I know, it's been a couple of weeks. I had been planning on seeing some of the new movies like "Godzilla" and "X-Men", but haven't so I didn't feel like I had much to say. I do, however, have something to say about something a little random.
Nirvana. Lots of talking about them recently since they've just been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but let's talk about their contribution to said rock and roll history. I'm not out to convince you of anything in particular or to make you "hate" your favorite band (if it is), no, I just want you to maybe re-evaluate and question what the music industry wants you to believe.
I want to start by admitting that I've never been a huge Nirvana fan. That isn't to say that I don't like them, just that I'm not someone who rushed out and bought anything they did. In fact, I never bought any Nirvana albums. I liked them enough to listen to them on the radio, but never thought they were so great that I needed to listen to them over and over again.
Which brings me to my first point. Were they really all that talented? I think not. Now, Dave Grohl is an exception (which I will talk about in a minute), but honestly I'm not convinced that they were. The songwriting is actually terrible and stupid even for a rock song (which are not known for being terribly poetic). And the simple 3 chord progression (which admittedly is a staple of rock) wasn't ground breaking in any way. So what was so great about it? Well, it was the complete opposite of everything that had been happening for the decade before. The late '80s and first year '90s was just characterized by hair bands and the rise of hip-hop. Then Nirvana hit. Grunge was the exact opposite of all that. It struck a chord with the youth of the time (including lots of my friends) and was the latest trend in a long line of disenfranchised youth music, which is what rock has embodied in some way for generations by punk, goth, and more recently emo.
So we have a new genre that emerges from Seattle and the first band that breaks is immortalized as
who brought it to the world. Sound familiar? Sex Pistols anyone? What if it has been Alice In Chains or Soundgarden? Would the world hold them in such high esteem? I think so, but then again, it could be that Kurt Cobain's death was just timely enough to send them into legendary status. Think about it, they only had 2 mainstream albums and were at the very height of stardom, so they never really had a chance to fizzle out and all the controversy and theorizing about Kurt's supposed suicide kept them in the news for a long time (hell, even in the last six months as the photos have been released).
If he hadn't died, what might have happened? Well, there wouldn't have been the Foo Fighters, that's for sure. Dave would never have been allowed to blossom on his own since he was always overshadowed by his eccentric front man. Also, I really feel they would have fallen flat on their face in terms of their following. Sure there would have been die-hard fans and they could have continued for some more time, but I'm sure the trends would have left them behind. I would point to another band of the '90s that had more #1 rock singles than anyone before and now is all but forgotten (except by hardcore fans like myself) which is Collective Soul. Had Ed Roland passed after "Dosage" would they have the same fame as Nirvana? Hmmmm.
I know I rambled and probably could have written better, but I just wanted to get a few points across. Hopefully you will re-think Nirvana's role in history.
No comments:
Post a Comment