A lot of people point to that moment as "the death of grunge". It's not an easy point to argue against, since there aren't a lot of watershed quote-unquote "grunge" albums from the era that came out after Cobain's death (though, there are definitely some). The truth is, this movement had already reached its zenith; the Seattle scene had so thoroughly infiltrated the mainstream by 1994 that many people were sick of it, already looking for the next trend.
Nirvana wasn't immune from the burnout; sales of In Utero, while certainly big enough to call it a hit, paled in comparison to those of Nevermind. The record was partially designed to fail, with its ugly sound and uncompromisingly bleak canvas. However, a good number of listeners had simply burned out on Nevermind; with so much time elapsed, it's incredibly easy to forget just how all-encompassing that record was for a period of time in the early '90s. To many, Nirvana were overhyped, overplayed and, worse, overrated. That last accusation is harsh, but it's an argument that has gained traction in the two decades that have followed Cobain's death.
Indeed, Nirvanamania was fizzling out in early '94; In Utero wasn't spawning era-defining megahits, the band weren't exactly promoting it all that aggressively, and Cobain wasn't in good shape. At the time of his death, remember, he was less than a year removed from a heroin overdose, and barely a month removed from an incident with champagne and roofies that was later revealed to be a suicide attempt. He was suffering, and he apparently wanted out. In the end, it seems, he got his wish.
What happened after Cobain's death was a confusing combination of anger and idolatry. Some felt sorrow in the wake of his passing, while others showed fury. Some fans called him a cowardly idiot, while others called him a troubled legend. This push and pull, this checkered reaction, set the course for the next two decades. Now, so far removed from Ground Zero, it's still rather difficult to measure the impact of that fateful April day.
So, then, what is Kurt Cobain's legacy? Sadness? Shame? Something in between?
If we look at previous examples, we see artists whose influence has reached far and wide, and resonated for decades. In today's music, we can still hear traces of Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison. Cobain? Not so much; sure, there's a handful of young '90s-retro bands popping up here and there, but the majority seem to draw more influence from Dinosaur Jr., Pixies and Sonic Youth, three bands that had already been around long enough to inspire Nirvana by the time the Seattle explosion happened. Tragically, the furthest we can take a clear Cobain influence is in the sad sack nu-metal balladry of bands like Puddle Of Mudd and Staind, bands that fed the mainstream their brand of watered-down angst to the point of permanent disdain.
Maybe, as unique a creative individual as Cobain was, Nirvana just wasn't as original as we liked to think in the '90s. If we look at what happened post-Nirvana for Dave Grohl, especially his formidable run with Foo Fighters, we can actually argue that Grohl has had more of an impact on rock music than Cobain has. Look a little deeper; Grohl has maintained Foo Fighters through seven studio albums and nearly twenty years of rock. More impressively, public acceptance of Foo Fighters and their string of hits never really waned to the point of a backlash.
So, if there isn't the appropriate level of legend surrounding the sound of the band, then much of the legacy falls directly to Cobain. You can't call his art into question; an intensely creative man who provided some of the decade's finest lyrics, he earns much of his legacy from what he brought to Nirvana from an artistic standpoint. One also has to take into account his impression on regular Joes who saw what Cobain did with limited guitar talent; he made a lot of people believe they could do what everybody told them they couldn't. This inadvertently birthed a lot of marginally talented bands who believed they could be the next Nirvana and convinced record labels and gullible fans of the same, only to spit in the face of the spirit of the scene. So, that one's a double-edged sword, then.
In the end, what are we left with as a primary source of Cobain's legacy but the man's death itself? Personally, I don't believe it's fair to deify anyone who chooses to "opt out"; it's why I never put Cobain on a pedestal when he died. Sure, I was sad it had happened and bummed we would never get a proper follow-up to In Utero (which I've always preferred over Nevermind), but to give the guy a seat alongside the legends just because he didn't make it to 28? Without being a positive influence on the music or the people, I just can't do that.
Maybe we don't need wordy essays, philosophical think pieces or statistical investigations to determine Kurt Cobain's legacy. What if there really isn't anything under the surface of his story? Is it possible that Kurt Cobain was just a talented guy who made some terrible life decisions and snuffed himself out too soon? Not a martyr, not a hero, not a god. Is it not enough that he was just a man?
Kurt Cobain's legacy, for me, is a few really good records and a wealth of potential wasted. Really, when it comes down to it, what else can I say?
Comments
Post a Comment