UEF//eRepository

DSpace https://erepo.uef.fi

Artikkelit Filosofinen tiedekunta

2016

'Hypocritical bullshit performed through

gritted teeth': Authenticity discourses in

Nickelback's album reviews in Finnish media

Anttonen Salli

Intellect Ltd.

info:eu-repo/semantics/article

© Author

All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/mms.2.1.39_1

https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/1230

Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository

©SalliAnttonen,2016.Thedefinitive,peerreviewedandeditedversionofthisarticleispublishedinMetalMusicStudies,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.Thisarticleexaminesdiscoursesconstructedinthecritiquesoftheband,focusingonthethemeofauthenticity,byanalysingreviewsofthebandfromFinnishmediainthetimeframeof2000–2014.Traditionaldiscoursesofauthenticityarewidelypresent inthecriticalreception,valuinguncommercialism,subversiveness,correspondenceofartandpersona,originalityandtruthinparticular.

Keywords:NickelbackauthenticitymusiccriticismmusicjournalismdiscourseFinland

Introduction

Badmusicisn’taboutmusicatall;it’saboutstatusfortheaudience,moneyforthemediator,andstatusandmoneyforthecritic.

DeenaWeinstein,2004a

TheCanadianbandNickelbackisoftenaccusedof lackingrockcredibility.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

mainstreamstyleshavenotattracted interest inthefieldofmetalmusicstudies(Brown2011:

235). In consequence, this study intends to contribute to filling someof the gaps in the field,

focusinginparticularonthefringesofmetalmusicstudiesasaresultofNickelback’smainstream,

metal-influencedsound.

My topic alsohopes to shed lighton the critical receptionofNickelback 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 discourseof authenticity, andwhat the journals pursuebyusing 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 selectedquotes intoEnglish. The reviewsofNickelback in Finnishmedia

encompass11reviews,ofwhichsevencritiquealbums,oneisasinglereview(‘Photograph’)and

threecritiqueNickelback’sliveperformanceinHelsinkiin2012.

For the researchmaterial, the volumesofSoundiand Rumba from2000 to2014were

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, focusingonother artists’ reviewswhereNickelback ismentioned. 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 howNickelback’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

extensivelymediatized phenomenon, reportedwidely in the Finnishmusicmedia, 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

inauthenticmusic ismadeby ‘cynics’, for ‘consumersmired in falseconsciousness’ (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 themanydifferent,partly intersectingauthenticitydiscoursespresented inprevious

research,themostessential forthisarticlearefirstlythesixtypesofauthenticityproposedby

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

in1995 (‘Nickelback’).Theyhave releasedeight studioalbumsand theirworldwidesaleshave

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)considerNickelbackagrunge-

influencedband; itsmusic is furtherstated tosound likeclassicmetalandhard rock fromthe

1970sand1980s(Kahn-Harris2007:1);itisnotablethattheyareincludedintheEncyclopaediaof

HeavyMetal (Phillips andCogan2009:178), although categorisedasheavy rock. InWikipedia

(2015),theirmusic isdescribedas‘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 imagemay bettermatchGrant’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

established in themetalgenreandwhose liveperformanceshaveentailedhockeyuniforms in

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

andonesingle reviewarealso included in the researchmaterial.Ascanbeseen,Nickelback’s

criticalreceptionhasbeenpoor,apartfromVuoti’s5-starreview.

7

SilverSideUp: Rating

PerttiOjala,Soundi,1/2002 *

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) comparesNickelback to a funfair ride, awell-oiledmachine;

however,whenoneseesandrecognizesthewiresandpartsofthismachine,theillusionvanishes.

ThewiresandpartsinRamsay’scaseareNickelback’spredecessors,suchasNirvanaandMetallica,

fromwhoma‘Frankenstein’smonster’,i.e.Nickelback,hasbeenskilfullycrafted(2012).Ramsay

comparesKroegertoJamesHetfieldwithallthealcoholreferencing,guitarselection,wardrobe

andeventhestancewith legswide–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). Imitatingotherartists toone’sowngainquestionstheauthenticityofaperformer.The

mediaaccountsofKroegerintentionallystudyingchordprogressionsandstructuresofhitsongs

beforecomposingSilverSideUpmakemattersworse;Ramsay(2012)alsorememberstomention

thistrivia,whichcontradictstheRomanticnotionaccordingtowhich‘thecreativeprocessitselfis

seennotasacraftoralearnedskillbutastheresponseofsufferingormadartists’(Weinstein

2004b:192).Additionally,vanderSan(2011)alsoreferstothesimilaritybetweenNickelback’s

songsandthoseoftheScorpions,GunsN’RosesandSkidRow.Copyingotherartistsaswellas

themselves–vanderSan (2011)seesa resemblance inall theirhit singles’melodies–canbe

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 RemindMe’,

togetherwithbothsongsresemblingnumerousothersongs,cannotbeseenastransformativeor

inventiveintertextuality(Scherzinger2014:173–74),letaloneasoriginality.

Theghostofgrungemakesmattersworse–perhapsbecausetheborrowing isnot just

fromanyactbutNirvanaandespeciallythelateKurtCobain,amongothers,thepunishmentisfar

moresevere.Associating theband,orKroeger,withCobain,orEddieVedder, seemsappalling

(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, commerciallyminded post-grunge’

(Leaheyn.d.).

Post-grungecanbeoneelementthatdiminishesNickelback’schancesofbeingperceived

asauthentic,asthewholegenreisseenashavingaproblematicrelationshiptoauthenticitydue

toitspast.Afterthecommercialsuccessofgrungebands,likeNirvanaandPearlJam,recordlabels

startedsigningbandswithasimilarsound(suchasBushandCandlebox)(Grierson2012?).This

wasseenpartlyasanattemptto‘ripoff’SeattleSound,andsomanycriticsdismissedthesenew

bands, labelling themalmostpejoratively ‘post-grunge’ (Grierson2012?). 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 teethwith

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,whoutilizedmanyalreadyexistingmusical,lyricalandperformativeelements,

re-articulatingthemsuccessfullywithinanewformula(Middleton1985:8–9),Nickelbackcanbe

readasalsoattemptingtoarticulateitselfwithinmetaldiscoursebyusingcertaintropesofmetal

suchashedonisticlyricalthemes,andsonictraitssuchasheavyriffs,distortedguitarsandvirtuosic

solos (Hjelm,Kahn-Harris and LeVine2011:6;Walser1993:41, 50, 53), andalsoby featuring

Dimebag Darrell of Pantera in ‘Side of a Bullet’. One contextual element is the record label

RoadrunnerRecords,withwhom theband signed in1999; the compilationalbumTheBestof

NickelbackVolume1(2013)wasthelastreleasedonthelabelintheUnitedStates.Thelabelhas

manyestablishedmetalbandsonitsroster,suchasOpeth,SlipknotandGojira,whoseauthenticity

is rarelyquestioned.However, ‘[i]t canbedeeply insulting to thenotionofauthenticity in the

metalcommunitywhenonitsfringesapieceofmusicissubsumedintohouseholdculture’(Scott

2011: 235).Nickelback’smoremainstreammusic style and submission to commercial success

couldbeinterpretedasproblematicamongitslabelcolleaguesandthemetalcontext,whichis

apparentforinstanceinOjala’scondescendingremarkonNickelback‘evenimagin[ing]itselfasa

metalband’onthetrack‘BecauseofYou’(2003).Theattempttoarticulatewithinthemetalgenre

isrejected,leavingNickelbackonthefringesofmetal.

Theevaluationofauthenticityshouldbecontextualized intermsofgenreexpectations,

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,paralleledwithcountry-

styled acoustic guitars and harmonics, and heavily produced soundswith 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 theway to the bank’. Overall, the descriptions imply that the songs are not genuine self-

expressionwrittenwillingly,butinsteadforcedandmadeforcommercialreasons.

Inthelivereviews,whereRamsayusesthemetaphorofafunfairride,Nickelbackisalso

comparedtoothercommodities:ahappyairplaneflight(Romppainen2012),anactionmovieor

ahamburgermeal(Lehti2012).Theperformanceoffersconsumableentertainmentforacouple

ofhours,butoffersnomemoriesor realexperiences (Romppainen2012),anobservation that

echoesthedistinctionbetweencommerceandart.AccordingtoAdorniancriticism,musicthat

welcomescommodificationis inauthentic,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 furtherbaggage thehistoryof grunge laysonNickelbackand theentirepost-

grunge genre, the relationship to success becomes evenmore 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]

masssuccessasthebirthrightofthosewhodeserve it’ (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 popularmusic being standardized, only pseudo-individualized, and ‘pre-

digested’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

haswipedheavymusiccleanofall rebellion,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:MuttLange,whoproducedDarkHorse, isdepictedasalsohavingsuccessfully

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).

Lackofdanger is linkedtotheharmlessnessofthemusicians’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’smusic 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,butonlyan illusionof the real thing, thusmaking theballads’ 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

possibly lost itscharm,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 ismissing’; according to Schildt (2014), ‘Edge of a

Revolution’ ‘infuriateswith its hollowbluster’.Ojala alsousesquotationmarks 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,thusconstructingaspecific imageofNickelback’sfans:panicky littlegirls, toughguys in

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” isacriticismoften levelledatproducts

aimedat,orproducedby,women’(McLeod2002:107).InNickelback’scase,theproblemisnot

the‘unimaginativerocking’,butthe‘emotionalpathossongstailoredforplaylists[...]’,whichlead

to rejection, instead ofmere indifference (Romppainen 2008). Schildt (2014) firmly considers

schmaltzaderogatoryterm:‘it’sdifficulttomakeyourwaythroughthesyrupythirdtrack’.Meier

placesNickelback in thebodily categoryof ‘arena rock’, suggesting thatdisdainof theband 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 tometal’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, ‘Withafewconcessions itguarantees itselfthefreedomtomaketotallyoriginal

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.Theonethatmakesinauthentic music, dishonours rock with their success and makes money out ofpeople’sstupidity. It isofcourseashameforarockband if itgetsplayedontheradio.

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 inmusic’.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 isnothing really tobeauthentic about’ (TestaandShedden2002:182). 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: theirsenseofmelody is ‘personal’and ‘deviates fromthemainstream’; their riff-

making 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

potentiallyhas agencyand is invited to join theparty’ (McLeod2002:110). 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-of-

the-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 justifyingNickelback’sperceived inauthenticityandconcomitantvaluelessness.Following

Frith(2004:31),Nickelbackprovokesangerbecauseofwhat it isnot–honest,self-expressing,

anti-commercial,anddangerous–whatmusicshouldbe.Theangerisaboutthemusic’s‘ethical

rather than technical shortcomings’ (Frith 2004: 31–32), the problemnot 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,still linkedtothe

counter-culturalpast’(Weinstein2004a:303).DrawingonMoore’s(2002)thinking,Iwouldargue

that,bynullifyingNickelback’sauthenticity,criticsareactuallyauthenticatingthemselves.Ifcritics

giveuponauthenticity,theymergewiththemainstream,thuslosingtheircounterculturalcapital.

Finally,Nickelback’sunsuccessfulattempt toarticulate tomultiplegenresby lyricaland

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 near-

impossiblehigh-wireact.ThemediareceptionofNickelbackexemplifiestheperilsoffailinginthis

quest.

References

Adorno,TheodorW.(1994), ‘OnPopularMusic’, in J.Storey(ed.),CulturalTheoryandPopularCulture: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. TheQuest for Authenticity in PopularMusic,London:FaberandFaber.

Baudrillard, Jean (1994), Simulacra and simulation, trans. S. Glaser, Michigan: University ofMichiganPress.

Brown,AndyR.(2011),‘HeavyGenealogy:Mappingthecurrents,ContraflowsandConflictsoftheEmergentFieldofMetalStudies,1978–2010’,JournalforCulturalResearch,15:3,pp.213–42.

Cobb,Russell(2014),‘Introduction:TheArtificeofAuthenticityintheAgeofDigitalReproduction’,in R. Cobb (ed.),The Paradox of Authenticity in aGlobalizedWorld, New York: PalgraveMacmillan,pp.1–10.

Eco,Umberto (1990),Travels inhyperreality, trans.W.Weaver,SanDiego/NewYork:HarcourtBrace&Company.

Eskola, Jari and Suoranta, Juha (2003), Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen, 6th ed.,Tampere:Vastapaino.

Fairclough,Norman(2003),Analysingdiscourse:textualanalysisforsocialresearch,London/NewYork:Routledge.

Fetterley, Leanne (2008), ‘Hey, Hey, I Wanna be a Rock Star: Nickelback, Sincerity andAuthenticity’,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. Accessed27February2015.

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-hear-many-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,AshgatePopularandFolkMusicSeries,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-keys-20120104#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 andcounterculture’,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,CarysWyn (2008), TheRockCanon.CanonicalValues in theReceptionofRockAlbums,

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 20January2014.

Klypchak, Bradley C. (2007), ‘Performed Identities: HeavyMetalMusicians between 1984 and1991’,Dissertation,GraduateCollegeofBowlingGreenStateUniversity.

Leahey, Andrew (n.d.): ‘Nickelback – Biography’, Rovi,http://www.billboard.com/artist/312256/nickelback/biography. Accessed 24 February2015.

Lehti,Aki(2012),‘Hyväntuulistahölmöyttä’/’Cheerfulstupidity’,Keskisuomalainen,onlineedition,17 September, http://www.ksml.fi/uutiset/kulttuuri/konsertti/hyvantuulista-holmoytta/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.),PopMusicandthePress,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/locatingthe“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 theWorks:ACulturalHistoryof JohnLennon’sRockStardom,

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 liittyvättoisiinsa?’/‘Livereview:WhatdoJesus,JamesHetfieldandNickelback’ssingerhavetodowith each other?’, Rumba, online edition, 17 September,http://www.rumba.fi/live/livearvio-kuinka-jeesus-james-hetfield-ja-nickelbackin-laulaja-liittyvat-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 13August2012.

Romppainen, Heikki (2008), ‘Dark Horse’, Nyt, online edition, 5 December,http://nyt.fi/a1353045544613.Accessed8February2015.

—— (2012), ‘Nickelback vei havaintoretkelle keskinkertaisuuteen’/‘Nickelback took us to anobservingexpeditiontomediocrity’,HelsinginSanomat,18September,p.C1.

Scherzinger,Martin(2014),‘MusicalProperty:WideningorWithering?’,JournalofPopularMusicStudies,26:1,pp.162–192.

24

Schildt, Saku (2014), ‘Nickelbackin uutuus on pötkylä mitäänsanomattomuutta’/‘Nickelback’snewest 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:MusicandMemory,AshgatePopularandFolkMusicSeries,Surrey:Ashgate.

Taylor,TimothyD.(1997),GlobalPop:WorldMusic,WorldMarkets,NewYork:Routledge.Testa,BartandShedden, Jim (2002), ‘In theGreatMidwesternHardwareStore:TheSeventies

Triumph in English-Canadian Rock Music’, in J. Nicks and J. Sloniowski (eds), SlipperyPastimes:ReadingthePopular inCanadianCulture,Waterloo:WilfridLaurierUP.CulturalStudiesSeries.

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.),This ispop: 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 theUniversity of Eastern Finland. The FinnishDoctoral Programme for

25

MusicResearchhasfurthersupportedherwork.ShehasalsoexaminedFinnishmetalbandsand

their experiences of (self-) censorship, as part of the Nordic Researching Music Censorship

network.

E-mail:salli.anttonen@uef.fi