If the story of Nirvana is not the strangest and least likely in all of the history of rock and roll, I'm not sure at all what is. So please bear with me a little here as I go out on a limb and deviate somewhat from the standard review.
You see, I was there. But I was not there as part of the Seattle grunge scene. Not at all. Rather, I was there as part of the other, and at the time less celebrated, side of what was going on around 1992, when everything "Seattle" broke wide open to worldwide acceptance. And the time where much of what is captured on this live DVD was - well, captured.
1992 was a strange time to be in the music business in Seattle. And I don't think I ever really got just how big the "scene" had become here, until I moved to Los Angeles to seek my fortunes in the music business. Back then, even as Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was becoming a worldwide phenomenon, most of us here in Seattle always thought of them (as well as Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Alice In Chains, and the rest) as just another great local band.
I can remember working at Seattle's Nastymix Records promoting then up-and-coming rapper Sir Mix-A-Lot for example (that "other side" of the Seattle music scene I referred to earlier). Back then I can also distinctly remember going out on a Friday night after work to see somebody like Nirvana or Soundgarden at the Offramp or RCKCNDY for instance.
For us, it was just another rather routine weekend night of boozing, clubbing, and hopefully getting lucky with that pierced, tattooed angel next to the bar. During my daily routine at Nastymix Records, I can also remember how the guys from Sub-Pop Records would come over to our office to marvel over at how I was able to pull up Billboard's weekly chart reports on my MS/DOS computer system.
Imagine that.
It was only when I got to L.A. in 1992 to work at American Recordings after Sir Mix-A-Lot had signed his deal with them, that I realized just how big a deal this Seattle Grunge thing really was. During our weekly sales meetings at American for example, they used to joke with me how Seattle had exploded at exactly the same time I moved to L.A., and how once I got to L.A. sales of their own artists had died.
Article comments
1 - Tim Hall
Revolutions always eat their own children.
What was true of Grunge in the US was just as true of Punk in Britain two decades earlier. The standard mythology that's repeated ad nauseam from the likes of Tony Parsons or Paul Morley is that punk destroyed bloated corporate rock and ushered in an era of unparalleled DIY creativity.
But anyone who bothers to look beyond that blatantly revisionist narrative and examines what really happened in the late 70s and early 80s will discover that most of the bloated corporate dinosaurs survived unscathed. All punk really achieved was to make musical ability and craftsmanship unfashionable, and killed off a whole generation of hard-working non-superstar artists. In just a few years the rise of the expensively-produced music video allowed the big media conglomerates to snuff out most of that DIY creativity. By the mid 80s mainstream Britain was a musical wasteland with vacuous manufactured pop and bland demographic-driven corporate rock dominating the airwaves as if punk had never happened. Sure, there was plenty of good stuff around if you took the effort to look for it, but it was all driven underground.
Punk and grunge produced some great bands and some classic rock'n'roll records. But their long term legacy has at least as many negatives as positives.
2 - Vern Halen
There's a book called (and here the ol' memory is fuzzy) called (I believe) The Death of Rock and Roll. To summarize, it's central tenet is that the Pistols killed rock and roll and Nirvana drove the final nail into the coffin. A fascinating read (and sorry, I can't remember the author either!).
On the other hand, there's a book called Louie Louie (again, fuzzy about the title, can't rememeber author) that suggests Teen Spirit is simply the ultimate rock riff Louie Louie disguised & updated - leading I suppose to the conclusion that you can never kill rock and roll.
Lesse... true rock and roll driven undergound? If part of your definition of r'n'r is that it is simply music that demands the listeners' emtional involvment (as opposed to the superficial nature of so-called pop music) - I'd agree - there's few bands that would be able to unite the fractured social movements that came together in the 60's. U2 would be about the closest, with Bono making his social calls to world leaders. The Stones - too old; the Beatles and the Who - two bands each missing half their players; Dylan - who just does whatever he wants - the rock nation is too large for any artist to cover all the bases, and so, new fans have to share room with the seniors, still rockin' at 50 - 60 years old.
So, yes, it's a different world. And did Nirvana make it that way?
Depends. I've always thought the Revolution lives on in the hearts and minds of those who yet believe.
3 - Glen Boyd
Two very interesting perspectives gentlemen. My thanks to you Tim and Vern for the both of them.
Vern, is there any way you could get me a little more specific info on that book you reference (The Death of Rock and Roll), like a specific title and author? It sounds like a great read, but I would need to know specifically what I was looking for at the book store or on Amazon. I'm very intrigued by the premise of the book as you describe it--I've held a similiar, if not exactly the same, theory myself for some time now (as my Nirvana review sort of suggests).
This is definitely something I'd consider reviewing here.
If you have any more info, I'd sure appreciate it.
And as always thanks for the very interesting comments (to you as well Tim).
Thanks.
-Glen
4 - Mark Saleski
what's interesting about the current music situation is that the rest of the entertainment landscape (including: gaming, downloads (both audio and video), etc.) has sliced the pie into many, many little pieces. so it's tough for somebody like a Nirvana to come along and hit it "big".
how this will play out in the next decade or so, i couldn't begin to say.
5 - Vern Halen
Sent you a link, Glen, via your email. I think this was the one.
6 - Glen Boyd
Many thanks on the link Vern!
-Glen
7 - Glen Boyd
Agree 100% Mark. And I would add that with radio formats as fragmented as ever, the avenues of exposure for new artists are really limited. Download sites are fine and all, but where can a new artist really be exposed in a centralized location that reaches a mass audience these days?
Thanx for the comment Sir Saleski!
-Glen
8 - Tim Hall
I've actually been thinking about this a bit more, and the more I think about it, vacuous disposable stuff has always dominated the charts and the airwaves. The 'mainstream' has always been 90% rubbish. But because it's so flavour-of-the-month, we quickly forget it, and only the 10% that wasn't rubbish survives. The U2s, Nirvanas, Springsteens and Pink Floyds of the world have always been the exception.
I think the fragmentation is a big change, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. If you're prepared to look beyond what's being hyped by the fashionable media, today is a very exciting time to be a music fan, especially as things are emerging from the long shadow of punk. There are a lot of great original bands playing the club circuit rather than the enormodomes, which is the reason I've been to more gigs in the past 18 months than the previous ten years.
9 - Glen Boyd
I sort of have to both agree and disagree Tim.
On the one hand, the fragmentation means there are more format choices which should mean more avenues for new artists to be heard. On the other hand, radio programmers appear to be tightening the actual playlists more than ever. It's amazing to me that people like Dylan, Neil Young, and Springsteen for example--who are still making vital music, are relegated to the handful of "Adult Alternative" stations that will actually play their new music.
These same stations for the most part meanwhile won't touch someone like Marah--who musically fir this "format" like a glove. Where does a band like that fit in? Certainly not on the "alternative" stations playing stuff like the Killers right?
I agree that as a music fan there are more choices out there than ever before. It's just so much harder to actually locate those choices now.
And if the delivery systems of choice out there basically can fit into the palm of your hand, what motivation does an artist have to create a densely layered work like those by some of the artists you mention above? Are the sort of albums created by people like Pink Floyd and Springsteen during their peak years even possible anymore?
Interesting stuff to chew on to be sure. And I thank you for the comments Tim.
-Glen
10 - Mark Saleski
this of course goes back to the "death of the record store" thread. to me, that is more disheartening than the radio/media problem (though i admit that it's related).
i've said before that i find the internet browsing experience much less satisfying than flipping through stuff on racks at a store. it's still true. yes, you can find stuff on the internet. i mean, i've found piles of interesting music at places like cdbaby. but still, it's just not the same as the physical experience...at this point, for reasons i can't quite make concrete (yet).
11 - Vern Halen
And because of the fragmentation of the audience, you won't see rock stars able to influence social change as they did in the 60's. When Dylan, or Lennon, or Jagger said anything, it was put under a magnifying glass and disected to discover it relationship to poetry, politics, sexual mores, entertainment, religion, the Arts, the Vietnam War, Communism, and the limits of good taste. Heck, nowadays Bruce Springsteen et. al. can't even oust an already unpopular president, because there's no momentum behind the Movement - ha! if there's a Movement at all. We've all got real good at being complacent, each in our own little circle of friends and associates.
That's what I miss - you could listen to CSN&Y and Hendrix and it was perfectly natural for Jimi to play on Stills' first solo album, and genres & demographics weren't so important. What kind of music did The Band play? Don't care - you listened to whatever appealed to you.
Nowadays, I find great bands on the net, but they'll never play around here, and the most I'll likely ever hear from them is a poorly processed mp3 file. And I don't think they'll inpire me or anyone else to vote one way or another at the next election.
12 - Tim Hall
I see where you're coming from, Glen.
I'm one of a minority that's prepared to buy CDs from a band whose music I've not heard on the basis of a recommendation from someone I trust - usually not from professional critics in the media but from fans of other bands I already like. The relatively few times I've been burned has been when I've trusted a mainstream reviewer rather than an internet forum poster. Another source of new music is promotional cover CDs on specialist magazines.
I also live in a major city with a big live music scene (Manchester in the UK, which is #2 after London). The geographically compact nature of Britain means smaller bands playing to club audiences of 500 people can still tour nationally rather than being restricted to the area around one city. As a result, we don't have the equivalent of a 'Seattle scene' vs. the 'LA scene' over here any more.