Well given the fact that I spent close to 7 years engaged to a woman with severe bipolar 2 disorder with psychotic episodes and myself have ptsd I can pretty much put that part of your argument to rest. It is a standard easy deflection that I am used to.
As for my "misunderstanding" and trying to pass my opinion off as fact. I keep saying he wasn't a genius. Given how small the actual genius population is it is a safe assumption that he wasn't. Also given his repeated assertions that he wasn't a genius I think that it probably should be a consensus thing. Kind of like the whole "Quit following me!" thing from Life of Brian.
Now how is this for criticism. Cobain threw up so many red flags about his mental illness it is almost surprising he didn't get the help he needed. But just like it did for too many before him the industry profited off it. His mental illness fueled his work and he made a lot of money for a lot of people. I guess that they figured if he killed himself it would spike record sales and that would be one less person to give a percentage to. (I can't believe I'm actually explaining this but that was a dark joke about Corporate America not making light of mental illness or suicide ).
And on top of all of that. I think what I have called the false popular narrative did as much to kill him as his illness did. He stated he was human and in pain. You said he was a genius and tried to make him something he wasn't. You said he changed everything. Yet he was still roped into a system that was exploitative. He said he needed help. You laughed and bought another album.
In general I am not sorry for my opinions. I have based them on repeated observation of facts.
I will concede that Cobains death is one of those turning point moments. Like any other major negative event like a school shooting etc. But I don't buy into the hype. I don't believe he was a genius, I don't believe his band killed hair metal, I don't believe he brought about any real true change.
Let's back off on the emotions a bit and really look at these arguments logically.
I've beaten the not a genius thing to death. I will let that one die.
Killing hair metal. Hair metal committed suicide on a combination of booze, cocaine and hair spray. All of the excesses it had killed it. It had ran its course and became a fat bloated corpse.
If you want to debate that then I ask you who or what killed grunge? Let's look at Nirvana contemporaries.
Alice in Chains went AWOL until Layne Staley died. Now is essentially touring as a nostalgia act with a new singer. Kind of like Quiet Riot (I cringed at that joke too).
Soundgarden with the exception of Chris Cornell (who in my opinion was a genius, great singer, sophisticated songwriter, plus he looked cool as hell) and Matt Cameron disappeared. Ben Sheppard was actually homeless before the reunion.
At least Pearl Jam is still active.
Even that stage of alternative rock had a strong image component. It's just that the elements emphasized in the image changed. I honestly believe people would've gotten tired of grunge and moved away from it eventually, the same way they moved away from psychedelic, glam, arena rock, punk, new wave, and hair metal before it.
The situation in the mainstream major label system is the same as it always has been. The contracts and structures of deals are the same. The same entourage or "Team" of people is needed for a record deal and they all taking the same amount.
So if you really look at it Nirvana didn't change anything. Irregardless if you are a fan or not put your fandom aside. Rather than look at it in terms of one band which is a really narrow, naive and shallow way of looking at it.
Read a couple of books on the bubusiness. Ask yourself how much of this has changed because of Nirvana or Grunge in general? Watch a couple of documentaries. Rather than say "Nirvana or Grunge killed hair metal". Sit and watch "The Decline of Western Civilization: The Metal Years, " which I believe came out in 89 and ask yourself could this possibly sustain itself?
It is kind of like checking advertising claims.
C/S,
Rev J
Maybe we're splitting hairs here. But it's also ok to agree to disagree on things.
I'm gonna reset a little.
I am not now, and have never been a Nirvana fan. I don't dislike them. But I don't particularly dig them, either. I say that, because I
am very passionate about a handful of bands that appeared around that time (Soundgarden/TOTD, Afghan Whigs, AIC, Smashing Pumpkins, Tool, Sunny Day Real Estate, to name a few notables). I must admit it was a formidable time for me, so I am biased. I truly remember thanking the universe for Alice In Chains the first time I heard them on the radio. I was so deathly ill of the glam/hairband thing. I wanted it to die a very painful death. So that
is where I'm coming from.
None of my favorite bands of that era would have had the mainstream exposure they had without Nirvana happening. I'm convinced of that. Maybe it could have been another band than Nirvana. But it couldn't have been any of the above mentioned. Even Alice in Chains. Certainly not Smashing Pumpkins. I listened to Siamese Dream this morning in the car, and am reminded of this every time I hear it. One of my all time fav albums. And it simply never would have happened, unless something more accessible before it happened. I listened to Facelift recently, and recognized some 80s-ish to it that certainly wasn't there with Dirt. What changed? Nirvana happened, for one thing.
When I say Nirvana changed everything, I mean it changed everything
at that time. They didn't change the music business for good. They didn't change the rock music "world" for good. Obviously. I mean, Limp Biskit and Creed happened less than a decade later. What they did do, however, is give the pop music world a much needed kick in the behind. They were part of a larger reset. But they were also a reset button. It was reset the size of hadn't been seen in too long a time before that. And that
is significant. Whether it's cyclical or not is beside the point.
I don't think Curt Cobain was a genius. I do think Chris Cornell (RIP) was a genius. I do think Cobain was very talented. In many ways he wasn't very unique. He was an honest pop music fan, as some of my favorite songwriters always tend to be. He specifically wrote poppy, hooky songs with attitude, and had tons of influences he was very vocal about. He was geeky, awkward, and somewhat troubled. He didn't try to be anything he wasn't. He
was Generation X.
Now, when I say that, I don't mean he was truly the "spokesperson of our generation". I think he
was in many ways emblematic, maybe not so much of what our generation actually was, but what it was
supposed to be at that time. We were Generation X. We were cynical and dissolusioned by the Reagan years, and sick and tired of being patronized by bad music and sitcoms. We remembered when we could see a Talking Heads video followed by something like Asia. We remembered that the best version of Sunday Bloody Sunday could only be seen on the video from Live at Red Rocks, and not from War or Under a Blood Red Sky. We remember waiting up to see the Thriller video release. We were pissed that what had defined our generational change from the 70s to the 80s (MTV) had by the late 80s become a cesspool of spandex, stage explosions, and cheesy guitar solos.
We were ready, pining even, for the exact opposite of all that. We were ready for Nirvana, whether we really liked them or not.
The fact that Nirvana were not the Beatles, Zeppelin, or even U2 was kinda the point.
I don't disagree that music industry execs were very quick to get on board with the wave. And they were certainly smart enough to know what was going to sell. Alice In Chains had some serious momentum, and arguably broke the mainstream before any "grunge" group. But they were still too.... rock.... for everyone. Nirvana was not only more accessible to the masses, but they were marketable. They were Gen-X.
)
