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

[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!