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 slept with 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.

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”.

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.

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. Hell most of classical music sounds pretty similar. They all use the same instruments, just like most rock bands.

But this 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. 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.

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. Stuff people don’t care about 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 at 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.

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?

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 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 don’t have to cover the fake thing again, do I? Just read the previous example.

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.

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.

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.

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.