5 Bands People Love to Hate (for No Reason)


I always hear people complaining about bands. I don’t really mind if you have a good reason, like maybe Eddie van Halen stole your girlfriend or your pet bat had its head bitten off by Ozzy Osbourne.


Or maybe you just don’t like that type of music. That’s fine too. But hating a band for a generic reason that doesn’t really have anything to do with their music is, well, dumb.


I’m not talking about Jonas Brothers or Justin Bieber or Soulja Boy. Those aren’t bands. Those are barely things. No, I’m talking about bands that are being hated for something that other bands are also guilty of (and don’t get any bad rep for) or something that shouldn’t influence your opinion on musical taste.

Creed


Reason for hate:
They sound a lot like “Pearl Jam”.


I like Creed. I also like Pearl Jam. I guess the singers sound pretty similar, and they do have a general rock style. Pearl Jam is more grunge but I guess that’s kind of like rock. I don’t know, I was never picky in identifying genres as long as I liked the music.


People complain that these two bands are very similar. That might be a matter of opinion because I honestly don’t see much of a comparison to say these two bands sound exactly the same. And apparently Pearl Jam sounds the same as Nirvana. Thus the common complaint of “they are not original”.

"You sound similar to these guys. Thus you are not good."
"You sound similar to these guys. Thus you are not good."


Why it’s a dumb reason:


Do you complain about Pepsi being similar to Coke and complain that it’s not as good because it’s not original? Or how Starcraft sucks because it’s basically Warcraft in space? How about hating on Lionel Messi for being the second incarnation of Maradona? He’s short, shoots with his left, and he even copied this insane goal Maradona had already done 25 years ago.


"There's already been a short soccer demi-God you unoriginal shrimp."
"There's already been a short soccer demi-God you unoriginal shrimp."


Of course you don’t. Pepsi and Coke are almost the same thing and yet they’re uniquely different. Both Warcraft and Starcraft are revolutionary RTS games and are very distinct even though many of the same elements are introduced in both games. Messi is easily the best soccer player today, in a game totally different from the one played 25 years ago, and yet has the same style and flair that Maradona once had (although Maradona has more memorable quotes).

That’s a principle that should be more widely recognized in music. Songs or artists that sound the same are not automatically worse than their predecessors and more often than not are different from each other.


Even if they did sound the same though, so what? Mozart sounds the same as Beethoven or Bach, sort of. Hell most of classical music sounds pretty similar. They all use the same instruments, the same time signatures, the same scales, and this is true of most rock bands.


But here is the trick: innovation lies in the different rhythms, the lyrics and note combinations.


Artists still use the same words, the same chords, only in a different order and a different timing and even in different contexts. The many combinations of those elements are what make a song creative and original, and you can clearly see those different combinations with Mozart, Beethoven and Bach just like you can see them with Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Creed.

"YOUR NON-REAL VOCALS AND REPETITIVE TOPICS ANGER ME!"
"YOUR NON-REAL VOCALS AND REPETITIVE TOPICS ANGER ME!"

Nickelback


Reason for hate:
The lead singer Chad Kroeger has a fake voice. They sing about the same stuff.


Probably the #1 hated band on Earth is hated because Chad Kroeger has the uncanny ability to sing about the same stuff he sang about before, with a fake voice. His fictional voice is what causes people to flip over tables, throw Molotovs and begin a civil revolution as he constantly sings about sex, drugs, drinking and more sex. You know, the sort of stuff people don’t care to hear more than once.


Basically, they suck because they alter the guy’s voice after recording to give him that grinding lawnmower effect. And because he wastes this grinding lawnmower vocal talking about sex, drugs, drinking and sex again.

Why it’s a dumb reason:


Well you tell me, does this sound like a fake voice to you? Is it being modified as he sings it live?


And who cares if they sing about the same things? That’s what most artists do in the first place. Hell, most artists all talk about the same stuff in their songs: love, loss, pain, money. Or in 50 Cent’s case, how he survived getting shot 100 times on 20 different occasions.




Speaking of “fake” sounds though, how about those electric guitars? That stuff isn’t natural, there’s frigging electricity running through them.

"That is the fakest piece of equipment I have ever seen Mr. Clapton."
"That is the fakest piece of equipment I have ever seen Mr. Clapton."


Even if that were the case, it doesn’t matter how he makes the sound. Altered voice or not, it’s the overall effect that it makes on the song that counts. Seriously, would it make any difference if he sang the lyrics normally or farted them out? No, it doesn’t matter as long as he creates the desired sound – assuming you like that sound.


It’s kind of like how McDonald’s prepares their food. Would it matter if they were using olive oil or the poop of an alien thing to prepare those chicken McNuggets everyone loves?

"No, as long as they're delicious."
"No, as long as they're delicious."

Linkin Park


Reason for hate
: They combine rap and rock. They use fake synths and effects.


So in the previous two examples, we had people hating on bands for being too similar to other bands. Then we had people hating bands for being too similar to themselves, and for using fake effects. Now we have people hating bands for trying to be innovative and combining different genres, and for using fake sound effects. Talk about picky.


Why it’s a dumb reason:


It’s not that people hate them because they dislike the combination rock and rap. It’s that people hate Linkin Park simply because they pull it off better than anyone.


Maybe you just don’t like the combination of rap and rock. That’s fine, they also have some songs that are mainly rap and others that are mainly rock. They don’t have every song as a mixture of both. You may also not like those, but what are the chances? If you like rock it’s almost certain you’ll like something from Linkin Park, and if you like rap you’ll probably like something too. But people that hate them tend to hate them just for being known to combine rap and rock, or even just for being classified as nu-metal.

"I'm still not sure what that means. Is it like new metal? Why is it spelt like that?"
"I'm still not sure what that means. Is it like new metal? Why is it spelt like that?"



I don’t have to cover the fake thing again, do I?

"I guess you'd expect emo bands to wear black and be depressing."
"I guess you'd expect emo bands to wear black and be depressing."

My Chemical Romance


Reason for hate:
They’re “emo”.


Okay, I’ll be honest. I don’t know what emos are. Yeah I get it, they are generally depressed (maybe something to do with rising depression rates) and they like wearing black. Kind of reminds me of goths except goths like cemeteries.


Why it’s a dumb reason:


Hang on a second though. You can’t label a band as emo based solely on whether or not their lyrics are depressing. Why? Because almost every band has depressing lyrics, just like almost every one of us has been depressed at some point.

"Except Chuck Norris. He's never been depressed."
"Except Chuck Norris. He's never been depressed."



There are many artists in a variety of genres that also have angry and inspirational songs. That’s probably why no genre identifies a band based on lyrics. You don’t have a band that only sings “inspirational” or “angry” lyrics. That identity comes partly from how the band portrays its image, and partly from how the band plays their music. So really, "emo" only describes the way the band looks like.


Which brings me to My Chemical Romance.


The way they perform is usually over the top, they dress themselves in black and wear makeup. That tells you nothing of their musical exploits, only of how they’ve created their image. That’s the main reason why they’re considered emo, combined with their lyrics.



But is that what qualifies as an emo band? Wearing black, acting over the top and singing depressing lyrics? Sounds a bit like another band I know.

"Except these guys look a bit scarier. And sound like a cat coughing up a furball."
"Except these guys look a bit scarier. And sound like a cat coughing up a furball."

Seriously, think about it.

Popular bands like Rise Against have melancholy lyrics, like “Audience of One”, “Roadside” and “Drones”, even in spite of the latter’s fast pace.

Eric Clapton’s legendary song “Layla” is a classic, and yet has sad love lyrics (as many blues songs do). The same is true for “Old Love” and “Broken Hearted”.

Even rappers like Eminem have sad songs, as witnessed in the suicidal “Stan” and the love rhymes of “Love the Way You Lie”.


Many of their songs are depressing, but just as it's true that most bands can have depressing songs, most bands also have uplifting songs. For example, songs like “Welcome to the Black Parade” and “Sing” have inspirational lyrics and an uplifting tune.


Most of their songs combine elements of despair with hope, so it’s hard to differentiate between depressing or inspirational in the first place.


Again though, don't hate on a band just because of what it's labelled as.


Just like hating on Linkin Park for being labelled as nu-metal is dumb, so is hating on My Chemical Romance for being labelled as emo.


It's really simple: the stigma behind the genres or labels of an artist should not affect your opinion of their music.

"Really? You guys can't even enjoy a hot redhead singing?"
"Really? You guys can't even enjoy a hot redhead singing?"

Flyleaf/Paramore

Reason for hate: They’re only popular because the lead singer is female.


Flyleaf and Paramore have paved the way for bands to use female vocalists to add a different dimension and, as you can imagine from this creative and progressive move, people are criticizing them.


You know, at this point I don't even know what to say. Will people just criticize anything?


Why it’s a dumb reason:


Well the implication is that you cannot remember anybody from any band unless they're female. And hot.


First of all, I can barely name the lead singers of any band, let alone the other band members.


Second, they’re actually good bands. Sure, it'll depend on your musical tastes, but both Flyleaf and Paramore have songs that can be enjoyed by fans of rock.


Some songs might have some pop influence, but remember what I said about stigmas behind genres? Stop falling for that.


It helps that their singers are female but that’s not why I listen to them. If that were the case, I would be listening to Paris Hilton’s hit album nonstop.

More by this Author


33 comments

Mentalist acer profile image

Mentalist acer 5 years ago from A Voice in your Mind!

The critisism I hear about Creed is that they're a christian rock band without admitting it,I Don't Judge,I like Paramore And Flyleaf and Heart and Cindy Lauper and The Go Go's and many female leads...I don't understand,the lead singers of Flyleaf and Paramore are not even remotely trying to be sexy or show off any sexuality.;)


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

I think Flyleaf also had some criticisms like that too, because all band members there are Christian. The lead singer Sturm responded with this:

"Well, you know what? I don’t know what you mean by a “Christian rock band.” It’s hard to say that because people all have a different definition of what that means. If it means that we’re Christians, then yeah, we’re Christians, but if a plumber’s a Christian, does that make him a “Christian plumber?” I mean we’re not playing for Christians. We’re just playing honestly and that’s going to come out."

And I agree, they're not even trying to be sexy! But it's just some of the main complaints I hear, and they don't really make sense :)


Mentalist acer profile image

Mentalist acer 5 years ago from A Voice in your Mind!

"Well, you know what? I don’t know what you mean by a “Christian rock band.” It’s hard to say that because people all have a different definition of what that means. If it means that we’re Christians, then yeah, we’re Christians, but if a plumber’s a Christian, does that make him a “Christian plumber?” I mean we’re not playing for Christians. We’re just playing honestly and that’s going to come out."...Well Said...and I've seen prominent declarations of Flyleaf as Christian oriented so I'm not confused...just a bunch of haters.;)

I may be secular but not to the extent of seclusion from talent.;)


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

"I may be secular but not to the extent of seclusion from talent.;)"

Absolutely. I'm secular myself but I still enjoy listening to certain Christian bands like Skillet and Red. A label like that doesn't bother me even though they'll be singing about God more often than not. But what I find great about music is that you can interpret the songs in your own way instead of limiting yourself to the artist's message. You can add your own dimension to the song :)


flagostomos profile image

flagostomos 5 years ago from Washington, United States

I don't know what's the hate on Creed. I always liked (most) of their songs. I find that people just seem to say "Oh I hate " and so everyone else says yeah me too. It's like where I work at, they always play Nickelback and people instantly groan, but hey, it's better than Lady GaGa or Justin Bieber.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

It does seem to be a trend, doesn't it? Almost as if it's "cool" to hate on such bands.


wingedcentaur profile image

wingedcentaur 5 years ago from That Great Primordial Smash UP of This and That Which Gave Rise To All Beings and All Things!

Hello there, mrpopo. I voted this hub up for useful and funny. I enjoyed reading it. You know, speaking of the haters, it has long been my belief that a lot of people 'hate' a performer like Brittney Spears because they feel they are supposed to. In other words, anti-Brittney hatred seems to act like a litmus test for intelligence and good taste. But I think out of all those who came out of the Mickey Mouse Club (Jason Timberlake and Christina Aquilara were also there), she, Ms. Spears will be the most enduring. I see her evolving into a Madonna-like singer.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada Author

Hey wingedcentaur, you're absolutely right! I recently read an article showing that pop music had an addictive element. Certain areas of the brain for reward lit up when listening to pop music because it's simple and has an easy pattern to predict. They noted that even though the subjects liked the song (because the reward area lit up), some of them said they didn't like it, probably because they feel they're supposed to "hate" pop music. I don't generally go out and listen to pop but I do know some of them have that "catchy" tune so I end up getting addicted to it.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Brittney Spears. Maybe she was huge before I started getting into music, but the only album I heard of hers was Circus, and I didn't really like the one song I heard on there (which is a poor standard for judging an artist but I ended up not listening to the other songs because of it). I prefer the pop from artists like Katy Perry and Taylor Swift.


WhydThatHappen 4 years ago

The difference between electric guitar and going back to recorded vocals to make it sound a certain way is that the guitarist had the vision to make a sound work for him, and the singer gets to go back and play around with the effects until he sounds cool. Electric guitar would be the same if the effects were added after recording a song. Plus, electric guitar players use a large repertoire of effects throughout an album or concert, they don't brand just one sound, they play upon the versatility of electronics, and sme singers do this as well- they have effects pedals and can shift through many different effects throughout a show and demonstrate versatility- it's different to rely on an effect pedal.

I don't care about any of these bands, but that is a difference that would justify the hate for nickelback for a lot of people


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

@WhydThatHappen: Are you saying singers don't have any vision on what they want to sound like?

"The difference between electric guitar and going back to recorded vocals to make it sound a certain way is that the guitarist had the vision to make a sound work for him, and the singer gets to go back and play around with the effects until he sounds cool."

Assuming all guitarists and singers follow those respective attitudes would be a mistake. I'm sure some guitarists just play around to make a cool sound, and some singers have a vision on what they want their sound to be. I know the recognizable riff of "Sweet Child o' Mine" was just Slash playing around on the guitar until he made a sound that the band liked (ironically, he hated it because it was just string skipping). Many songs are conceived in this manner.

Personally I don't really think it matters how the sound was made, but the sound itself. The end justifies the means.

As for Nickelback, to me it sounds like that the lead singer's voice sounds like that in real life so I don't see why people call it fake.


Rach 4 years ago

I listen to and love 4 out of the 6 bands mentioned and I've heard all the dumb a** reasons as to why people believe they're crap and I just have to point out that most of the people who say that crap are the ones who've never even listened to them or just one song, take MCR for example, I've heard people who have only heard Black Parade and then turned round and said 'all their songs are about death, so they're emo', it does my head in, but then again all this stereotyping p**ses me off, I get called an emo, a goth and a mosher a lot just because of how I dress and the music I listen to, I have also been told that people believe the reason I hide my hands and wrists because they have scars on them because they believe I'm emo, when in fact I hide them because I have eczema and am very self concious also I would never cut myself as I have panic attacks about dying a lot, just speaking from my own experience, I believe that people should get to know someone before classing them. But back on subject the reason people hate these bands is they don't fit what's considered as the norm and people wont even give them a chance.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 4 years ago from Canada Author

Rach, earlier in the article I said I don't know what an emo is. I still don't. I've heard many people claim that Avenged Sevenfold, a metal band, was emo, and that Shinedown, a hard rock band, was emo. Other than the way they dress, I've heard a multitude of completely different bands with distinct sounds being labelled as emo. Even in this article, 3 of the 5 bands have been labelled as emo by one source or another. It makes no sense to classify bands based on their image, "emo" shouldn't be a genre, and the sad thing is that people like yourself get judged and stereotyped just because of the association they wrongly make.

With some of these things it's almost become a meme for people to hate them. As flagostomos pointed out in an earlier comment, people just do it because it's cool to do. I myself do this; earlier in the article I mentioned Jonas Brothers, Justin Bieber and Soulja Boy. In all honesty I just dislike these bands because of the way they are marketed (with the first two aimed at adolescent girls and the third aimed at god knows what). I actually recently heard a song with one of the Jonas Brothers and I was surprised to have actually liked it (the other two I mentioned haven't been as lucky). The thing is, I know these bands are just money making machines and most of their content will be aimed at their respective audiences, so I don't feel the need to give them a chance and listen to a song because, well, I'm not their target audience. With these 5 bands though, there's really no excuse to hate them for a secondary characteristic which is irrelevant to their music.

I hope you're no longer stereotyped in such a way, and I wish the best of luck in treating your condition.


Judge bro? 3 years ago

You sir, are retarded, creed and Nickleback suck, paramore you had a point, mcr are rip offs.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Judge bro?, thank you for your very insightful comment.

To address your issue with Creed and Nickelback, please refer to the second paragraph of this Hub (assuming you read it in the first place):

"...maybe you just don’t like that type of music. That’s fine too. But hating a band for a generic reason that doesn’t really have anything to do with their music is, well, dumb."

In other words, you're welcome to dislike bands if they don't fit your taste. This Hub isn't claiming people should love Nickelback or Creed, it's just saying they shouldn't hate them for one particular reason (in this case, being "unoriginal", having repetitive themes and a "fake" voice).

As for MCR, who are they rip-offs of? I mentioned nothing of the sort in the article.


Gavin 3 years ago

Terrible article. You're paralleling bands that are nothing alike to support your argument. You can't see My Chemical Romance is akin to Slipknot because of depressing lyrics. Taking quite the liberty with that broad brush.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Hi Gavin, thanks for the insightful comment.

I would agree, but that's not the only reason I compared those two bands. It's not even the main reason. This is the main reason:

"The way they perform is usually over the top, they dress themselves in black and wear makeup. That tells you nothing of their musical exploits, only of how they’ve created their image. That’s the main reason why they’re considered emo..."

In other words, their image is the main factor in causing people to classify them as emo. They have some depressing lyrics, but I've given several examples in the article of other bands that have depressing lyrics and of MCR having uplifting lyrics as well.

The comparison between MCR and Slipknot was a joke in light of the fact that people judge and characterize bands based on their image, rather than the music itself. By comparing the two musically, they are very different bands - which is rather obvious. Part of the joke was that their music is very much different.

But if one tongue-in-cheek comparison illustrating people's tendencies to judge bands solely on their image makes this a terrible article in your eyes, then so be it. I'll try not to lose sleep over it.


music manic 3 years ago

I agree with you that these reasons on the surface have no substance. I also don't believe Creed sounds like Pearl Jam, or that Pearl Jam sounds like Nirvana. As far as a dislike of Nickelback, though, here is my reason.

http://anythingbutnickelback.blogspot.ca/2013/02/t...

Music Manic


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Hi Music Manic,

Those look like better reasons on the surface, but they still boil down to "I don't like Nickelback". Which is a good enough reason not to like them as an individual, but it doesn't mean everyone should also not like them.

I didn't understand his comparison of AC/DC and Nickelback. He claims they both have songs that are indistinguishable, but I don't see any rants against AC/DC being one of the classic icons of rock and roll simply because their songs sound the same.

His second point is essentially that he doesn't like Chad Kroeger's voice, and that other bands have similar voices. Some people may enjoy this type of voice, which is why they may have more play time on the radio. I mean, it's not a dislike of Nickelback so much as a dislike of basic supply and demand concepts.

His third point is also his first point; that their songs sound the same. I personally can see the similarity but enough distinction to make them a different song. I'm also fairly certain that if I wanted to I could play two similar songs by the same band on different stereos in the same room and nobody would notice. It doesn't say anything about the band's (lack of) creativity; it's just how humans process information in patterns.

Like he says, he doesn't hate Nickelback. He only hates the fact that they're popular and are played on the radio. Any type of business model usually follows this basic premise that if there is a high demand for X they should provide it more readily. Nickelback's music can be classified as some sort of pop rock, and there have been scientific studies that demonstrate that pop music has an addictive element (see: "Call Me Maybe", but I can probably remember a few Miley Cyrus songs that hit the masses like a fever in recent years). It really should not be surprising that Nickelback and similar bands are getting playtime on the radio.

I agree that there are some musical identities out there that are not very innovative and that I often feel don't deserve their success, but other people do. I believe that Nickelback gets more hate than they deserve in this aspect.


music manic 3 years ago

First of all, I'd like to say that it takes a great deal of time and effort to make an article as thorough as the one you have written here, and you show a knowledge of a variety of artists.

Second of all, I admit I like Call Me Maybe. Lol.

I guess the one point I would focus on is that yes, other bands also are not innovative, and don't take any heat for it. Other bands don't evolve, other bands may be able to have 2 songs played at the same time and nobody would notice. These songs might not be 8 years apart, though, and also, just because a lot of people do it doesn't make it right.

I can see where you're coming from though. I appreciate the conversation.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Thanks music manic, I appreciate that. It was just an effort to examine why people hate these artists for unsubstantiated reasons, and I hope I didn't come across as someone who simply "hates the hate" these artists get.

I know where you're coming from as well, and I was probably in that position for some time. I think the only distinction would be to find bands that have been innovative, and I think there have been few and far in between for a significant time. Most songs of recent times follow the simple 4/4 time signature i.e. one musical segment having 4 beats. It's hard to call this innovation, but this is simply the most efficient method that we've discovered to create enjoyable music nurtured in these cultural conditions (in this case, Western popular music).

It's been said that, "In its purest form, Rock & Roll has three chords, a strong, insistent back beat, and a catchy melody." Nickelback is one of those bands that will hardly stray from this formula, but it's almost a guarantee that the ones that do are unlikely to be as successful or as appealing despite being innovative in some fashion (Protest the Hero is one exception that comes to mind but still nowhere near as popular as mainstream bands that follow the formula).

I don't know exactly what you mean about evolving musically, or whether it's wrong or right to not do so. I think every band can fill some sort of niche in the market and, if they happen to be a very popular niche they don't have to change or adapt. I am all for innovation though, so here's looking forward to new musical trends in the future.

PS: I also like Call Me Maybe, but only in small amounts (most songs aren't as enjoyable when played so much).


Thief12 profile image

Thief12 3 years ago from Puerto Rico

With the exception of Flyleaf and Paramore, which I haven't heard that much of, I like all the other bands on the list.

I used to be a huge fan of Creed. Their first album (My Own Prison) is great. They sorta lost focus towards their "last" album (Weathered), but it was still a solid album. The new one had some pretty good songs. And the comparison with Pearl Jam is nonsense. Outside of the voice, they're nothing alike.

I haven't heard much of Nickelback, outside of what sounds in the radio, but I like them. I'm certainly not changing the station when they come on it, and have some of their albums on my computer.

I really haven't paid much attention to the last Linkin Park albums, but I loved their first three (Ironically, I'm listening to Minutes to Midnight right now).

I also haven't heard much of My Chemical Romance, but The Black Parade is an excellent album. One of those albums that works so well together.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

Glad to see another fan of these bands, Thief. I'm not that big a fan of them (you probably know more of Creed than I do) but to hate these bands or claim they're weak bands because of what they look like or who the lead singer sounds like is ridiculous. I will still never understand the amount of hate for Nickelback. I'd like to think it's some running joke, but the people I've talked about it seemed to genuinely hate it. Maybe it's one of those rare cases where the joke is lost in translation and people take the trend seriously (just hope that doesn't happen with the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

If you like rock you'll probably like Flyleaf and Paramore. They are probably more known for their "poppy" songs, but they also have some hidden gems in their albums (the most recent find I've latched on to is a Ben Moody remix of one of Flyleaf's songs, "Again" - it's fantastic).


Thief12 profile image

Thief12 3 years ago from Puerto Rico

I think I've heard some of Flyleaf and I know I've heard some random songs from Paramore cause my sister-in-law likes them, but I'm not as familiar with them as I'm with the others.

As for the reason of the hate, any criticism these bands might get is valid. I've heard lack of originality, they're boring, the music is too simple, etc. but then there are some whose criticisms are so silly or petty. To each his/her own.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 3 years ago from Canada Author

By all means if you genuinely dislike the band, don't listen to it. You don't have to have a reason beyond not liking it. The outrageous criticisms are were I'm getting at.

However, there are also some cases of double standards with these bands. AC/DC is very bland and their songs are very similar, but they're considered a classic; Nickelback is very similar in blandness and structured songs, but are considered unoriginal.

Although this sort of logical inconsistency is not limited to bands, in conversation music comes up more often and opens up for this sort of rationale. And it just bugs me.


capn crunt 2 years ago

nikelbak blos bro


Try_Eating_Acid 2 years ago

You have an appallingly god-awful taste in music. People don't hate these bands to be "cool" - they hate them because they make terrible, ear-splittingly bad music. For the good of humanity, please find a way to make yourself sterile so you don't pass your assclown genes and on to future generations. These bands shouldn't be celebrated. They are the scum of the Earth. Idiot.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 2 years ago from Canada Author

I'm not sure if you read my article, Acid. I can actually go deconstruct your argument sentence by sentence because it's filled with attacks, irrelevancies and logical fallacies. So I'm going to do that, if only for my sanity.

-----------------------------------------------------

"You have an appallingly god-awful taste in music."

I don't even mention I enjoy them (straw man); the article is not about my like or dislike of these bands, it is about people disliking these bands for unsubstantiated reasons. The ad-hominem attack is unnecessary and vapid, as well as ignorant. Judging a person's collective taste of music based on all of five bands (mentioned for reasons unrelated to their work or musical preference) in an attempt to undermine their character is questionable at best.

-----------------------------------------------------

"People don't hate these bands to be "cool" - they hate them because they make terrible, ear-splittingly bad music."

I specifically mentioned at the beginning the following:

"Or maybe you just don’t like that type of music. That’s fine too. But hating a band for a generic reason that doesn’t really have anything to do with their music is, well, dumb."

And I then proceed to produce a list of generic reasons that don't have anything to do with their "terrible, ear-splittingly bad music", as you put it. In other words, the article is not about enjoying or celebrating these bands for their work; it's simply an exercise in consistency with arguments. If you hate a band for being similar to another band or for not being innovative enough, you'll have to hate the vast majority of bands in existence. Logical consistency. I invite you to try it sometime.

-----------------------------------------------------

"For the good of humanity, please find a way to make yourself sterile so you don't pass your assclown genes and on to future generations."

Three verbal assaults:

1) Claiming that having a different musical taste (a subjective notion) than your own is detrimental to mankind

2) Requesting sterilization to prevent offspring with similar traits

3) "assclown genes"

I'm starting to see a pattern in your argumentative methods.

-----------------------------------------------------

"These bands shouldn't be celebrated. They are the scum of the Earth. Idiot."

Translation: "I don't like them so they're the scum of the Earth, and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot"

I never once celebrated these bands (although there's no reason not to). I simply pointed out inconsistencies in people's hatred of these bands, how they can be disproportional to the "crime", if any, and how they are completely irrelevant to the band's work.

And again, more "innovative" verbal assaults. If the crux of your argument is that I have objective "god-awful taste in music" and that I am an "idiot", perhaps you should provide evidence of those statements.

The beauty of music is that it is open to interpretation and is quite commonly recognized as a subjective taste. And many people's subjective taste enjoy these bands. Yours quite clearly doesn't, and that's fine; but don't attempt to claim musical taste as an objective aspect of human nature, and berate anyone that doesn't agree with your own taste as "scum of the Earth". Frankly, if you dislike bands based on the above reasons you'd be closer to that statement.

By the way, if your methods for systematic reasoning are to constantly harass your opponent and utilize straw man and ad hominem arguments, then... let's just say these assclown arguments will be rendered sterile by their own existence.


Mr self destruct 2 years ago

Nice article you have here. I Like how you analyze your thoughts so maturely. Im also thinking that all the hate for these bands comes from the mouths of teenagers that quickly dismiss these bands without even hearing a full album by these artists. A lot of teens are so hateful on the web.


mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 2 years ago from Canada Author

Thanks for the comment Mr self destruct. You're right. I think anonymity is great for the internet, but a lot of people spew hatred hiding behind their screen, saying things they would not dare to say to someone in public. Hopefully better education and self-awareness can help mitigate such behaviour, but we still have a long way to go.


socal 2 years ago

Hating certain things in pop-culture has always been "cool" and most people aren't confident enough to stay off the bandwagon. People who claim a band is "bad" because they produce "unappealing music" to their own ears are generally not intelligent enough to understand that taste varies from person-to-person.


Kathryn Lane profile image

Kathryn Lane 13 months ago

Ah, society. Personally I feel alot of people 'hate' these bands without having listened to any of their music, simply because it's 'cool' to hate them. It's a shame really, because many of the bands you listed kick butt!!


Jacky Blue profile image

Jacky Blue 7 months ago from Cleveland, Ohio

Oh my God you are deliciously hilarious and most satisfyingly spot on. DIARRHEA MCNUGGETS!


Kai 5 months ago

Also Muse for sounding too much like Radiohead. I love them both.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working