So here’s something that kind of hit me the other day, and now I feel like I understand Nirvana at a level that I always missed before. I’m beginning to think that the joke was pretty much like this: “We will write the most accessible, infectious pop in the world, and when you hear it you will love us, no matter how contemptuous of you we are.” The joke is that they didn’t come through to change pop at all, they just beat pop culture at its own game.
The joke was that our culture could be made to idolize a heroin addict who couldn’t muster the self-esteem to bathe or change clothes regularly. The joke was on every kid who started shopping at thrift stores and quit showering to be cool like Kurt. Kurt knew that he wasn’t cool. Is this making sense to anyone?
If I wanted to get really pretentious I could go in to the attempt being overly successful, Kurt inspiring a series of all-too sincere imitators and a legion of morons declaring him to be a genius. Extra points if I say that Kurt “died for their sins”. Ha!
Anyway, have I been missing this for a long time while everyone else got it? If you didn’t think this way about them before, does this seem like it may be accurate?
I don’t think any band tries to get famous and successful as a joke, so I think that premise is very flawed.
Of course, a great number of people resented them at the time, and many still do.
I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Well, I can see the second part, but they did change pop music to whatever degree.
I can see where you could argue that would have been amusing to Cobain himself; ditto the kids trying to be like him. But I can’t agree that the band tried to make it big simply so they could laugh at people trying to be like them. That’d be a waste of time, along with its other problems.
No, bands don’t become famous and successful “just as a joke”, but I’d like to think that people start bands and hope for success not just because of the lifestyle it allows, but for the ability to make a statement and have it heard. I’m coming to think that Nirvana’s statement was a caustically ironic one about the nature of American pop culture. WARNING
Basically, the joke goes like this (WARNING: Profanity laced metaphor ahead, possibly not kosher in CS)
Kurt feels like he’s a worthless shithead, surrounded by a world full of worthless shitheads, and that this situation sucks a lot. He attempts to express this feeling through music filled with irony, anger and self-loathing. He notes that most of the worthless shitheads in his culture are too stupid to even realize how pathetic their lives are and they just wander around stuffing their stupid faces full of all the worthless sugary bullshit they can get their hands on. This is where the real “statement” comes in. Observing the way that these people will voraciously consume anything with the right sugar coating, Cobain gets so sick he vomits all over the place, and then gets an idea. He starts mixing his vomit with lots of sugar, and finds that the worthless shitheads will, in fact pay him so that they can consume the bile that was produced by hatred of them. Not only that, they will decide that vomit is totally cool. It’s not. It never was.
This, obviously, is a somewhat dark joke. Maybe not even so much a joke as Cobain’s obsession - he, the refuse of a society, could sell that society his excrement and they would ram it down their throats, if he would just put together the right pop hooks, make the right MTV videos and pose in the right magazines. He recognized that our pop idols are just people who know how to ring our cultural Pavlov’s bell, and to prove it he became a pop idol himself.
Nirvana was known for music that wasn’t exactly uplifting, but I think this is a much darker interpretation than the songs actually support. Kurt’s songs, in my opinion, were usually personal - and anyway, they were usually not very comprehensible, which suggests there wasn’t a clear message - not songs of protest or hidden insults to the masses.
No shit. I get intellectual about music too, but I think you’re overthinking this by about 5000%. You’re missing what I think is a fundamental point: nobody intentionally makes music that they think sucks, and you’re suggesting Nirvana did that (for the reason of mocking the bullshit system or whatever). The band had a very mixed relationship with fame (to say the least), I’ll grant you that. I think Kurt was very bemused by the idolization he received. Everyone said he was a totally original voice even though he had obvious influences he took pains to acknowledge publicly.
Also, the man had depression, but depression doesn’t mean you’re miserable every second of every day. I’ve leafed through the journals that were published last year (didn’t buy them), but my understanding is that it makes clear he very was active in the marketing of his band and did want to be famous, despite the way he sometimes pushed the spotlight away.
Since when is Nirvana a Pop band? I guess you could look at their music as Pop in the way that you could look at ALL music as Pop…but come on, I think that’s a stretch.
They were not “pop” in the sense of Barry Manilow or Madonna, but they usually put their angst in some catchy tunes. They had “pop” choruses and melodies. I think Kurt Cobain considered Cheap Trick their single biggest non “alternative” influence. There’s also shades of Blue Oyster Cult and Boston in many songs (“Smells Like Teen Spirit” sounds like the bastard son of “More Than A Feeling” and “Don’t Fear The Reaper”). Basically, they played arena rock and power pop with a punk attitude.
Except that much of the success that trailed Nevermind (and quite possibly Nevermind itself) was label driven. Most of the imitators followed in the exact same footsteps because their label required them to be produced with a sound that was accessible to the masses. Once these bands became famous, they had the leverage to carve music that was closer to the styles they felt comfortable in. Sophmoric efforts such as In Utero, STP’s Purple, and AIC’s third self-titled debut album were 180 degree differences in style and approach from the albums that made them famous.
Band wirties songs, band gets famous much to its own surprise. Singer of band has family history of depression and suicide, develops serious drug problem, and commits suicide. Not much more to it than that, really. I don’t think Nirvana was trying to make a statement much more profound than “look what I can do,” and Kurt wouldn’t be the first rock muisician to have a drug problem or questionable personal hygene by a long shot. Just another rock band trying to make a buck, impress chicks, and score free beer.
Yeah, I have to agree with everyone else: You’re a bit off-base here. You’re making it seem as if Nirvana had some “plan” to get famous just to make some statement about the nature of fame. It’s a (somewhat) interesting idea, but it doesn’t really have much to do with Nirvana. I’d suggesting reading up on the early years of the band, their musical influences, along with the musical subculture that had been brewing in the Pacific Northwest for several years.
And I’m not sure if I agree with your portrayal of a massive amount of kids running to the thrift store to dress just like Kurt. Don’t forget, culturally we were just coming out of the flashy '80s. Designer labels, over-the-top hair bands, and materialism reigned supreme. Nirvana & the whole “grunge” scene merely brought a down-to-earth style back to the forefront. In a way, they gave permission for people to be “real” again. At the time, it was a very refreshing movement…