be unlocked. The page is mostly a surprisingly positive critique of the band. More people hate this band than like it and I think the page should reflect this. For starters 'Nickleback' can be hereafter be referred to as 'Nickleshit'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.165.103 ( talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
We could win the war on terror so quickly if we just played nickelback's photograph song over and over and over in the hills of Afghanistan. Think of the lives you could save they would all be begging to surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.222.33 ( talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Why does it say the Chad is the lead guitarist? Ryan is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.182.143 ( talk) 12:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why that is, but it might be because Chad is more famous than Ryan. Although in a cuteness contest, Ryan would so beat him.----Catinthecloset
I want to tell everyone in the world that Nickelback is an awesome band which sucks so hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.197.96 ( talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, Nickelback does not need a timeline. Timelines are usually used for bands where the members have frequently changed, not where only 2 lineup changes have ever happened, both times on the same instrument. I think most people in the world can understand the complex history of nickelback without a visual aid. Pritoolmachine2806 ( talk) 06:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Come on, people. Listen to one of their records.
Now listen to stuff by Black Sabbath, Dio, Iron Maiden, Scorpions, Judas Priest...
Can you tell the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDA9 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, but have you listened to actual heavy metal bands? Do that. Then listen to Nickelback. Nickelback IS NOT heavy metal and never will be. Iron Maiden IS heavy metal. Judas Priest IS heavy metal. Dio IS heavy metal. Black Sabbath IS heavy metal. Nickelback is NOT. This is an OBJECTIVE fact, not an opinion. Search Nickelback here: http://www.metal-archives.com/
You won't find it.
Actually, the genre classification in Allmusic is someone's opinion.
The fact that Nickelback isn't a heavy metal band is just that, A FACT.
Another thing I should point out: their lyrics. They're about relationships and feelings. Heavy metal lyrics is about war, death, being a man and honour - NOT faggot shit like Nickelback's lyrics. GET A CLUE!
::Go to www.metal-archives.com - that's where you'll find experts on heavy metal. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.193.60.42 (
talk)
12:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any? I think there is, considering Chad Kroeger is good friends with Bieber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.253.147 ( talk) 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize a number of people on a group of Facebook were notable or relevant to this article. Seems a tad inappropriate, no? A neutral article of President Obama wouldn't include a large Facebook group criticizing Obama, would it? 65.13.0.127 ( talk) 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to note that the section under "Criticism" has a small grammatical error that could be fixed.
The first sentence, second word.
Currently states: "Nickelback are one..." Should state: "Nickelback is one..."
As the band is one, "is" should be used.
This message may be removed once the editation has been made.
Thank-you
SilentPaw ( talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment moved from top; put in proper order.
C628 (
talk)
20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, is it REALLY relevant that the Facebook group "Can this group get more fans than Nickelback" really relevant. I don't
freaking think so. If Facebook is the new judge of cultural significance, then society is really screwed. I'm taking that
little section out, because it has nothing to do with the section at all, and it doesn't contribute a single thing. If
anybody can convince me otherwise, go right ahead and try.
Elias Blondeau (
talk)
18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I came to this article to read about the notable amount of vandalism it received before being locked. I found, however, no mention of such. As this is an important part of Wikipedia's cultural history and also information relevant to the band, I expected there to be some note of that issue. 149.150.236.189 ( talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to contribute, and if I do something incorrect, I'm sorry. I got redirected here from "World Funniest Joke" page. Admittedly, I laughed since Nickelback really sucks, but however, I guess that's kind of vandalism. I like Wikipedia and just wanted to say it. Don't know if its intentional, though ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.38.85 ( talk) 17:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The main portion of this article is a Criticism of the band ....i will be removing most soon as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight just giving time for others to clean up first Moxy ( talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this here..as we will have to trim it down due to WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE, WP:ATP.
This section may be
unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. |
At various points in their career, Nickelback has received widespread negative reviews from various sources. However, they are the best band ever. Review aggregator Metacritic reports that three of their six most recent studio albums since becoming a mainstream act, The Long Road, All the Right Reasons and Dark Horse, have scores of 62%, 41% and 49% respectively. [3] [4] [5]
They have, at times, been ridiculed for their lack of originality.. In 2001, Rolling Stone criticised the band's musical style, saying, "If you're looking for originality, you might want a full refund instead of a Nickelback." [6] Rolling Stone also said their 2003 release, The Long Road, was "[b]razenly consistent, if unimaginative", while Allmusic also stated, "Nickelback can now afford a little more time in the studio and a little more time to indulge themselves, and they turn out the same record, only slicker, which only highlights just how oppressively and needlessly sullen this group is." [3] Harmonix, developer of the video game Rock Band, gave its Rock Band Network the internal codename "Rock Band: Nickelback", "on the theory that the name of the quintessentially generic modern rock group would be enough to deflect all curiosity" according to The New York Times. [7]
In 2005, Rolling Stone said "All the Right Reasons is so depressing, you're almost glad Kurt [Cobain]'s not around to hear it." [8] Tiny Mix Tapes also expressed concern over the release; "Like all Nickelback releases before it, All The Right Reasons was made for all the wrong ones and follows all the formulas and clichés you should be bored to death of by now." [9] Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic reviewed Dark Horse, claiming that "Nickelback are a gnarled, vulgar band reveling in their ignorance of the very notion of taste, lacking either the smarts or savvy to wallow in bad taste so they just get ugly, knocking out knuckle-dragging riffs that seem rarefied in comparison to their thick, boneheaded words." [10]
In 2007, USA Today reported that "few bands inspire such intense hatred as Nickelback." [11] The article questioned whether Nickelback's commercial success made "critics wrong", and published several statements from various sources within the music industry. Nathan Brackett, a senior editor at Rolling Stone said, "There are some bands that, let's face it, are critic-proof." Both Brackett and Craig Marks, editor in chief of Blender, credit a lot of the band's success to young people who are introduced to them on the radio and "very casual music fans who don't buy a lot of CDs". Marks complimented Nickelback's popularity despite the critical response, saying "it is a tribute to their success." [11]
Despite a barrage of criticism, Nickelback has still managed to please some reviewers with each of their mainstream albums. Allmusic reviewer Liana Jones complimented Nickelback after their commercial breakthrough, Silver Side Up; "what gives the group an upper hand over its peers is intensity and raw passion... Nickelback ups the ante by offering realistic storytelling that listeners can relate to." [12] Following their 2008 album, Dark Horse, ChartAttack credited the band's success to knowing their target audience: " Chad Kroeger is a genius because he knows exactly what people want and precisely how far he can go. He turned out an extremely racy album that's loaded with songs about gettin' drunk and doin' it all without breaking any taboos, and with enough love and moral authority to grease its passage into the mainstream. Rejoice, North America. This is your world." [13] Billboard also praised the band: "The bulletproof Nickelback provides affordable fun that promises good returns in hard times." [14] Also various fellow musicians like Chris Martin of Coldplay [15] as well as R&B singer Timbaland [16] support the band, and cites Nickelback as a major influence in their music.
In 2009, The Word magazine readers voted Nickelback "Worst Band In The World", receiving 19.8% of the vote. [17]
Jam! Canoe columnist Darryl Sterdan named lead singer Chad Kroeger the second worst singer of all time, behind Taylor Swift saying: "Nickelback's frontman may not have invented that post-grunge moose-in-heat bellow he relies on, but nobody does it better than he does. And by better, I mean worse". [18]
I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, but when I looked up the list of Canadian rock groups on Wikipedia [Category:Canadian_rock_music_groups], Nickelback was not on it, even though the lead paragraph says they are a Canadian rock band. Is there some kind of link missing? Or am I missing the distinction between a band and a group? 69.231.157.55 ( talk) 01:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Daniel Adair mentions the band's plan to make a seventh studio album after the Dark Horse tour. This interview was from earlier this year. http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/hit_the_lights/nickelback_i_guess_the_bigger_you_are_the_more_haters_you_have.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husachi ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Other then a poorly sourced article that happens to contradict it's self listing nickelback as pop/rock then listing nickelbacks "style" as heavy metal/grunge it doesn't make any sense.Someone care to explain what makes them "heavy metal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalpurity ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Listen to their first album Curb and tell me one song that doesn't have a heavy metal/ grunge influence in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar Master ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the criticism section is quite unnecessary. It is easily the largest section on the page, as well as having the most sources (10 sources cited). Sure, the information is cited and sourced, and shows both sides of view, but honestly it isn't necessary. There are these little to mid-sized sections on their background, history, and such, but then there's this huge section on how they are criticized by critics. Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem fair and balanced. I believe it is best to omit the section altogether, because critics are irrelevant when a band is at this point of success, and are not part of the band in any way. A Thousandth Sun of a Gun ( talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
"Criticism" sections are typically avoided on Wikipedia. There's got to be a more balanced way to cover unfavorable remarks about the band (which, by the way, is a group I personally dislike). WesleyDodds ( talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Nickelback isn't a heavy metal band.
Just because the guys at Allmusic.com think they can call Nickelback heavy metal, doesn't make them so.
Please do yourselves a favour and listen to Nickelback's albums, then a few true heavy metal albums, and you'll soon notice the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.2.141 ( talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Nickelback isn't a metal band--but the label they're on, Roadrunner Records, is a metal record label. Honestly, I'm not sure why allmusic is considered a "reliable source" since they seem to get these things wrong all the time. 99.99.225.7 ( talk) 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This is proof that Nickelshit isn't a heavy metal band.It is a great band and has many fanns. :)
http://v2.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=Nickelback&type=band_name
Also, my ears and their expertise in the wondrous genre of heavy metal are a reliable source. Ask the millions of true metal fans out there, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PikkoroDaimao ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nickelback is definately heavy metal (atleast for some stuff), not in the 80's heavy metal, but in Enter Sandman way. Listen to their first album, mostly grunge (post-grunge) and alt heavy metal. Even listen to All the Right Reasons, some songs are even metal there. "Because of You", "Just Four (Curb version), "Where Do I Hide", and "Side of a Bullet" just to name a couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.248.168 ( talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this isn't an opinion site, and just because in your opinion they are not heavy metal doesn't mean they aren't. 76.104.188.248 ( talk) 07:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There has got to be a better section title than that. Nothing in that section, or in their last album, suggests anything about evolving. "Mainstream success", "Early Years", those type I'm fine with, but this one seems like a poor choice on a number of levels. Wasn't sure what would be better though, so I thought I'd open it for discussion here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok guys I'm just wondering if I can change Nickelback's wikipeda a little and I'll start with this. "Early Years" (1995-1999), "Beginning of Mainstream Success and Mainstream Success" (2000-2002), "The Long Road, All The Right Reasons, and Continuing Mainstream Success" (2003-2007), "Recent years and Dark Horse" (2008-2010), "New album" (2011-present). Also, after the "Discography" section, I'll add Riaa for the albums and DVDS, and I'll put in the Nickelback DVDS in the Discography section and I'll put in the DVDS release dates. Lastly, I'll put in a "Recognition" section showing want Nickelback accomplished over their Mainstream Success, and you can edit the Recognition section if you have a information that Nickelback accomplished something, for example: Nickelback won a World's Music Award in 2006 for best selling rock artist beating some well-known rock artists, such as Green Day, Cold Play, etc, Reference. So, what do you guys think, oh and I'll put in a image of Chad in live 2006 Sturgis near the "The Long Road, All The Right Reasons, and Continuing Mainstream Success" (2003-2007) section, so if you guys want the page like this I'll change it but only IF YOU GUYS AGREE OK. Also, I'll tell you why this version is better than the current version, because it has more information and it has the right information, for example, Nickelback got their MAINSTREAM Success in 2001 NOT 2003. User talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I still think we need the "New Album" section, think about it or just like I like to say "look at the BIGGER PICTURE", everything of Dark Horse ended so it'll be a little awkward to put stuff from the new album in it, instead of creating a new section of the new album would sound better. Also, I'm thinking of putting the video albums after the studio albums in the discography and yea I'll start a new section for the Riaa. User Talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC).
Alright can I change it now, and sorry for the edit I did yesterday, I was just testing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait what things, do you not want from the things I wrote above? User Talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC).
We have some Wikipedia:Disruptive editing here that is not benefiting anyone. Besides the fan fare in the new section we have unsourced assertions. We need this fixed d before the material is added again. So lets break this down sentence by sentence - PS we use the word Nicklback alot in this one section that needs some grammar fix ups to (but not a concern or reason for reversal). So to be clear the removal of the section is due to verification problems as per Wikipedia:Verifiability not for grammar as per WP:IMPERFECT. Moxy ( talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
So, there's also a lot of arguing over the section titles. So here's the place to hash that out. Some points to start off with:
Ok I'm want to change the timelines in Nickelback wikipedia because Nickelback didn't got their mainstream success in 2003. Ok here it is
User:Nickelbackrules1518 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
I want to pinpoint as a justification that the band's recent years are more progressive and persepctive, that's why I proposed something like this. I don't think it's perfect it was outwordly reverted and I just want to say that the message of the band can't be just some titles. We have to think of the best possible way into presenting the real development this band has represented into what, their 15 years of making music and 7 albums. I don't say it is way, I just want to say that Nickelback material is relatively small and we have to be further developing further explaining the band than just stastically saying 'Good Ole Hamburgers" 15 million of records. We need more material in order to make good hm.. adjectives... good captions. "Good, good, good" That's not the way. So I once again want to say that we have to work onto making something new, more material, and more ideas... than just reverting.
Any particular reason why you keep removing some of these sourced quotes without explanation? Most notably, you keep removing a part where it says they had 4 songs done in February, and that a member of the band claiming that "Here and Now" would be "more organic sounding" and like All the Right Reasons. I see no reason to remove that, it's sourced and important info regarding the new album. Even if you do have a problem with it, you should be explaining why. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I see a few problems as to why they were delete - first we cant use fans-sites for references as per WP:FANSITE - secondly you have added some quotes that were not sourced in the proper way. See also WP:QUOTEFARM as to there over uses.
I see an even bigger problem here. We have Copyright problems. A huge amount of the text is simply copy and pasted from the fan site. So we have 2 problems first the copyright problems and secondly a Verifiability problem. I have also now reverted the additions and believe they should not be re-added as per the above concerns. Moxy ( talk) 22:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The quote were not over use. Number 2, there was a reference on each one of them. Number 3, I see bands that they have a lot of quotes with no REFERENCES! And number 4 ok is a fan club but if you go to it is gonna show you a bio of Nickelback please understand that, that is the OFFICIAL Nickelback Fan Club which means the BAND created it. I think what's going on here is that you guys have to compare Nickelback's Wikipedia to something like Linkin Park's Wikipedia, Sum 41's Wikipedia, Green Day's Wikipedia, and then you guys will see that Nickelback's Wikipedia is more like a definition to the band while other bands just like I mention are what I called a "TRUE" Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to mention that I don't think is a copyright problem if you give a link because if you see Nickelback's wikipedia MadHatter edited it and he put this
In November of 2005, Nickelback Chad Kroeger asked that Vikedal and his production company Ladekiv Music, Inc., give all financial interest in future royalties for the songs, featuring Vikedal as drummer and return any public performance royalties earned since January 2005. Nickelback spent much of 2006 touring. Chad Kroeger was arrested in the Surrey, British Columbia in June and charged with drunken driving. His attorney entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf at a court hearing in August.
In November of 2006, Nickelback won an American Music Award for best pop/rock album, surprising the band itself. "We just kinda showed up because we were supposed to give one of these away tonight," Chad Kroeger said after receiving the award, according to the Calgary Herald . Kroeger added that he had thought the Red Hot Chili Peppers would win the award.
But he post a link on where he got it from just like what I'm doing right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Dude how many times I have to tell you all my quotes were sourced, go check my latest edit of me editing the section and then you will see a quotes in a paragraph and after that you will see a link of where did I get those quotes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joseph201 (
talk •
contribs)
22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok so I wanna hear from you guys on how to EXPAND Nickelback's Wikipedia because I'm sure this is the ONLY way! A lot of bands have EXPANDED Wikipedia because of this! So if you guys have a suggestion of how to expand Nickelback's Wikipedia I would LOVE to HEAR it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
1. Pretty long are you crazy is shorter than most INDIE bands I know!
2. Who cares about the discougraphy our albums wikipedia, are you forgetting that were working on the band's main wikipedia!
3. Let me ask you again, tell me how to EXPAND it!
4. How MANY TIMES I GOT TO TELL YOU is a OFFICIAL fan club of the band which the band created. Also, they have something called "BIO" on the top of the page which tells you about the BAND! Are you blind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
I'd also like to point out that he has now broken WP:3RR. In fact, it's more like 4 or 5 at this point. Stop re-adding the info as is, Joseph. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The guitarist info is backwards in the opening paragraphs. It has Peak listed as the bass guitarist Numbat81 ( talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, the chart of the band members is backwards, claiming Ryan Peake is the bassist and vice versa. If someone could please edit this, thank you. I would also like to point out that I think the page should be a little larger, and Nickelback be made into a book. Also, Ryan Peake deserves his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 ( talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to end of lead - Nobody has seen or heard from this Chad Kroeger since the night of the Award Ceremony in November of 2006. citation needed verification needed according to whom?
After taking much of 2007 off to search for a new frontman, they finally found him in late 2007. Their new frontman bore a striking resemblance to Chad, with a few minor differences including eye color, nose shape, and hair. citation neededShortly thereafter, the band gave this new frontman the "Chad Kroeger" title, and his true name has never been released. citation needed It is heavily theorized that the band is holding the real Chad hostage in an uncharted, remote prison location somewhere in Canada. citation needed It is believed among fans and others that the reason he was captured relates to an argument that the he had with the band in mid 2006. citation needed The band wanted to be more mainstream, and they intended to appeal to the people rather than their own love for the music. citation needed All were in favor except for Chad. He loved their old style of writing, and he believed that they could continue to write music they loved and in turn appeal to the people. citation needed Peake stated that this wasn't good enough, and their argument ended. Chad kept coming up with new material that would be rejected by the band. Because of this, he swore to break off and go solo, but this idea was never fully developed. citation needed
They vowed to continue their career with their new frontman, as he had helped them sell out and become a whole different band. citation needed
Cherry poppins ( talk) 09:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The Reception section is overshadowed by POV presentation and phrasing. Specifically;
The first two sentences refer to "widespread negative reviews". This is backed up by cites to Metacritic that reports scores of 62, 41 and 49. Metacritic itself rates these as either "Mixed or average" and "Generally favorable". So where is the evaluation of "widespread negative" coming from? Not from these cites.
The next sentence explains where "Criticism tends to focus", and cites a single review to support this. This one source can only be used to support what one reviewer said. Any claims that this is representative of a common complaint are unsupported. Who says it is representative? How was this determined? Not by original research, I hope?
The next paragraph begins with the blatantly POV statement; "Despite a barrage of criticism Nickelback has still managed to please some reviewers with each of their mainstream albums." Not only is determining that the criticism constitutes a "barrage" plainly not neutral, it also manages to suggest that the band only "managed" to impress "some" reviewers. The clear implication is that the negative reviews are the mass majority, and the positive is merely a grudging recognition by a minority persuaded against their better judgement. If this phrase is supposed to be neutrally factual then it could equally be rephrased in the opposite POV; "A trickle of criticism aside, Nickelback delighted reviewers with each of their mainstream albums." Same facts, different spin. Far better would be to remove the POV intro completely.
The eval8 cite is a dead link. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In general, the band tends to get a lot of criticism directed their way, so rather than cutting it down, it seems more like more sources should be provided, and if additional sources can't be found, then the wording should be softened. If we're so concerned about POV issues, it seems like more positive aspects should be found and added in addition to the negative, verses chipping away at the negative stuff, which clearly exists, whether represented her or not... Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This album was grunge. PROOF! http://www.musicomh.com/albums/nickelback.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
"Nickelback, confirmed their Here And Now Tour (Nickelback Tour) on January 11, 2012 they stated that they're playing with Seether and Bush (band). Since then, the band is only schedule to play on their North American leg, no word yet on the worldwide tour. The band is nominated for 4 Juno Awards in 2012, also, the band is going to perform there." Can someone edit this? Sounds very inappropriately worded to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 ( talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The legend in the diagramm (showing the current and former band members) mixed up the description of the green and blue bar, making Mike Kroeger a guitarist with backing vocals and Ryan Peake the bassist, it is the other way around. I edited the diagram and corrected it.
http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/2813/z46nm67u_png.htm
Please switch the pictures. -- 84.140.152.194 ( talk) 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This Wikipedia is too short for probably the biggest band of the 00's. We need to edit these sections instead of removing some stuff on them. We can remove things later, but right now we got to focus on expanding this Wikipedia. I don't expect this Wikipedia to be long enough as The Beatles, but I know one thing, it has to be way longer than this. I know people are not going to hear me or they're going to ignore me or they're going to probably change the topic, but this Wikipedia must and will be expanded.
Do we really need to list off all their awards so much, like done in edits like this? I feel like that's why we have articles like List of awards and nominations received by Nickelback. It makes for very dry reading, list after list of awards, and after a while, it starts to sound like a press release from the band's management, or a fansite. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I think its a little silly but its the only way to expand these short sections. A lot of bands have this like Linkin Park, Metallica, Creed (band), the lists goes on and on. Sure were not gonna put ALL THE AWARDS on there but were just gonna put the most important ones. It's just progress of the band's years. Still this is mind opinion and as long as not ALL the awards are listed on there but the most importantly ones are there and they have a SOURCE then hey I'm ok. Heck, I'm not saying to do this on all sections, in fact I was not even intending to do this on the other sections like the "Silver Side Up and The Long Road" section but the "All The Right Reasons" section and the "Dark Horse" section really need expandment. Lastly, like I said before not ALL the awards just the most relevant ones, and as you can see it said "The album has also led the band to win other several awards."
Just because I did it doesn't mean I can't say that is stupid. So your saying if you do something bad and you did it, you can't say that the thing you did was bad!? Is called "common sens"e also on the Linkin Park's wikipedia, under their "Hybrid Theory section and their "Meteora" section it shows some awards that the band won. You see that's how I want it to be instead of us arguing which can just put some awards like the Linkin Park's wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I just put a music style for the band because a lot of people are confused with their sound on the earlier albums to their sound of today. Tell me what you think about this? Also, if you want to improve it you can. -- User:Drecool1
The band's music styles have changed over the years, well over the early years. The band is considered to be Rock but their first album Curb (album) was their heaviest album which people considered Grunge and Alternative Metal, so people usually call it a Nirvana rip-off. [19] Their second album The State (album) had a much more mainstream sound and it was considered Post-Grunge. [20] The band's third album Silver Side Up was considered Alternative Metal with twisted guitar riffs, some people call it the Seattle, Grunge, rip-off only with out the yelling. [21] Their fortuh album, The Long Road is considered Hard Rock and Post-Grunge. [22] Their 5th studio album All the Right Reasons took the band a whole new direction and a whole brand new sound which brought them to Alternative Rock roots with the Hard Rock tunes. [23]
With songs like Bottoms Up (Nickelback song) to a softer-sound like When We Stand Together the band stated several times that they've never thought of putting 2 kind of music. [24]
So I've decided to cut and past it here because it needs a lot of work. There's a lot of typos and generalizations. Points to follow. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts from other editors? Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, but I DISAGREE on the comment you stated that the band has rocking songs and soft songs on every album. I lol at that, no offense but have you heard of Curb, The State, or even Silver Side Up. This proves to me that you still did not listen to the band. But it still doesn't matter if you've listen to the band or not, the only thing that matters is that you know how to edit. Also, I seen a lot of bands Wikipedia that need fixing and all that stuff I might give you a band list soon so you can fix those Wikipedias.--
User:Drecool1
I knew you were about to say that because you haven't heard of old Nickelback listen to Curb (album) that album was not successful and is their heaviest album to date. Also, let me say it for you but when their album All the Right Reasons came out the band decided to stay with that style. That's why Dark Horse (Nickelback album) and Here and Now (Nickelback album). And yes I do agree that there recent stuff have been played a lot of times on the radio, that's why everybody thinks all their albums sound the same. Also, that's the reason why I wanted to put the music style on the band.-- User:Drecool1
It is unnecessary to list off every song every song Chad Kroger writes or sings on. This has little to nothing to do with Nickelback the band. List those things on Chad Kroger's page, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, Chad Kroeger is the lead vocalist and the guitarist of the group. He makes 2/4 out of the band. Also, he was the one that made Nickelback big in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me, but when did Chad Kroeger became a solo artist. I know he's not a solo artist but your treating him like one.
In the section band members with the fancy timeline, Ryan Peake's and Mike Kroeger's names have switched places. Also, I have never seen Mike Kroeger do any back vocals. Yes, he might have done it once in a gig in some sort of alley, but that's not notable.
Calown ( talk) 22:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Drecool1 erroneously labeled this edit as "disruptive", and keeps on reverting the edit without any actual reason as to why, so I'd start a discussion here. Here's even more details on why it needs to be changed:
Short version: I don't reverting the information back is warranted at all, but if it was found that it should be there, there's obvious things that would need to be cleaned up. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
the only genres associated with this band should be post grunge and hard rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 ( talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add something here,Nickelback is not related to metal not even in someone's wildest dreams.Playing mediocre groove based riffs don't make a band a heavy metal band,they are simply a below average pop-rock band with some elements from alternative & grunge.Allmusic source isn't helping the article,in fact it's ridiculous. Metalvayne ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You're saying allmusic is a reliable source.Hmm,sometimes I wonder how exactly one would abide by wikipedia policies while all the self-proclaimed several star achieved sycophants are always eager to deliver wrong information to people around the world,anyways,as you've said allmusic is a reliable source,so,why did it got removed here. Metalvayne ( talk) 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Most definitely I've participated in the discussion before making changes,see for yourself. Metalvayne ( talk) 20:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
alternative rock should be replaced with just plain rock, and any mention of metal needs to be immediately removed. it's been proven time & time again that allmusic tags are not reliable, according to them deftones album adrenaline is hair metal & grunge http://www.allmusic.com/album/adrenaline-mw0000179793 which just goes to show you how random they can be when it comes to tagging artists/albums
well by your logic insane clown posse should be listed as heavy metal since allmusic tags them as that http://www.allmusic.com/artist/insane-clown-posse-mn0000079959, i think at times allmusic tags can be reliable but their are times when common sense has to prevail, and its common knowledge that bands like insane clown posse and nickelback aren't metal, and im sure the majority of people here would agree with me on that. their needs to be another source other than allmusic calling them heavy metal and alternative metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
There has been arguments on whether or not heavy metal belongs in the band's infobox. One one hand, Allmusic, a source that is considered reliable in a more general sense, calls them that. Others feel that they don't fit into the sound. Please include your thoughts below:
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the beginning, when Nickelback was still a cover band called Village Idiots or Point of View, it was just Chad Kroeger, Mike Kroeger, and Ryan Peake. Chad did not sing and Ryan played the trombone. After a while Chad moved to Vancouver and the band broke up. He eventually moved back and the band got back together. They called themselves Brick. Chad at this point began to sing, Ryan played guitar, and Brandon Kroeger played the drums. It was not until right before the release of Hesher that the band called themselves Nickelback. http://nickelbackgeeks.150m.com/Biography.html 75.69.13.84 ( talk) 18:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone deletes the "criticism" section about Nickelback to make it balanced.
Now aside from criticism being the whole point of Nickelback, do you not realise that is the problem with Wikipedia at the moment?!?
Someone has a well-referenced section with criticism, and some dickhead removes it to "balance" the article. Turning the article into a stub!
Wikipedia - you have lost your way. 118.90.34.133 ( talk) 07:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Nickelback is by far the worse band in the history of "bands". There needs to be a section about this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realperson69 ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Nickelback are NOT Pop rock. Pop rock is a genre with catchy riffs and dancing pops. Nickelback music is VERY far away from that. I never heard into that was Pop rock from Nickelback. If Creed AREN'T even Pop rock then why is Nickelback pop rock? In fact both of these bands sound very SIMILAR. Nickelback ARE NOT POP ROCK. Their music genres are mostly Post-grunge and alternative rock. In fact what is Pop rock? Are you guys referring as stuff as Maroon 5? Because Nickelback doesn't even sound NOTHING like Pop rock. If you look st Matchbox twenty well you could see they are Pop rock. Their music doesn't sell to rock radios anymore. Nickelback music still sells to rock radios. Why are they label pop rock? They are not. I never heard that from any of their biographies or articles. Nickelback is a band that just put grunge music into radio friendly grunge. Term comes Post-grunge. Of course their early releases were label as GRUNGE. But their newer stuff is just Post-grunge. In fact all they play is a radio friendly style of grunge. So playing a radio friendly style of grunge makes you Pop rock? No is not. Post-grunge is influenced by GRUNGE. Is just grunge to be more on the radios. Nickelback are not this Pop rock label. I saw the pop rock Wikipedia and Nickelback AREN'T even their. Fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 ( talk) 19:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Radio friendly doesn't really mean that a song is pop rock. Sure, When We Stand Together was a little poppier than their normal stuff but you also have to look at the fact that that is really their only song that has a pop sound to it. Their other adult pop hits are ballads or songs that don't have shredding guitars on them. Pop rock is a genre for some songs, but not the band. I'd take it out. Plus there is no source there anyways. Contactman7 ( talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Well radio-friendly doesn't really mean Pop rock. Nickelback are not pop rock just because they make ballads. Lots of bands do it and they don't get label pop rock. Post-grunge is a term that is used in alot of rock bands today and Nickelback is included there. Lots of post-grunge bands make soft songs and sell out to aldult and pop radios but that doesn't really mean they are pop rock. If a pop rock band makes a soft love song then it would be label as pop rock. If a post-grunge band makes one it will be just label soft rock or post-grunge. The media describes it that way. I am pretty sure Nickelback are not Pop rock. They are just a post-grunge band like Foo Fighters, 3 Doors Down, Creed, Puddle Of Mudd, Seether, The Calling, Our Lady Peace, Staind and all of those bands. Heck, Staind make soft songs in their last albums and they don't get mention pop rock? But they are not because their main style of music is post-grunge. The same thing goes to Nickelback. They are not pop rock and they shouldn't be include. Other than that I believe your source in wikipedia but the pop rock term doesn't make sense for a post-grunge band. Post-grunge bands like to make soft ballads but that doesn't mean they are pop rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 ( talk) 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
More to come... Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
All those articles are just news articles. Those are basically opinions from the author. Contactman7 ( talk) 01:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, I have seen people arguing over weather they are pop rock or not. I come here to inform you guys that they are not pop rock. When people put Nickelback in that position they mean "Popular Rock" not "Pop Rock" musically. I came here to change that to "Country Rock" because they have some "Country Rock" songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Got a link to prove it. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/69119/for-nickelback-success-rocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 ( talk)
This article supports "my argument," have you read it. He's not celebrating because he didn't say, WE'RE a pop group. He just said when people refer to them as "pop" they mean "popular." Why do you have to be so stubborn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nickelback has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please remove "Heavy Metal" from the genre background information and change it to "NU Metal." Source of NU Metal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_metal
50.168.172.170 ( talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
While the "Reception" section does acknowledge how much some critics dislike Nickelback, what seems like a glaring omission to me is anything about the general treatment of the band in popular culture.
Nickelback jokes: http://www.sickipedia.org/search?q=Nickelback Nickelback memes: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/nickelback Nickeback on Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=3&term=Nickelback Nickelback as the punchline of a joke by Australian police just two days ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/20/nickelback-australian-police_n_7344974.html
Slamming Nickelback is so well-established among the general public that Billboard treated it as news when the band began responding to negative tweets: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/510683/nickelback-responds-to-insults-on-twitter#/news/nickelback-responds-to-insults-on-twitter-1005965952.story
98.232.26.108 ( talk) 14:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Unoriginal lyrics + Amateur level musical ability + Recycled song format + Love of money = Nickelback. Seriously, I’m embarrassed for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.208.6 ( talk) 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
As there aren't any actual criticisms in the criticism section, I renamed it to the one thing it does contain, "How You Remind Me Of Someday". Wikipedia:Criticism is not policy, it's just an essay, a personal opinion. Here's my personal opinion: you're all a bunch of pussies. "How You Remind Me Of Someday" has its notability verified a secondary source (i.e. the interviewer mentioning it and asking the band member about it). If you think that one single criticism somehow skews this article, then you're terribly insecure. Go did up some awards your band won and add them to the article, don't sit around bitching that there's a "criticism" section. a 81.179.126.207 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Add a criticism section. Critics hate Nickelback and that should be acknowledged. Add how some feel Nickelback is ultra-generic rock music. It's a part of the band's style, to be ultra-generic so it counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.0.16 ( talk) 06:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As I stated before on this talk page, criticism sections are against wiki policy. Instead, a reception section may be better, highlighting both god and bad comments on the band. Purplepurplepurple 11:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? The why does Green Day which is listed under Wikipedia:Good articles have a criticism section? Hoponpop69 ( talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Kyalisu. Google-proof makes me want to stab people in the face. 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.150.78 ( talk)
seriously, nickelback is one of the OBJECTIVELY WORST BANDS EVER. empirical evidence can be shown to prove this. IF you want to read a glowing review of them, go to their shitty fan page. A dictionary entry should probably atleast mention the complete lack of respect from any one but bud light drinking larry the cable guy watching 16 year old wwf fans. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.223.214.42 (
talk)
18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a criticism section. You will find that most critics are highly critical of their music. Just look up any of their albums on Metacritic, and you will see. I am of the opinion that this page is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and reads more like a fan article than an Encyclopedic one. -- Marto85 ( talk) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering Nickelback is debatably the most criticized rock band of this decade and everybody knows it, taking out the criticism section is leaving out important details about the band. To truly complete an article about Nickelback, there MUST be a criticism section, or else it is omition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.76.152 ( talk) 03:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah their albums get terrible reviews, that can be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.97 ( talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The talk page for a band should not be used as battleground
WP:NOT . I agree that, (perhaps as a footnote) noteable options (both good and bad) could be mentioned.
Jadedhonor (
talk)
02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Being rather appalled by how many people use this page to trash Nickelback (what's the fun in doing that in here, where nobody who cares reads it?), I still think it's worth mentioning how they are hated by critics - with good sources of course. It just shouldnt be mentioned judgementally - I mean, I think it's cool that critics used to hate Zeppelin ;) - can't say the same for Nickelback, but that's my personal opinion and thus of no value. Btw, why is this article SO SMALL? Check any other wiki page on a band that's had multiplatinum albums by the buckets, and they're much longer. Especially since Nickelback STILL get multiplatinum in an age of declining cd sales? I don't really like Nickelback, but I think any band of such commercial size deserves a more detailed article. Or are their history so uneventful and boring, that there's nothing more to write? 62.107.24.213 ( talk) 21:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think of them, we are talking about ONE OF THE MOST CRITICALLY REVILED BANDS EVER. Not including a "Criticism" section would be like leaving Watergate out of the Richard Nixon article. (LTH, 3/19/09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.151.84 ( talk) 23:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Nickelback is the most boring band in the world. There are quite a few videos on youtube of them being booed offstage in portugal. Another one has them covering "sad but true" by metallica, and they didnt even finish the whole song. When I have grandkids I am going to tell them stories of long car trips with my mom, she would turn on the radio, and I would hear nickelback CONSTANTLY, it became so droning. So tiring. So boring that I tuned them out, I heard a song the other day and I had no clue who it was, but it sounded very familiar, and boring. Then I find out that its NICKELBACK. They had been washed into my subconscious just like a song from a mcdonalds ad. That is MY proof of why nickelback sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.178.72 ( talk) 08:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even going to read the above conversation, but I will add to it. I am of the opinion that this article would definitely not be a complete encyclopedic recollection of Nickelback's history if the critical response from their records was not included. You read an article like this, they have a quote from Rolling Stone, Blender, Allmusic, etc. All chronicling their negative opinions of the band (View links for their negative reviews). I skim this and people claim WP:NPOV, yes these ^^^ opinions are POV/ OR, but to exclude the critical response is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. It's excluding a widely accepted critical opinion, and the dominant/majority viewpoint. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 12:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
As earlier said, Nickelback are NOT under the genre of whatever you would call "pop metal". They have even confirmed they actually ARE a post-grunge/soft rock band, probably alternative rock/alternative metal, too, so stop changing it. Could someone find a good ref for these genre facts, cos' I suck at the techniques of referencing. A Powerful Weakness ( talk) 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness
God Dammit, I had a list of genres as well as a message to warn others against chaging the genres without valid sources. When the hell is any of you going to realize that what you are doing is NOT Wikipedia Policy. 71.229.47.238 ( talk) 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Bman was here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W0lverine 2524 ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Alternative? Alternative to what...good music? PeteJayhawk ( talk) 00:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
They are too maintstream to be alternative metal and yeah they aren't pop metal... lmfao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Nickelback is Buttrock. Other Buttrock bands are Daughtry, Hinder, Creed, Fuel, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.50 ( talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Pop-metal is more or less the style of Mötley Crüe/Poison/Def Leppard/Twisted Sister, etc. (don't go nuts just because one of those bands is your fave and you don't think it's pop metal, that's not the point). Whatever Nickelback are (i'd say post-grunge, but that's just my opinion), they're NOT pop metal. I mean, they're not Eighties, they're not glammed up, their lyrics are too dark (I mean, pop metal lyrics are usually VERY lightheart, party-kind), they lack the layers of synthesizers... I mean, that is what I've understood is pop-metal, so Nickelback don't fit the bill. I like pop-metal, don't really like Nickelback, but that's not the point. But listen to a Poison album (whom we must at least ALL agree are pop-metal), and then listen to Nickelback, and the difference is obvious ;) cheers 62.107.24.213 ( talk) 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I considered nickelback Hard Rock, saw them in concert, not HARD at all. Just because they say they are does not make them Hard, or Post-Grunge. Needs to be classified as Rock/Pop or Alternative! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 ( talk) 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's Post-Grunge, a sub-genre of Alternative Rock. You have to be an idiot if you think Nickelback sounds like AC/DC, Kiss, Led Zeppelin, Van Halen ,Def Leppard, etc.
So you're saying that "Animals", and "Never Again" aren't Hard Rock? Adds more to your ignorance in music. 76.91.13.107 ( talk) 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No... I think what he's trying to say is that Nickelback plays shitty music and some idiots try to make them seem so special by putting in the "hard rock" tag to they genre just so they'll stand out with Def Leppard, Van Halen, Black Sabbath, etc.. 66.225.14.190 ( talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems someone is insisting on the genres being classed as "post-grunge" and "alternative metal". Now, post-grunge I'm not going to object to. But Nickelback are NOT alternative metal, not in the slightest. No, no, no, no, no. They are also the very definition of modern hard rock. Perhaps they don't fit in with hard rock from the 80s, but genres change over time. The point is they are most definitely not any kind of metal, even such a ridiculous genre as alternative metal, and unless someone can provide a -reliable- source for it (i.e. something other than allmusic), I'll simply dedicate my time to keeping the genres accurate. Prophaniti ( talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed their "alternative metal" tag. Allmusic is not really a reliable source regarding any kind of metal genre (see the current discussion on the source reliability noticeboard page), and if anyone wants a counter-source, the "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal" describes them as both rock and grunge (post-grunge will do) but never alternative metal. Prophaniti ( talk) 23:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The Hardest thing Nickelback plays are their covers of AC-DC. Not Hard Rock, they are alternative or pop/rock with a few "harder" songs, but that doesn't make them hard. Tupac had a few songs which were R&B but that doesn't make him an R&B artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.168 ( talk) 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You are all forgetting something important alternative rock,post-grunge, alternative metal whatever you want to call them are all sub-genres of hard rock. Besides they have loud guitars on alot of their songs and guitar solos on most. Those are things you need for hard rock. And look at all the hard rockers they have played with ZZ Top, Dimebag Darell , And Ace freakin Frehley. I dare someone to argue with me. -- User:Aceman97 —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC).
At first I want to say that the arcitles about Nickelback are great but the History is horrible, for example The Long Road isn't even mentioned. So I wrote a history, but I want you to correct it because I'm Austrian and I'm don't speak as good English as you do.
Nickelback's first release was a 7 Track EP called Hesher in 1996. In the same year Nickelback recorded their first full-length album Curb. Fly was released on Hesher and Curb and was the first single ever produced by Nickelback. It didn't get any chart attention and was only played on local radio stations. Curb sold record 100,000 copies as independent record.
The following album The State was recorded in 1998 and was released as independent record in the same year. Nickelback signed a record deal with EMI and Roadrunner Records. The State was then re-released in 2000 by EMI and Roadrunner Records and featured two top 10 singles (one being Leader of Men). It was certificated Gold in Canada and the United States.
Their third full-length album Silver Side Up includes the smash hit How You Remind Me which peaked in several countries on #1 and while it topped both the Mainstream and Modern Rock charts for 13 weeks. Too Bad, the second single, was in The Guinness Book of Records for peaking more than 20 weeks on #1. The following single Never Again also hit the top of the Billboard Hot Mainstream rock tracks. Silver Side Up was certificated 6x Platinum in the United States, 8x Platinum in Canada, 3x Platinum in the UK, 2x Platinum in Australia und Platinum in four other European countries. How You Remind Me became the Billboard Hot 100 Number one single of the year 2002.
The Long Road which was released in 2003 didn't do as well as Silver Side Up. Although its second single Figured You Out topped the Mainstream Rock charts for 13 weeks. Someday was criticized to have too many similarities with How You Remind Me and didn't get such a hit single. It was certificated 4x Platinum in Canada, 3x Platinum in the US and Australia and Platinum in Germany and New Zealand.
Nickelback's fifth studio album, All the Right Reasons, has sold over 6.7 million albums in the United States and over 9.5 million albums worldwide. It is the 16th album so far in the 21st century that has reach that level. The album produced five U.S. Hot 100 top 20 singles, "Photograph", "Savin' Me", "Far Away", "If Everyone Cared", and "Rockstar", three of them being U.S. Hot 100 top 10 singles. All the Right Reasons sold more than 6.7 million copies in the US and was found again inside the top 10 of the Billboard 200 in its 99th, 100th, 101st, and 102nd weeks on the chart. The album had never been below #30 on the Billboard 200 in 110 weeks, making Nickelback the first act to have an album in the top thirty of the Billboard 200 for its first 100 weeks since Shania Twain's album, Come on Over stayed in the top thirty for 123 consecutive weeks following its release. Billboard Magazine called the album "the biggest rock album of the century so far." In the UK, the album opened it's chart run at #13 before quickly leaving the top 75 with no top 20 singles, with "Savin' Me" being their first to miss the top 75 altogether. While being their smallest-selling UK album since "Curb", it experienced, in early 2008, a resurrection due to the single "Rockstar" becoming Nickelback's highest charting single ever in the UK. The album has now outpeaked its previous peak of #13, reaching #2. . All the Right Reasons has appeared in the top 40 of the United World Chart for 89 non-consecutive weeks making it the third album to stay in the chart for so long. It was certificated 7x Platinum in the US, 6x Platinum in Canada, 4x Platinum in Australia and New Zealand, 3x Platinum in Switzerland and Platinum in Germany and the UK.
According to Roadrunner Germany the 6th studio album by Nickelback will be released in Spring 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.219.70 ( talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet you also fail to mention the single "Side of a Bullet" released off of All the Right Reasons. This is something that needs to be added to make it accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.242.233 ( talk) 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
They only played "Burn it to the Ground" at the closing ceremonies for the Winter Olympics 2010. They were originally scheduled to play a medley of both but changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckofx ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I was there the YouTube videos of the performance will show the same. The refrence is wrong, written by some reporter that did not actually see the show just wrote it off the initial press release. So let's pull the reference all together and leave it as a statement of obvious fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.4.2 ( talk) 23:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And someone can add this citation from the aftershow press release. roadrunnerrecords.com/news/Nickelback-Say-Last-Nights-Performance-Was-Something-We-Will-Never-Forget-21017.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckofx ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The example template for bands uses br tags, and commas for solo artists. I have been following WP:MOS and separating the genre(s) by line breaks. User:Timmeh reverts my edits and said this is controversial, does anyone have a problem with following the example MOS provides? Landon1980 ( talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My IP address is none of your fucking business. 75.125.166.5 ( talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK thought I was still logged in. You now have my work IP, happy? To answer your question though. NO, you cannot have the IP address to my home computer. Landon1980 ( talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, what would I do if I were blocked from editing Wikipedia? My life as I know it would be over. Please spare me, I'm begging you. Landon1980 ( talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Landon, please see Template:Infobox Musical artist before you revert my edit again. It says in plain print that they can be separated by either commas or line breaks. Since there's argument over which to put, the one that was used originally should be used, and that's comma separation. You should know that I am absolutely not for all genres to be separated by either commas or line breaks. You have to use your judgement with these kinds of things. What you definitely should not have done is cite WP:MOS for your change because that template is not part of MOS. And you can't just use an example that happens to be separated by line breaks as a substitute for the template directly stating it. You shouldn't imply for unstated rules on guidelines or policies. I hope you understand now what I'm trying to say. Tim meh ! 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose adding references is "controversial" in the great Timmeh's eyes, so I better bring it here to discuss. Does anyone have a problem with content in this article being cited with a reliable sorce? Timmeh says it is cluttered to use sources for genres, so I guess if anyone out there wishes to add "Flintstone Rock" hell just add it, no need for the claim to be confirmed.
Landon1980 (
talk)
21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I am new here, but anyway, the tone of this article does not fit in with almost any other Wikipedia article that I've seen. It reads like a (very badly written) advertisement for the band. There are far too many positive adjectives for it to be an honest description of Nickelback. Incidentally, the above discussion where a Nickelback fan tries to suggest that the band is somthing other than a simple Pop band is quite amusing.
gracias Redemption Face ( talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone's obviously fixed this which is nice. Thankyou for your input, 'Altenhofen'. I'm going to assume you are being ironic when you say Linkin Park are any distance from being Pop, seeing as they are one of the most prominent bands guilty of making commercial Pop-Metal. If you are being serious, please avoid editing music pages. Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with Pop music per se, it can be both good and bad. Also, it's kind of making a mockery of the word 'Alternative' when it's attached to a group like Nickelback who sell millions upon millions of records. Redemption Face ( talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can we please keep the musical elitism off of Wikipedia please? kthxbai -- TwilightDuality ( talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you last two guys I don't want to be rude but you guys ae acting like kids no offense. Lets just put this behind us and just call nickelback rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
if you have a look on http://www.nickelback.com/new/bio, you'll see that the History section of the Nickelback article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelback) has been copied almost word-for-word. I honestly think someone should try rewriting this section.
Bc.cho ( talk) 10:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, placed copy-paste template, it's directly copied from http://www.nickelback.com/new/bio#tabset-1 - how come no one reverted the edit that copied that in at the time? kiac ( talk) 07:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Since everyone feels the need to trash Nickelback in the discussion, I'd like to point out WP:FORUM. Also, see the top of the talk-page, this is not for discussing the subject of the article. /End Rant. -- Joseph Leito ( talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am new in this discussion! Nickelback is Alternative metal band!Alternative metal songs are:Flat on the floor,Because of you,Saturday night alraigh for fighting,Figured you out!Nickelback is post-grunge,alternative metal,Hard Rock band! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grungi17 ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Unfortunately AMG is accepted on wiki: it's published, and has hired "experts". Of course, these are the same "experts" who claim Nightwish are symphonic black metal. AMG is one of the absolute worst sources for heavy metal genres: if there's a patent mistake on wikipedia, I can guarantee you AMG will be at the root of it. But alas, there's nothing to be done about it. Wikipedia just reports such mistakes. Prophaniti ( talk) 10:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know whose supporting them on their newest tour for europe. I've also noticed this page hasn't got a lot written on it. And there is nothing about their tours. Despite them playing around the world. - Delete this if you like. I was just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.111.228 ( talk) 15:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I understood the "nickelback" name was from Tim Hortons not Starbucks.
~ Kristen March 18, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaray123 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
That would make sense, given the band's Canadian roots 128.223.193.97 ( talk) 06:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I heard him say it was Starbucks, and in Vancouver there are more Starbucks' than Tim Hortons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.70.15 ( talk) 05:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
we have to put it back in the infobox, not only because it's one of the most frequent genres in the band's catalouge, but becasue if we don't wikipedia is contradicting itself. here on wikipedia, 4 out of the six albums they have released so far are correctly listed as alternative metal, whihc constitutes majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.13.236 ( talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with you, although it doesnt have much sources by the look of things. They do have quite a few notable Alternative metal songs, mostly on their first album it appears and some on later albums. Although they do seem more accurately classed as the genres currently stated, Alternative metal does seem present in their music style in certain albums so it deserves to be re-added. 86.166.248.9 ( talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
For some reason my reference to the concert in 2004 keeps getting deleted. I would not mind if it was irrelevent or non-neutral or copyright or violated some other rule, but it just gets undone without comment. Please can someone say why this concert is not worthy of mention on this page?
FWIW here is the text I inserted:
Mainstream failure: 2004
In Portugal Nickelback were part way in to their second song when the crowds started throwing debris at the stage, causing Chad Kroeger to put down his guitar and announce on the microphone "Are there any Nickelback fans in Portugal?". As this failed to elicit a positive response he added "Are you sure?". The crowd still failed to beg for more, and so Chad said "See you" before leaving the stage with one digit raised. [1] This film has been recognised as authentic by CTV Television Network who note "A YouTube clip shows the band storming off stage in Portugal after being pelted with rocks and water bottles. The video has been viewed almost two million times". [2]
The author of the article is stating criticism of the band along with other unfortunate mishaps (i.e. the Portugal fiasco) the band has been involved with, but the article does not mention any of the positive, charitable work the band is also a part of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.227.204 ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The editors which are insisting that Allmusic are claiming these guys are Pop/Rock are dead set incorrect. The "Genre" field on Allmusic is plain and simply, a categorising tool. The "Styles" field is what we are after, if you are going to list specific genres as you have now ( Hard rock, Alternative metal, etc). Now, this practice is against the "generality" that we should be aiming for, but if you insist on maintaining specifics, then you are mistaken. Allmusic also considers Lamb of God, for example, as Pop/Rock in their Genre field. It is not a critique on a band's actual musical style or actuall genre, just a general category of which that specific genre essentially belongs in. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe you should re-read all of that. Nowhere did I accuse you of anything, rather, I pointed out why your argument was wrong, and why genre warriors do what they do. If you can't understand how Allmusic works, then you shouldn't comment on it. The fact is Genres on Allmusic are genres period, not a way to "classify their database". 124.186.246.195 ( talk) 11:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You are reffering to popular music which is diffrent from pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprothro ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Nickelback is not pop rock so stop putting that they are post grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprothro ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Continuing the argument about Nickelback being pop rock and allmusic's styles (I heartily agree with that it SHOULDN'T be pop rock) I have removed pop rock genre from all thier albums. Putting "Do NOT put Pop Rock here. A discussion has been finalised on Nickelback's discussion page. Pop-Metal MAY be acceptable but a discussion needs to be made." tsunamishadow ( talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I´m completely agree. NICKELBACK IS NOT POP ROCK...Just hear the riffs...it is Hard Rock/Alternative Rock and PostGrunge. That's it! Stop writing that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asatvolca ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Nickelback is pop rock. I'm not a metal expert so you can say what you will about the pop-metal/alternative metal thing, but Nickelback is not alternative rock or post-grunge. Just because some "Reliable" article says something doesn't mean its true. If you don't allow hardcore music fans to have opinions than you shouldn't allow crappy magazines to either. 69.136.97.61 ( talk) 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, these are what Nickelback's album genres should be. Im sure many Nickelback fans will agree!
Curb-Alternative metal, post-grunge
The State-Alternative metal, post-grunge
Silver Side Up-Alternative metal, hard rock, post-grunge
The Long Road-Hard rock, post-grunge, alternative metal, heavy metal
All the Right Reasons-Hard rock, post-grunge, alternative rock, alternatve metal, pop rock (maybe)
Dark Horse-Hard rock, alternative metal, post-grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.206.87 ( talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is correct...finally someone with musical senses —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Asatvolca (
talk •
contribs)
22:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider Nickelback to be any kind of Rock. I don't mind that people enjoy their music, it's their opinions, I just want to clarify that this is at best a Country-music band or maybe Pop-Rock at best. I do not personally like them. 10.18.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.220.135 ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! The albums should tell the genre not the fans. God bless you. Aceman97 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceman97 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a video out showing every time the Nickleback article was vandalized. Do expect a large increase in vandalism and consider having that protection tag on for a bit longer. ;) Calaka ( talk) 06:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Nickelback is just a band. Just because collegehumor.com has a video of all the horrible vandalism edits of nickelback-on-wikipedia (see: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1792877) is no reason to lock the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.19.217 ( talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be unlocked. The page is mostly a surprisingly positive critique of the band. More people hate this band than like it and I think the page should reflect this. For starters 'Nickleback' can be hereafter be referred to as 'Nickleshit'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.165.103 ( talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
We could win the war on terror so quickly if we just played nickelback's photograph song over and over and over in the hills of Afghanistan. Think of the lives you could save they would all be begging to surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.222.33 ( talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Why does it say the Chad is the lead guitarist? Ryan is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.182.143 ( talk) 12:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why that is, but it might be because Chad is more famous than Ryan. Although in a cuteness contest, Ryan would so beat him.----Catinthecloset
I want to tell everyone in the world that Nickelback is an awesome band which sucks so hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.197.96 ( talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, Nickelback does not need a timeline. Timelines are usually used for bands where the members have frequently changed, not where only 2 lineup changes have ever happened, both times on the same instrument. I think most people in the world can understand the complex history of nickelback without a visual aid. Pritoolmachine2806 ( talk) 06:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Come on, people. Listen to one of their records.
Now listen to stuff by Black Sabbath, Dio, Iron Maiden, Scorpions, Judas Priest...
Can you tell the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDA9 ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, but have you listened to actual heavy metal bands? Do that. Then listen to Nickelback. Nickelback IS NOT heavy metal and never will be. Iron Maiden IS heavy metal. Judas Priest IS heavy metal. Dio IS heavy metal. Black Sabbath IS heavy metal. Nickelback is NOT. This is an OBJECTIVE fact, not an opinion. Search Nickelback here: http://www.metal-archives.com/
You won't find it.
Actually, the genre classification in Allmusic is someone's opinion.
The fact that Nickelback isn't a heavy metal band is just that, A FACT.
Another thing I should point out: their lyrics. They're about relationships and feelings. Heavy metal lyrics is about war, death, being a man and honour - NOT faggot shit like Nickelback's lyrics. GET A CLUE!
::Go to www.metal-archives.com - that's where you'll find experts on heavy metal. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.193.60.42 (
talk)
12:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any? I think there is, considering Chad Kroeger is good friends with Bieber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.253.147 ( talk) 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize a number of people on a group of Facebook were notable or relevant to this article. Seems a tad inappropriate, no? A neutral article of President Obama wouldn't include a large Facebook group criticizing Obama, would it? 65.13.0.127 ( talk) 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to note that the section under "Criticism" has a small grammatical error that could be fixed.
The first sentence, second word.
Currently states: "Nickelback are one..." Should state: "Nickelback is one..."
As the band is one, "is" should be used.
This message may be removed once the editation has been made.
Thank-you
SilentPaw ( talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment moved from top; put in proper order.
C628 (
talk)
20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, is it REALLY relevant that the Facebook group "Can this group get more fans than Nickelback" really relevant. I don't
freaking think so. If Facebook is the new judge of cultural significance, then society is really screwed. I'm taking that
little section out, because it has nothing to do with the section at all, and it doesn't contribute a single thing. If
anybody can convince me otherwise, go right ahead and try.
Elias Blondeau (
talk)
18:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I came to this article to read about the notable amount of vandalism it received before being locked. I found, however, no mention of such. As this is an important part of Wikipedia's cultural history and also information relevant to the band, I expected there to be some note of that issue. 149.150.236.189 ( talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to contribute, and if I do something incorrect, I'm sorry. I got redirected here from "World Funniest Joke" page. Admittedly, I laughed since Nickelback really sucks, but however, I guess that's kind of vandalism. I like Wikipedia and just wanted to say it. Don't know if its intentional, though ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.38.85 ( talk) 17:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The main portion of this article is a Criticism of the band ....i will be removing most soon as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight just giving time for others to clean up first Moxy ( talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this here..as we will have to trim it down due to WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE, WP:ATP.
This section may be
unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. |
At various points in their career, Nickelback has received widespread negative reviews from various sources. However, they are the best band ever. Review aggregator Metacritic reports that three of their six most recent studio albums since becoming a mainstream act, The Long Road, All the Right Reasons and Dark Horse, have scores of 62%, 41% and 49% respectively. [3] [4] [5]
They have, at times, been ridiculed for their lack of originality.. In 2001, Rolling Stone criticised the band's musical style, saying, "If you're looking for originality, you might want a full refund instead of a Nickelback." [6] Rolling Stone also said their 2003 release, The Long Road, was "[b]razenly consistent, if unimaginative", while Allmusic also stated, "Nickelback can now afford a little more time in the studio and a little more time to indulge themselves, and they turn out the same record, only slicker, which only highlights just how oppressively and needlessly sullen this group is." [3] Harmonix, developer of the video game Rock Band, gave its Rock Band Network the internal codename "Rock Band: Nickelback", "on the theory that the name of the quintessentially generic modern rock group would be enough to deflect all curiosity" according to The New York Times. [7]
In 2005, Rolling Stone said "All the Right Reasons is so depressing, you're almost glad Kurt [Cobain]'s not around to hear it." [8] Tiny Mix Tapes also expressed concern over the release; "Like all Nickelback releases before it, All The Right Reasons was made for all the wrong ones and follows all the formulas and clichés you should be bored to death of by now." [9] Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic reviewed Dark Horse, claiming that "Nickelback are a gnarled, vulgar band reveling in their ignorance of the very notion of taste, lacking either the smarts or savvy to wallow in bad taste so they just get ugly, knocking out knuckle-dragging riffs that seem rarefied in comparison to their thick, boneheaded words." [10]
In 2007, USA Today reported that "few bands inspire such intense hatred as Nickelback." [11] The article questioned whether Nickelback's commercial success made "critics wrong", and published several statements from various sources within the music industry. Nathan Brackett, a senior editor at Rolling Stone said, "There are some bands that, let's face it, are critic-proof." Both Brackett and Craig Marks, editor in chief of Blender, credit a lot of the band's success to young people who are introduced to them on the radio and "very casual music fans who don't buy a lot of CDs". Marks complimented Nickelback's popularity despite the critical response, saying "it is a tribute to their success." [11]
Despite a barrage of criticism, Nickelback has still managed to please some reviewers with each of their mainstream albums. Allmusic reviewer Liana Jones complimented Nickelback after their commercial breakthrough, Silver Side Up; "what gives the group an upper hand over its peers is intensity and raw passion... Nickelback ups the ante by offering realistic storytelling that listeners can relate to." [12] Following their 2008 album, Dark Horse, ChartAttack credited the band's success to knowing their target audience: " Chad Kroeger is a genius because he knows exactly what people want and precisely how far he can go. He turned out an extremely racy album that's loaded with songs about gettin' drunk and doin' it all without breaking any taboos, and with enough love and moral authority to grease its passage into the mainstream. Rejoice, North America. This is your world." [13] Billboard also praised the band: "The bulletproof Nickelback provides affordable fun that promises good returns in hard times." [14] Also various fellow musicians like Chris Martin of Coldplay [15] as well as R&B singer Timbaland [16] support the band, and cites Nickelback as a major influence in their music.
In 2009, The Word magazine readers voted Nickelback "Worst Band In The World", receiving 19.8% of the vote. [17]
Jam! Canoe columnist Darryl Sterdan named lead singer Chad Kroeger the second worst singer of all time, behind Taylor Swift saying: "Nickelback's frontman may not have invented that post-grunge moose-in-heat bellow he relies on, but nobody does it better than he does. And by better, I mean worse". [18]
I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, but when I looked up the list of Canadian rock groups on Wikipedia [Category:Canadian_rock_music_groups], Nickelback was not on it, even though the lead paragraph says they are a Canadian rock band. Is there some kind of link missing? Or am I missing the distinction between a band and a group? 69.231.157.55 ( talk) 01:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Daniel Adair mentions the band's plan to make a seventh studio album after the Dark Horse tour. This interview was from earlier this year. http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/hit_the_lights/nickelback_i_guess_the_bigger_you_are_the_more_haters_you_have.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husachi ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Other then a poorly sourced article that happens to contradict it's self listing nickelback as pop/rock then listing nickelbacks "style" as heavy metal/grunge it doesn't make any sense.Someone care to explain what makes them "heavy metal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalpurity ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Listen to their first album Curb and tell me one song that doesn't have a heavy metal/ grunge influence in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar Master ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the criticism section is quite unnecessary. It is easily the largest section on the page, as well as having the most sources (10 sources cited). Sure, the information is cited and sourced, and shows both sides of view, but honestly it isn't necessary. There are these little to mid-sized sections on their background, history, and such, but then there's this huge section on how they are criticized by critics. Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem fair and balanced. I believe it is best to omit the section altogether, because critics are irrelevant when a band is at this point of success, and are not part of the band in any way. A Thousandth Sun of a Gun ( talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
"Criticism" sections are typically avoided on Wikipedia. There's got to be a more balanced way to cover unfavorable remarks about the band (which, by the way, is a group I personally dislike). WesleyDodds ( talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Nickelback isn't a heavy metal band.
Just because the guys at Allmusic.com think they can call Nickelback heavy metal, doesn't make them so.
Please do yourselves a favour and listen to Nickelback's albums, then a few true heavy metal albums, and you'll soon notice the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.2.141 ( talk) 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Nickelback isn't a metal band--but the label they're on, Roadrunner Records, is a metal record label. Honestly, I'm not sure why allmusic is considered a "reliable source" since they seem to get these things wrong all the time. 99.99.225.7 ( talk) 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This is proof that Nickelshit isn't a heavy metal band.It is a great band and has many fanns. :)
http://v2.metal-archives.com/search?searchString=Nickelback&type=band_name
Also, my ears and their expertise in the wondrous genre of heavy metal are a reliable source. Ask the millions of true metal fans out there, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PikkoroDaimao ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nickelback is definately heavy metal (atleast for some stuff), not in the 80's heavy metal, but in Enter Sandman way. Listen to their first album, mostly grunge (post-grunge) and alt heavy metal. Even listen to All the Right Reasons, some songs are even metal there. "Because of You", "Just Four (Curb version), "Where Do I Hide", and "Side of a Bullet" just to name a couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.248.168 ( talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this isn't an opinion site, and just because in your opinion they are not heavy metal doesn't mean they aren't. 76.104.188.248 ( talk) 07:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There has got to be a better section title than that. Nothing in that section, or in their last album, suggests anything about evolving. "Mainstream success", "Early Years", those type I'm fine with, but this one seems like a poor choice on a number of levels. Wasn't sure what would be better though, so I thought I'd open it for discussion here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok guys I'm just wondering if I can change Nickelback's wikipeda a little and I'll start with this. "Early Years" (1995-1999), "Beginning of Mainstream Success and Mainstream Success" (2000-2002), "The Long Road, All The Right Reasons, and Continuing Mainstream Success" (2003-2007), "Recent years and Dark Horse" (2008-2010), "New album" (2011-present). Also, after the "Discography" section, I'll add Riaa for the albums and DVDS, and I'll put in the Nickelback DVDS in the Discography section and I'll put in the DVDS release dates. Lastly, I'll put in a "Recognition" section showing want Nickelback accomplished over their Mainstream Success, and you can edit the Recognition section if you have a information that Nickelback accomplished something, for example: Nickelback won a World's Music Award in 2006 for best selling rock artist beating some well-known rock artists, such as Green Day, Cold Play, etc, Reference. So, what do you guys think, oh and I'll put in a image of Chad in live 2006 Sturgis near the "The Long Road, All The Right Reasons, and Continuing Mainstream Success" (2003-2007) section, so if you guys want the page like this I'll change it but only IF YOU GUYS AGREE OK. Also, I'll tell you why this version is better than the current version, because it has more information and it has the right information, for example, Nickelback got their MAINSTREAM Success in 2001 NOT 2003. User talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I still think we need the "New Album" section, think about it or just like I like to say "look at the BIGGER PICTURE", everything of Dark Horse ended so it'll be a little awkward to put stuff from the new album in it, instead of creating a new section of the new album would sound better. Also, I'm thinking of putting the video albums after the studio albums in the discography and yea I'll start a new section for the Riaa. User Talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC).
Alright can I change it now, and sorry for the edit I did yesterday, I was just testing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait what things, do you not want from the things I wrote above? User Talk:Nickelbackrules1518 —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC).
We have some Wikipedia:Disruptive editing here that is not benefiting anyone. Besides the fan fare in the new section we have unsourced assertions. We need this fixed d before the material is added again. So lets break this down sentence by sentence - PS we use the word Nicklback alot in this one section that needs some grammar fix ups to (but not a concern or reason for reversal). So to be clear the removal of the section is due to verification problems as per Wikipedia:Verifiability not for grammar as per WP:IMPERFECT. Moxy ( talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
So, there's also a lot of arguing over the section titles. So here's the place to hash that out. Some points to start off with:
Ok I'm want to change the timelines in Nickelback wikipedia because Nickelback didn't got their mainstream success in 2003. Ok here it is
User:Nickelbackrules1518 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
I want to pinpoint as a justification that the band's recent years are more progressive and persepctive, that's why I proposed something like this. I don't think it's perfect it was outwordly reverted and I just want to say that the message of the band can't be just some titles. We have to think of the best possible way into presenting the real development this band has represented into what, their 15 years of making music and 7 albums. I don't say it is way, I just want to say that Nickelback material is relatively small and we have to be further developing further explaining the band than just stastically saying 'Good Ole Hamburgers" 15 million of records. We need more material in order to make good hm.. adjectives... good captions. "Good, good, good" That's not the way. So I once again want to say that we have to work onto making something new, more material, and more ideas... than just reverting.
Any particular reason why you keep removing some of these sourced quotes without explanation? Most notably, you keep removing a part where it says they had 4 songs done in February, and that a member of the band claiming that "Here and Now" would be "more organic sounding" and like All the Right Reasons. I see no reason to remove that, it's sourced and important info regarding the new album. Even if you do have a problem with it, you should be explaining why. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I see a few problems as to why they were delete - first we cant use fans-sites for references as per WP:FANSITE - secondly you have added some quotes that were not sourced in the proper way. See also WP:QUOTEFARM as to there over uses.
I see an even bigger problem here. We have Copyright problems. A huge amount of the text is simply copy and pasted from the fan site. So we have 2 problems first the copyright problems and secondly a Verifiability problem. I have also now reverted the additions and believe they should not be re-added as per the above concerns. Moxy ( talk) 22:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The quote were not over use. Number 2, there was a reference on each one of them. Number 3, I see bands that they have a lot of quotes with no REFERENCES! And number 4 ok is a fan club but if you go to it is gonna show you a bio of Nickelback please understand that, that is the OFFICIAL Nickelback Fan Club which means the BAND created it. I think what's going on here is that you guys have to compare Nickelback's Wikipedia to something like Linkin Park's Wikipedia, Sum 41's Wikipedia, Green Day's Wikipedia, and then you guys will see that Nickelback's Wikipedia is more like a definition to the band while other bands just like I mention are what I called a "TRUE" Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to mention that I don't think is a copyright problem if you give a link because if you see Nickelback's wikipedia MadHatter edited it and he put this
In November of 2005, Nickelback Chad Kroeger asked that Vikedal and his production company Ladekiv Music, Inc., give all financial interest in future royalties for the songs, featuring Vikedal as drummer and return any public performance royalties earned since January 2005. Nickelback spent much of 2006 touring. Chad Kroeger was arrested in the Surrey, British Columbia in June and charged with drunken driving. His attorney entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf at a court hearing in August.
In November of 2006, Nickelback won an American Music Award for best pop/rock album, surprising the band itself. "We just kinda showed up because we were supposed to give one of these away tonight," Chad Kroeger said after receiving the award, according to the Calgary Herald . Kroeger added that he had thought the Red Hot Chili Peppers would win the award.
But he post a link on where he got it from just like what I'm doing right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Dude how many times I have to tell you all my quotes were sourced, go check my latest edit of me editing the section and then you will see a quotes in a paragraph and after that you will see a link of where did I get those quotes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joseph201 (
talk •
contribs)
22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok so I wanna hear from you guys on how to EXPAND Nickelback's Wikipedia because I'm sure this is the ONLY way! A lot of bands have EXPANDED Wikipedia because of this! So if you guys have a suggestion of how to expand Nickelback's Wikipedia I would LOVE to HEAR it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
1. Pretty long are you crazy is shorter than most INDIE bands I know!
2. Who cares about the discougraphy our albums wikipedia, are you forgetting that were working on the band's main wikipedia!
3. Let me ask you again, tell me how to EXPAND it!
4. How MANY TIMES I GOT TO TELL YOU is a OFFICIAL fan club of the band which the band created. Also, they have something called "BIO" on the top of the page which tells you about the BAND! Are you blind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph201 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
I'd also like to point out that he has now broken WP:3RR. In fact, it's more like 4 or 5 at this point. Stop re-adding the info as is, Joseph. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The guitarist info is backwards in the opening paragraphs. It has Peak listed as the bass guitarist Numbat81 ( talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, the chart of the band members is backwards, claiming Ryan Peake is the bassist and vice versa. If someone could please edit this, thank you. I would also like to point out that I think the page should be a little larger, and Nickelback be made into a book. Also, Ryan Peake deserves his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 ( talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to end of lead - Nobody has seen or heard from this Chad Kroeger since the night of the Award Ceremony in November of 2006. citation needed verification needed according to whom?
After taking much of 2007 off to search for a new frontman, they finally found him in late 2007. Their new frontman bore a striking resemblance to Chad, with a few minor differences including eye color, nose shape, and hair. citation neededShortly thereafter, the band gave this new frontman the "Chad Kroeger" title, and his true name has never been released. citation needed It is heavily theorized that the band is holding the real Chad hostage in an uncharted, remote prison location somewhere in Canada. citation needed It is believed among fans and others that the reason he was captured relates to an argument that the he had with the band in mid 2006. citation needed The band wanted to be more mainstream, and they intended to appeal to the people rather than their own love for the music. citation needed All were in favor except for Chad. He loved their old style of writing, and he believed that they could continue to write music they loved and in turn appeal to the people. citation needed Peake stated that this wasn't good enough, and their argument ended. Chad kept coming up with new material that would be rejected by the band. Because of this, he swore to break off and go solo, but this idea was never fully developed. citation needed
They vowed to continue their career with their new frontman, as he had helped them sell out and become a whole different band. citation needed
Cherry poppins ( talk) 09:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The Reception section is overshadowed by POV presentation and phrasing. Specifically;
The first two sentences refer to "widespread negative reviews". This is backed up by cites to Metacritic that reports scores of 62, 41 and 49. Metacritic itself rates these as either "Mixed or average" and "Generally favorable". So where is the evaluation of "widespread negative" coming from? Not from these cites.
The next sentence explains where "Criticism tends to focus", and cites a single review to support this. This one source can only be used to support what one reviewer said. Any claims that this is representative of a common complaint are unsupported. Who says it is representative? How was this determined? Not by original research, I hope?
The next paragraph begins with the blatantly POV statement; "Despite a barrage of criticism Nickelback has still managed to please some reviewers with each of their mainstream albums." Not only is determining that the criticism constitutes a "barrage" plainly not neutral, it also manages to suggest that the band only "managed" to impress "some" reviewers. The clear implication is that the negative reviews are the mass majority, and the positive is merely a grudging recognition by a minority persuaded against their better judgement. If this phrase is supposed to be neutrally factual then it could equally be rephrased in the opposite POV; "A trickle of criticism aside, Nickelback delighted reviewers with each of their mainstream albums." Same facts, different spin. Far better would be to remove the POV intro completely.
The eval8 cite is a dead link. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In general, the band tends to get a lot of criticism directed their way, so rather than cutting it down, it seems more like more sources should be provided, and if additional sources can't be found, then the wording should be softened. If we're so concerned about POV issues, it seems like more positive aspects should be found and added in addition to the negative, verses chipping away at the negative stuff, which clearly exists, whether represented her or not... Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This album was grunge. PROOF! http://www.musicomh.com/albums/nickelback.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
"Nickelback, confirmed their Here And Now Tour (Nickelback Tour) on January 11, 2012 they stated that they're playing with Seether and Bush (band). Since then, the band is only schedule to play on their North American leg, no word yet on the worldwide tour. The band is nominated for 4 Juno Awards in 2012, also, the band is going to perform there." Can someone edit this? Sounds very inappropriately worded to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.143.36 ( talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The legend in the diagramm (showing the current and former band members) mixed up the description of the green and blue bar, making Mike Kroeger a guitarist with backing vocals and Ryan Peake the bassist, it is the other way around. I edited the diagram and corrected it.
http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/2813/z46nm67u_png.htm
Please switch the pictures. -- 84.140.152.194 ( talk) 18:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This Wikipedia is too short for probably the biggest band of the 00's. We need to edit these sections instead of removing some stuff on them. We can remove things later, but right now we got to focus on expanding this Wikipedia. I don't expect this Wikipedia to be long enough as The Beatles, but I know one thing, it has to be way longer than this. I know people are not going to hear me or they're going to ignore me or they're going to probably change the topic, but this Wikipedia must and will be expanded.
Do we really need to list off all their awards so much, like done in edits like this? I feel like that's why we have articles like List of awards and nominations received by Nickelback. It makes for very dry reading, list after list of awards, and after a while, it starts to sound like a press release from the band's management, or a fansite. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I think its a little silly but its the only way to expand these short sections. A lot of bands have this like Linkin Park, Metallica, Creed (band), the lists goes on and on. Sure were not gonna put ALL THE AWARDS on there but were just gonna put the most important ones. It's just progress of the band's years. Still this is mind opinion and as long as not ALL the awards are listed on there but the most importantly ones are there and they have a SOURCE then hey I'm ok. Heck, I'm not saying to do this on all sections, in fact I was not even intending to do this on the other sections like the "Silver Side Up and The Long Road" section but the "All The Right Reasons" section and the "Dark Horse" section really need expandment. Lastly, like I said before not ALL the awards just the most relevant ones, and as you can see it said "The album has also led the band to win other several awards."
Just because I did it doesn't mean I can't say that is stupid. So your saying if you do something bad and you did it, you can't say that the thing you did was bad!? Is called "common sens"e also on the Linkin Park's wikipedia, under their "Hybrid Theory section and their "Meteora" section it shows some awards that the band won. You see that's how I want it to be instead of us arguing which can just put some awards like the Linkin Park's wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I just put a music style for the band because a lot of people are confused with their sound on the earlier albums to their sound of today. Tell me what you think about this? Also, if you want to improve it you can. -- User:Drecool1
The band's music styles have changed over the years, well over the early years. The band is considered to be Rock but their first album Curb (album) was their heaviest album which people considered Grunge and Alternative Metal, so people usually call it a Nirvana rip-off. [19] Their second album The State (album) had a much more mainstream sound and it was considered Post-Grunge. [20] The band's third album Silver Side Up was considered Alternative Metal with twisted guitar riffs, some people call it the Seattle, Grunge, rip-off only with out the yelling. [21] Their fortuh album, The Long Road is considered Hard Rock and Post-Grunge. [22] Their 5th studio album All the Right Reasons took the band a whole new direction and a whole brand new sound which brought them to Alternative Rock roots with the Hard Rock tunes. [23]
With songs like Bottoms Up (Nickelback song) to a softer-sound like When We Stand Together the band stated several times that they've never thought of putting 2 kind of music. [24]
So I've decided to cut and past it here because it needs a lot of work. There's a lot of typos and generalizations. Points to follow. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Any thoughts from other editors? Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, but I DISAGREE on the comment you stated that the band has rocking songs and soft songs on every album. I lol at that, no offense but have you heard of Curb, The State, or even Silver Side Up. This proves to me that you still did not listen to the band. But it still doesn't matter if you've listen to the band or not, the only thing that matters is that you know how to edit. Also, I seen a lot of bands Wikipedia that need fixing and all that stuff I might give you a band list soon so you can fix those Wikipedias.--
User:Drecool1
I knew you were about to say that because you haven't heard of old Nickelback listen to Curb (album) that album was not successful and is their heaviest album to date. Also, let me say it for you but when their album All the Right Reasons came out the band decided to stay with that style. That's why Dark Horse (Nickelback album) and Here and Now (Nickelback album). And yes I do agree that there recent stuff have been played a lot of times on the radio, that's why everybody thinks all their albums sound the same. Also, that's the reason why I wanted to put the music style on the band.-- User:Drecool1
It is unnecessary to list off every song every song Chad Kroger writes or sings on. This has little to nothing to do with Nickelback the band. List those things on Chad Kroger's page, not here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, Chad Kroeger is the lead vocalist and the guitarist of the group. He makes 2/4 out of the band. Also, he was the one that made Nickelback big in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drecool1 ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me, but when did Chad Kroeger became a solo artist. I know he's not a solo artist but your treating him like one.
In the section band members with the fancy timeline, Ryan Peake's and Mike Kroeger's names have switched places. Also, I have never seen Mike Kroeger do any back vocals. Yes, he might have done it once in a gig in some sort of alley, but that's not notable.
Calown ( talk) 22:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Drecool1 erroneously labeled this edit as "disruptive", and keeps on reverting the edit without any actual reason as to why, so I'd start a discussion here. Here's even more details on why it needs to be changed:
Short version: I don't reverting the information back is warranted at all, but if it was found that it should be there, there's obvious things that would need to be cleaned up. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
the only genres associated with this band should be post grunge and hard rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 ( talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to add something here,Nickelback is not related to metal not even in someone's wildest dreams.Playing mediocre groove based riffs don't make a band a heavy metal band,they are simply a below average pop-rock band with some elements from alternative & grunge.Allmusic source isn't helping the article,in fact it's ridiculous. Metalvayne ( talk) 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You're saying allmusic is a reliable source.Hmm,sometimes I wonder how exactly one would abide by wikipedia policies while all the self-proclaimed several star achieved sycophants are always eager to deliver wrong information to people around the world,anyways,as you've said allmusic is a reliable source,so,why did it got removed here. Metalvayne ( talk) 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Most definitely I've participated in the discussion before making changes,see for yourself. Metalvayne ( talk) 20:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
alternative rock should be replaced with just plain rock, and any mention of metal needs to be immediately removed. it's been proven time & time again that allmusic tags are not reliable, according to them deftones album adrenaline is hair metal & grunge http://www.allmusic.com/album/adrenaline-mw0000179793 which just goes to show you how random they can be when it comes to tagging artists/albums
well by your logic insane clown posse should be listed as heavy metal since allmusic tags them as that http://www.allmusic.com/artist/insane-clown-posse-mn0000079959, i think at times allmusic tags can be reliable but their are times when common sense has to prevail, and its common knowledge that bands like insane clown posse and nickelback aren't metal, and im sure the majority of people here would agree with me on that. their needs to be another source other than allmusic calling them heavy metal and alternative metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
There has been arguments on whether or not heavy metal belongs in the band's infobox. One one hand, Allmusic, a source that is considered reliable in a more general sense, calls them that. Others feel that they don't fit into the sound. Please include your thoughts below:
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the beginning, when Nickelback was still a cover band called Village Idiots or Point of View, it was just Chad Kroeger, Mike Kroeger, and Ryan Peake. Chad did not sing and Ryan played the trombone. After a while Chad moved to Vancouver and the band broke up. He eventually moved back and the band got back together. They called themselves Brick. Chad at this point began to sing, Ryan played guitar, and Brandon Kroeger played the drums. It was not until right before the release of Hesher that the band called themselves Nickelback. http://nickelbackgeeks.150m.com/Biography.html 75.69.13.84 ( talk) 18:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone deletes the "criticism" section about Nickelback to make it balanced.
Now aside from criticism being the whole point of Nickelback, do you not realise that is the problem with Wikipedia at the moment?!?
Someone has a well-referenced section with criticism, and some dickhead removes it to "balance" the article. Turning the article into a stub!
Wikipedia - you have lost your way. 118.90.34.133 ( talk) 07:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Nickelback is by far the worse band in the history of "bands". There needs to be a section about this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realperson69 ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Nickelback are NOT Pop rock. Pop rock is a genre with catchy riffs and dancing pops. Nickelback music is VERY far away from that. I never heard into that was Pop rock from Nickelback. If Creed AREN'T even Pop rock then why is Nickelback pop rock? In fact both of these bands sound very SIMILAR. Nickelback ARE NOT POP ROCK. Their music genres are mostly Post-grunge and alternative rock. In fact what is Pop rock? Are you guys referring as stuff as Maroon 5? Because Nickelback doesn't even sound NOTHING like Pop rock. If you look st Matchbox twenty well you could see they are Pop rock. Their music doesn't sell to rock radios anymore. Nickelback music still sells to rock radios. Why are they label pop rock? They are not. I never heard that from any of their biographies or articles. Nickelback is a band that just put grunge music into radio friendly grunge. Term comes Post-grunge. Of course their early releases were label as GRUNGE. But their newer stuff is just Post-grunge. In fact all they play is a radio friendly style of grunge. So playing a radio friendly style of grunge makes you Pop rock? No is not. Post-grunge is influenced by GRUNGE. Is just grunge to be more on the radios. Nickelback are not this Pop rock label. I saw the pop rock Wikipedia and Nickelback AREN'T even their. Fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 ( talk) 19:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Radio friendly doesn't really mean that a song is pop rock. Sure, When We Stand Together was a little poppier than their normal stuff but you also have to look at the fact that that is really their only song that has a pop sound to it. Their other adult pop hits are ballads or songs that don't have shredding guitars on them. Pop rock is a genre for some songs, but not the band. I'd take it out. Plus there is no source there anyways. Contactman7 ( talk) 22:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Well radio-friendly doesn't really mean Pop rock. Nickelback are not pop rock just because they make ballads. Lots of bands do it and they don't get label pop rock. Post-grunge is a term that is used in alot of rock bands today and Nickelback is included there. Lots of post-grunge bands make soft songs and sell out to aldult and pop radios but that doesn't really mean they are pop rock. If a pop rock band makes a soft love song then it would be label as pop rock. If a post-grunge band makes one it will be just label soft rock or post-grunge. The media describes it that way. I am pretty sure Nickelback are not Pop rock. They are just a post-grunge band like Foo Fighters, 3 Doors Down, Creed, Puddle Of Mudd, Seether, The Calling, Our Lady Peace, Staind and all of those bands. Heck, Staind make soft songs in their last albums and they don't get mention pop rock? But they are not because their main style of music is post-grunge. The same thing goes to Nickelback. They are not pop rock and they shouldn't be include. Other than that I believe your source in wikipedia but the pop rock term doesn't make sense for a post-grunge band. Post-grunge bands like to make soft ballads but that doesn't mean they are pop rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 ( talk) 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
More to come... Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
All those articles are just news articles. Those are basically opinions from the author. Contactman7 ( talk) 01:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, I have seen people arguing over weather they are pop rock or not. I come here to inform you guys that they are not pop rock. When people put Nickelback in that position they mean "Popular Rock" not "Pop Rock" musically. I came here to change that to "Country Rock" because they have some "Country Rock" songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Got a link to prove it. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/69119/for-nickelback-success-rocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 ( talk)
This article supports "my argument," have you read it. He's not celebrating because he didn't say, WE'RE a pop group. He just said when people refer to them as "pop" they mean "popular." Why do you have to be so stubborn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nickelback has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please remove "Heavy Metal" from the genre background information and change it to "NU Metal." Source of NU Metal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_metal
50.168.172.170 ( talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
While the "Reception" section does acknowledge how much some critics dislike Nickelback, what seems like a glaring omission to me is anything about the general treatment of the band in popular culture.
Nickelback jokes: http://www.sickipedia.org/search?q=Nickelback Nickelback memes: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/nickelback Nickeback on Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=3&term=Nickelback Nickelback as the punchline of a joke by Australian police just two days ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/20/nickelback-australian-police_n_7344974.html
Slamming Nickelback is so well-established among the general public that Billboard treated it as news when the band began responding to negative tweets: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/510683/nickelback-responds-to-insults-on-twitter#/news/nickelback-responds-to-insults-on-twitter-1005965952.story
98.232.26.108 ( talk) 14:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)