Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Question for all recovered or otherwise hardcore Nirvana fans:
By what definition of ‘pure’ was Kurt Cobain ‘too pure for this world’?
Sure, feel bad for the guy, his life did end in a tragic event, but to paint him as some kind of angel while still alive either belies that one is looking at him through the self-centered eyes of an adolescent mind or has little regard for the damaging and destructive behaviour patterns Kurt always had.
Does ‘pure’ have more to do with not ever having to have grown up? Were the pre-teen fans seeing their hero acting and talking just like them in interviews, and thinking that he committed some sort of heroic act by never giving in to parents or authority figures and never getting soft?
That's not to single Kurt out specifically as being any different than a lot of eccentric celebrities. The never growing up trait is one I just talked about in the very last blog post as it affected Peter Sellers.
Maybe there's something similar there.. I sort of see a bit of myself in Peter Sellers' ability to play a given part when needed, to take on other personality traits and mannerisms and make them his own, but having a fear of not know what is actually him. While he was terribly destructive to his family and his wives, his personal life was outside the scope of movie fans.
Kurt is unique in that he died right at the time when the Internet was nudging its way into mainstream society. Perhaps he was the first cult obsession of the Internet age. The first figure who existed in death more than in life, because the career of Nirvana began and grew and ended just before the explosion of personal Internet use. With a current band like Radiohead the focus of Internet obsessiveness is waiting for whatever is new, scrambling for leaked studio recordings and endless debates about a band's direction. But Nirvana had everything wrapped up into a neat little dramatic ball for people to roll around endlessly. Debates about the best album don't happen, (try to state your genuine opinion that brilliant piece of pop music Nevermind was better than the interesting but spotty In Utero and watch the shit hit the fan.)
Fixation on Kurt Cobain as some kind of E.T. figure who was crushed by the sheer awfulness of humanity has now become a shorthand for a kind of immature lashing out at any external forces that would try and intrude on someone's beautiful love/hate relationship one's self.
Technorati Tags: Music, Nirvana, SixFeetUnder
IN UTERO IS THE BEST NIRVANA RECORD. stop this nevermind madness. In utero to state again, is the most well rounded representation of everything Nirvana was. The production makes them sound HUMAN AND REAL, as opposed to a punk band that went through the big label sheen machine. and i'm sorry, all apologies, lyrically and musically slays anything on nevermind. the interesting thing to note here is that for all the incessant bitching from people who claim annoyance with the indie set for their anti-nevermind stance (those who pick bleach as a mark of purity for example), theres a flipside to it in that i find that people who bulldoze the view that nevermind is the BEST, do so in order to feel above the admitted nitpicking and punk rock dogma that can, yes, be annoying. This is a trend that i have noticed lately with people. Saying Nevermind is the best is akin to indie kids that dare to bash the beatles. Take an institution, a universally loved thing, and bash it for a sense of cool.
irritated with the sense of exclusivity that the punk kids have towards an artists obscure work? Champion the record that "took" Nirvana from them purely for the sake of devils advocate. When i know for a FACT, that yer a smart enough al to know that In Utero is an infinitely more satisfying listen. I respect the move al, its very cunning. all in all, i blow kisses in your direction....
Person 2: Why are you bashing the Beatles?