Its boggling to me someone would suggest morrison, joplin, hendrix, james dean, or cobain, dying young was the reason they are beloved. You listen to any of those musicians at all? you see dean act at all?
"
Why is that so hard to understand? It doesn't diminish their accomplishments while they were alive. Nobody is saying these people aren't great, but to say that their legends haven't been heightened by an early death is laughable. Yes, there's several other more primary reasons that those people are legends, but the what ifs will come up in almost every in depth conversation you're gonna have about them.
Obviously Cobain's death heightened his fame, it's just the nature of the beast.
Look at somebody like Nick Drake. He was virtually unknown when he was alive, but now he's viewed as one of the most influential singer-songwriters.
I agree with musicismylife78 that Cobain wasn't a hypocrite. Every band that becomes popular has to juggle fame with integrity. It's gotta be difficult to accomplish. It's clear that he wasn't a simple man...I read a book on Cobain and Nirvana and anything that came out of this guy's mouth was interesting. He was just one of those people who can't help but attract others to him even if he didn't necessarily want that to happen.
The notion that someone made on the first page that stated that if Cobain hadn't died he would be viewed in the same light as someone like Scott Weiland...are you goddamn kidding me? Gotta be one of the more ludicrous things I've read on here.
yeah, i like the dylan comparison. i've always thought there were some parallels. right down to sound of their voices. cobain's voice in interviews and stuff always sounds to me like dylan, when he would speak in the first part of the 60s. just the tone, you know.
yeah, i like the dylan comparison. i've always thought there were some parallels. right down to sound of their voices. cobain's voice in interviews and stuff always sounds to me like dylan, when he would speak in the first part of the 60s. just the tone, you know.
if i remember correctly dylan himself respected kurt. dylan is known for his intense dislike of modern music, and i thought i remember reading that dylan saw kurt live and said something like "god that kid has heart".
off topic but dylans hatred of modern music has always posed an interesting thought in my mind. He obviously is pretty proud of jakob one would assume, but i wonder if he likes the band on their sound as well?
dylans a funny guy. I remember hearing he was a fan of Everlong.
I sincerely believe he would have been no more famous or legendary than Scott Weiland or Chris Cornell had he not taken his own life.
Disagree. He (and Eddie, for that matter) were/are on a different plane than Weiland or Cornell. It's difficult to chicken-and-the-egg it and figure how much was the popularity of the band and how much was their charisma, but Cobain was already on a rare path.
And the whole notion that dying young elevated kurt to mythical status is absurd, ive long heard that argument and its naive and silly. to believe it, you have to say, jimi, jim morrison, janis, brian jones, james dean, kurt etc.. all only are revered and loved because they died young. thats stupid. all were supremely talented and gifted and were masters
Nooooooo...I think there is definitely truth to that. Sad to say, but, if you check out early, it becomes easy to romanticize what could have been. They aren't solely revered and loved as a result of dying young, but because they burned hot in the short time we had with their art. Growing as an artist and remaining relevant is infinitely more difficult and, unfortunately, often under-appreciated.
I take that dylan hates modern music with a grain of salt. Sure he likes some modern bands. He was at the Grammy's playing with the Avett Brothers, and Mumford and sons. I have heard that too, but just thought him hating modern music was media fire frenzy.
I remeber reading thatinterview about Kurt too. I think "Polly" was the song Dylan was refering to."
Yeah, Courtney, people think you're a crazy drug freak because you admit "I've never taken Special K or Ecstasy. I've been tempted . . . " Regular, non-drug users are never tempted to use Special K or Ecstasy. Ever. There's no way to remove that stigma because the regular 9-5ers cannot relate to being "tempted" by relatively hard drugs. This doesn't include weed, since basically nobody thinks stoners are Courtney Love-level crazy drug freaks.
...
This isn't calling out drug users as criminals, by the way. Drug users, do your thing... just don't be surprised when the bank tellers, school teachers, and insurance salesmen of the world (you know, the ones who have to pass drug tests to get their jobs) are shocked to hear that you were "tempted". It's different cultures.
I agree with the part about "you know, the ones who have to pass drug tests to get their jobs". Random drug tests are given in factories all over the country at any time. The holier-than-thou types continue to preach that alcohol is somehow better than weed, therefore legal. but that's getting off topic.
I like Courtney Love. I can relate to someone who has a stigma others won't let go of, long after you've stopped being that old person. I'm sure everyone could relate to that really. Maybe she's just going through a sensitive time in her life. She shouldn't care so much about the media.
Everyone knows that when all is said and one, Kurt will be the face of the 1990s "grunge movement." I happen to think his suicide is a huge part of that. Our memories are that Nirvana was everything and some of the others were riding their coat tales.
My memory is that PJ was more popular (not that that indicates that they were better...). Vs. outsold the hell out of In Utero. Sure, most who bought Vs. did not even consider buying Vitalogy, but during that interim, PJ was HUGE. And from what I've read, I think that bothered Kurt. He thought his music was great and that PJ's was horrible. He may have thought PJ sellouts for their more "polished" style and he may have had some frustration over that style being more popular.
Am I wrong? Was Nirvanna bigger? I know Nirvanna was first and there is no more important song than "teen spirit", but was Nevermind bigger than Ten? Was In Utero bigger than Vs.? My memory (and I was in high school during all this) is that PJ was bigger. But maybe I was biased, as one of the "simpletons" that like the polished corporate Rock of PJ.
I don't really need PJ to be the bigger band. It should not matter. However, I do think that unless I am totally wrong about that time, it lends evidence that Kurt's suicide leads to some extra praise...much of it from people that can not name a second song from Nevermind (and maybe even can name Alive, Jeremy, and Even Flow).
Most of this is not important. Both became famous (and probably wanted to), realized they did not like the fame, and wanted to back off. But I do feel that Eddie handled the media-created "competition" much better than Kurt.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin 2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
Nobody ever said he was greedy. I just don't buy that he was so against being famous and having jocks into his music. As you point out there's ways to combat being famous. Step 1 for Kurt shoulda been to not go on MTV every time they rang him up.
...
I think its easy for people to say that he should have passed up all that money for the sake of being less famous, when they don't know what his financial situation was. I don't either, but just based on the fact that him and Courtney just had a baby and he had a family to provide for, plus still being somewhat new to fame--I think it is very reasonable that he would take as much money as he could get for fear of the future. Fame,the media, and the public will bring people up just as fast as they throw them back down. Its a rollercoaster ride it seems like--from the view of someone on the outside looking in (or inside looking out, whichever). It seems like most famous people cash in as much as they can at first--especially the starving artists who worked so hard to get there--because they want to be prepared for when they're not so famous. just my take on it anyway.
Everyone knows that when all is said and one, Kurt will be the face of the 1990s "grunge movement." I happen to think his suicide is a huge part of that. Our memories are that Nirvana was everything and some of the others were riding their coat tales.
...
"our memories" meaning the media and the huge majority of people that only listen to music on the radio and nowhere else. I would imagine that the "music industry/community" as a whole knows whats up. They know that bands like Pearl Jam were just as big a part of that movement. Your regular 9-5 er's eat up whatever the radio stations dish out. They don't have time to investigate this or that music movement. Its too distracting to their busy, mundane, mind-numbing, humdrum jobs. So if they want Kurt to be the face of grunge, than so be it. When have their opinions ever really mattered before?
Everyone knows that when all is said and one, Kurt will be the face of the 1990s "grunge movement." I happen to think his suicide is a huge part of that. Our memories are that Nirvana was everything and some of the others were riding their coat tales.
...
"our memories" meaning the media and the huge majority of people that only listen to music on the radio and nowhere else. I would imagine that the "music industry/community" as a whole knows whats up. They know that bands like Pearl Jam were just as big a part of that movement. Your regular 9-5 er's eat up whatever the radio stations dish out. They don't have time to investigate this or that music movement. Its too distracting to their busy, mundane, mind-numbing, humdrum jobs. So if they want Kurt to be the face of grunge, than so be it. When have their opinions ever really mattered before?
That's precisely what I meant by "our memories"
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin 2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
dylans a funny guy. I remember hearing he was a fan of Everlong.
When the Foos were opening for Dylan, he asked Dave to teach it to him.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Nobody ever said he was greedy. I just don't buy that he was so against being famous and having jocks into his music. As you point out there's ways to combat being famous. Step 1 for Kurt shoulda been to not go on MTV every time they rang him up.
...
I think its easy for people to say that he should have passed up all that money for the sake of being less famous, when they don't know what his financial situation was. I don't either, but just based on the fact that him and Courtney just had a baby and he had a family to provide for, plus still being somewhat new to fame--I think it is very reasonable that he would take as much money as he could get for fear of the future. Fame,the media, and the public will bring people up just as fast as they throw them back down. Its a rollercoaster ride it seems like--from the view of someone on the outside looking in (or inside looking out, whichever). It seems like most famous people cash in as much as they can at first--especially the starving artists who worked so hard to get there--because they want to be prepared for when they're not so famous. just my take on it anyway.
I don't have a problem with bands trying to be successful, I just don't buy into the view that Cobain didn't wanna be as successful as possible. musicisnmylife tried turning into this battle of PJ vs Nirvana when PJ has nothing to do with it.
To me it's just part of an image. I didn't say that was a bad thing. Ya know, I love Jimmy Page and some of the occult/Crowley stuff he's into kinda made him seem cooler in a way, but I don't think he was worshipping any pagan gods or in his basement trying to conjure demon spells in his down time.
look at pearl jam. they went from releasing no code, which was put out to intentionally lose them millions of fans
I know it's kind of off topic, but I'm curious about that statement. I've seen this said dozens of times on this board and I'm trying to figure out where that idea comes from. I haven't read anything in interviews to support a statement like that. I have read about how there was a lot of tension during the sessions (especially with Jeff since they didn't even tell him they were making another album until 3 days prior), the sessions were somewhat disjointed (in that the sessions were fit in between tour dates and also that the whole band was seldom present in its entirety), they were burned out from heavy touring, and that the entire album was rushed.
I know quite a few people who became Pearl Jam fans because of that record. Personally, I had already been a fan, but No Code was the album that made them my favorite band. I know some fans were disappointed, but I don't think it was some calculated attempt to alienate a large portion of their fanbase. Any album that isn't just like the previous ones are going to disappoint some fans, but their previous 3 albums hadn't followed any formula either. There were other factors, like the fact that they didn't tour much in support of the album, the Ticketmaster boycott (less radio play because of the Ticketmaster/Clearchannel conglomerate) and so forth.
It wasn't like they made some noise album like Lou Reed did with Metal Machine Music that left people wanting to riot.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
i think most guys in their 20s want to be very good at what they do, and want to be recognized for it. i spent almost all of my 20s pursuing graduate degrees, and wanted to be the best at what i was doing, and wanted people to think that i was good at it. who's not like that?
as i get a little older, those things are less important to me.
the fact that we're still talking about kurt cobain and his relative punk-ness like 20 years later just highlights to me how different shit is now. indie bands in commercials and no one thinks it's really all that strange (or bad), a fractured music scene so that nothing really can reach so many people as nirvana (and pearl jam) did.
if nothing else, this thread means i'll probably play in utero when i mop the floors today.
look at pearl jam. they went from releasing no code, which was put out to intentionally lose them millions of fans
I know it's kind of off topic, but I'm curious about that statement. I've seen this said dozens of times on this board and I'm trying to figure out where that idea comes from. I haven't read anything in interviews to support a statement like that. I have read about how there was a lot of tension during the sessions (especially with Jeff since they didn't even tell him they were making another album until 3 days prior), the sessions were somewhat disjointed (in that the sessions were fit in between tour dates and also that the whole band was seldom present in its entirety), they were burned out from heavy touring, and that the entire album was rushed.
I know quite a few people who became Pearl Jam fans because of that record. Personally, I had already been a fan, but No Code was the album that made them my favorite band. I know some fans were disappointed, but I don't think it was some calculated attempt to alienate a large portion of their fanbase. Any album that isn't just like the previous ones are going to disappoint some fans, but their previous 3 albums hadn't followed any formula either. There were other factors, like the fact that they didn't tour much in support of the album, the Ticketmaster boycott (less radio play because of the Ticketmaster/Clearchannel conglomerate) and so forth.
It wasn't like they made some noise album like Lou Reed did with Metal Machine Music that left people wanting to riot.
I think "no Code" is looked at that way in the media cause yes, from a media standpoint, it was the dividing line between true fans and the general public. It is also the album where Pearl jam stepped outside the box and broke away from what the major label wanted. It's my favorite album by PJ, but the label did not promote this album well, which is evident that the label let PJ do what they wanted record wise, but lack of promotion from the label, set the bar for the dividing line. the ticketmaster battle also lead to a smaller tour. The label promoted Yield really well with 4 or 5 singles. No code was doing what they wanted, and backing away from publicity really. The result is that No Code is one of the best albums ever made. All of pj's albums are great in their own way, but I just wanted to chime in on my love for No Code, in relation to this thread.
look at pearl jam. they went from releasing no code, which was put out to intentionally lose them millions of fans
I know it's kind of off topic, but I'm curious about that statement. I've seen this said dozens of times on this board and I'm trying to figure out where that idea comes from. I haven't read anything in interviews to support a statement like that. I have read about how there was a lot of tension during the sessions (especially with Jeff since they didn't even tell him they were making another album until 3 days prior), the sessions were somewhat disjointed (in that the sessions were fit in between tour dates and also that the whole band was seldom present in its entirety), they were burned out from heavy touring, and that the entire album was rushed.
I know quite a few people who became Pearl Jam fans because of that record. Personally, I had already been a fan, but No Code was the album that made them my favorite band. I know some fans were disappointed, but I don't think it was some calculated attempt to alienate a large portion of their fanbase. Any album that isn't just like the previous ones are going to disappoint some fans, but their previous 3 albums hadn't followed any formula either. There were other factors, like the fact that they didn't tour much in support of the album, the Ticketmaster boycott (less radio play because of the Ticketmaster/Clearchannel conglomerate) and so forth.
It wasn't like they made some noise album like Lou Reed did with Metal Machine Music that left people wanting to riot.
the idea that PJ set out to lose fans by releasing an experimental non commercial "odd" album is well documented. its damn obvious around 1994 or so, ed had had enough. the fame and pressure of being in the biggest band in the world was weighing heavy on him, and i think Kurt's suicide had a massive impact on him. Not just personally, but also musically. Ed has explicitly talked about in interviews his intentions with no code. this was around the time that lady was driving her car into his gate surrounding his house. he had enough of it and wanted out. PJ are unique in this respect but its not unprecedented. Lots of bands have done this. Dylan is an obvious example, when he released Planet Waves, which he specifcally said was a way to lose fans, and as I mentioned above his motorcycle accident that may or may not have actually happened.
so yeah, the idea that the band or more specially ed was out to lose fans with no code is fact. its in many interviews, most recently the 2006 RS cover article. I also think the band itself, ie, those not named Ed, were understanding of how fame was affecting ed at this time, in 1994 or 1995, but they also, or many of them didnt want to pull back. So there was tension amongst the bandmates.
I think when your lead off single is Who You Are, which couldnt have been further from the grunge sound that even with Kurts death being 2 years ago at that point, the sound of grunge was still popular on the radio with Bush and Creed among others...
I think its blatantly obvious thats what the band, or ed was out to do. He saw only 2 ways out. Kurts way, which i think Ed has said, Kurts death was a wake up call because he himself was headed this way, or to lose fans by releasing an album he knew wouldnt appeal to the millions of people who were into Ten, Vs and Vitalogy
I think "no Code" is looked at that way in the media cause yes, from a media standpoint, it was the dividing line between true fans and the general public. It is also the album where Pearl jam stepped outside the box and broke away from what the major label wanted. It's my favorite album by PJ, but the label did not promote this album well, which is evident that the label let PJ do what they wanted record wise, but lack of promotion from the label, set the bar for the dividing line. the ticketmaster battle also lead to a smaller tour. The label promoted Yield really well with 4 or 5 singles. No code was doing what they wanted, and backing away from publicity really. The result is that No Code is one of the best albums ever made. All of pj's albums are great in their own way, but I just wanted to chime in on my love for No Code, in relation to this thread.
I don't know if it was necessarily the dividing line between "true fans and the general public", at my high school it just made them more accepted by the "general public". With Vitalogy they became a bit more accepted with songs like Better Man and stopped being the band that mainly the boys or the "grunge kids" listened to. I can remember being in the back seat of of my buddy's girlfriends car (and she was not even a casual Pearl Jam fan, just whatever was trendy) going down the road as she and her friends sang along to Off He Goes like it was your standard radio pop song, same with Smile. It lost a lot of the "Grunge" and hard rock fans, but it had songs that were radio friendly and well liked by people who were not Pearl Jam fans. I remember a lot of people who didn't like Pearl Jam at all getting into Mankind as well, after all it is a catchy tune.
That's why I didn't quite understand the idea that it was purposely made to lose fans. Because it worked the opposite way in the little corner of the world where I grew up, they may have lost the "frat boys" or whatever, but they gained the teenage girls. And it kind of seems like revisionist history, trying to explain why it didn't sell as well as the previous albums and also perpetuate the myth of Pearl Jam. It just seems cooler to say they went into the studio and said "let's make an album to separate the real fans from the trend followers" but when you read accounts and interviews about the No Code sessions it is hard to really come to that conclusion. Pearl Jam was a band struggling to stay together, and find a direction, and the end result is an album that reflects that, but also really works. It's hard to believe that in a scenario where members of the band were convinced it would be the last record, that they had some grand scheme to thin the herd of the fanbase. I liken No Code to The White Album by The Beatles. The climate of the sessions was very similar, and the band wasn't working that well together, and the end result was a somewhat disjointed album, but it works.
I think that whole idea ties in pretty well to the discussion. Because while there has been this big myth about Cobain being a reluctant celebrity, I think it is done with Pearl Jam too. Pearl Jam has stepped back from certain things, and tried to conduct their career in their own vision and in a classy and respectable manner, but I think that idea sometimes gets blown out of proportion, as it was done with Kurt. And I think they have done certain things to perpetuate their own myth. I know other people have mentioned it, and I've always wondered it myself. But why did Pearl Jam show up at the '96 Grammy's just to stand on stage and pretend they didn't care about the Grammy award? Clearly they did care, or they wouldn't be there, but it made for good publicity and to continue their "we don't care about fame" image to accept the award and pretend not to give a damn. Ed's explanation of "I just came to relax and watch the show" doesn't really fit in my mind. It was a calculated move. I'm not saying they're fake, but I don't necessarily see Kurt as fake either. Both acts did some contradictory things. And that's why I was talking about that line about No Code being made to intentionally lose fans, it just seems like another part of the myth.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Comments
Why is that so hard to understand? It doesn't diminish their accomplishments while they were alive. Nobody is saying these people aren't great, but to say that their legends haven't been heightened by an early death is laughable. Yes, there's several other more primary reasons that those people are legends, but the what ifs will come up in almost every in depth conversation you're gonna have about them.
Look at somebody like Nick Drake. He was virtually unknown when he was alive, but now he's viewed as one of the most influential singer-songwriters.
I agree with musicismylife78 that Cobain wasn't a hypocrite. Every band that becomes popular has to juggle fame with integrity. It's gotta be difficult to accomplish. It's clear that he wasn't a simple man...I read a book on Cobain and Nirvana and anything that came out of this guy's mouth was interesting. He was just one of those people who can't help but attract others to him even if he didn't necessarily want that to happen.
The notion that someone made on the first page that stated that if Cobain hadn't died he would be viewed in the same light as someone like Scott Weiland...are you goddamn kidding me? Gotta be one of the more ludicrous things I've read on here.
if i remember correctly dylan himself respected kurt. dylan is known for his intense dislike of modern music, and i thought i remember reading that dylan saw kurt live and said something like "god that kid has heart".
off topic but dylans hatred of modern music has always posed an interesting thought in my mind. He obviously is pretty proud of jakob one would assume, but i wonder if he likes the band on their sound as well?
dylans a funny guy. I remember hearing he was a fan of Everlong.
Disagree. He (and Eddie, for that matter) were/are on a different plane than Weiland or Cornell. It's difficult to chicken-and-the-egg it and figure how much was the popularity of the band and how much was their charisma, but Cobain was already on a rare path.
Nooooooo...I think there is definitely truth to that. Sad to say, but, if you check out early, it becomes easy to romanticize what could have been. They aren't solely revered and loved as a result of dying young, but because they burned hot in the short time we had with their art. Growing as an artist and remaining relevant is infinitely more difficult and, unfortunately, often under-appreciated.
I remeber reading thatinterview about Kurt too. I think "Polly" was the song Dylan was refering to."
EV Solo: 7/11/11 11/12/12 11/13/12
I agree with the part about "you know, the ones who have to pass drug tests to get their jobs". Random drug tests are given in factories all over the country at any time. The holier-than-thou types continue to preach that alcohol is somehow better than weed, therefore legal. but that's getting off topic.
I like Courtney Love. I can relate to someone who has a stigma others won't let go of, long after you've stopped being that old person. I'm sure everyone could relate to that really. Maybe she's just going through a sensitive time in her life. She shouldn't care so much about the media.
My memory is that PJ was more popular (not that that indicates that they were better...). Vs. outsold the hell out of In Utero. Sure, most who bought Vs. did not even consider buying Vitalogy, but during that interim, PJ was HUGE. And from what I've read, I think that bothered Kurt. He thought his music was great and that PJ's was horrible. He may have thought PJ sellouts for their more "polished" style and he may have had some frustration over that style being more popular.
Am I wrong? Was Nirvanna bigger? I know Nirvanna was first and there is no more important song than "teen spirit", but was Nevermind bigger than Ten? Was In Utero bigger than Vs.? My memory (and I was in high school during all this) is that PJ was bigger. But maybe I was biased, as one of the "simpletons" that like the polished corporate Rock of PJ.
I don't really need PJ to be the bigger band. It should not matter. However, I do think that unless I am totally wrong about that time, it lends evidence that Kurt's suicide leads to some extra praise...much of it from people that can not name a second song from Nevermind (and maybe even can name Alive, Jeremy, and Even Flow).
Most of this is not important. Both became famous (and probably wanted to), realized they did not like the fame, and wanted to back off. But I do feel that Eddie handled the media-created "competition" much better than Kurt.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
I think its easy for people to say that he should have passed up all that money for the sake of being less famous, when they don't know what his financial situation was. I don't either, but just based on the fact that him and Courtney just had a baby and he had a family to provide for, plus still being somewhat new to fame--I think it is very reasonable that he would take as much money as he could get for fear of the future. Fame,the media, and the public will bring people up just as fast as they throw them back down. Its a rollercoaster ride it seems like--from the view of someone on the outside looking in (or inside looking out, whichever). It seems like most famous people cash in as much as they can at first--especially the starving artists who worked so hard to get there--because they want to be prepared for when they're not so famous. just my take on it anyway.
"our memories" meaning the media and the huge majority of people that only listen to music on the radio and nowhere else. I would imagine that the "music industry/community" as a whole knows whats up. They know that bands like Pearl Jam were just as big a part of that movement. Your regular 9-5 er's eat up whatever the radio stations dish out. They don't have time to investigate this or that music movement. Its too distracting to their busy, mundane, mind-numbing, humdrum jobs. So if they want Kurt to be the face of grunge, than so be it. When have their opinions ever really mattered before?
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
Yeah, so then why should it matter. The majority of the public opinion is usually always on the surface.
I don't have a problem with bands trying to be successful, I just don't buy into the view that Cobain didn't wanna be as successful as possible. musicisnmylife tried turning into this battle of PJ vs Nirvana when PJ has nothing to do with it.
To me it's just part of an image. I didn't say that was a bad thing. Ya know, I love Jimmy Page and some of the occult/Crowley stuff he's into kinda made him seem cooler in a way, but I don't think he was worshipping any pagan gods or in his basement trying to conjure demon spells in his down time.
I know it's kind of off topic, but I'm curious about that statement. I've seen this said dozens of times on this board and I'm trying to figure out where that idea comes from. I haven't read anything in interviews to support a statement like that. I have read about how there was a lot of tension during the sessions (especially with Jeff since they didn't even tell him they were making another album until 3 days prior), the sessions were somewhat disjointed (in that the sessions were fit in between tour dates and also that the whole band was seldom present in its entirety), they were burned out from heavy touring, and that the entire album was rushed.
I know quite a few people who became Pearl Jam fans because of that record. Personally, I had already been a fan, but No Code was the album that made them my favorite band. I know some fans were disappointed, but I don't think it was some calculated attempt to alienate a large portion of their fanbase. Any album that isn't just like the previous ones are going to disappoint some fans, but their previous 3 albums hadn't followed any formula either. There were other factors, like the fact that they didn't tour much in support of the album, the Ticketmaster boycott (less radio play because of the Ticketmaster/Clearchannel conglomerate) and so forth.
It wasn't like they made some noise album like Lou Reed did with Metal Machine Music that left people wanting to riot.
as i get a little older, those things are less important to me.
the fact that we're still talking about kurt cobain and his relative punk-ness like 20 years later just highlights to me how different shit is now. indie bands in commercials and no one thinks it's really all that strange (or bad), a fractured music scene so that nothing really can reach so many people as nirvana (and pearl jam) did.
if nothing else, this thread means i'll probably play in utero when i mop the floors today.
EV Solo: 7/11/11 11/12/12 11/13/12
the idea that PJ set out to lose fans by releasing an experimental non commercial "odd" album is well documented. its damn obvious around 1994 or so, ed had had enough. the fame and pressure of being in the biggest band in the world was weighing heavy on him, and i think Kurt's suicide had a massive impact on him. Not just personally, but also musically. Ed has explicitly talked about in interviews his intentions with no code. this was around the time that lady was driving her car into his gate surrounding his house. he had enough of it and wanted out. PJ are unique in this respect but its not unprecedented. Lots of bands have done this. Dylan is an obvious example, when he released Planet Waves, which he specifcally said was a way to lose fans, and as I mentioned above his motorcycle accident that may or may not have actually happened.
so yeah, the idea that the band or more specially ed was out to lose fans with no code is fact. its in many interviews, most recently the 2006 RS cover article. I also think the band itself, ie, those not named Ed, were understanding of how fame was affecting ed at this time, in 1994 or 1995, but they also, or many of them didnt want to pull back. So there was tension amongst the bandmates.
I think when your lead off single is Who You Are, which couldnt have been further from the grunge sound that even with Kurts death being 2 years ago at that point, the sound of grunge was still popular on the radio with Bush and Creed among others...
I think its blatantly obvious thats what the band, or ed was out to do. He saw only 2 ways out. Kurts way, which i think Ed has said, Kurts death was a wake up call because he himself was headed this way, or to lose fans by releasing an album he knew wouldnt appeal to the millions of people who were into Ten, Vs and Vitalogy
I don't know if it was necessarily the dividing line between "true fans and the general public", at my high school it just made them more accepted by the "general public". With Vitalogy they became a bit more accepted with songs like Better Man and stopped being the band that mainly the boys or the "grunge kids" listened to. I can remember being in the back seat of of my buddy's girlfriends car (and she was not even a casual Pearl Jam fan, just whatever was trendy) going down the road as she and her friends sang along to Off He Goes like it was your standard radio pop song, same with Smile. It lost a lot of the "Grunge" and hard rock fans, but it had songs that were radio friendly and well liked by people who were not Pearl Jam fans. I remember a lot of people who didn't like Pearl Jam at all getting into Mankind as well, after all it is a catchy tune.
That's why I didn't quite understand the idea that it was purposely made to lose fans. Because it worked the opposite way in the little corner of the world where I grew up, they may have lost the "frat boys" or whatever, but they gained the teenage girls. And it kind of seems like revisionist history, trying to explain why it didn't sell as well as the previous albums and also perpetuate the myth of Pearl Jam. It just seems cooler to say they went into the studio and said "let's make an album to separate the real fans from the trend followers" but when you read accounts and interviews about the No Code sessions it is hard to really come to that conclusion. Pearl Jam was a band struggling to stay together, and find a direction, and the end result is an album that reflects that, but also really works. It's hard to believe that in a scenario where members of the band were convinced it would be the last record, that they had some grand scheme to thin the herd of the fanbase. I liken No Code to The White Album by The Beatles. The climate of the sessions was very similar, and the band wasn't working that well together, and the end result was a somewhat disjointed album, but it works.
I think that whole idea ties in pretty well to the discussion. Because while there has been this big myth about Cobain being a reluctant celebrity, I think it is done with Pearl Jam too. Pearl Jam has stepped back from certain things, and tried to conduct their career in their own vision and in a classy and respectable manner, but I think that idea sometimes gets blown out of proportion, as it was done with Kurt. And I think they have done certain things to perpetuate their own myth. I know other people have mentioned it, and I've always wondered it myself. But why did Pearl Jam show up at the '96 Grammy's just to stand on stage and pretend they didn't care about the Grammy award? Clearly they did care, or they wouldn't be there, but it made for good publicity and to continue their "we don't care about fame" image to accept the award and pretend not to give a damn. Ed's explanation of "I just came to relax and watch the show" doesn't really fit in my mind. It was a calculated move. I'm not saying they're fake, but I don't necessarily see Kurt as fake either. Both acts did some contradictory things. And that's why I was talking about that line about No Code being made to intentionally lose fans, it just seems like another part of the myth.