One thing that I enjoy doing is reading music reviews. Bands I love, hate, am indifferent to, it doesn’t matter because I just like seeing people share their opinions on music. Allmusic.com, Metacritic, and a variety of other sites are bookmarked on my computer for easy access. When I’m listening to an album, I might think “hey, I wonder what critics have to say about this,” and go check it out.
Yesterday I did that once again, this time with the Vaselines’ The Way of the Vaselines, a compilation that collects the Vaselines’ entire discography onto one disc. It’s a handy little collection by one of the best pop bands of the last 25 years, so I figured I’d like to see what the reviews said. And behold, every single one of them spent more time talking about Nirvana rather than talking about the Vaselines.
This has been a pretty annoying trend. I’ve yet to come across a Pixies, Meat Puppets, Mudhoney, post-Daydream Nation Sonic Youth, or early 90’s Weezer review that didn’t spend 50% of the review talking about how importnant Nirvana was, and why these bands would be nothing without them. I’d like to read a review of Surfer Rosa that doesn’t include at least a paragraph talking about how Nirvana is just as good as the Pixies, or how Kurt Cobain listened to the Pixies a few times. I’d like to read a review of Meat Puppets II that doesn’t reference Nirvana’s overrated cover of “Lake of Fire”. Just once, can’t a boy dream?
I don’t have a huge problem with Nirvana, to be honest. 2 years ago I would have said otherwise, and attacked them viciously. 3 years before that I would have kissed their ass relentlessly. But as of now, since I’ve matured from both, my opinion on Nirvana is that, while they don’t deserve a lot of the praise that they get, they also don’t really deserve a lot of the shit they get either. They were a decent band when it comes to mainstream music, nothing more, nothing less. And I’ll have to admit that in the last year or so, I’ve grown to start really liking In Utero again, even if the stuff about it being a completely uncompromising, challenging record is complete bullshit.
But there’s this idea that everything in music today can be tied back to Nirvana in some way, and it’s pretty stupid, to put it bluntly. Nirvana were influential in inspiring lots of today’s most generic, uninteresting rock bands, such as Nickleback, the Vines, and Puddle of Mudd. But that doesn’t mean that you need to spend an entire review of a Vaselines album talking about how amazing Nirvana was, and how Kurt Cobain was so talented that he immediately knew what bands were awesome and no one else can do that.
Most of this stems from the fact that Kurt, like Alexander Hamilton, is dead. Dead rock stars get more praise than Jesus, regardless of talent or legacy that they had before they died. I can understand wanting to respect the dead, but eventually this respect turns into something that usually borders on necrophilia, especially in the case of Nirvana fans. One of my favorite examples of this odd phenomina comes from the death of Pennywise bassist Jason Matthew Thirsk. Pennywise was and still is just a generic punk rock band that never really grew out of being bland and dull. As far as musicianship, they were regarded the same way: pretty standard, uninteresting punk musicianship that sounded exactly like every punk band that rippedo ff Bad Religion in the 90’s.
Then in 1996 there was a miraculous event: Jason killed himself. While this is obviously a sad thing, as is the loss of any human life other than Jerry Fallwell, the funny thing is that suddenly Jason started becoming known as “one of the greatest punk rock bassists of all time” in the music press, the same press that once made fun of Pennywise for being bland and dull. What the fuck? Just because the guy is dead doesn’t mean that you need to start taking back your opinions on him. You could just as easily say that “Jason was a good guy” or something rather than hold him up as a God of some sort.
Death does not and should not give you some kind of immortality. In fact, it kind of gives you the exact opposite since death is, you know, the end of life. Death does not make you a deity to be worshipped. I’m sure some guy working at a box factory who dies doesn’t get held up as “the best damn assembly line worker in the history of assembly lines”. When I die, you won’t see a picture of me masturbating on a t-shirt, even though I’m sure I’m better at it than most (feel free to challenge. You will fail).
The other thing about this that bothers me is that most of the musicians held up as heros due to this actually shouldn’t be for other reasons. Cobain, Morrison, Hendrix, Joplin, the guy from Sublime, and others are drug addicts, alcoholics, egomaniacs, or idiots. And while these negative traits are exactly what fueled their music and made it good, these traits make it a little hard for me to believe a lot of the hype. Jim Morrison, while an incredibly talented songwriter, was a notable dickhead while he was alive, and abused more drugs in a week than most humans are capable of in a year. Is this really the kind of person you want to put a black-and-white picture of on your t-shirts? Yes, all humans have falts and shortcomings, but most people would get called out and criticised for it. These guys do not.
I guess the core argument here is that rock stars, especially dead ones, are humans too. Humans are fallabe creatures that shouldn’t be held up as heros just because they’ve passed on. And rock stars, being humans themselves, fall into that category as well. This is where I should end on a joke. Too bad for you guys, eh?
Now listening to: Yo La Tengo- I Am Not Afraid of You and I Will Beat Your Ass.









