Nirvana: All that and a bag of mediocrity?

[janradder]

I know it's been nearly fifteen years since the band actually existed but I recently finished reading Babylon's Burning by Clinton Heylin which attempts to trace punk to grunge (it was a bit heavy on the English bands). Reading about Nirvana got me to thinking about them and I really haven't done that in years.

When Kurt Cobain killed himself, it seemed like every rock journalist and critic eulogized him as another Jim Morrison or Jimi Hendrix -- someone who broke through mainstream music to create something, if not new, then at least inspirational or lasting or both. In the years since his death, though, have you really heard Nirvana played on the radio anymore? I haven't (and the Twin Cities has not one, but two indie radio stations). I also haven't played them in my house at all since maybe 1995. That's not really saying much for a band that was supposed to have changed the face of rock.

So, to try and remember what it was that so many people thought was great about Nirvana, I pulled out my old cassettes of their Bleach and In Utero and gave them a listen.

I have to say, I was left with the same impression I had when I first heard them: they were just an okay band -- good certainly, but most definitely not great. Their songs were all pretty simplistic, but not in a good way like the Ramones or the Velvet Underground or the Stooges or countless other punk and proto-punk bands. It was simplistic as in simple. Boring, even. Each song seemed to go on for way too long, plodding through sonic sludge much like a self-indulgent Led Zeppelin LP.

Much has been made about what effect the Nirvana-phenomenon had on music. If it weren't for Nevermind, among other things, Pearl Jam would have been another Aerosmith or Boston clone, Soundgarden would have gone straight from SST Records into cock-rock metal, Alice in Chains and Stone Temple Pilots would have been the Hair Bands they also wanted to be, countless other wanna-be grunge rockers would have started boy bands or found something else to make money at, and perhaps we all could have escaped the blight that is Tori Amos without her piano cover of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to catapult her into the limelight. I still wonder what it was that so many people heard in Nirvana because, in retrospect, I don't think it's there. Nirvana was just trio of con artists wrapping mediocre, recycled punk rock in a grungey new flannel-wrapped package.

Comments

[michaeljasper.livejournal.com]

It had to be his suicide. I remember their stuff starting to get really tired by their 2nd or 3rd album. The song about eating tumors was especially annoying...

But the suicide made for a good story.

At least the Foo Fighters are kinda fun...

[janradder.livejournal.com]

The suicide certainly did help in terms of initially setting up a legacy but I still wonder what it was about Nevrmind that initially put them in the public's consciousness as the second-coming of the Sex Pistols (who I also think are overrated).

[michaeljasper.livejournal.com]

Maybe because they were the first band to really hit it big with their style of rock? And they got top 40 radio stations to play their stuff?

I still think grunge was much better than the hair bands.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

I still think grunge was much better than the hair bands.

I'm with ya there.

[haddayr.livejournal.com]

I disagree.

And as a non-punk who probably heard Nirvana before any of the other bands you mentioned, I hope you will forgive me when I say I'm in a better position to judge. I was their audience, after all. Not you.

I can't say I know why they were picked to break through into mainstream rock. I will say that something about their energy and drive, and the quality of his voice, was interesting to me. It felt new and exciting. Spooky in the best of ways, and a little bit broken, like I felt sometimes.

I think they were pivotal in introducing punk rock to the rest of us, for whatever reason, and I think that's worth something.

You certainly thought they had punk cred back in the day. I remember you talking with someone about how shocking it was to see Nirvana at Tower Records. That means you saw them as punk, right? Maybe not as brilliant punk, but as a legitimately punk band.

So, they were legitimately punk and they broke through. That seems worth noting, worth celebrating, and worth remembering. And I love to dance to "Smells Like Teen Spirit," still.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I think you're right in saying that you're in a better position to judge than me. I've never disagreed that they were a punk band -- I've always argued that grunge was just a label slapped onto punk to make it seem different. I just never thought they were all that great of a punk band. And perhaps that's why they were the ones to break through. They weren't a bad band but they also weren't as out there or different or as challenging as a lot of the other bands that didn't make it which made them more palatable to a mainstream American audience.

[albionidaho.livejournal.com]

Ditto this, especially the comments about their energy, drive, and how they introduced punk to a whole new audience (Gen X) who needed it and was hungry for it at that particular time. It was elements of Nirvana itself, but it was also the time they appeared on the scene.

Sort of like how The Beatles' success is partially because they were The Beatles and because I truly believe a nation that was mourning for their fallen President/King needed them to bring some fun and joy back into the nation's consciousness at that time.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

I just feel like what Nirvana brought to the table was a watered down re-hash of what had come before. I do understand how it stood out to people -- popular music at the time was pretty dreadful. At the time, though, they were given the label of "greatest band since . . ." and rock critics spoke of their songs with reverent tones as if Kurt Cobain were the new Dylan of our time. I just don't think that's panned out, given time and distance, though. The difference between the Beatles and Nirvana is that you still hear the Beatles, even forty plus years later. I really don't think Nirvana will have that longevity (they don't just fourteen plus years after their demise). I really think, given time, they'll be seen as more of a Dave Clark Five -- hit songs that were popular at the time but ultimately forgotten. I could be wrong, though.

[albionidaho.livejournal.com]

I don't think you're wrong. Though they did have a great amount of energy and drive and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is incredibly catchy and fun to dance around to, Nirvana's music means something to those people who listened to it during its first run. I don't know that my children will discover Nirvana at sixteen and listen to it over and over (as I did The Beatles and Bob Dylan), and that it will continue to be a huge favorite of theirs as they age. It's possible, but I doubt it. BUT I also suspect that there will be a great many Gen Xers who will always hold a place in their hearts for Kurt Cobain.

I always did prefer the original punk, myself. But my exposure to music is unconventional in relation to a good portion of my generation. I was the one wondering why Nirvana was covering David Bowie instead of wondering why David Bowie was covering Nirvana ;).

As far as the comparison to The Beatles goes, I was only trying to say that the cultural climate that exists during a cultural phenomenon is often directly related to the success of that phenomenon.

I don't doubt that The Beatles would have been successful without JFK's assassination; however, I think that their first appearance on American television soon after the assassination helped with their huge instant smash of popularity and their legend.

Your Tori Amos blight comment, however... Now that I heartily disagree with :D.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

I totally don't disagree with what you said about the Beatles -- their sudden popularity definitely had something to do with the JFK assassination, at least in part. And you're right about cultural phenomena being related to the cultural climate it exists in. I used the Beatles just because I remember critics at the time comparing Nirvana to the Beatles which really doesn't seem justified in hindsight.

(If you disagree with my Tori Amos comment then I probably shouldn't mention how I feel about Ani DiFranco)

[albionidaho.livejournal.com]

Nah, it wasn't justified at all. Nor was the Oasis comparison ;).

Say all you want about Ani DiFranco =).

[janradder.livejournal.com]

I can't believe Oasis is even still around. What a dreadful band.

(I really shouldn't get started on Ani).

[albionidaho.livejournal.com]

Hehe. Yup, anything you want about Ani AND Oasis, and ESPECIALLY The Spice Girls.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

Hah! I love that you include Ani in the same group as the Spice Girls.

[albionidaho.livejournal.com]

=) Well, you know how it is...

[tim-pratt.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm with Haddayr. And I still listen to their stuff. Bleach is raw (and not always in a good way) and In Utero always had a dash of collapsing decadent empire about it to my ears, but Nevermind blew my teenaged mind, and a lot of the cuts off the other albums (including the unplugged album, live album, Incesticide, etc.) still hold up. I mean, if you listen to the entire discography of The Doors there's a lot of less-than-memorable tracks, too, but they're remembered for their best work.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

You're right -- the Doors produced a ton of horrible dreck. But on the other hand, when you listen to them in the context of their contemporaries, they sound completely unlike anything else that was being done in pop music. And, they influenced a lot of later bands (like the Stooges, the Patti Smith Group and Television, among others). In that light, you really can't say the same about Nirvana. Though they sounded unlike what was around on MTV, they sounded pretty mainstream compared to the bands who were their peers. And the bands they influenced seemed to be bands who only did the "grunge" thing because they could make money doing it, adopting Nirvana's sound as one would put on a new style of clothes.

Still, I respect that Nirvana spoke to you as a teenager. I just don't think their legacy has ever lived up to the hype surrounding the band when Kurt Cobain was alive and in the time shortly after he killed himself.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

On its own I think Nirvana was as good as other good bands of the time. I've found most famous albums are as much filler as killer (and the latter gets all the attention). It's just weird to think that Spiderland is now more likely to heard as a complete album than Nevermind.

I think the same elements which gave Nirvana's rock legend status at the time may have resulted in present obscurity. The band hit it big when Bush I was in office and Cobain took himself out before the major cultural shifts of the Clinton years. Kurt exited like a vinyl rock star as hip hop CDs were ascendent. I remember classic rock stations swiftly claimed his corpse, or at least the overplayed Clapton-esque Mtv Unplugged version. They were too quickly reduced to infrequently played rock standards and a backstory for Courtney Love.

But I loved "Smells Like Teen Spirit" the first time I heard it, but thought it was an amazing new Pixies single. I view Nirvana's success as a byproduct of 80s "college rock". This was when the College Media Journal gave young DJs a taste of industry influence with CMJ Reports and Music Festivals. I think this hybrid of punk independence and professional focus - like SubPop's underground branding strategy - helped shape the Post-Punk era as it graduated into general culture.

I think, however, the lasting effect of "college rock" mentality is a fascination with eclect mixing, something which again works against traditional rock star status and thus cosigns Nirvana to a gray zone.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

On its own I think Nirvana was as good as other good bands of the time.

I agree but I also think that's why Nirvana is kind of mediocre. At least in my opinion, underground rock was sounding the death knell. The Pixies had already put out their best work and were heading downhill, J Mascis was busy wasting his talent coasting on the accolades of You're Living All Over Me, Fugazi got boring, the Replacements really stunk -- even the Seattle scene was on the way out (Mudhoney never outdid "Touch Me I'm Sick," Soundgarden was dreadful and the rest of the scenesters just wanted to be rock stars). I think Nirvana was one of the last of that breed and without Nevermind they, and the SubPop would have faded into a footnote while indie rock morphed into something different.

You're right about CMJ -- a lot of groundwork had been laid by college radio and punk bands of the 80's before Nirvana had even put out their first LP. And I agree that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a good song (as is "Breed" and "Sliver" and others). But a lot of what they did is just kind of mediocre with the mediocre far outweighing the good (and not much of the good really approaching great).

Your theory about the college rock mentality affecting playlists could be right. Still, I think if Nirvana really were as good as they were made out to be, their music would have transcended that.

[silk-noir.livejournal.com]

Oh, and thank you for saying Soundgarden sucks. Chris Cornell can't sing. Why? Because the silly git never opens his mouth.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

I've always hated that band. They are the worst kind of suck -- in spite of their bombastic sound they were just utterly bland. Gah!

[silk-noir.livejournal.com]

I think I love you.

No, really--I never got Nirvana. Pearl Jam, I got. Alice in Chains, I love.

I think some of the whole Nirvana thing was due to the fact that grunge rose when MTV was in its heyday of videos.

[janradder.livejournal.com]

I can't say I'm a Pearl Jam or Alice in Chains fan -- they always seemed like regular rock bands trying to cash in on grunge. And I wouldn't say I dislike Nirvana -- they have some songs that I really do like. I just don't think they were as great as they were made out to be. You're right about the MTV connection -- it wasn't until the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video hit MTV's regular rotation that the band hit it big.

[sarahgoss.livejournal.com]

Well, I'll make a fool out of myself and put in a word for hair bands because I can't help myself. I like metal, although I have to admit it took me awhile to appreciate it as fully as my hugely metal-loving and metal-playing husband, Mark, who has also given me a huge bias here by explaining to me in great detail over the years how technically proficient and skilled good hard rock musicians have to be and how difficult it is to do this genre well--although I know a lot of people don't enjoy this kind of music even when it's done well! I think I am responding now to comments, rather than to the post itself... I think Chris Cornell could definitely sing, whether you like his style of music or not. I mean, I know the heavy-metal style vocals are not to everyone's taste, but if you do like the style, you have to admit he could really do it justice with those wailing vocals and the high notes he could hit. I also like Alice and Chains a lot. I am torn on the Nirvana subject. I do think they were overrated, honestly, but I still listen to my Nirvana albums and enjoy the songwriting (all the while acknowledging that Kurt Cobain was not the greatest singer or guitar player). Oh and also-- my favorite Close Encounter of the Famous Kind of all time was meeting Krist Novoselic at one of Mark's shows; he came up to us to praise the performance of Mark's band graciously and then just chatted with us, and he turned out to be a really nice, interesting, and not stuck-up guy. Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with music and is a silly tangent, because I just like that story! :-)

[janradder.livejournal.com]

Thanks for putting in a word for hair bands. The drummer in my old punk band was a big-time metalhead and was always singing the praises of hair bands. I always appreciated his passion, though I really can't say I'm a fan myself (however, I have to admit I do like metal but more in the Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Metallica vein).

My main problem with Soundgarden (and Chris Cornell) is that they were so overblown and self-indulgent sounding, yet bland at the same time. Even when they were an indie band with SubPop and SST, I never got their appeal though I knew a lot of people who loved them.

I'm glad to hear that Krist Novoselic is a decent guy. It's always nice to hear about musicians who aren't full of themselves.