Pearl Jam went on to an unquestionably successful career. Nirvana didn't last quite as long.
But I often wonder if Kurt Cobain were still alive, which band would be bigger, or more successful. I know this is tricky for many reasons. Everyone's opinion of success will be different. And the bands didn't really play the same type of music.
But I really felt Nirvana was onto something special at the end of their existence. I recently "rediscovered" "In Utero." I have to say, it's really a brilliant album. It was a departure from Nevermind, less commercial. But I even like the singles. So I wonder: was "In Utero" and the New York Unplugged album just the tip of the iceberg, or did Nirvana go out on top (Costanza-style)?
By no means did Pearl Jam fade away after "Ten." They put out a string of great albums. But after maybe "Vitalogy" (or maybe "No Code") I feel like they kind of lost that "special" feeling. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who will disagree, and I welcome that.
I don't know how much longer Nirvana would have lasted had Cobain not committed suicide. I doubt they'd still be together these days. But I wish I could have gotten some more.
So who would have gone on to be the better band?
(In case you couldn't tell, I'd vote for Nirvana.)
A few thoughts:
ReplyDelete-You can say, 'They're no Nirvana,' but the Foo Fighters' success proves Cobain wasn't the sole reason for Nirvana's legendary status. Plus, the Foo Fighters are pretty good, in their own right.
-Pearl Jam has gone down hill, as OD noted, but it seems to me the decline was in no small part due to Vedder's general wackiness and social activism. I'm not going to compare Cobain directly to Vedder, but he could have become equally lame and irrelevant in the new millennium. Other musicians leading genre revolutions - from Robert Johnson, to Jimi Hendrix, to Cobain - arguably died 'in their prime'. It may be that their deaths added to their mystique, and, thus, their influence, as not every artist holds the same longevity as Bob Dylan. We know what 'past-their-prime, self-important, washed-up, preachy douche' looks like: U2's Bono, Ted Nugent, Madonna, and Vedder. Cobain could easily have found himself in their company.
-...Or, perhaps, not. Cobain seemed to shun the limelight and celebrity. If that continued, over the years, he may have mutated from young and angsty to middle-aged, focused, and incisive, becoming a rock god and true generational mouthpiece (likely still in self-imposed exile).
-The truth is likely somewhere between the above scenarios: Nirvana would have broken up in the late-1990s, a hugely successful, influential band. If we assume no change in Pearl Jam's path, Nirvana wins, as they likely would have broken up before watering down their body of work with too many mediocre-to-bad albums.
THE THRUST:
Hypothetical questions are difficult for me, because I love playing Devil's Advocate, and thus always have one more, "Yes, but..." in my pocket. However, I'd have to vote for Nirvana, because I think the three of them would disband before it got sad. Hell, I'd root for a reunion tour.
Right out of the gate, I think it’s only fair to admit that I’m a huge Pearl Jam fan. In the fan club, buy all their albums in both CD and vinyl, etc. That said, I’ll be as impartial as I can for this exercise.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, if Cobain never committed suicide, which would have been the better band? Well, what defines a “better band”? Monetary success? Influence? Cult following? Or some other intangible “it”?
If “better band” is defined as staying power, then Pearl Jam would be the better band. We assume nothing changes for Pearl Jam with Cobain living, yet both OD and BLOR figure Nirvana would have broken up. Could they be considered a better band if they’re no longer even still a band? It’s easy to call one band better if they gave it up before the going got really tough. Pearl Jam fought a ticket monopoly and lost, and kept going. They decided to go against the wishes of the record label by eschewing music videos, conventional touring or album releases by following their own path. Yet today, they still sell out stadiums and sell practically the same number of new releases as other more “popular” bands today. A person who strives in the face of adversity by sticking to his or her ideals and never quitting would be called by many a great person. Could the same not be said about a band?
If “better band” is defined as influence, I’d tip the hate in Nirvana’s favor. If Cobain lived and Nirvana disbanded before they “became sad,” I reckon that their influence would be the same as it is today, which I’m guessing exceeds that of Pearl Jam. I could imagine Cobain releasing a few solo albums, but it’d be hard to gauge how successful or popular those would be. Good thing the question was related to Nirvana, and not Cobain’s potential solo career.
Many people disagree with me, but I argue one of the major reasons that Nirvana is so immensely popular, considered successful and even the “better band” is because of Cobain’s death. BLOR hinted at that. I doubt they’d have the staying power and influence they have today if he had lived. By the same token, I believe Pearl Jam would be in the same place Nirvana is today had Vedder killed himself back in 94 or 95, whether or not that’s justified.
But what about musical value? Can we somehow quantify that? This is hard for me, and I reckon most people, to stay neutral about. It brings up a basic question of “what makes music good”? It’s going to be different to different people. Musically, Pearl Jam has matured, I believe. They’ve incorporated different elements and instruments into their act … keyboard, ukulele, etc. Would Nirvana had expanded musically as well?
This brings up another problem: People hate it when a band changes their sound into something different, but at the same time, other people hate it when a band refuses to evolve. Radiohead is a great example of a band completely changing their sound and becoming even better for it. But there are other bands that have tried that and failed miserably (Bad example, I know, but Bush comes to mind with Science of Things).
If Nirvana kept producing the same music it had 20 years ago, that music based on the simple single guitar-bass-drum set up, would people love it or loathe it? Would people complaint that they’re stuck in the 90s, or be grateful some acts are still playing “that awesome grunge”? By the same token, if they changed their setup with Cobain wanting to do an all piano album or something, would people embrace that or hate it? The decision to do mostly covers for their unplugged show demonstrates they’d likely evolve into something that would not be recognizable as “Bleach” Nirvana. For their benefit? It’d be hard to say.
I think Pearl Jam has done a magnificent balancing act. Some of their songs from their latest album could conceivably fit naturally into previous albums (Comatose on Vitalogy, Parachutes on Yield, Unemployable on No Code), but they also feel much more evolved than the songs on those albums. It’s a familiar sound , but not quite as it offers something new. I could see Nirvana taking a similar approach with their music, and maybe it'd help them. Maybe not.
Again, questions like these are hard. I’d hazard to guess that most people who would chose one band as the “better” band over the other likes them more. By that measure, I think Pearl Jam is the better band. I identify and agree with many of the “general wackiness and social activism” that Vedder promotes, so there’s that too.
By contrast, I’m a huge Doors fan, and I don’t really care for the Beetles. I do think, however, that the Beetles are the better band. So go figure.
Sorry for the length!
And then there's this ...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.villagevoice.com/slideshow/view/4099512
Who would have gone on to be the better band. Isn't the answer relatively easy to come to, the success and longevity Pearl Jam has achieved is all the proof needed. In the new age of super groups and golden god front men, Pearl Jam has continued to evolve and produce quality albums. Some may argue the band has gotten tired or stale, no longer challenging themselves to produce ground breaking music, and some may be turned off by Eddie and his political expression, but the fact remains that Pearl Jam has done what few can.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt Nirvana may have produced a few more albums, possibly even another great one, assuming they probably would have broken up is not a stretch. There's nothing wrong with burning out, ask Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, and Soundgarden how easy it is to make quality albums and tour constantly.