Dead Rock Stars.
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.
April 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm
While I do understand your frustration, there are a couple things I wanted to mention after I read this blog. And in responding to you, please don’t think I’m attacking you… I’m just kind of offering the flip side of this. Nirvana does happen to be my favorite band of all time, but I understand your frustration when everything is compared to Nirvana, even unnecessarily– do you remember Silverchair? They got attention basically because they sounded like Australia’s answer to Nirvana. Except they sounded nothing like Nirvana. Of course, Silverchair sucked. But my point is, they were put out to the mainstream as this Nirvana thing, when the comparison was genuinely silly. Anyway, onto the few points I wanted to make:
1) Don’t you think it would be silly if there was a review of The Vaselines that didn’t mention Nirvana? What would be the purpose in ignoring that? Have you ever heard of The Moldy Peaches? I’m assuming from your apparent knowledge of rock that you have, but if you haven’t, they’re a pretty obscure indie band that made simple, semi-retarded songs that got a huge cult following. Now imagine that a band like U2 decided to cover “Jorge Regula”. Obviously every other mention from that day forward of The Moldy Peaches is going to also mention U2. For fans and for the band, that’s kind of annoying. But for the rest of the universe who’s never heard of The Moldy Peaches, it’s a huge sell. I’ve never heard The Vaselines, but, being a huge Nirvana fan, I’m more than well aware of who they are, and I can tell you that there was a band called Eugenius that came from The Vaselines, and I believe it involved Eugene McKee? I can tell you all that not from Wikipedia, but because I wanted to know who this Vaselines band was back in like 1995 and what made them relevent to my heroes. I agree that if the review talks more about the Kurt Cobain thing than of the music itself, then that’s annoying– but I would also point out that if you look, you’ll notice that bunches of lazy reviewers basically just re-publish the press release and add like, a new paragraph, and if a reviewer spent more time talking about Nirvana than The Vaselines, then I would say that writer was being lazy and had a word count he needed to fill.
2) A band member doesn’t need to die before critics posthumously come around to paying attention to a band. I’ll use The Pixies example. While Nirvana played them up a SHIT TON back in the early 90’s, it was still a decade before anybody but indie nerds that paid attention to them. Then they reunite and people go apeshit over them. I don’t even believe that when The Pixies were out and about Surfa Rosa was even that big of a deal– it certainly didn’t end up on the top of anybody’s lists when it came out. Yet if you were to mention The Pixies to anybody who cares anything about rock music, the tone used would be of reverence and importance. Not saying that the Pixies don’t deserve the attention, just saying it came well after the band existed as an entity.
3) You seem to imply that if Kurt Cobain hadn’t committed suicide, the adulation hurled on him wouldn’t be hurled on him the way it currently is. This is probably true. However, something I always tell people that are younger than me who don’t get Nirvana– and from the sounds of it, you’re about my age, so I’m not implying that you’re just a kid who doesn’t get it, I’m just saying this is something I remind people– Nirvana were the biggest things in the world at the time Kurt died. Kurt Cobain was on the cover of tabloids back then. How many real rock stars that gained relevence in the past 10 years have been on the covers of tabloids in the past 10 years? Hinder are one of the biggest rock bands in the world right now (much as it pained my fingers to type that), and they’re also known for partying and being bad boys (IE, tabloid behavior) yet I don’t even know what that douche bag lead singer even looks like. My point is, Nirvana was so huge and so famous that even gossip stuff cared about real rock and roll (versus pop stars like Madonna or Prince) for that brief instant. Time makes it easy to forget how huge an impact this band was. If Kurt Cobain hadn’t died, but rather suddenly disappeared and became a recluse and there was nothing there to tarnish his image, Nirvana would be just as important now as then… Albeit without quite the saintly worship.
4) There are plenty of dead rock stars nobody has vigilized. INXS was pretty huge, and their lead singer meant so little they made a public attempt to replace him ala reality TV. Blind Melon had an iconic video in the 90’s that will come up in any conversation about the 90’s, yet nobody cared about it when Shannon Moon died (wasn’t that his name?). Alice In Chains, a band that still gets heavy airplay on hard rock stations, had a lead singer that died, and while people were upset, it was more of a “Hey, that sucks that Layne Stayley died. I wish he hadn’t” kind of way. Granted, I think the list of dead rock stars people don’t care about is shorter than the ones that have been idolized, but that’s not my point
5) I’d like to say that yes, if somebody dies in an assembly line, people will in fact say he was the best damned assembly line worker in the world. Didn’t you have a kid in your high school that died while you were attending? Nobody gives a shit about that kid, but once he dies, you can’t escape other kids talking about how tragic it is. God forbid he actually be a football player. People who don’t even care about jocks will suddenly eulogize him at the drop of a hat
Again, I don’t want to be argumentative, because your argument is very valid for the most part, and I agree with some of your points. I feel exactly that way about Sublime, a band that, at the time of Brad Nowell’s death, had *not* sold millions of records, and was *not* on the covers of any magazines, and did *not* get play every hour on MTV, yet is treated like an erstwhile angel. I just kind of wanted to present the flip side of the particular band you chose to write this about. IE, I’m contributing to the conversation, even if it means playing the Devil’s Advocate a little bit. Also: NIRVANA RUUUUUUUUUUUULEZZ!!!! ALL HAIL SAINT KURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
–Chris
April 15, 2008 at 12:41 pm
While I do understand your frustration, there are a couple things I wanted to mention after I read this blog. And in responding to you, please don’t think I’m attacking you… I’m just kind of offering the flip side of this. Nirvana does happen to be my favorite band of all time, but I understand your frustration when everything is compared to Nirvana, even unnecessarily– do you remember Silverchair? They got attention basically because they sounded like Australia’s answer to Nirvana. Except they sounded nothing like Nirvana. Of course, Silverchair sucked. But my point is, they were put out to the mainstream as this Nirvana thing, when the comparison was genuinely silly. Anyway, onto the few points I wanted to make:
1) Don’t you think it would be silly if there was a review of The Vaselines that didn’t mention Nirvana? What would be the purpose in ignoring that? Have you ever heard of The Moldy Peaches? I’m assuming from your apparent knowledge of rock that you have, but if you haven’t, they’re a pretty obscure indie band that made simple, semi-retarded songs that got a huge cult following. Now imagine that a band like U2 decided to cover “Jorge Regula”. Obviously every other mention from that day forward of The Moldy Peaches is going to also mention U2. For fans and for the band, that’s kind of annoying. But for the rest of the universe who’s never heard of The Moldy Peaches, it’s a huge sell. I’ve never heard The Vaselines, but, being a huge Nirvana fan, I’m more than well aware of who they are, and I can tell you that there was a band called Eugenius that came from The Vaselines, and I believe it involved Eugene McKee? I can tell you all that not from Wikipedia, but because I wanted to know who this Vaselines band was and what made them relevent to my heroes. I agree that if the review talks more about the Kurt Cobain thing, then that’s annoying– but I would also point out that if you look, you’ll notice that bunches of lazy reviewers basically just re-publish the press release and add like, a new paragraph, and if a reviewer spent more time talking about Nirvana than The Vaselines, then I would say that writer was being lazy and had a word count he needed to fill.
2) A band member doesn’t need to die before critics posthumously come around to paying attention to a band. I’ll use The Pixies example. While Nirvana played them up a SHIT TON back in the early 90’s, it was still a decade before anybody but indie nerds that paid attention to them. Then they reunite and people go apeshit over them. I don’t even believe that when The Pixies were out and about Surfa Rosa was even that big of a deal– it certainly didn’t end up on the top of anybody’s lists when it came out. Yet if you were to mention The Pixies to anybody who cares anything about rock music, the tone used would be of reverence and importance.
3) You seem to imply that if Kurt Cobain hadn’t committed suicide, the adulation hurled on him wouldn’t be hurled on him the way it currently is. This is probably true. However, something I always tell people that are younger than me who don’t get Nirvana– and from the sounds of it, you’re about my age, so I’m not implying that you’re just a kid who doesn’t get it, I’m just saying this is something I remind people– Nirvana were the biggest things in the world at the time Kurt died. Kurt Cobain was on the cover of tabloids back then. How many real rock stars that gained relevence in the past 10 years have been on the covers of tabloids in the past 10 years? Hinder are one of the biggest rock bands in the world right now (much as it pained my fingers to type that), and they’re also known for partying and being bad boys (IE, tabloid behavior) yet I don’t even know what that deuche bag lead singer even looks like. My point is, Nirvana was so huge and so famous that even gossip stuff cared about real rock and roll (versus pop stars like Madonna or Prince) for that brief instant. Time makes it easy to forget how huge an impact this band was. If Kurt Cobain hadn’t died, but rather suddenly disappeared and became a recluse and there was nothing there to tarnish his image, Nirvana would be just as important now as then… Albeit without quite the saintly worship.
4) There are plenty of dead rock stars nobody has vigilized. INXS was pretty huge, and their lead singer meant so little they made a public attempt to replace him ala reality TV. Blind Melon had an iconic video in the 90’s that will come up in any conversation about the 90’s, yet nobody cared about it when they died. Alice In Chains, a band that still gets heavy airplay on hard rock stations, had a lead singer that died, and while people were upset, it was more of a “Hey, that sucks that Layne Stayley died. I wish he hadn’t.” kind of way. Granted, I think the list of dead rock stars people don’t care about is shorter than the ones that have been idolized, but that’s not my point
5) I’d like to say that yes, if somebody dies in an assembly line, people will in fact say he was the best damned assembly line worker in the world. Didn’t you have a kid in your high school that died while you were attending? Nobody gives a shit about that kid, but once he dies, you can’t escape other kids talking about how tragic it is. God forbid he actually be a football player. People who don’t even care about jocks will suddenly eulegize him at the drop of a hat
Again, I don’t want to be argumentative, because your argument is very valid for the most part, and I agree with some of your points. I feel exactly that way about Sublime, a band that, at the time of Brad Nowell’s death, had *not* sold millions of records, and was *not* on the covers of any magazines, and did *not* get play every hour on MTV, yet is treated like an erstwhile angel. I just kind of wanted to present the flip side of the particular band you chose to write this about. IE, I’m contributing to the conversation, even if it means playing the Devil’s Advocate a little bit. Also: NIRVANA RUUUUUUUUUUUULEZZ!!!! ALL HAIL SAINT KURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
–Chris