Analyzing Nirvana

First Publication on September 9th, 1998 - 7:22 PM

Stories of how Nirvana began has been published in magazines, newspapers, and websites across the world. It's a simple story: two guys in Aberdeen, a "hick" town in Washington, meet and started a few bands together. They had a passion, which was music. They had a share of drummers, recorded a demo with Jack Edino in 1988. Bleach was released in '89. Significantly enough, they toured a hell of a lot.

After Nevermind (1991) selled millions, and still is. Not to mention the decent sells of the other albums, Nirvana has become something bigger than it was ever intended to be. Nevertheless they understood that there were some fans out there that actually understood the passion, rather than the radio-friendly songs.

A lot of people, think Nirvana was Kurt. It wasn't the Kurt Cobain Band. They had, for the most part, three members. A tall bass player who did a great job going with the rhythm, and a drummer who, well, beat the crap out of the drums. Then there's Kurt, the guy who sings and plays the guitar. Not that I am putting down Kurt at any level, but you must understand the difference Nirvana would have been if not one of the members were there.

Listen to Bleach. Do they sound different to you than In Utero? Of course they were a little inexperienced. But overall, would it have been the same if Chad stuck with the band? How about Dale Crover or Dan Peters? Nope.

Sure, Dan and Dale were great drummers. But, like most classes you have taken in High School, or even in college, it's that one word, regardless of performance. That's right..."chemistry." Dave and the guys worked well with each other, creating songs, albums, and live performance (ever see the Wishkah picture?)

Perhaps another thing as to why people think Kurt was Nirvana, is out of respect. Kurt is now dead, the other members are not. Yes, that is respectful. What about respect of the other members? Then there are some people who just like Nirvana because they "rock" or, it's generally acceptable by the crowd they want to be with. Yes, Nirvana does "rock." That's a great thing about them. But it doesn't make sense listening to music just because everyone else does, you have to understand it. If they broke up, for instance, and Dave started a band, and Chris as well, would you have liked their band because of their music or just because they were from Nirvana? What about Kurt, what if he played more of something such as Leadbelly or REM? Chris said something once, like this, "I really dig Nirvana, but I would still be playing in Sweet 75 today."

Nirvana stood for more than feedback and riffing guitars, it was much more than that. It was a passion, a thought, a feeling. It's like taking medicine. If you have a headache, what are you going to take? Aspirin (no endorsement were part of this article). Would you take Peptol Bismol if you had a headache. Likely not.

A really big difference that has separated Nirvana fans is the "death" situation. Now, I won't get into that. However we need to forget about that. We need to put it behind us. Let us forget about whether Courtney hired someone or if he really pulled the trigger himself. We would have never cared if Kurt was not in a big band, we wouldn't even notice. We know Kurt died, and it's a sad thought. Regardless of his death, there's still the music he, Chris and Dave (and the other long list of drummers) made. We should not worry about it. (See the "Who Cares" article.)

I leave you with those thoughts.