UEF//eRepository
DSpace
Artikkelit
https://erepo.uef.fi
Filosofinen tiedekunta
2016
'Hypocritical bullshit performed through
gritted teeth': Authenticity discourses in
Nickelback's album reviews in Finnish media
Anttonen Salli
Intellect Ltd.
Post-print
© The Author
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1=tka&value1=%22Hypocritical+bullshit+performed+through+gr
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/1230
Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository
©SalliAnttonen,2016.Thedefinitive,peerreviewedandeditedversionofthisarticleispublished
inMetalMusicStudies,2:1,39–56,2016,DOI:10.1386/mms.2.1.39_1.
‘Hypocritical bullshit performed through gritted teeth’: Authenticity discourses in Nickelback's
albumreviewsinFinnishmedia
SalliAnttonen,UniversityofEasternFinland
Abstract
TheCanadianbandNickelbackhasfacedsubstantialnegativefeedbackinthemedia.Thisarticle
examinesdiscoursesconstructedinthecritiquesoftheband,focusingonthethemeofauthenticity,
byanalysingreviewsofthebandfromFinnishmediainthetimeframeof2000–2014.Traditional
discoursesofauthenticityarewidelypresentinthecriticalreception,valuinguncommercialism,
subversiveness,correspondenceofartandpersona,originalityandtruthinparticular.
Keywords:
Nickelback
authenticity
musiccriticism
musicjournalism
discourse
Finland
Introduction
Badmusicisn’taboutmusicatall;it’saboutstatusfortheaudience,moneyforthe
mediator,andstatusandmoneyforthecritic.
DeenaWeinstein,2004a
TheCanadianbandNickelbackisoftenaccusedoflackingrockcredibility.ThereareNickelback
jokes,Internetmemes,evenawebbrowserpluginconcealingallinformationinvolvingNickelback.
Nearly40,000peoplesignedapetitionin2011tobanNickelbackfromperformingatthehalftime
show of a high-profile football game in Detroit (Rock News Desk 2011). More pressure on
2
NickelbackcamewhentheAmericanduoTheBlackKeysattackedthebandinRollingStone,one
of the dominant magazines in rock culture, accusing them of ruining rock ‘n’ roll with their
‘watered-down,post-grungecrap,horrendousshit’(Hiatt2012).Despitethesubstantialbacklash
againstNickelbackinthemediaandtheirstatusasasignificantplayerinthepopularmusicfield
today,littleresearchhasbeendoneonthesubject.Justassomevarietiesofmusichavebeenseen
as less ‘worthy of scholarly study’ in popular music studies (McLeod 2001: 58), crossover or
mainstreamstyleshavenotattractedinterestinthefieldofmetalmusicstudies(Brown2011:
235). In consequence, this study intends to contribute to filling some of the gaps in the field,
focusinginparticularonthefringesofmetalmusicstudiesasaresultofNickelback’smainstream,
metal-influencedsound.
My topic also hopes to shed light on the critical reception of Nickelback in the Finnish
media, particularly with regard to questions of authenticity, and to examine the different
discourses constructed by reviews concerned with Nickelback’s value and their apparent
authenticityasarockband.Ialsopayattentiontohowthepatternsrepeatedinthereviewsof
Nickelback construct a discourse of authenticity, and what the journals pursue by using these
patterns.Firstly,thearticleintroducesthemethodsandresearchmaterial,followedbyexploring
theconceptofauthenticityandpreviousresearchonthesubject.Secondly,itmovesontothe
caseofNickelback,contextualizingthebandanditsbackground,andproceedingwiththereviews
andthecentraldiscoursesconstructedinthem.Lastly,Iconcludethemainfindingsofthearticle.
Theoreticalandmethodologicalframework
Theresearchmaterialfocusesonmusiccriticism,since‘Themusicpressistheplacewherepop
valuejudgmentsaremostclearlyarticulated’(Frith1987:136).Musicmediaandcriticsconstruct
whatauthenticityis–andwhatisleftoutsideofit.Musicjournalismreinforcesconceptssuchas
authenticitythatareusedtojustifyartisticvalues,thusplayinganessentialroleincanonformation
andmaintenance(seeJones2008:18).ThisiswhyIapproachtheconceptofauthenticitythrough
rockjournalism.
3
The reviews that form my research material are from the Finnish music magazines
Soundi/SoundandRumba;HelsinginSanomat,theleadingnewspaperinFinland,andNyt/Now,its
weeklysupplement;Keskisuomalainen,adailynewspaperservingprimarilyCentralFinland;aweb
reviewonthesiteofalargeFinnishTVchannel,MTV3;andthemusicwebsiteNRGM/Nuorgam
thatoffersarticles,reviewsandothermaterialonmusic.ThereviewsareoriginallyinFinnish,and
I have translated the selected quotes into English. The reviews of Nickelback in Finnish media
encompass11reviews,ofwhichsevencritiquealbums,oneisasinglereview(‘Photograph’)and
threecritiqueNickelback’sliveperformanceinHelsinkiin2012.
For the research material, the volumes of Soundi and Rumba from 2000 to 2014 were
examined.Inaddition,theelectronicarchivesofSoundi,Rytmi,Rumba,NRGM,HelsinginSanomat,
NytandInfernowerecheckedwiththesearchterm‘nickelback’.Inaddition,relevantarticles(i.e.,
not simply mentions of the band in album charts) were taken as secondary, contextualizing
material, focusing on other artists’ reviews where Nickelback is mentioned. The selected time
frameof2000–2014aimsatcoveringNickelback’srisetofamewith‘HowYouRemindMe’in2002
andtheirsuccessfromthatpointforward.Reviewsweresearchedonabroadscale,focusingon
musicmedia,relativelylargenewspapersandothersourceswithwidevisibility(suchasMTV3).
Youthmagazines,whosetargetgroupisdistinctlyyoungerpeople,childrenandteenagers,were
excludedfromthesearch(suchasSuosikki),astheirdiscourse,functionandapproachtomusical
artistsisseentobedifferentthanmusicmediaandtheculturalsectionsofnewspapers,whichin
turncanbeconsideredtoformandlegitimizeacertaincanonforadultconsumers.
To form a manageable size and logically delimited corpus for qualitative analysis, the
researchdatawasfocusedonFinnishsourcesfromwithinaparticulartimeframe.Asaqualitative
study,thisdoesnotfollowthelogicofsurveys.Theresultscannotbegeneralizedasrepresenting
the global reception of Nickelback; rather, the aim is to extrapolate how Nickelback’s Finnish
reception relates to the wider issue of its negative treatment (cf. Alasuutari 1995: 155–57).
However,asaresultofglobalizationand,forexample,thefactthatsomearticlesandinterviews,
especially at the start of the period under research, have been taken from Anglo-American
magazinessuchasQandtranslatedintoFinnish,thecriticsmayalsopartlymimictheaesthetic
values of the Anglo-American music press. In addition, the backlash against Nickelback is an
4
extensively mediatized phenomenon, reported widely in the Finnish music media, and so the
negativeattitudetowardsthebandinFinlandmaypartlystemfromaninternationalattitude.
In this article, authenticity is seen discursively: it is constructed or deconstructed in
language,througharguments,logicandwordchoices.It‘doesnotinhereinanycombinationof
musicalsounds’,butratheris‘ascribed’toacertainrangeofmusic(Moore2002:210)–acultural
constructionconstantlyusedtolegitimizecertainformsofmusic(Mäkelä2002:156–57).Besides
akeyconceptinrock,authenticityhasalsobeena‘corevalueofWesternsocietyforcenturies’,
providingrockwiththefoundationonwhichitsseriousnesshasbeenbuilt(Keightley2001:131).
Thediscourseofauthenticityisoftenconstructedonoppositions:honestagainstfalse,theoriginal
against the copy, or subculture against mainstream, including both music and people in the
process(Middleton2006:200).Thus,authenticcommunitiesproduceauthenticmusic,whereas
inauthenticmusicismadeby‘cynics’,for‘consumersmiredinfalseconsciousness’(Middleton
2006:200).
Startingoutfromsocialconstructivismanddiscourseanalysis,theviewpointofthisarticle
isthat‘textsaselementsofsocialeventshavecausaleffects’–whatissaidaboutNickelbackand
whattypeofargumentationisusedwhendiscussingtheir(in)authenticity,engenderingchanges
(Fairclough2003:8).Inthematerial,theword‘authenticity’neednotappearinthetextforthe
text to construct a discourse of authenticity nonetheless, since ‘[m]any rock critics find
authenticitysuspectasaconcept,butitneverthelessseepsintotheirwriting[…]Eveniftheterm
‘authenticity’doesnotshowup,invocationsof‘real’or‘genuine’musicoftendo[…]’(McLeod
2002:104–05).
Of the many different, partly intersecting authenticity discourses presented in previous
research,themostessentialforthisarticlearefirstlythesixtypesofauthenticityproposedby
HansWeisethaunetandUlfLindberg(2010:469–477):(1)‘folkloricauthenticity’,(2)‘authenticity
as self-expression’, (3) ‘authenticity as negation’, (4) ‘authentic inauthenticity’, (5) ‘body
authenticity’ and (6) ‘authenticity as transcendence of the everyday’. Secondly, Allan Moore
(2002)presentshisownthree-part-systemofauthenticities:1stperson,2ndpersonand3rdperson
authenticity,alsonamedasauthenticityofexpression,authenticityofexperienceandauthenticity
of execution, respectively. Thirdly, Timothy Taylor (1997) suggests authenticities of primality,
5
positionality and emotionality. The variety of discourses illustrates different musical genres’
tendencytounderstandtheconceptofauthenticitydiversely;theseveralcompetingdefinitions
ofauthenticityinpopularculturealsochangeovertime(e.g.,Mäkelä2002:156;Strong2011:22;
Keightley2001:131).Thus,Nickelback’sgenreisalsoanimportantfactorintheanalysisandwill
beexploredlater.
Nickelbackanditsreviews
TheCanadianNickelback,whostartedoutasaMetallicaandLedZeppelincoverband,wasformed
in 1995 (‘Nickelback’). They have released eight studio albums and their worldwide sales have
beenestimatedatover50million(Graff2011).InFinland,Nickelbackhassoldgoldtwice,bothin
2012:withtheiralbumHereandNow(sales17,227)andwiththesingle‘WhenWeStandTogether’
(sales5,782),whichwastheninthmostsoldforeignsingleinFinlandin2012(IFPIFinland201-[a],
201-[b]).
Nickelback’slyricsformapolaritybetweenthehedonisticthemesofsexandalcohol,and
lovesongs(Fetterleyn.d.),theformerbeingcharacteristicofclassicheavymetal(Hecker2012:
22;Weinstein2000:36–37),thelatterfromtherealmofpop.Thediscursivecombinationissimilar
toBonJovi’ssuccessfulrecipeinthe1980s,combiningtraitsfromthegenresofmetal,rockand
pop,thusappealingtoawideraudience(Walser1993:120).Additionally,somesongs’themes,
suchasdomesticviolence(‘NeverAgain’),aremoreinlinewithgrungeaesthetics,whichfocused
on‘generalizednegativeexperiences’(Strong2011:19).Sonically,themusicincorporatesmany
intersectingelements,frommetalandgrungetocountry,forinstance,inthenewestalbumflirting
evenwithrapandfunk.Kahn-Harris(2007:1)andStrong(2011:20)considerNickelbackagrungeinfluenced band; its music is further stated to sound like classic metal and hard rock from the
1970sand1980s(Kahn-Harris2007:1);itisnotablethattheyareincludedintheEncyclopaediaof
Heavy Metal (Phillips and Cogan 2009: 178), although categorised as heavy rock. In Wikipedia
(2015),theirmusicisdescribedas‘variousgenres,includinghardrock, post-grunge, alternative
rock,alternativemetal,heavymetalandpoprock’.Thus,notsurprisingly,writershavestruggled
6
toplaceNickelbackinonespecificgenre–thereviewsanalysedmentiongenressuchasgrunge,
hardrock,‘meteor-rock’,stadiumrockandpop.
Canadiannessisonecontextualfactoraffectingaband’sauthenticity,accordingtoBarryK.
Grant (1986: 118–20), who argues that Canadian rock is inauthentic in principle since, unlike
Americanrock,it‘lackstheexperiences,theroots’thathavegivenbirthtothegenre,andhence
itlacksanauthenticvoice–aview,criticizedbyTestaandShedden(2002),thatbegsthequestion
ofwhetheranynon-Americanrockmusiccanbeauthentic.Contrastingly,accordingtoWillStraw,
Canadianshavesucceededespeciallyinthegenresofhardrockandsinger-songwriters,whilean
auteuristcharacterhascharacterizednationalpopularmusichistory,withthedistinctcareersof
actssuchasRush(1993:59–60).ScottHendersonpresentsathree-partdivisionoftheperiodsin
Canadianpopularmusichistory,withthecurrentonecomprisingcriticallyacclaimedbandssuch
as Arcade Fire that do not need to either highlight or hide their Canadianness (2008: 313).
However, Nickelback’s image may better match Grant’s claim, where the key to success is to
become indistinguishable from American music (1986: 122). In their music videos, very few
signifiersoftheirCanadiannessarepresentexceptinthevideoof‘Photograph’,whichfocuseson
thetownofHanna.Compared,forexample,toafellowCanadian,DevinTownsend,whoiswell
establishedinthemetalgenreandwhoseliveperformanceshaveentailedhockeyuniformsin
Canada’s colours and decorating the stage with the Canadian flag, Nickelback’s image is not
explicitlyCanadianbutratheramoregeneralizedimpressionofaNorthAmericanband.Similarly,
theirlyricsandvideoof‘EdgeofaRevolution’arelocalizedtoaUSenvironment,withallusionsto
USphenomenasuchasOccupyandNSA,speakingfromaninsiderperspectiveof‘we’ratherthan
commenting from the outside. Furthermore, it is arguable whether, in its Finnish reception,
Nickelback’s nationality carries the same kind of connotations as it would in the Canadian or
American music press, – the only evaluative mention of their Canadianness in the material
complimentsthebandforbeinglesspatrioticthansimilarAmericanacts(Vuoti2008).
Inthetablebelow,IhavecollectedalltheFinnishreviewsandanyassociatedgradesthat
werefound.Additionally,threereviewsthatdiscussNickelback’sfirstliveperformanceinFinland
and one single review are also included in the research material. As can be seen, Nickelback’s
criticalreceptionhasbeenpoor,apartfromVuoti’s5-starreview.
7
SilverSideUp:
PerttiOjala,Soundi,1/2002
Rating
*
TheLongRoad:
PerttiOjala,Soundi,11/2003
*
TuomasPekkala,Rumba,19/2003
*
DarkHorse:
HeikkiRomppainen,Nyt,5.12.2008
SauliVuoti,Soundi,12/2008
*
*****
HereandNow:
TonivanderSan,MTV3,24.11.2011
**½
MarkusHilden,NRGM,29.11.2011
41/100[scale1–100]
JoseRiikonen,Nyt,1/2012
*
BestofNickelback,vol.1:
JoniKling,NRGM,11.11.2013
15/100
Nofixedaddress:
SakuSchildt,Nyt,14.11.2014
*
Theconceptof’badmusic’isessentialwhendiscussingmusiccriticism.Theneedfordistinctions
exists in rock culture, which has been historically characterized by its ‘processes of exclusion’
(Keightley2001:111).Thisdifferentiation,condemningsomethingas‘bad’isalsoanimportant
part of the pleasure we receive from music consumption (Frith 2004: 29). Intertwining the
aestheticandtheethical,visiblealreadyintheconceptsof‘good’and‘bad’music(Frith1996:72),
8
isencompassedintheconceptofauthenticity:‘”good”rockmusicmustalsobesomehow“just”
or “true”’ (Keightley 2001: 132–33). This begs the question of whether some of the hatred
expressedagainstNickelbackissointensebecausethebandhasalsobeenjudgedethically.
CopyingandtheGhostsofMusicPast
In his live review, Ramsay (2012) compares Nickelback to a funfair ride, a well-oiled machine;
however,whenoneseesandrecognizesthewiresandpartsofthismachine,theillusionvanishes.
ThewiresandpartsinRamsay’scaseareNickelback’spredecessors,suchasNirvanaandMetallica,
fromwhoma‘Frankenstein’smonster’,i.e.Nickelback,hasbeenskilfullycrafted(2012).Ramsay
comparesKroegertoJamesHetfieldwithallthealcoholreferencing,guitarselection,wardrobe
andeventhestancewithlegswide–Romppainen(2012)makesthesamecomparison,calling
Kroegera‘lite’versionofHetfield.WithregardtoNirvana,Ramsaytellsthestoryofhismoment
ofdisillusionmentwhenfirsthearingNickelback’sbreakthroughhit‘HowYouRemindMe’.The
lyricsofthesongtouchedhim,althoughhestillmanagestoincludeajabatKroeger’shairstyleat
thattime:‘Iunderstandyou,ramen-Jesus.Yousingtome,straightintomysoul.’However,the
bridgeofthesong,repeating‘Yeah,yeah,yeah,nono’,brokethetenderconnection,reminded
himofNirvana,being‘scarilyclosetothatclassic“hello,hello,howlow”progression’(Ramsay
2012).Imitatingotherartiststoone’sowngainquestionstheauthenticityofaperformer.The
mediaaccountsofKroegerintentionallystudyingchordprogressionsandstructuresofhitsongs
beforecomposingSilverSideUpmakemattersworse;Ramsay(2012)alsorememberstomention
thistrivia,whichcontradictstheRomanticnotionaccordingtowhich‘thecreativeprocessitselfis
seennotasacraftoralearnedskillbutastheresponseofsufferingormadartists’(Weinstein
2004b:192).Additionally,vanderSan(2011)alsoreferstothesimilaritybetweenNickelback’s
songsandthoseoftheScorpions,GunsN’RosesandSkidRow.Copyingotherartistsaswellas
themselves – van der San (2011) sees a resemblance in all their hit singles’ melodies – can be
interpretedascontradictingtheRomanticidealoftheartistasacreativegeniuswhopossesses
originality.Sheermimicryisnotcommendable,forinstance,inmetal,whichvaluesfreedomand
self-expressioninstead(WallachandLevine2011:121).Powers(2004:238)asksifunoriginalityis
9
aproblem,as‘beautifulborrowingreaffirmsthatallmusichascomefromothermusic’.However,
sheremindsoneofthevalueofinnovation:‘Borrowinghasalwaysbeenacceptableinpop,solong
as it’s done cleverly’ (2004: 238–39). Nickelback’s ‘Someday’, with its ‘identical tempo,
instrumentation, harmonic progression, and song structure’ as that in ‘How You Remind Me’,
togetherwithbothsongsresemblingnumerousothersongs,cannotbeseenastransformativeor
inventiveintertextuality(Scherzinger2014:173–74),letaloneasoriginality.
Theghostofgrungemakesmattersworse–perhapsbecausetheborrowingisnotjust
fromanyactbutNirvanaandespeciallythelateKurtCobain,amongothers,thepunishmentisfar
more severe. Associating the band, or Kroeger, with Cobain, or Eddie Vedder, seems appalling
(Warwick2009:352).AsSchildtstatesinhisreview,‘TherebellionmovementstartedbyNirvana
andco.bluntedintopuffystadiumrockintime’(2014).Thehopeandmemoryofgrungecanbe
seentobesoiledintheworstkindofwayinthehandsofbandssuchasNickelback,whorepresent
everythinggrungewasagainst,notleastofallcommercialism(Warwick2009:352).Forinstance,
Billboard’s biography of the band describes them as ‘slick, commercially minded post-grunge’
(Leaheyn.d.).
Post-grungecanbeoneelementthatdiminishesNickelback’schancesofbeingperceived
asauthentic,asthewholegenreisseenashavingaproblematicrelationshiptoauthenticitydue
toitspast.Afterthecommercialsuccessofgrungebands,likeNirvanaandPearlJam,recordlabels
startedsigningbandswithasimilarsound(suchasBushandCandlebox)(Grierson2012?).This
wasseenpartlyasanattemptto‘ripoff’SeattleSound,andsomanycriticsdismissedthesenew
bands, labelling them almost pejoratively ‘post-grunge’ (Grierson 2012?). Similarly, ‘alternative
rock’becameamisnomer,‘seenwithinthemetalsubcultureasemptyderivationsofgrunge[…]
withouttheperceivedpersonalauthenticityofEddieVedderorKurtCobain’(Klypchak2007:11).
Theinauthenticityofthegenreaffectsvaluejudgements,because‘onelistenstothemusic
forcluestosomethingelse,towhatmakesthegenreatissuevaluableasagenreinthefirstplace’
(Frith 1996: 89). The negative reaction to Nickelback could be interpreted as opposing the
homogenizationofgrunge,ofdestroyingordilutingthemusicthatoncewasseenastheepitome
ofauthenticity,intosomethingblandinthenameofalargertargetaudience.Theproblematicsof
post-grungecanalsobeseeninthecontextualizingmaterialinquoteswhereNickelbackislumped
10
together with other nu-metal and post-grunge bands into one pile that represents bad,
commercial and unimaginative music: ‘Inculinkinnickelbusparkback’ (Tolonen 2006), from a
review of Hoobastank, or the frustration of Riekki (2002): ‘I’m fed up to the back teeth with
nickelbacks,incubus’,drains,creedsandallthat’.Theissueisnottheonebandinquestionbutthe
wider genre phenomenon that is seen as inauthentic as a whole. It seems only logical that
Nickelbackhastriedtodisavowthe(post)grungelabelplaceduponit(Warwick2009:353).
Furthermore,grungeisnotnecessarilytheonlyghostdisturbingNickelback’sreception.
LikeElvisPresley,who utilizedmanyalreadyexistingmusical,lyricalandperformativeelements,
re-articulatingthemsuccessfullywithinanewformula(Middleton1985:8–9),Nickelbackcanbe
readasalsoattemptingtoarticulateitselfwithinmetaldiscoursebyusingcertaintropesofmetal
suchashedonisticlyricalthemes,andsonictraitssuchasheavyriffs,distortedguitarsandvirtuosic
solos (Hjelm, Kahn-Harris and LeVine 2011: 6; Walser 1993: 41, 50, 53), and also by featuring
Dimebag Darrell of Pantera in ‘Side of a Bullet’. One contextual element is the record label
Roadrunner Records, with whom the band signed in 1999; the compilation album The Best of
NickelbackVolume1(2013)wasthelastreleasedonthelabelintheUnitedStates.Thelabelhas
manyestablishedmetalbandsonitsroster,suchasOpeth,SlipknotandGojira,whoseauthenticity
is rarely questioned. However, ‘[i]t can be deeply insulting to the notion of authenticity in the
metalcommunitywhenonitsfringesapieceofmusicissubsumedintohouseholdculture’(Scott
2011: 235). Nickelback’s more mainstream music style and submission to commercial success
couldbeinterpretedasproblematicamongitslabelcolleaguesandthemetalcontext,whichis
apparentforinstanceinOjala’scondescendingremarkonNickelback‘evenimagin[ing]itselfasa
metalband’onthetrack‘BecauseofYou’(2003).Theattempttoarticulatewithinthemetalgenre
isrejected,leavingNickelbackonthefringesofmetal.
Theevaluationofauthenticityshouldbecontextualizedintermsofgenreexpectations,
sincesituatingabandwithinaspecificgenresimultaneouslydeterminestheimaginedidealwith
which the band is compared (Fetterley 2008). According to Peterson (1997: 220), in popular
culture,authenticitymostoftenrefersto‘beingbelievablerelativetoamoreorlessexplicitmodel,
andatthesametimebeingoriginal,thatisnotbeinganimitationofthemodel’.Nickelback’sodd
combination of hedonistic party songs, introspective texts about personal anguish and social
11
themes, political or self-empowering anthems and sensitive ballads is inter-contradictory.
Similarly,theirmusicalelementsoffasttappingguitarsolos,heavyriffs,paralleledwithcountrystyled acoustic guitars and harmonics, and heavily produced sounds with digital audio effects
produceaconfusingcombination.AccordingtoFetterley(2008),thisdisagreementovergenre
contributestoNickelback’snegativereception.Thequesttoarticulateintermsofmultiplegenres
resultsinuncleargenreexpectationsandconfusionoverwhat‘model’tofollow.
Commercialism
Oneoftherecurringthemesinthereviewsiscommercialism,seenasbeembodiede.g.inplays
on the radio. The songs are described as ‘tailored for playlists’ (Romppainen 2008), and it is
suggestedthatthemusic’smainfunctionisfillingouttheheavyrockquotaofformatradiostations
(Ojala2002).AccordingtoFriman(2005),‘Nickelbackmakesover-populistand[…]horrifyingradio
rock’. To summarize the negative attitude towards radio exposure, Vuoti (2008) sarcastically
commentsonhispositivereviewthat‘ofcourseitisashameforarockbandiftheyareplayedon
theradio’,criticizingthe(mainly)anti-commercialistbashingNickelbackhasbeentargetedwith.
OneedgeofthiscriticismimplicitlyquestionsNickelback’smotivesformakingmusic.Their
songsare‘optimallysafe’,where‘everythingisuptoparwiththerequirementsofthegenre’,and
whichcreate‘anillusionofhardrock’(Ojala2002).Themusicisdescribedasbeing‘fake’(Riikonen
2012),‘forced’(Hilden2011)and‘performedthroughgrittedteeth’(Riikonen2012).VanderSan
(2011)claimsthatNickelbackis‘calculatinglyhit-focused’;Ojala(2003)accusesthemof‘laughing
all the way to the bank’. Overall, the descriptions imply that the songs are not genuine selfexpressionwrittenwillingly,butinsteadforcedandmadeforcommercialreasons.
Inthelivereviews,whereRamsayusesthemetaphorofafunfairride,Nickelbackisalso
comparedtoothercommodities:ahappyairplaneflight(Romppainen2012),anactionmovieor
ahamburgermeal(Lehti2012).Theperformanceoffersconsumableentertainmentforacouple
of hours, but offers no memories or real experiences (Romppainen 2012), an observation that
echoesthedistinctionbetweencommerceandart.AccordingtoAdorniancriticism,musicthat
welcomescommodificationisinauthentic,whereasauthenticmusicopposesit(Paddison2004:
12
212).Similarly,tobeseenasauthentic,anartefactmustappeartobe‘uncorruptedbyWestern
capitalism’,althoughdependingonjustthatforitsdissemination(Cobb2014:5–6).InNickelback’s
case,Idoubtwhetherthequalityoftheirmusicissomuchworsethantheirpeersthatitwould
justifytherangeofcriticismthatithasreceived,giventhatsomecompositionsaredescribedas
‘excellent’(Hilden2011),andtheirriffsandvocalismpraised(Ojala2002).However,thereviews
arestillnegative,suggestingthattheirproductsdeemedas‘sell-outs’or‘fake’receivesuchan
assessmentnotonaestheticgrounds‘butoutoftheirrelationshiptomoney’(Cobb2014:6).
AccordingtoCatherineStrong(2011),inthegenreofgrunge,commercialsuccessissaid
tocompromiseordestroytheauthenticityofthegenre.Ofthesixdifferenttypesofauthenticity
WeisethaunetandLindbergpresent,Strong(2011:22–23)introducesAuthenticityasNegationas
one of the most crucial ones regarding grunge. This type of authenticity is about artistic
independence,theartist'srefusaltosurrendertomarketingforces,andtheartist’slackofconcern
formoneyorcommercialsuccess;itscounterpointistheaccusationofsellingout,ofmakingmusic
withtheintenttomakemoney(Strong2011:22–23).Similarly,inmetal‘[a]uthenticityisequated
[…]withdisinterestincommercialappeal,especiallyasreflectedinaradiohit’(Weinstein2000:
154).TheaccusationsthatNickelbackisa‘sell-out’orcommerciallycalculatingcorrelatewiththe
discourseofAuthenticityasNegation,orTaylor’s(1997:22–23)similardiscourseofauthenticity
aspositionality.Thisdiscourseisalsolinkedtotheauthenticity-as-expressiondiscourse(Moore
2002:214),whensubmittingtomarketingforcescausesthemtonotcreatehonestmaterialbut
insteadtrytotricktheirwayintocommercialsuccess.Thestatementsfromthereviewscanbe
readtoimplythattogaincommercialsuccess,Nickelbackforcedlywritescalculatinghitmaterial
offeringlistenersonlyeasyillusionsoftherealthing,notself-expressive,genuinepiecesofart,
failingtomeetthegenreexpectationsofbothgrungeandmetal.The‘commercialnatureofthe
group’isseenasgroundsfordismissalofabandinAmericanrockcriticism(McLeod2001:55),
whichresonateswiththedescriptionsofNickelback.
Popularityinitselfisaproblematicphenomenonincriticism.Inculturalhistory,criticswere
splitintotwogroups–thoseonthesideoftheartistandthoseonthesideoftheaudience–the
formerregardedtheaudience'sapprovalasasignofabadperformance,whichremainsafeature
incriticism;‘theaudiencelikedit’canstillbestandardinascaldingreview(Frith1996:64–65).
13
TheapprovaloftheirlargeaudiencecanbeinterpretedasproofthatNickelbackisoflowquality.
Considering the further baggage the history of grunge lays on Nickelback and the entire postgrunge genre, the relationship to success becomes even more complicated. However, not all
successful artists are despised, which begs the question of ‘[h]ow critics distinguish “good”
multiplatinumartistsfrom“bad”multiplatinumartists’(McLeod2002:96).AccordingtoKeightley,
rockculture‘patrolspopularityforinauthenticandthereforeundeservedsuccess’,while‘see[ing]
masssuccessasthebirthrightofthosewhodeserveit’(2001:132).Rockculture’srejectionof
mass taste and culture (Keightley 2001) could contribute to seeing Nickelback’s success as
inauthenticandundeserved,representingthe‘bad’tasteofthemasses.
Dullness
One recurring theme in the reviews is dullness: Nickelback is ‘deadly boring’ (Schildt 2014),
repetitive (Pekkala 2003; van der San 2011) and generic (Ramsay 2012), paralleling Adorno’s
(1994) accusations of popular music being standardized, only pseudo-individualized, and ‘predigested’forthelistener.Dullnessisconnectedtolackofdanger,whichinturnleadstothemusic
being predictable (Hilden 2011), uninteresting (Romppainen 2008, 2012) and offering no
challenges to the listener (Ojala 2002). All this can be paralleled with unoriginality, which
contradictsthevaluesof‘[e]xperimentation,inventiveness,andmusicalrulebreaking’connected
withcriticallypraisedartists(McLeod2002:106).Lackofdangerisseenasanegativetrait;for
example,Schildt(2014)describesNickelbackbeingknownas‘theepitomeofedgelessrockwho
haswipedheavymusiccleanofallrebellion,passion,senseofdangerandedge.’Comparably,
‘being bland, boring, or middle-of-the-road’ goes against the traditional union of rock and
countercultureandrebellion(e.g.,McLeod2002:108–09),where‘asenseofrebellion,or,atleast,
excitement’ is valued (McLeod 2002: 101). Dullness is further linked to the above-mentioned
commercialism: Mutt Lange, who produced Dark Horse, is depicted as also having successfully
smoothedouttheedgesofBryanAdamsandDefLeppardtosuitbigmarkets(Romppainen2008)
– implying that the edgelessness of Nickelback is due to commercial thinking. Furthermore,
althoughusingmusicaltropesfromthemetalgenre,Nickelbackcanbeseentolack(atleast)one
14
essentialelementofmetalthatwouldenableittoproperlyintegrateintothegenre:commitment
totransgression(Hjelm,Kahn-Harris,LeVine2011:6,14).Itsmainstreamsuccessisantitheticalto
metal’scounterculturalandcontroversialimage(Hjelm,Kahn-HarrisandLeVine2011).
Lackofdangerislinkedtotheharmlessnessofthemusicians’personas:Ramsay(2012)
describes them as ‘nicely clean’ in a supposedly negative tone, given that he later calls them
pejoratively ‘fucking H&M’s Black Label Society’, referring to the contrast between the
performancestylesofZakkWyldeandNickelback.Inparticular,theexcessivereferencestoalcohol
intheirlyrics,combinedwithNickelback’sliveperformancewheretheythemselvesdidnotdrink,
frustrate Ramsay, who demands that Kroeger, too, practice what he preaches – ‘Also Jesus
suffered for us, so did Hetfield – take a sip’ (2012). Similar views of demanding proper
correspondence between the artists’ lives and their music are suggested in other reviews,
underliningthecontradictionbetweentheband’sorKroeger’spersonasandthethemestheysing
about.VanderSan(2011)comparesKroegertoAxlRoseandVinceNeil,forinstance,withKroeger
andNickelbacklosingthebattle,being‘toocleanandsafe’incomparison.Thus,Nickelbackand
Kroegerareseenaslackingtheauthenticitytosingrock’n’rollsongsthattrytoexpressthedanger
ofrock‘n’roll.Thelackofcorrespondencebetweenthelyricsandtheactualpersonandlifestyle
of the lyricist can be interpreted as dishonesty, contradicting the demand for self-expression,
accordingtowhichoneexpressesemotionswithintegrity.
Truth
Thediscussiononcorrectcorrespondenceoflifestyleandartaboveconnectswiththevalueof
truth, which can further be associated with authenticity: an artwork’s ties to truth give it
authenticity and value (Jones 2008: 15, 35). Contrastingly, Nickelback’s music is portrayed as
forced(Hilden2011;Riikonen2012)andas‘hypocriticalbullshitperformedthroughgrittedteeth’
(Riikonen2012).RiikonencontinuesthatNickelback’sballadsinthealbum‘makeyoucrybecause
of their affectation, not because of their poignancy’ (2012), as if Nickelback shows no real
sentiment, but only an illusion of the real thing, thus making the ballads’ feelings fake. Hilden
(2011)continuesonthethemeofhypocrisy,paintingasarcasticpictureofKroeger,whilequoting
15
Nickelback’slyricsfrom‘WhenWeStandTogether’:‘Inthemidstofhiscollectionofquadbikes
Kroegerhasfiguredthathey,shouldwerestrainthisconsumptionfeast’.Iinterpretallofthese
statementsasrelatingtoliesanddishonesty.InheranalysisofNickelback,LeanneFetterley(2008)
seesgrungeaspositedasanauthenticideal,againstwhichNickelback’ssincerity‘failsasastrategy
of authenticity’. Warwick (2009: 355) reads Kroeger’s ‘gravelly vocal timbre as signifier of
earnestness’,partofacontinuumincludingBruceSpringsteenandRobertPlant,butonethathas
possiblylostitscharm,asFetterley(2008)suggests:CobainandVedder’s‘coarsevocaltimbre’
signifiedauthenticity,butinthecaseofKroeger,itisonlyseenas‘poorimitation’,as‘playinga
part’,asinauthenticity.
According to Frith, the most common complaint regarding bad music is that it is
inauthentic,insincere–‘asifpeopleexpectmusictomeanwhatitsays’,judgingthemusicasifit
weresynonymouswithaperson’ssincerity(2004:28).Besidestheaccusationsofthedishonesty
ofthelyricsandmusic,thethemeofliescanbeappliedtotheband’spersonasaswell,astheyare
accused of trying to be something they are not – of ‘striving to play a credible rock band’
(Romppainen2012).Lehti(2012)commentsthattheirlivegesturesandgrimaces,‘pickedstraight
outofatextbookofrockposing’,eventuallymakeonelaugh.
Thedishonestyofexpressionseradicatesauthenticmeaningfromthemusic.Forinstance,
Ojala(2003)statesthatNickelback‘successfullycontinuestomakethemostnoisewithempty
barrels.’ Hilden (2011) continues, ‘the soul is missing’; according to Schildt (2014), ‘Edge of a
Revolution’ ‘infuriates with its hollow bluster’. Ojala also uses quotation marks sarcastically to
express the emptiness behind apparent expressions of emotion: Kroeger roars ‘“heavily”’ and
‘“emotionally”’ (2003). These statements can be read to contradict e.g. the authenticity of
expression (Moore 2002: 214), where the utterance is expected to possess integrity – in
comparison, Nickelback is presented as having nothing to say, or only pretending to have a
message.
Badaudiencesandthethreatofsentimentalism
16
Audienceisoneelementincriticismthatcouldcastoutcertainartists,onthegroundsoftheir
‘bad’audience.Forexample,critics’reactiontoartistslikeJourneyandRickSpringfield,whohave
astrongfemaleaudience,‘maybebasedasmuchonaestheticreasonsasontheneedtocarve
outadistinctidentityforthemselvesinoppositiontotheseartists’audiences’(McLeod2002:102).
Besidesthe‘perceivedauthenticityofmotivation’,theauthenticityofintendedaudienceisone
criterionbywhichtojudgeanartist(Jones2008:41).AsforNickelback,suspicionoftheiraudience
maybeoneelementinthenegativereactionsthebandhashad.Intheanalysedreviews,theabject
audiencethatiscastoutisforexampleschoolshooters,one’sex,HomeDepotcustomers(Kling
2013)orhighschoolers(Friman2005).InRamsay’slivereview(2012)thesituationisdifferentas
hedescribestheactualaudienceattheliveevent;however,hedoesnotdoitinveryflattering
terms,thusconstructingaspecificimageofNickelback’sfans:panickylittlegirls,toughguysin
printt-shirtsandleatherjacketsboughtfromsupermarkets,sturdyandbaldmen,andpreteens
withtheirparents.Theabjectaudiencecanbecategorizedintotwogroups:inauthentic(e.g.,little
girls) – as a ‘teenage girl is the most contemptible fan of all’ (Warwick 2009: 352) – and
undesirable,withattributesthewritersdonotwanttopossess(e.g.schoolshooters).
Theproblemofaudiencecanbeassociatedwithsentimentalism,where,too,theproblem
is the ‘wrong’ audience, i.e. women: ‘“sentimentalism” is a criticism often levelled at products
aimedat,orproducedby,women’(McLeod2002:107).InNickelback’scase,theproblemisnot
the‘unimaginativerocking’,butthe‘emotionalpathossongstailoredforplaylists[...]’,whichlead
to rejection, instead of mere indifference (Romppainen 2008). Schildt (2014) firmly considers
schmaltzaderogatoryterm:‘it’sdifficulttomakeyourwaythroughthesyrupythirdtrack’.Meier
places Nickelback in the bodily category of ‘arena rock’, suggesting that disdain of the band is
causedbytheirexcessivesentimentalitywhichcrosses‘theboundariesofgenre’(2008:248,241).
Sentimentality has been the ‘cardinal aesthetic sin’ for over a century; describing a work as
sentimental inevitably leads to its condemnation – ‘To be sentimental is to be kitsch, phony,
exaggerated, manipulative, self-indulgent, hypocritical, cheap and clichéd’ (Wilson 2007: 122).
Furthermore, if Nickelback is examined in relation to metal’s aesthetic, softness is a form of
expressionforbiddentothevocalist,asitcontradictsthevalueofpowerinheavymetal(Weinstein
2000:26–27).
17
However,accordingtoVuoti(2008),the‘soft,radio-friendlytunes’thatjumpoutfromthe
wholenessofthealbummaybeatickettoautonomy:bywritingsentimentalballads,Nickelback
buysitselfthefreedomtomaketherestofthesongs–theheaviertracks–astheywish.Vuoti
(2008)states,‘Withafewconcessionsitguaranteesitselfthefreedomtomaketotallyoriginal
music and do it at an extremely high level.’ The review suggests that by ‘play[ing] the game
skilfully’,i.e.makingsweetradio-friendlysongstacticallyandthuspossiblyabandoningauthentic
self-expression, Nickelback gains freedom of artistic expression. This counter-discourse to the
strictdemandforauthenticityisexaminednext.
Fakefakeanimals–challengingthedominantdiscourse
Thereareotherinstancesofthiscounter-discourse,whichcanbereadascommentingsardonically
on the rockist obsession with authenticity. Vuoti (2008) sarcastically criticizes rock’s undying
hatredofcommercialsuccess:
IthasbecomethefateofNickelbacktobetheeternalbadband.Theonethatmakes
inauthentic music, dishonours rock with their success and makes money out of
people’sstupidity.Itisofcourseashameforarockbandifitgetsplayedonthe
radio.
VanderSan’sreview(2011),althoughotherwisecritical,hassimilartones:Nickelback‘repeatsthe
samehitformatfromalbumtoalbum,butgetsbashedforit,unlikeAC/DCthathasprettymuch
been doing the same song over and over for 40 years already.’ Schildt (2014) sardonically
commentsonhowNickelbackhasbecometheobjectofridiculeinrockcircles,andhowmusic
blogshavemadeanartoutofmockingNickelback;Lehti(2012)describesthemediaattention
beforeNickelback’sliveshowinFinlandasfocusingon‘triviallaughingatthemediocrityofthe
band and praising one’s own sophisticated taste in music’. Music culture’s elitist snobbery is
deridedinturn.
Itisintriguingtoreadthesestatementsrootingforanewkindofhonesty–ifweusethe
conceptofauthenticityasademandfortruth(e.g.Jones2008:15)–ofrockculturebeingmore
18
honestaboutitstieswithcommercialism.BarkerandTaylor(2007:327–28)introducetheideaof
‘fakefake’presentedbythesci-fiwriterPhilipK.Dick,wonderingwhatwouldhappenifallthefake
animalsofDisneylandweretransformedintorealones,andhowpeoplewouldthenreacttothese
‘fakefake’animals.InVuoti’sreview,somethingsimilarcanbereadintothereview:Nickelbackis
theofficial‘bad’band;whatifthereissomething‘real’andincorruptiblebehindthat–whatif
insteadoffake,theyarefakefake?
As Baudrillard (1994) argues that Disneyland exists to highlight the ‘real’ nature of its
externalworldandtohidethefactthatthe‘real’isassimulatedasDisneyland,Nickelbackcanbe
readasservingthesamefunctionwithregardtothemusicpress:itsartificialityishighlightedso
thattherestwouldseemmorereal,andtoconcealtheperceptionthatallmusicisartificial–that
‘there is nothing really to be authentic about’ (Testa and Shedden 2002: 182). Eco, discussing
Americancultureinparticular,statesthatinordertoreachthe‘realthing’,an‘absolutefake’must
befabricated(1990:8).Similarly,rockcritics‘seemtoneedanOther’(Weinstein2004a:305),for
exampleteenidolssuchasNewKidsontheBlock,whoareconsideredcrucialinestablishingthe
authenticity of other performers (Marshall 1997: 171), as the discourse of authenticity is
‘dependentontheexistenceofsuchexamples’(Marshall1997:173).Nickelbackcanbeseenas
partofadichotomy,providingtheantithesisofauthenticity,towhich‘authentic’performerscan
thenbecompared.
However, when Vuoti praises Nickelback, he does it according to traditional ideas of
authenticity: their sense of melody is ‘personal’ and ‘deviates from the mainstream’; their riffmaking is ‘anything but commercial’ (2008). These statements exclude mainstream and
commercialism from Nickelback, which parallels the ideas of authenticity of negation.
Furthermore,theystressoriginality,animportantfactorinauthenticityasself-expressionandthe
authenticity of Romanticism (Keightley 2001). The perceived freedom from authenticity is an
illusion;eventuallythevalueofNickelbackisstilljustifiedbymeansofthesametraditionalviews,
entailingoriginalityanduncommercialism.
Nevertheless,thewiderdiscussiononthesubjecthasbeguntochallengethedominant
discourse,suggestingforexample‘subvertingacceptedaesthetichierarchies’,freeingustovalue
e.g.‘soft’or‘sweet’music(McLeod2002:109),andabandoningthedemandthatmusicbelife-
19
changing(McLeod2002:110).Powers(2004:237)arguesthatfuturethinkingneedsmoretools
tograspthe‘nondescript’,‘unexceptional’and‘mediocre’inmusic,since,withthescaleofrecord
production today, anyone succeeding in attracting the public’s attention cannot actually be
mediocre.Afterthepotentialliberationofone’slikings,‘tastecanseem[...]morelikeafantasy
worldinwhichwegettoromanceoratleastfoolaroundwithmanystrangers’,Wilson(2007:154)
proposes,resultingin‘alessrigid,moreinclusive,conceptionofpopularmusicinwhicheveryone
potentially has agency and is invited to join the party’ (McLeod 2002: 110). These statements
suggestadesireforstrictpopularmusicaestheticstoyieldtomorediversetastes.
Conclusions
IntheanalysedreviewsofNickelbackinFinnishmedia,oldideasofauthenticityarestillpresentat
large. The concept of a creative genius demands originality and constant evolving, which in
Nickelback’scaseturnsintoaccusationsofbeingpredictableandcalculating.Theinverseoftheir
perceiveddullnessisthevaluethatrockshouldbedangerous,edgyanddefinitelynotmiddle-ofthe-road.Theaccusationsofcommercialismandmarketmanoeuvring,especiallywiththeextra
baggage of grunge, suggest that anti-commercialism and authenticity of negation or of
positionalityarestillvalued.Theallegeddishonestyofexpressionandthelackofcorrespondence
betweentheirmusicandpersonasindicatethatmusicshouldbehonestandcorrectlyexpressthe
emotions and values of its creator. In this case, demands for originality, subversiveness,
uncommercialism,correspondenceandtruthaffectandconstructthediscourseofauthenticity,
while justifying Nickelback’s perceived inauthenticity and concomitant valuelessness. Following
Frith(2004:31),Nickelbackprovokesangerbecauseofwhatitisnot–honest,self-expressing,
anti-commercial,anddangerous–whatmusicshouldbe.Theangerisaboutthemusic’s‘ethical
rather than technical shortcomings’ (Frith 2004: 31–32), the problem not in their skills but in
dishonouringwhatmusiccouldbeandcouldrepresentatitsbest.Other,internationalanalysesof
Nickelback have drawn similar conclusions especially regarding the genre of grunge and its
requirements(Fetterley2008;Warwick2009);inaddition,mostofthetraitsmatchtheaesthetic
20
criteriaofUSrockjournalism(McLeod2001,2002).Thus,theresultsoftheanalysisalsocorrelate
withfindingsbeyondtheFinnishcontext.
ThetitlebarofthemagazineRumba’swebpagestates‘Rumba.fi–Avoidbadmusic!’This
representswelltheroleofrockmediaasagatekeeperandaguardianoftaste.Whatisatstake
withauthenticityisnotsomuchtheband’spopularity,sinceanegativecriticalreceptionhasonly
limited power over record sales (McLeod 2001: 57), but the rock journals’ credibility as the
representatives of a knowing, select rock community, working against the mainstream.
Authenticityhasusually‘beenplacedinoppositiontocommerciallysuccessfulmusic,preserving
thecritic’spositionasuncorruptedandasthememberofaselect,hipgroup,stilllinkedtothe
counter-culturalpast’(Weinstein2004a:303).DrawingonMoore’s(2002)thinking,Iwouldargue
that,bynullifyingNickelback’sauthenticity,criticsareactuallyauthenticatingthemselves.Ifcritics
giveuponauthenticity,theymergewiththemainstream,thuslosingtheircounterculturalcapital.
Finally, Nickelback’s unsuccessful attempt to articulate to multiple genres by lyrical and
musicalmeansillustratesrockcriticism’stendencytodemandinventionandevolutionbutinthe
right,moderateamountandwithasuitablystable,categorizableidentity.Nickelbackistoomuch
ofeverythingtobeenoughofsomething.Theyfollowgenreexpectationstoowell,whichisseen
asemptyimitation,butalsonotwellenough,whichisreadascommercialtacticsandasalackof
a stable and sincere identity. Remaining on the right side of authenticity resembles a nearimpossiblehigh-wireact.ThemediareceptionofNickelbackexemplifiestheperilsoffailinginthis
quest.
References
Adorno,TheodorW.(1994),‘OnPopularMusic’,inJ.Storey(ed.),CulturalTheoryandPopular
Culture:AReader,NewYork:HarvesterWheatsheaf.Firstpublished1941.
21
Alasuutari, Pertti (1995), Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies,
London/ThousandOaks/NewDelhi:SAGE.
Barker, Hugh and Taylor, Yuval (2007), Faking It. The Quest for Authenticity in Popular Music,
London:FaberandFaber.
Baudrillard, Jean (1994), Simulacra and simulation, trans. S. Glaser, Michigan: University of
MichiganPress.
Brown,AndyR.(2011),‘HeavyGenealogy:Mappingthecurrents,ContraflowsandConflictsofthe
EmergentFieldofMetalStudies,1978–2010’,JournalforCulturalResearch,15:3,pp.213–
42.
Cobb,Russell(2014),‘Introduction:TheArtificeofAuthenticityintheAgeofDigitalReproduction’,
in R. Cobb (ed.), The Paradox of Authenticity in a Globalized World, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan,pp.1–10.
Eco,Umberto(1990),Travelsinhyperreality,trans.W.Weaver,SanDiego/NewYork:Harcourt
Brace&Company.
Eskola, Jari and Suoranta, Juha (2003), Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen, 6th ed., Tampere:
Vastapaino.
Fairclough,Norman(2003),Analysingdiscourse:textualanalysisforsocialresearch,London/New
York:Routledge.
Fetterley, Leanne (2008), ‘Hey, Hey, I Wanna be a Rock Star: Nickelback, Sincerity and
Authenticity’,inIASPM-Canada,PopularMusic&PopularCulture:Intersections&Histories,
BrockUniversity,St.Catharines,Ontario,Canada,9–11May.
—— (n.d.), ‘Nickelback’. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/A2267357. Accessed
27February2015.
Friman,Laura(2005),‘Nickelback:Photograph’,Rumba16,p.32.
Frith,Simon(1987),‘Towardsanaestheticofpopularmusic’,inR.LeppertandS.McClary(eds),
Musicandsociety:Thepoliticsofcomposition,performanceandreception,Cambridge:CUP,
pp.133–49.
——(1996),PerformingRites.OntheValueofPopularMusic,Cambridge:HarvardUP.
——(2004),‘WhatisBadMusic?’inC.J.WashburneandM.Derno(eds),BadMusic.TheMusic
WeLovetoHate,NewYork/London:Routledge,pp.15–38.
Graff, Gary (2011), ’Nickelback Take on Haters: “We Don't Hear Many Complaints”’,
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/464935/nickelback-take-on-haters-we-dont-hearmany-complaints.Accessed13August2012.
Grant,BarryK.(1986),‘“AcrosstheGreatDivide”:ImitationandInflectioninCanadianRockMusic’,
JournalofCanadianStudies,21:1,pp.116–27.
Grierson, Tim (2012?), ‘Post-Grunge. A History of Post-Grunge Rock’,
http://rock.about.com/od/rockmusic101/a/PostGrunge.htm.Accessed13August2012.
22
Hecker,Pierre(2012),TurkishMetal:MusicMeaningandMoralityinAMuslimSociety,Ashgate
PopularandFolkMusicSeries,Farnham:Ashgate.
Henderson,Scott(2008),‘Canadiancontentregulationsandtheformationofanationalscene’,
PopularMusic,27:2,pp.307–15.
Hiatt, Brian (2012), ‘The Rise of the Black Keys’, Rolling Stone, online edition, 19 January,
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/cover-story-excerpt-the-black-keys20120104#ixzz1qsXST57B.Accessed5June2012.
Hilden,
Markus
(2011),
‘Nickelback:
Here
and
Now’,
NRGM.
http://www.nrgm.fi/kritiikit/nickelback-here-and-now.Accessed18January2012.
Hjelm, Titus, Kahn-Harris, Keith and LeVine, Mark (2011), ‘Heavy metal as controversy and
counterculture’,PopularMusicHistory6:1/2,pp.5–18.
IFPIFinland(201-[a]),http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/artistit/nickelback.Accessed20February2015.
—— (201-[b]), http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/myydyimmat/2012/ulkomaiset/singlet. Accessed 20
February2015.
Jones, Carys Wyn (2008), The Rock Canon. Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums,
Hampshire:Ashgate.
Kahn-Harris,Keith(2007),ExtremeMetal:MusicandCultureontheEdge,Oxford/NewYork:Berg.
Keightley,Keir(2001),‘ReconsideringRock’,inS.Frith,W.StrawandJ.Street(eds),TheCambridge
CompaniontoPopandRock,Cambridge:CUP,pp.109–42.
Kling, Joni (2013), ‘Nickelback – The Best of Nickelback Volume 1’, NRGM, 11 November,
http://www.nrgm.fi/kritiikit/minikritiikit-vko-47-midlake-sin-cos-tan-son-lux/. Accessed 20
January2014.
Klypchak, Bradley C. (2007), ‘Performed Identities: Heavy Metal Musicians between 1984 and
1991’,Dissertation,GraduateCollegeofBowlingGreenStateUniversity.
Leahey,
Andrew
(n.d.):
‘Nickelback
–
Biography’,
Rovi,
http://www.billboard.com/artist/312256/nickelback/biography. Accessed 24 February
2015.
Lehti,Aki(2012),‘Hyväntuulistahölmöyttä’/’Cheerfulstupidity’,Keskisuomalainen,onlineedition,
17
September,
http://www.ksml.fi/uutiset/kulttuuri/konsertti/hyvantuulistaholmoytta/1247820.Accessed21October2014.
Marshall, P. David (1997), Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture,
Minneapolis/London:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
McLeod,Kembrew(2001),‘”*1/2”:ACritiqueofRockCriticisminNorthAmerica’,PopularMusic,
20:1,pp.47–60.
——(2002),‘BetweenRockandaHardPlace.GenderandRockCriticism’,inS.Jones(ed.),Pop
MusicandthePress,Philadelphia:TempleUP,pp.93–113.
Meier,LeslieM.(2008),‘InExcess?BodyGenres,“Bad”Music,andtheJudgmentofAudiences’,
JournalofPopularMusicStudies,20:3,pp.240–60.
23
Middleton,Richard(1985),‘Articulatingmusicalmeaning/re-constructingmusicalhistory/locating
the“popular”’,PopularMusic5,pp.5–44.
——(2006),VoicingthePopular:OntheSubjectsofPopularMusic,London/NewYork:Routledge.
Moore,Allan(2002),‘Authenticityasauthentication’,PopularMusic,21:2,pp.209–23.
Mäkelä, Janne (2002), Images in the Works: A Cultural History of John Lennon’s Rock Stardom,
Ph.D.thesis,Turku:UniversityofTurku,Culturalhistory.
‘Nickelback’(2015),[Wikipedia],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelback.Accessed27February
2015.
Ojala,Pertti(2002),‘Nickelback:SilverSideUp’,Soundi,1,p.64.
——(2003),‘Nickelback:TheLongRoad’,Soundi,11,p.76.
Paddison,Max(2004),‘AuthenticityandfailureinAdorno’saestheticsofmusic’,inTheCambridge
companiontoAdorno,Cambridge:CambridgeUP,pp.198–221.
Pekkala,Tuomas(2003),‘Nickelback:TheLongRoad’,Rumba19,p.33.
Peterson,RichardA.(1997),CreatingCountryMusic:FabricatingAuthenticity.Chicago/London:
TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Phillips,WilliamandCogan,Brian(2009),EncyclopediaofHeavyMetalMusic,Westport/London:
GreenwoodPress.
Pietikäinen,SariandMäntynen,Anne(2009),Kurssikohtidiskurssia,Tampere:Vastapaino.
Powers,Ann(2004),‘BreadandButterSongs:UnoriginalityinPop’,inE.Weisbard(ed.),Thisis
pop:insearchoftheelusiveatExperienceMusicProject,Cambridge/London:HarvardUP,
pp.235–44.
Ramsay, Jean (2012), ‘Livearvio: Kuinka Jeesus, James Hetfield ja Nickelbackin laulaja liittyvät
toisiinsa?’/‘Livereview:WhatdoJesus,JamesHetfieldandNickelback’ssingerhavetodo
with
each
other?’,
Rumba,
online
edition,
17
September,
http://www.rumba.fi/live/livearvio-kuinka-jeesus-james-hetfield-ja-nickelbackin-laulajaliittyvat-toisiinsa/.Accessed12February2014.
Riekki,Matti(2002),‘PuddleofMudd:ComeClean’,Rumba6,p.25.
Riikonen, Jose (2012): ‘Nickelback: Here and Now’, Nyt, online edition, 5 January,
http://nyt.fi/a1353046031456.Accessed24May2012.
Rock News Desk (2011), ’40,000 say no to Nickelback’, 4 November,
http://rocknewsdesk.com/world-news/20000-say-no-to-nickelback/3990. Accessed 13
August2012.
Romppainen, Heikki (2008), ‘Dark Horse’, Nyt, online edition, 5 December,
http://nyt.fi/a1353045544613.Accessed8February2015.
—— (2012), ‘Nickelback vei havaintoretkelle keskinkertaisuuteen’/‘Nickelback took us to an
observingexpeditiontomediocrity’,HelsinginSanomat,18September,p.C1.
Scherzinger,Martin(2014),‘MusicalProperty:WideningorWithering?’,JournalofPopularMusic
Studies,26:1,pp.162–192.
24
Schildt, Saku (2014), ‘Nickelbackin uutuus on pötkylä mitäänsanomattomuutta’/‘Nickelback’s
newest is a blob of blandness’, Nyt, online edition, 14 November,
http://nyt.fi/a1305897545353.Accessed20February2015.
Scott,Niall(2011),‘Heavymetalandthedeafeningthreatoftheapolitical’,PopularMusicHistory,
6:1/2,pp.224–239.
Straw,Will(1993),‘TheEnglishCanadianRecordingIndustrysince1970’,inT.Bennettetal.(eds),
RockandPopularMusic:Politics,Policies,Institutions,Florence:Routledge.
Strong, Catherine (2011), Grunge: Music and Memory, Ashgate Popular and Folk Music Series,
Surrey:Ashgate.
Taylor,TimothyD.(1997),GlobalPop:WorldMusic,WorldMarkets,NewYork:Routledge.
Testa, Bart and Shedden, Jim (2002), ‘In the Great Midwestern Hardware Store: The Seventies
Triumph in English-Canadian Rock Music’, in J. Nicks and J. Sloniowski (eds), Slippery
Pastimes:ReadingthePopularinCanadianCulture,Waterloo:WilfridLaurierUP.Cultural
StudiesSeries.
Tolonen,Arttu(2006),‘Hoobastank:EveryManForHimself’,Soundi6–7,p.78.
van
der
San,
Toni
(2011):
‘Nickelback:
Here
and
Now’,
http://www.mtv3.fi/viihde/arvostelut/levy.shtml/1447402/nickelback-here-and-now.
Accessed29March2012.
Vuoti,Sauli(2008),‘Nickelback:DarkHorse’,Soundi12,p.66.
Wallach,JeremyandLevine,Alexandra(2011),‘”Iwantyoutosupportlocalmetal”:Atheoryof
metalsceneformation’,PopularMusicHistory,6:1/2,pp.116–34.
Walser,Robert(1993),RunningwiththeDevil:Power,GenderandMadnessinHeavyMetalMusic.
Hanover:WesleyanUP.
Warwick,Jacqueline(2009),‘SingingStyleandWhiteMasculinity’,inD.B.Scott(ed.),TheAshgate
ResearchCompaniontoPopularMusicology,Surrey:Ashgate.
Weinstein,Deena(2000),HeavyMetal:TheMusicandItsCulture,Cambridge:DaCapoPress.
——(2004a),‘RockCriticsNeedBadMusic’.InC.J.WashburneandM.Derno(eds.),BadMusic:
TheMusicWeLovetoHate,NewYork/London:Routledge,pp.294–310.
——(2004b),‘CreativityandBandDynamics’,inE.Weisbard(ed.),Thisispop:insearchofthe
elusiveatExperienceMusicProject,Cambridge/London:HarvardUP,pp.187–99.
Weisethaunet, Hans and Lindberg, Ulf (2010), ‘Authenticity Revisited: The Rock Critic and the
ChangingReal’,PopularMusicandSociety,33:4,pp.465–85.
Wilson,Carl(2007),Let’sTalkAboutLove:AJourneytotheEndofTaste,NewYork:Bloomsbury.
Biographyoftheauthor:
SalliAnttonenisfinishingherPh.D.onauthenticityinpopularmusicinCulturalStudies,specializing
in Ethnomusicology, at the University of Eastern Finland. The Finnish Doctoral Programme for
25
MusicResearchhasfurthersupportedherwork.ShehasalsoexaminedFinnishmetalbandsand
their experiences of (self-) censorship, as part of the Nordic Researching Music Censorship
network.
E-mail:[email protected]