Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The major problem is as I have read in numerous books on the record industry is that the record industry is essentially run by 14 year old white girls from the suburbs. I don't mean to sound racist when I say that I am speaking from facts and demographics. Generally speaking 14 year old white girls from the suburbs working babysitting jobs have and spend more "disposable income" on music and music related merchandise.They want to see Katy Perry, or Gwen Stefani, or Taylor Swift, as someone that they want to grow into from their budding sexuality. (Please don't call me a perv or pedo for saying that think of it more in terms of developmental psychology). On the flip side you have the whole "Boy Band" thing and the Justin Bieber thing giving pubescent girls fantasy boyfriends who photogenic and pretty non threatening. Even outside of that genre let's look honestly at Nirvana. Kurt Cobain was a crappy singer, crappy songwriter, crappy lyricist, and crappy guitarist. But that was also the period of "My So Called Life". In that context Cobain appealed to the same artsy outsider demographic that made that show so popular. He also had those dowey blue eyes that always looked like they were on the verge of tears, unkempt appearance and ripped clothes that made teenage girls want to take him home like a stray puppy and take care of him. Even his record company dropping "Smells Like Teen Spirit" as the first breakout single plays into that early teen girl marketing. Teen Spirit was a deodorant marketed to teenage girls. And at that stage of their careers Nirvanas success was dictated by their record company and its marketing department.
C/S,
Rev J
C/S,
Rev J
I thought it was run by 80 year old white men. The more you learn.
Your analysis of Nirvana is miles off the pace, btw.
That's a rather unfair assessment of Nirvana. If you read Dave and Krist's accounts of what happened in that band they never bought into the commercialization of their music. At least not willingly. They were genuine, which is what the grunge movement was all about. It was the antithesis of what came before it in glam rock which was over-the-top and showy. That's something all the grunge bands have more or less agreed on in their own accounts. Specifically, "Smells like Teen Spirit" was named that after one of Kurt's friends wrote "Kurt smells like Teen Spirit" on his wall. He didn't even know what that was; he liked the way it sounded and thought it was referring to rebelliousness and disillusionment with the status quo. Everything about the guy was anti-establishment. That's also why he played and sang the way he did. Yeah, perhaps he also just wasn't as technically skilled as others, but he never cared to be. He originally wanted to just be a rhythm guitarist, which is why Nirvana songs often lack distinct lead parts or any flashy solos, and he never wanted to be a guitar hero or rock god like those before him. He just wanted to make music that told it how it was to him.
Geez--I think the exact opposite is true. The Beatles are much closer to Mozart, et.al. Just think about how radical their approach to pop music was, how defining of a genre and a generation. That's why they are brilliant--you can access them like regular "pop," but also spend 50 years (like I have) hearing new things in their music.
I don't disagree with this guy generally, but he's ignoring an important fact: there was a lot of crap pop music in the 60s and 70s. In fact, crap pop music predominated. The reason we don't remember that is that music was completely forgettable and it's only the bands like the Beatles, Kinks, Stones, Hendrix, etc. that have lasted.
There was a lot of crappy pop in the 60's and 70's, but there was also genius level stuff from many artists, as mentioned. I don't hear much of that on the radio today, even though there are some tunes I like. It's a different landscape today, that's all. I think this guy is on target about some of the technical and financial reasons for this.
Last edited:
Yup, another is Springsteen. Born to Run, a huge rock classic, right? Sold out arena tour, millions of dollars to the artist, right? Nah...it was the third and decidedly MAKE OR BREAK album. If that one had not popped, it was back to pumping gas and tossing pizza dough for the guys. And even BTR's success didn't get Bruce or certainly any band member out of figuratively "mom's basement," as by then they owed too much to all the involved parties. It wasn't until Darkness and subsequent tour, three years later, that anyone, Bruce included, could even buy a new car. That said, at least Columbia gave him three albums to make it.
That was the kind of song that helped propel the "disco sucks" movement. You can be sure that if there weren't so many alternatives to commercial radio today (and if popular music held the same place in modern society that it did in the 70s), there would be a similar backlash against the monotony of what is currently filling radio playlists.
Last edited:
That's not an honest assessment of Nirvana.
I'm always amused by the criticism of Nirvana from the people who brought us the likes of Britny Fox and Poison.
My kids play in the jazz band. My daughter plays clarinet, bass clarinet, and bass guitar. My son play tenor sax. I have a 12 year old nephew who who practices guitar several hours a day and plays regular gigs at two restaurants and a bar with his music teacher. My other nephew is a drummer and is good enough to sit in with our band. He's 15. There's a kid in my daughter's class who lives across the street and plays drums in his dad's garage band. I disagree that kids today aren't interested in music.
It's a totally different landscape today and it surprises me that some people have difficulty seeing that. Of course there have always been lame pop songs, but there has never before been the musical homogeneity on display where commercial radio is concerned that we're currently experiencing. There used to be much more balance than there is now where programming was concerned. When I was a kid I would passively hear all kinds of things on commercial radio. Sure a lot of it was of questionable quality, but it didn't really matter because there was considerably more variety at the time and that variety included some bloody good music. I remember hearing songs by people such as Donald Fagen, Paul Simon, Johnny Clegg, Simple Minds, Level 42, Tears For Fears, Billy Joel, Diana Ross, Smokey Robinson, Queen, Marvin Gaye, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Hall & Oates, Earth, Wind & Fire, Kool & The Gang, The Human League, Chicago, Men At Work, Midnight Oil, Crowded House, David Bowie, Toto, Yes, Stevie Wonder, Prince, Bruce Hornsby, Sting - the list goes on. Having to sit through a Tiffany song wasn't the end of the world because the next ten songs were unlikely to sound as if they were written or produced by the same person (unlike so much of today's radio fodder). I'm just imagining the 80s hits by the above artists all containing raps by Pitbull.
Last edited:
Regarding the criticism of Nirvana. That's not a fair assessment of anyone. You might not like the song and the lyrics, but that's just an opinion and the post seems to present it as fact. If the playing is bad i suppose there could be some valid criteria used to evaluate it but whatever - let it go. The post sounded really harsh . I'm not a fan of Nirvana but so what? People liked them, they must have done something right.
Last edited:
The point I was making about the music industry being run by 14 year Olds was kind of figurative. Yes it is the old white men who are the executives. But they also hire the focus groups and put together the ad campaigns etc. Trying to figure out how to separate 14 year old girls and their babysitting money.
As for my assessment of Nirvana. I'm 42 years old so I'm not of the hair metal generation. I'm also quite well read on the business side of things. Nirvana themselves would've been as genuine as they come on their own. But when your band is putting out its major label debut you have very little say as to what gets put out when and how it's marketed. Cobain might not have known what Teen Spirit was but you can bet your sweet ass that someone higher up at Geffen records sure as hell did. Newly signed bands with no track records don't get to decide what the record company decides to push as a single. Period.
It's entertainment not art. Sorry kids. Sure Nirvana might have looked and sounded like that without the label backing but the label wouldn't have signed or promoted them if they couldn't get their money back with a profit. Nirvana just hit at the right time. Cobain was a whiny little bitch stringing together gibberish that high school kids thought were cryptic and screamed at the right time to sound rebellious.
Do me a favor. Grab a Nirvana lyric sheet and read it out loud without singing it and listen to how asinine it sounds. I know a lot of music is like that but even the author admitted he was writing crap.
C/S,
Rev J
I'm 42 as well, I'm as familiar with Nirvana's lyrics as you. I don't recall hearing Cobain admit he wrote crap, I've heard him say that he liked to use words just based on how they sounded in a song. Which is two different things, and not that uncommon. Your assessment of Nirvana reads just like earlier assessments of the Beatles. Or any rock band ever for that matter. Do ME a favor. Stop being condescending and pretending that your opinions are well known facts.
Well I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never critically analyzed poetry or literature as a subject and an art. Kurt's lyrics are actually really impressive. Well, usually. I do seem to remember an interview where he said some of it just fits the metre but that's like taking the Beatles' literally during their interviews. Maybe it's true or maybe he was bored and tired of being drilled on the meaning of his lyrics. Either way, there's plenty of stuff he wrote which was brilliant. Dave Grohl never wrote anything for Nirvana because he was intimidated by Kurt's writing, and Dave's essentially today's rock god.
Anyway, the way Kurt wrote was not at all standard, but very little poetry is. I think the most genius thing was his use of both meaning and sound poetry. He used words whose meaning, or associated symbolism, fit his message but also sounded and felt like the over all tone and mood of the song. That's huge. That's a big part of what's missing in a lot of pop. Pop tends to go for the simplest way of saying things but Kurt very precisely chose his words based on what they meant, how they fit (the metre), and even how they literally sound. There's an entire genre of poetry that explores this concept (although a little too abstractly for me as they often forgo any use of actual meaning) and it's some high level stuff.
I hate that notion that this is all entertainment and not art. That's so insulting to those of us who genuinely care about music as an art and don't want to see it die and decay out of the public eye. That's what corporate produced pop is doing though, you're right there. Music made to make money instead of made to tell a story, or fight oppression, or memorialize a lost loved one.
Actually I have written and analyzed music literature etc. I still think Nirvana was crap. This statement really hits a nerve with Nirvana fans and so be it.
It's interesting that I am arguing my points from a business perspective not a fans perspective. Maybe because I was listening to stuff like the Dead Kennedy's when Nirvana came out my perspective on Nirvana is different. After a couple of years of Nirvana I started listening to them more critically. That is when I stopped liking them. I grew and my tastes changed.
But lets talk business for a moment shall we.
I read a book years ago about starting your own record label (Nirvana will pop up in this tangentially in a moment). In it was a chapter on Branding using Sub Pop as an example.
Grab a copy of Bleach, Mudhoney, Mother Love Bone, and Louder than Love by Soundgarden. Don't listen to them yet. Look at the artwork the same stark black and white pictures framed the same way similar type setting, locations etc. Thumb through the booklet similar layout. Now listen to the music with a producers ears. Listen to the sound quality, the mix etc. Even though the music is vastly different the sonic qualities are similar. Ok now read the liner notes. You will notice that they all used the same photographer, the same graphic designer, the same production team, the same studio etc. That was the basis for the brand.
Hair Metal would've died if Nirvana would've come on the scene or not. At that time personally even though I loved Guns N Roses I was listening to Janes Addition, Social Distortion, Suicidal Tendencies,DRI The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Anthrax, etc. I was wearing combat boots with cut off fatigue pants and flannel shirts 2 years before it became popular. If Nirvana didn't come along hair metal would've died on its own and nature abhorring a vacuum something else would've taken its place. And to me mumbling incoherently in E minor followed by screaming in G Major gets old pretty quickly.
C/S,
Rev J
It's interesting that I am arguing my points from a business perspective not a fans perspective. Maybe because I was listening to stuff like the Dead Kennedy's when Nirvana came out my perspective on Nirvana is different. After a couple of years of Nirvana I started listening to them more critically. That is when I stopped liking them. I grew and my tastes changed.
But lets talk business for a moment shall we.
I read a book years ago about starting your own record label (Nirvana will pop up in this tangentially in a moment). In it was a chapter on Branding using Sub Pop as an example.
Grab a copy of Bleach, Mudhoney, Mother Love Bone, and Louder than Love by Soundgarden. Don't listen to them yet. Look at the artwork the same stark black and white pictures framed the same way similar type setting, locations etc. Thumb through the booklet similar layout. Now listen to the music with a producers ears. Listen to the sound quality, the mix etc. Even though the music is vastly different the sonic qualities are similar. Ok now read the liner notes. You will notice that they all used the same photographer, the same graphic designer, the same production team, the same studio etc. That was the basis for the brand.
Hair Metal would've died if Nirvana would've come on the scene or not. At that time personally even though I loved Guns N Roses I was listening to Janes Addition, Social Distortion, Suicidal Tendencies,DRI The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Anthrax, etc. I was wearing combat boots with cut off fatigue pants and flannel shirts 2 years before it became popular. If Nirvana didn't come along hair metal would've died on its own and nature abhorring a vacuum something else would've taken its place. And to me mumbling incoherently in E minor followed by screaming in G Major gets old pretty quickly.
C/S,
Rev J
- Sep 5, 2014
- 5,455
- 4,234
- Disclosures
- None
While I mostly agree with your points... I have to somewhat disagree that music as entertainment somehow lessens music as art. In the contrary, art, any sort of art can be very entertaining. Monet and his paintings, Shakespeare and his plays, Geddy Lee or whomever and their music. All great artists who entertain...
For ironies sake:
"Acting stupid and contagious,
Here we are now entertain us"
Like most of the lyrics in that song that couplet makes me cringe.
C/S,
Rev J
"Acting stupid and contagious,
Here we are now entertain us"
Like most of the lyrics in that song that couplet makes me cringe.
C/S,
Rev J
There's a Venn diagram which can be drawn on this. Art and entertainment aren't the same, but they have an overlap. Some art isn't entertaining, and some entertainment isn't artistic, and in some cases there is artistic entertainment or vice versa.
Even if the entertainment uses an implement, or technique that is also used for art, that doesn't immediately qualify the entertainment as artistic. There are musicians out there who are "craftsmen" in the sense that they are skilled or even masters of their craft (be it guitar, bass, vox, etc.), but that doesn't inherently qualify them as artists. There are also artists who are horrible craftsmen, with awful technique, but capable of creating artistic statements. These things may look similar to the casual observer but they are not the same.
Last edited:
