As we approach the end of the first year of the 2000's and Gene Nash makes noises of resurgency, we thought it would be interesting to ask "Can Gene Nash Comeback?" We posed that question to two Gene experts and got some very different answers. Their commentaries and rebutals to each other follow.
Taking the "Yes" position, Julie Crumbb author of the forthcomming, "Gene Nash On...: The Wit and Wisdom of Gene Nash"
"Can Gene Nash come back?" The very question is ridiculous. There is no question of "if," only of when. Gene Nash is so talented, so skillful, so knowledgable, so loved by those who come in contact with him that his return to prominence is inevitable. There is simply no other option.
Maybe a better question would be "Why is a comeback even necessary?" If we answer that I think we can clearly see how easy a comeback will be. (Ed. Note, we have another article coming up "What Happened in the 90's" that addresses just this issue in great detail. Look for it soon.)
In the early to mid-90's the opposition of certain people and events came to a dramatic high point, which virtually crushed Gene personally. He withdrew from public life and cancelled all high profile projects. Unfortunately as the decade of the 90's progressed things became worse and worse. At times it seemed his every effort was thwarted.
But eventually, as the decade came to a close, Gene's efforts began paying off. Things gradually have become better and better. And as his personal life becomes brighter, Gene is turning his attention back to his public life, his career, and what he sees as a decade of lost oppurtunity.
Gene is fully fired to not only regain all the ground lost, but take himself higher than any previous heights. There is a passion about him to accomplish this. An "at any cost" spirit, that combined with his proven and acknowledged skills and abilities, can only lead to success.
James Atherby's rebutal to the "Yes" position:
Gene Nash's real or imagined "difficulties" during the 90's are completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Even before that period he had well proved his inability or unwillingness to truely put himself out on any major level necessary for success. Nash was always more potential than reality. He was always "working on a project" but how many of those things ever came to light? You see this even today on his website. Even on this (fan club) site there is talk about "eagerly anticipated sections" that never come. What is not pointed out though is that they are anticipated FOR YEARS.
Any "difficulties" he ever encountered during his whole life serve as nothing more than excuses for him not to do. Every person who ever achieved any of the positions Nash SHOULD HAVE has encountered the same or worse oppositions and setbacks. The difference is THEY DIDN'T FOLD. That's why they are there. Nash DID FOLD. That is the difference.
Nash is a dreamer not a doer. And even today there is no evidence to the contrary. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that it's the same-old-same-old from Nash-ville. Come back? Gene Nash was a never-was and is stil a never-will-be.
Taking the "No" position, James Atherby, former F.O.G. (Fan of Gene)
It's been what 10 years at least since Gene Nash has done anything? Nash is in a business where even a few months off can be fatal but 10 YEARS?! And how many people even know who he is anymore? How many people outside of those who have had personal contact with him can even recognize the name?
Look, what does he have to his credit? What does he have to build on? He's been the most ephemeral of performers leaving nothing to hold on to, no token of his existence for even his "fans" to cherish and use as an anchor to pull him back into their present day consciousness. There will be no "Oh, yeah, I remember that guy, I have his (fill in the work)." What, some writing that is long out of print? Where are the records? Where are the prints? Where are the videos? No where. He always shunned the mass media and now it has bit him in the hinder quarters.
He has also always shunned fame. Though he had the potential to be a worldwide phenomena he wanted no part of it. That may be more than any other reason why any kind of "come back" is impossible. He simply will not do what it takes to reach the sort of critical mass required.
Gene Nash has been away too long, has nothing to build on, and has proven time and again he simply will not do the things truly required of success in his fields. He doesn't want to play the games, so there is no way he can win them.
Julie Crumbb's rebutal to the "No" position:
It may or may not be significant to point out that the "No" position was delivered by a man, and Gene's audience has traditionally been dominated by women. (Personally I think most men feel threatened by him.)
It is true that many years have passed since Gene's last widely diseminated public works. But what Mr. Atherby fails to take into account are the great trials, conflicts, and tribulations which have come against and hampered Gene in the past decade. Should he have handled these differently and overcome them more quickly? Should he have forged on with his career in spite of these events? Certainly Gene himself thinks so, but I am not so sure. Gene has emerged from the other side far stronger and more confident than he went in. This has been a vital period of personal growth for him, even if the career portion of his life did lie dormant. Further, it must be pointed out that Gene has lost none of his abilities in the intervening years. If anything he is more knowledgable, skilled, and accomplished than he every was. He may have neglected the promotion of himself, but he certainly dit not neglect the furtherance of his abilities.
As for claiming Gene has "nothing to build on" I can unconditionally say that is absolutely false. In writing and compiling material for "Gene Nash On..." I had unprecented access to Gene's personal and work related papers and material. I can say unequivocably that he has enough raw material at this moment that if he never created another thing, the development of the material he already has would be a life-long pursuit. Fortunately for all of us we know this is not the case. Gene continues to create and always will. It is as natural to him as breathing.
I also strongly disagree with the idea Gene Nash has never and will never do the things necessary for success in his chosen fields. Gene has always pursued evrything full out and to the greatest extent of his abilities. Anything to which Mr. Atherby might be refering can easily be chalked up to just the types of set-backs, conflict, and misfortunes which overcame Gene during the 90's. As I have already stated, it is just these conflicts that have strengthened Gene and empowered him to do the very things full out which Mr. Atherby claims he has no interest in.
There you have it. The debate rages on. Which is correct? Only time will tell. Keep watching this website to find out! :-)