Kurt Ponderings
April 5th, 2004Trying to understand Kurt Cobain in 2004 may be a little like talking Nietzsche during a Left Behind book reading, but who’s got time to keep track of this cultural war thingy anyway? Which reminds me — I’m still mad at the guy’s selfish decision to snuff out his own life 10 years ago. I mean, culturally speaking, things weren’t really gonna go downhill for a few more years anyway. And if Courtney’s on-again/off-again relationship with rock star irony doesn’t pay off like she thinks, who can we point to as the heir of the revolution that started with a three member band from, of all places, Washington state?
Why it’s you, me, and the guy sitting next to you at work. You both remember where you were when you first heard the anthem. You both can recall the buzz that launched a nation of layered T-shirts marching lockstep to confront a chronic sense of apathy. And when it came time to put the theory to the ultimate test, when it came time to sit down and actually listen to Nevermind, it dawned on you—there’s some kind of connection here.
Like a Matrix socket in the back of so many cerebral cortexes, the angst and agony that spat out in Beatle-esqe rapture could not be denied. That was the force of Kurt Cobain in his short amount of time here. That’s how he will be remembered. And that’s how those who were witnesses will reflect on the dark and enlightened memories of our collective grungy pasts.
Let me make it clear. I don’t like martyrs and I despise suicide even more. I refuse to use words like “prophet” and I ain’t too keen on the glorification of self-suffering either. But the tidal wave of energy that poured over so many souls all those years ago still has had a greater effect than the way it suddenly all came to an abrupt end. And that, I think, is part of the true nature of art.
Related
April 7th, 2004 at 10:04 pm
First off - I apologize for any typos etc.
I think we all can recall the Nirvana eruption and all that ensued. While being a U2 fan, I loved seeing a new kind of AMERICAN music blast onto the scene and destroying Guns n Roses et. al. and the remenants of tired rock/hair bands.
While I liked Nirvana, I though Cobain was overwrought (just like Eddie Vedder - where is he now?) and a little too contrived. It sealed the deal for me when he killed himself with a baby daughter left to her mother (who is a basket case as well). Cobain was too self absorbed into his own mythology to care about anything else. Isn’t that was suicide is - someone who cares about themselves and “problems” above all else. And let’s look at his “problems” - successful music career by anyone’s standards, more money than he’ll ever need, healthy baby girl. Gee poor bastard. Its a testament to his strength he lasted as long as he did.
I never bought into the whole angst thing. American college students live - by the world stand - pretty darn well. They have a roof over their heads, 3 squares a day, great party scenes, internships, grad school/work. I never thought the angst Nirvana supposedly tapped into was real or worthy of being given creedence when elsewhere in the world there are people really suffering more than some history major mad that he didn’t get the class he wanted, his girlfriend broke up with him or he can’t afford spring break in Ibiza.
Nirvana and those who tracked/mimiced them went the same route all other new bands/trends are to go. Become an underground, about to burst, cool thing, achieve mainstream status, then fall out of style and wait a number of years it’ll come back as nostalgia. Everyone involved can make money in the process.
April 8th, 2004 at 3:19 am
You’re right. There is always somebody worse off, and selling music in this day and age is contrived almost by definition, but that’s not really the point. His personal life, the stupid decisions he made, even the person he was aren’t really even relevant .
Kurt was able to tap into people’s pain with his music, maybe not pain on par with the worst tragedies the world has to offer, but REAL pain nonetheless. Abuse. Divorce. Heartbreak. Death. Loneliness. Lotsa shit that nobody ever gets prepared for (or significantly passed). People saw him speaking to that (when others did the ‘Unskinny Bop’) and it gave them a kind of catharsis. Still does for me, in fact.
So, you didn’t get his trip and vice versa. That’s fine. But there’s no need to doubt (or trivialize) anybody else’s experience. I would think that after 10 years two things wouldn’t have any room for doubt — that his pain was real and that many people were moved by his unique expression.
There’s a cynicism being pointed at art these days which is highly misplaced.
April 8th, 2004 at 4:15 pm
Random thoughts:
Who is to say why some individuals are more sensitive to life’s tribulations than others. Why some go through life tourtured over every sentance they speak and every piece of food they eat. But the fact that Kurt’s music did reach many a person and that it provided the soundtrack for teen angst of the ninties deserves credit.
However, a more interesting question is how is it that Cobain’s music reads more as art than say Brittney or Christina. Doesn’t their music speak out the thoughts and feelings of millions of young girls around the world? What classifies music as art? Is it that Cobain wrote most of his songs? Or that he played an instrument? Or is it the money factor–that he was playing for himself and not for the money. Even though millions of teens were paying to buy his albums and attend his concerts–to share his pain. The question of art goes sooo deep that it is almost impossible to say what is and isn’t art.
I do agree that Cobain spoke for the young masses in a time when no one else cared and that his time on earth was for a reason. But that’s just my opinion.
April 10th, 2004 at 3:12 am
I’d say you’re going off topic, but I did mention the dreaded “a” word (and, oh yeah, no matter of small consequence that you’re my wife). As for MY definition of that word, well… that’s irrelevant, but I did make that mysterious comment about cynicism. What I meant by that (and was just too lazy to explain) was this. I don’t like it when people take a moral high ground to reject art (or culture, or whatever you want to call it). Not that that’s particularly new or upsetting, but I’ve been seeing this attitude lately from people I wouldn’t ordinarily expect it. Dennis Miller’s comment about Lenny Bruce springs to mind and has nagged at me a bit lately.
“Lenny was a heroin addict, and I could care less about heroin addicts. Once I hear a guy is a heroin addict, and they tell me he’s a genius, I think, ‘Really?’ I’m not trying to be judgmental. But anybody whose last vision is of a tile pattern on a bathroom floor, I don’t know what kind of genius they are.”
So, with that line of thinking we should forget about Hendrix (who OD’d and choked on his own vomit) and give credit to the Kingston Trio for the sound of every guitar song since the sixties. Or dismiss the influence of anyone — Elvis, Morrison, Joplin, Basquiat, etc — who died of anything but natural causes. It just doesn’t make any sense. How somebody met their demise shouldn’t be an overriding factor when we grade their artistic contributions.
That’s a bum wrap I don’t want to see handed to Kurt.
What bothers me about Miller’s statement in particular is that he owes so much to Lenny Bruce. While they’d undoubtedly be political polar opposites today (imagine Lenny giving George W a free pass… NEVER!), he owes Bruce something, if not everything, since he was the one who practically pioneered the use of political discourse in comedy. It’s a stupid, holier than thou statement that has nothing to do with actual history, except to dismiss it.