At what point did it become acceptable- fuck that, it's even worse- at what point did it become the norm to slag off one of the most seminal rock bands of all time, a band that are a significant part of the adolescence of a generation? I can't hear the name Nirvana amongst rock fans without someone laying into them. "Overrated" appears to be the word that most people agree on, with "dated" not far behind. If for one second I actually thought those were the real reasons, I would drop it. I don't- usually because it comes from people who are big fans of overrated and dated stuff, and I should know, I'm a big fan of overrated, dated old shit myself. No, the reason is simple- Nirvana became mainstream and critically acclaimed by the same people who shop in H&M and listen to Elbow, and we can't abide any band that does that.
Nirvana were the outlet of every fucked-up teenager unaware of Slayer between 1991 and Green Day releasing Dookie, and many more for years after that. If you don't believe me, check the sales figures and the size of the shows they played before the unfortunate coming together of mouth and shotgun barrel. The helpless angst that permeates Nevermind and the manic, distorted confusion of In Utero speaks to every kid who can't quite work people out and feels misunderstood, who can't get girls to like him, who's having a shitty time at school and a shitty time at home and generally finds that life is suddenly a lot less simple and less fun than than it used to be. The problem is that most of those kids learned to function in society, got married and now have 2.4 children and a mortgage on a nice three bedroom semi in the suburbs while generally feeling quite content with life. But the man who was once that kid still likes to recapture his youth and feel dangerous now and then, and the band it is acceptable to listen to is Nirvana- no one thinks you're weird or immature for liking it, even if the truth is that you are. It's become a staple of 30-somethings talking about their yoof and about influential music on BBC2.
Now, as fans of music that would scare the living shit out of 30-somethings on BBC2 who live in a nice house in Tufnell Park, the moment we see them liking a band, something in us recoils slightly. When our mates who listen to Coldplay say they liked Nirvana, our instinct is to decry it as tame shit and talk about how Faith No More and Pantera were really far more influential from that period. While that is true- and both are, all things considered, better bands- Nevermind and In Utero are two absolutely belting records (I'll forgive them Bleach, which is dull). It's not the fault of the music if Kerrang!, NME and various ignorant arseholes on Channel 4 countdowns talk about them like they are the best and most influential band since Robert Johnson met a bloke with horns and a forked tail on a crossroads in Georgia. Just because people have hyped Nirvana beyond the point at which any music can satisfy does not mean those aren't two genuinely great albums.
If you want to talk about bands that are overrated and/or dated, here's a couple for you:
The Sex Pistols- one album, it's great but sounds dated by the standards of punk since, and they were a joke band, really. Heralded as the biggest and most important punk band ever- they're not. They're still great though, and I love Never Mind The Bollocks
The Beatles- hailed as the greatest musicians of all time, half of their songs are essentially the same track (the ones by Paul, mainly) and they were only around, what, seven years? Greatest musicians of all time? Oh please fuck off. They are still a great band though, and there's something wrong with you if you don't like 'Hard Day's Night' or 'I Saw Her Standing There'
If we're talking about individual records, let's look at one more example:
British Steel- frequently cited as one of the finest metal albums of them all, it sounds very much of its time and was so hyped by the time I actually heard it, I was half expecting the music to come out of the speaker and perform an act upon my person. Unsurprisingly, my expectations weren't met. Yet it's an astounding record, and any metal fan that doesn't own it should slap themselves- hard.
In all of those examples, the hype is too much and wankers talk about them too often to try and sound knowledgeable and credible. Nevermind and Nirvana cannot live up to the hype. With the possible exception of Metallica between 1984 and 1986, I can't think of anything I've ever heard that could live up to the hype given The Beatles, The Sex Pistols or Nirvana. Through a combination of the twaddle spouted by pillocks who appear on TV in River Island jumpers while on leather couches in faux-seedy club lighting and the fact that people who listen to music we despise now propose Nirvana as one of the all time greats, those of us who love the more extreme end of the rock spectrum have rejected them.
To make sure my memories weren't rose-tinted by nostalgia, I pulled out In Utero and Nevermind and gave them a concerted listen. They are as great as I remember. Smells Like Teen Spirit still makes me want to trash the place. Lounge Act still makes me want to get laid as soon as possible. I still feel like I'm isolated and misunderstood during Heart Shaped Box (I'm 26 for fuck's sake! I should be way too old for music to make me feel like that!), and All Apologies is still the most bittersweet post-orgasmic euphoria on record.
My point is this- just because dickheads who listen to bollocks music (or at least, music we don't like) talk about a band- any band- doesn't mean they stop being good. Just because some twonk makes a band sound far better than it is possible to be does not lessen how good they are.
Are Nirvana the best or most influential band of all time? Of course not! They're not even the best or most influential band of the 90s (FNM, Pantera and Green Day are far more important, to name just three). Were Nirvana a fucking great band for two records, and are they hugely important in the personal musical development (as pretentious as that sounds) of millions of people? Fuck yes! And it's about time we reclaimed them from those pillocks. They're ours, cardigan-brigade, you can't have them. You're not allowed to talk about them anymore- not unless you can say the name of Kerry King's band correctly.
It's also time our end of the spectrum stopped slagging them off. No one points out that Anthrax are comfortably the least of the Big Four. Why? Because we all love Anthrax, even if we love Slayer, Megadeth and Metallica more (and quite a few of us love Exodus and Testament more as well), and because rentaquotes don't spout arsewater about them on primetime mainstream telly. When asked about Anthrax, no one says "yeah, they've had some good stuff, but Megadeth are better", we say "Anthrax are a fucking great band! Scott Ian's a total legend!", which is how it should be. So can we all stop describing Nirvana as "overrated" and "dated" and focus on the fact they are a great band rather than pointing out (however correctly) that Alice In Chains are better?
And having spoken about something genuinely NOT metal for a while, I'm off to listen to Gorgoroth's rather brilliant Ad Majorem Sathanas Gloriam. Probably followed by Rhapsody Of Fire's latest great The Frozen Tears Of Angels. Because I'm apparently not metal either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice blog, I agree 100% about it being pathetic of people to turn themselves off a band, the minute they become adopted by the mainstream. It's even more despicable when they subsequently take every opportunity to discredit and slag them off.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you playing down Nirvana's influence
so much. I think Pantera, Faith No More and Green Day are hugely influential to their individual niches (metal, the start of nu-metal and accessible punk respectively), but I don't think they match Nirvana on their influence due to reach alone. Nirvana diverted everyone in the 90s. Not only in music, but in culture. Flannel shirts, low worn stratocasters and simple songs with a not so simple message had everyone doing it... Hence the appeal to Mr 2.4 children/mortgage.
They're a heavy band that for whatever reason are acceptable to like, kinda like Rage Against the Machine. And whilst we might not be able to fathom the difference between liking Nirvana and being able to chuck on a Pantera record, there's always the chance that someone may find Nevermind in their dad's collection and it open their mind to a whole new avenue of music. And I believe this factors into influence, after all - surely you measure influence on the sheer reach of a band?
The only thing I resent Mr Cobain for is glamorising suicide, and showing the people that turn to his music for help that there's an easy way out... But that's a different blog!
Apologies if this comment is a bit rambly and incoherent - it's typed on my phone.
Will Beardmore
You measure influence by how many bands want to replicate what they did, and by how many bands sound like them since. In that, Nirvana's influence is negligible at best- what even vaguely big band sounds like Nirvana? None. How many bands have clear influence from Pantera, Faith No More and Green Day? Well, Lamb Of God, Korn and Paramore to name just three. That's without mentioning pretty much every vaguely mainstream American metal band- particularly the Massachussetts lot- who all owe about a third of their sound to Pantera.
ReplyDeleteNirvana were basically the ultimate rock zeitgeist. Think about 1991- punk was largely underground, thrash was too extreme to last long in the genuine music mainstream, and hair metal had begun to grate on many people's nerves. Queen were on their way out and Metallica no longer seemed dangerous to the yoof. RATM were still a year away from debuting and AC/DC were too old and too liked by everyone's dad to connect with teenagers feeling rebellious. The world was missing a rock band that every angsty teenager could get behind. Five years before or after, Nirvana would not have had the huge significance they did- in 1986 it would have been Slayer or Motley Crue, in 1996 it was Korn and RATM and Green Day.
The problem with Nirvana is that what they did well is very difficult to replicate- being simple and not too fast while still being aggressive and chaotic. Most of what you can do with grunge, Nirvana did. That's why, nearly 20 years after Nevermind no one sounds like Nirvana- and why you cannot call them particularly influential.