This is about the 80th time I'll be saying this on ILM, but it's still incredible to me that people trot stuff like this out, stuff that suggests they have never before interacted with human beings. It turns out -- this will shock you, I know -- that middle-class American people die, too. Middle-class people get sick and hurt one another's feelings and fuck up and do hard stupid things. Middle class people are sometimes dumb and ugly and nobody likes them. They may have a whole lot less to complain about, on balance, than most of the other people on this earth, but I can't see that that's ever stopped anyone from feeling like shit all the same. The fact that a lot of this music stretches that little-to-complain about into something unreasonably grand -- the fact that it sells back to plenty of kids who don't have much to feel bad about but would really like to feel that they do -- is so so not an excuse for pretending that there are people of every sort who have genuine-ass Problems. Even worse, intellectually: wanting to cast an entire race or class or social group as one that has no problems is such a deep anti-human affront to the fact that, duh, things still happen to individuals.
The last time I got pissed off about that was when someone said something stupid about how Columbia students have "never known problems" about a week after a Columbia friend had a family member kill himself. Same thing just happened to another one this week. Shock, horror: doing okay in one single sense does not insulate people from the basic problems of being a human being!
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 9 March 2006 03:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 9 March 2006 03:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 9 March 2006 04:08 (eighteen years ago) link
anyways, go on calling them a Hot Topic band. kids who listen to MCR and shop at Hot Topic are clearly a bunch of worthless MTV-nursed conformists, right? not like you when you were fifteen with your brand new, freshly ripped grunge jeans and flannel you bought at K-Mart. (cue choruses of "i never" and "i was into Whitehouse and Anal Cunt!") i mean really, what is wrong with these incredibly stupid young people and their awful music?????
― yuengling participle (rotten03), Thursday, 9 March 2006 04:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 9 March 2006 04:32 (eighteen years ago) link
What made Nirvana special was that they sparked the concept of the modern rock format
Survey says... I find it difficult to believe that anyone who paid attention to music in the late 80s would say that.
― mitya is really tired of making up names, Thursday, 9 March 2006 04:32 (eighteen years ago) link
(...and it goes without saying that there are totally genres I love and am extremely engaged with that I don't think every music critic, or even most music critics, should engage with!)
― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 9 March 2006 04:35 (eighteen years ago) link
it's like saying old country is great and new country is dumb music for hicks -- you don't have to love new country as a whole, but if you like old country and you can't find anything at all to appreciate in new country, i find it hard to believe that you're not in some way falling back on prejudices that have little to do with music, and not being honest with yourself. this is bad generally, though somewhat forgivable when the guy on the street does it, but particularly for a critic, falling back on your prejudices when listening to music seems like a very bad idea.
― yuengling participle (rotten03), Thursday, 9 March 2006 05:20 (eighteen years ago) link
Back to the original point: High schoolers rarely have a sense of music history, especially compared to music journos (even ones just starting out). That's the big difference when it comes to a lot of music. That's why Clap Your Hands Say Yeah sounds new and fresh enough to garner 'shins will change your life' hype. Journalism, especially soft journalism, is incredibly bound to history and chronology. That doesn't necessarily make it more or less conservative, but it does increase the tension between the competing interests of the novel and the temporal context.
As for "new Nirvanas," there's not going to be one, at least for a long time. The market is just too fractured for an album to feel like such a rallying point anymore. The diffusion of modernism into a million subgenres means that each clique will have its own new Nirvana, but there won't be one for the greater culture. On one level, that's a little sad, thinking that there won't be a level of unity. On the level I prefer to think about it, it's great because it means that there will be thousands upon thousands of bands that can exist on their own without having to worry about playing to everyone. And that's good. More for anyone who's interested in looking for more music.
― js (honestengine), Thursday, 9 March 2006 05:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― corey c (shock of daylight), Thursday, 9 March 2006 05:45 (eighteen years ago) link
OTM. Rock critics live in a myopic world where just because something existed it was important. If a groundbreaking album falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Nobody doubts that Nirvana was hardly innovative. They were essentially the Pixies meets The Wipers. The issue is that Greg Sage and Frank Black never had any meaningful kind of an impact on pop culture. Nirvana did. This should be pretty obvious to anyone who was there for it, who saw it happen. Unless you're a kid, you really have no excuse to not acknowledge this. You don't have to like it, but as much as I think GWB is a moron, he's still our President.
You can kick and scream that they were the most overrated band in the world but that doesn't change the fact that they did influence pop culture and that influence has had a ripple effect that continues today.
― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Thursday, 9 March 2006 06:16 (eighteen years ago) link
...Even worse, intellectually: wanting to cast an entire race or class or social group as one that has no problems is such a deep anti-human affront to the fact that, duh, things still happen to individuals.
What kind of person would think that nobody in a given social group is free of any problems? (answer: A strawman!)
People have serious problems (!) I am aware of this.
As you said, middle-class Americans have less to complain about on "net balance". It should stop a lot of people from wanting to feel like shit and actively looking for grievances when they have that much more to be thankful for, though. When most black Americans had some "genuine-ass problems" they sang the blues and gospel music. They knew they couldn't afford to constantly throw all-day pity parties as it's costly in more ways than one. Only people up the economic ladder can afford to actually want to feel like shit. Hence my attitude towards these mope orgies.
Why were blacks more thankful than most kids today despite an immediate history of slavery? Did they not see death and tragedy? Were they being chumps for not just concentrating on that?
― Jingo, Thursday, 9 March 2006 06:35 (eighteen years ago) link
But anyway, even if it were an all-day pity party (which, again, I don't think it is, especially compared to a lot of music that is beloved by critics), it's just one album. There's nothing that says that its fans don't put on happy music some of the time as well. This would be the equivalent of criticizing a blues artist (though I know they usually have a lot of emotional range as well) for being miserable without taking into account that sometimes his or her listeners sing gospel tunes as well.
― Sundar (sundar), Thursday, 9 March 2006 07:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― Sundar (sundar), Thursday, 9 March 2006 07:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 9 March 2006 08:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― regular roundups (Dave M), Thursday, 9 March 2006 08:33 (eighteen years ago) link
But wow, is liking this whilst simultaneously decrying Nirvana ever postimism point-missing at it's zenith.
Do you not think Nirvana had HOOKS, and massive pop-teen-outsider appeal too??
I think what turns people off about this band (and emo more widely) is how premeditated, knowing & meta it all comes over image-wise (even in the music it's often a cliche recycled past the point of credibility & definitely past sincerity. That is if you're not "involved" already (i.e. young & emotionally confused) and blind to all this.
Either that or it's some heavily, cleverly, and deliberatly impenetrable phenomenon akin to Gothic Lolitas in Japan. I can't quite credit them with the same creativity though but perhaps I'm just way too familiar with it's antecedents to be impressed with the relative not-newness of emo. And vice versa.
― fandango (fandango), Thursday, 9 March 2006 11:53 (eighteen years ago) link
Hot-selling up and coming rock bands in 1990 and early 1991, the year before Nirvana hit: Living Color, Faith No More, Midnight Oil, King's X, Queensryche, Jane's Addiction, Ugly Kid Joe, hell let's throw in Sinead O'Connor, too. (World Party? I dunno.) Obviously Nirvana inspired a feeding frenzy; nobody denies that. But alternative rock - alterenative rock with loud guitars even -- was hardly falling in forests without making a sound before Nirvana showed up. Did they change how some music after them was marketed, and did plenty of other bands get signed thanks to them? Sure. You could say the same about Green Day or Limp Bizkit or Poison or Britney Spears or Avril Lavigne or, I dunno, Dashboard Confessional or whoever. (And plenty of rap and country and r&b acts, too.) Within a few months, you'll be able to say it about *High School Musical,* I bet. The game changes all the time.
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 13:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:11 (eighteen years ago) link
1990 onhttp://rateyourmusic.com/top_albums/year_is_1990
1991 onhttp://rateyourmusic.com/top_albums/year_is_1991
nirvana only the 8th most popular album of 1991 on the rock oriented rym
what nirvana did though was kill off the popularity of hair metal bands. Kerrang instead of being full of bands that looked like trannies [Hair Metal] become full of thick lumberjack shirt wearing [Grunge] bands
also beavis & butthead taking the piss out of stewart re Winger & Warrant
― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:15 (eighteen years ago) link
No they didn't, not at all; that's one of the platitudes and delusions that arose out of Nirvana's myth. Check the list a couple posts above. Hair metal was pretty much gone before Nirvana showed up. What was being marketed and selling by 1990 was blatantly art-metal. (And I left out Extreme, who, though their biggest hit was a power ballad, were as artsy by their big second album in 1990 as any of the other bands I listed.)
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― Mark (MarkR), Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:33 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm not really sure that's analagous. (Trying not to take this personally as there is lots of new rock I like and I'm really only indifferent to screamo; emo I find repulsive, but that is pretty directly descended from hardcore.) People aren't arguing that you should be engaging with nu-country simply because it's new, they're saying you should do so because it's good, and because a lot of what's putting people off are signifiers that you just have a knee-jerk reaction to. Also, ageism? Since when have music critics not fetishized teenagers?
― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Major Bloodnok, Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:03 (eighteen years ago) link
That's the "buyer's guide" end of it, which is important, but not the whole enchilada as far as criticism. There's the Frommers guide and then there's travel writing. There's the cookbook and then there's MFK Fisher. Each has its place.
― Mark (MarkR), Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― Major Bloodnok, Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:28 (eighteen years ago) link
― Mark (MarkR), Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― Major Bloodnok, Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― js (honestengine), Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:53 (eighteen years ago) link
And oh yeah, late '80s pop was great. Nirvana, if anything, made things worse (partially by making people distrust rock bands who sounded happy.)
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:05 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:05 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:06 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:07 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm putting this from a rock fan's perspective, obvs.
― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:10 (eighteen years ago) link
Chuck— How can it be a difference of degree and not genre if they didn't sound like Nirvana? As far as the Michael Jackson thing, I think that it was a pretty symbolic thing. Nothing like Nirvana had ever been a #1 before, and Jackson was the "king of pop." And a difference in degree on its own is significant, if only based on the magnitude of that degree. Again, triple platinum in three months. That's amazing, and seems to imply that there were a lot of people out there who were waiting for an album like Nevermind to come along. Commercial radio was suddenly playing "Smells Like Teen Spirit," a mopey nonsensical muddle of angst and gibberish. It didn't sound like anything else on the radio, aside from a few college stations and that nascent X format. Nevermind was a milepost like Thriller was a milepost (and it was a better album than Thriller, just to toss the obligatory bomb). And yeah, a lot of their legacy has been crappy. A lot of the My Chemical Romance appeal still owes itself to the legacy of the angsty suburban kids who bought Nevermind. But Nevermind was the first album like that which didn't require actively looking for it. And I don't blame Faith No More and Anthrax for Korn and Limp Bizkit, even though I might (Limp Bizkit opened up for FNM on FNM's last tour, and played three Rage Against the Machine covers).
― js (honestengine), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― Major Bloodnok, Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― js (honestengine), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:17 (eighteen years ago) link
Uh, because not everybody in every genre sounds exactly the same?
"Symbolic things" matter to people who want to create myths. ("King of Pop" is another myth, by the way. Michael's sales hadn't exactly been on the upswing through the '80s. Being displaced by Nirvana means zilch.) (And he was having hits long after Nirvana, as I recall.)
And lots of hit songs don't "sound like anything else on the radio." If you doubt me, go ask Chumbawamba or OMC or Lou Bega or Crazy Frog. Or Living Color or Faith No More or Queensyryche, for that matter.
As for *Nevermind* vs. *Thriller*...well, nevermind.
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:27 (eighteen years ago) link
I think there might have been an external factor playing into that.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 March 2006 16:29 (eighteen years ago) link