Splicetoday

Music
Apr 06, 2012, 10:34AM

Nirvana Is Still Our Brightest Burning Star

Where's this generation's Kurt Cobain?

Kurtcobain.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

The absence of Kurt Cobain and the lingering vapors of his career still loom large, on the 18th anniversary of his death this week No one since has been able to mark and redirect the course of pop music like Nirvana did. Their sudden stratospheric rise and violent, grotesque, sad ending made a boom that little else has been able to escape. Nirvana left in its wake several generations of imitators that continue to spawn today. You see rock bands are still perpetually tagged as “the next Nirvana,” the group that’ll galvanize the music nerds, the press, the college lugheads, high schoolers, and as much of the public as Cobain’s band did in 1991. The 2000s was a decade of revivalism in rock—little new or progressive was accomplished on a broad scale. Radiohead is just about the only stadium band making music that sounds like the future these days. Take a look at your local amphitheater’s summer schedule. I’ll bet you it’s half rock dinosaurs from the 60s, 70s, or 80s milking the reunion tour cash cow, and half contemporary artists that sound like tributes to one of those three decades. My generation has no sound of now—it’s a medley of the past.

Nirvana was a galvanizing force not only because the songs were fantastic, but because people had a visceral reaction to their sound. It didn’t matter what words Cobain was saying, you knew exactly what he meant and how he felt. It wasn’t long before that reaction would be monetized and marketed beyond recognition, but even after all the merchandising, licensing, and slimy publishing deals, Cobain’s anguished distress call still rings true. So true that it still seems to intimidate frontmen, too bashful or weird to communicate anything as universal as “Lithium.” Cobain is still idolized by young musicians as a brilliant, quintessential rock star and songwriter. It’s very weird to live in a time when your heroes are dead, bald, or retired, and the kids who should be making great era-defining music prefer entertaining, catering to nostalgia and easy pleasure rather than emotional catharsis.

Not even 20 years after his death, Cobain is as mythologized and worshipped as Hendrix. The human being is long gone, and Nirvana’s work will forever be frozen in time, without the bloating and blemishes of post-30s breakups, reunions, okay albums, shit albums, people getting fat, mean, old, stupid, whatever. It’s infinitely sad, and it won’t ever get any better. None of us will hear a new Kurt Cobain song ever, and that sucks. His work wasn’t even close to finished, and now it’s like we all have a sneeze we can’t get out, or a terminal case of the hiccups. Cobain’s violent suicide was so final and aggressive that it took the wind out of everyone’s sails, and it feels like we still haven’t picked up the pace yet. We need a singular figure to put our trust and our integrity into. Every era needs its own heroes and villains—even if it feels daunting to move out of Nirvana’s shadow, and even if so few people seem interested in doing it, we have to, for our own survival, for our mental health. We need our own identity.

Discussion
  • The only folks sad at the death of our monoculture are the ones who bought into it in the first place. The truth is that there are many Colbains now. You can take your pick. (My pick is Mat Cothran of Coma Cinema). Lighten up!

    Responses to this comment
  • I understand the author's sentiment, but paraphrasing Forest (above), pop culture evolves, new stars are made and it goes on. Before my time, but when Buddy Holly was killed, it was feared rock & roll was over. Didn't work out that way.

    Responses to this comment
  • Cobain is one of the most overated stars ever. The fact that he died young is a large part of his long-lasting fame. He just didn't have enough published to be the influence your generation claims him to be.

    Responses to this comment
  • Nah, you don't know what you're talking about, Texan. Nirvana had three studio albums and various other bits and pieces; certainly enough to be influential (Hendrix didn't record that much more, I don't think.)//Cobain is probably overrated, because nobody gets that big without being overrated, but Nirvana really was a great band, even if I kind of OD'd on them a while back.//Influence though, is another question; I don't necessarily hear Nirvana and grunge in a ton of pop these days.//In retrospect, Nirvana is kind of the last gasp of hard rock as mega pop. The icons of today with his kind of mammoth success tend to be hip hop or pop...which isn't a bad thing, necessarily. Just different.

    Responses to this comment
  • You agree with me that they are overated, and not that influencial but I don't know what I'm talking about? I don't care that Nirvanna published three albums, the comparison to Hendrix is apples and oranges. Hendrix revolutionized how the guitar was played and used. The only thing Nirvanna did was provide a cleaned up garage band sound. The lyrics are typical of the psuedo-intellectual teen angst that most popular music tries to capture. In order for Nirvanna to have had more influence, they would have had to take that style grow and evolve it to pass the test of time and influence. GNR was a better band at that time but will also have little long term influence since they were unable to do the same. Look to Bowie, Stones and Beatles as examples of music evolution that will have a longterm impact on music.

    Responses to this comment
  • "He just didn't have enough published to be the influence your generation claims him to be." A generation claiming him to be influential makes him ipso facto influential: it doesn't matter if you think he was overrated or didn't publish enough or whatever else. If a huge swath of the next generation of bands say Nirvana inspired them to write songs, start a band, etc. etc. then what are you talking about?

    Responses to this comment
  • Kind of my point Westphal. What current musicians are saying that he was a big influence on their style or career(besides courtney who is more celeb carwreck than musician)? Mostly, it's non-musicians who seem to claim that he was of great influence. At best he was a poster boy for teenage angst like Adelle (a better vocalist by far with far more influence potential due to incredible vocal control) is today.

  • I can't believe I'm even having to Google this: http://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/killers-bassist-credits-nirvana-influence-546789.html // http://www.spin.com/articles/free-album-spin-tribute-nirvanas-nevermind // http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/interpols-paul-banks-talks-kurt-cobain-and-jackass-guitarists-exclusive-audio-20070816 // http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhC9tX56j20 and on and on

    Responses to this comment
  • Weak Westphal!!!!!! A bassist says he liked Nirvana and learned to play bass by playing along with Nirvana and Pearl Jam on the radio. Another article is about a tribute album which some of the performers were influences of Cobain (and no, a tribute album of a song is not influence make, how many Louie Louie tribute albums are out there) This posting of tangent links as support for your theory is beneath you Westphal. Name me three current musicians of some popularity who are influenced by Nirvana and how the music shows this influence. Otherwise, I tend to concur with Noahs second half of comment. Note: I'm not saying they were not popular, just a weak and waning influence on current music.

  • Hey Texan, I get the feeling you couldn't name 4 Nirvana songs.

    Responses to this comment
  • Not sure I'd want to. Either way, popularity fades whereas influence endures

    Responses to this comment
  • Nirvana's songs are, or at least a handful of them are basically pop standards at this point. And, his playing style and persona influenced probably every other rock guitarist/frontman that came after him. Without him hard rock would've never hit top 40.

    Responses to this comment
  • As Nicky says, Nirvana's hugely influential culturally, and would have been whether or no Cobain killed himself. The extent of their musical influence on the current scene is a little harder to parse...pop's kind of gone in a different direction. But I don't think that's because Nirvana was an uninteresting band so much as it is that hip hop just took over.//I think it's a bit early to declare Nivana's influence over, though. They're such a huge cultural landmark that they could well inspire a resurgence of rock/hard rock/pop at some point.//FWIW, I think grunge is a pretty important influence on current pop metal like Metallica and High on Fire — mostly for the worse as far as I'm concerned, but be that as it may, it's still in the mix, and could come back at some point. Ain't over till it's over....

    Responses to this comment
  • Yeah, you're right, how could current musicians talking about how much of an influence Nirvana was have anything to do with how much of an influence Nirvana was. Those were just the first four links I found, it took me about two minutes. I'm not here to write you an essay about how far you have your fucking head up your ass.

    Responses to this comment
  • Westhphal, angry much? Those may be the first posts you came across and as I said, they did not support your argument try reading before posting. Noah, well stated. it aint over until the fat lady sings

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment