20 Years Since The Death Of Kurt Cobain

[Danny Boy]

Yep. Family history of suicide is a huge risk factor.

 

[gvox]

Well by "trumps" I'm talking about the sensationalistic nature combined with the amount of potential work lost.

I'm not really sure the potential work lost would have amounted to anything greater than what he already produced, to be honest. I mean, have there been recordings released post humously that give any indication of this? I'm asking sincerely, as I mentioned I wasn't overly enamoured with Nirvana to begin with so that likely colors my opinion a little and it's not like I was ever interested enough to follow the goings on after his death. I do like many Foo Fighters songs tho..

Weren't the drugs he was receiving from Dr. Murray illegal?

It's safe to say that as a recording artist he was pretty much done.

- well they were at least administered in an illegal fashion which resulted in the crime of manslaughter, that's for sure. So I'm not sure the point being made, but..

- I wouldn't say it's safe to say his career was done. If we're going to gauge the end of artists' careers by whether an album goes 2x platinum vs 7x platinum, we might as well write off U2 completely now lol!

 

[gvox]

Lennon's death was second to only one other musician's in terms of cultural impact. Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain, Tupac, Biggie, Jackson, Houston, Hutchence, Mercury, Holly and every other musician who died tragically young didn't measure up to Lennon in terms of their impact, there is only one who did and exceeded him and that's Elvis Presley.

Yeah most people would agree.

Spoiler

Maybe not Chuck D tho..

 

[lazarus]

I'm not really sure the potential work lost would have amounted to anything greater than what he already produced, to be honest. I mean, have there been recordings released post humously that give any indication of this? I'm asking sincerely, as I mentioned I wasn't overly enamoured with Nirvana to begin with so that likely colors my opinion a little..

Oh, you think it colors your opinion a little? I'm only a moderate Nirvana fan, but you really have to be obtuse to not see that he was on the cusp of something pretty different and considerably more sophisticated than what he had done before.

Whether or not any late recordings bear this out (I don't think there's much, if any), he was a acknowledged creative songwriter with a big following who was only 27. The notion that any further work wouldn't have been worth anything? Come on.

I wouldn't say it's safe to say his career was done.
If we're going to gauge the end of artists' careers by whether an album goes 2x platinum vs 7x platinum, we might as well write off U2 completely now lol!

Well, album sales are down overall in the last decade so that's a false equivalence right there. You're talking 2001 vs. 2009.

Let's compare the album U2 put out the same year as Jackson's Invisible. All That You Can't Leave Behind is certified twice as many sales.

Are you trying to tell me that there would still be a legitimate demand for new MJ music had he lived? I think you're kidding yourself. The pop audience is pretty damned fickle. And it's safe to say that creatively, he was at a pretty low point. If you think with all his troubles he would have turned it around, more power to you. I don't. I find it amusing you think he had gas left in the tank yet are skeptical that Kurt Cobain at half MJ's age didn't.

 

[gvox]

You'll probably not be able to understand my opinion until you accept that I really really liked MJs music and didn't really like Cobain's that much at all. I dont think he was nearly as creative as MJ and I don't see what you say was apparently forthcoming from him had he not killed himself. That's not being obtuse, it's just a taste thing.

For all either of us know, he could have petered off into irrelevance or make some really shitty music that ended up flopping. I mean, noone really knows. Compare him and Bono at 27...safe to say that we absolutely knew Bono had a hell of alot more to give the world at 27. Absolutely without a doubt.

As for MJ, the fact remains that he still sold a shit ton of music in a sales-depressed music industry and since his death sales of his music have hit something like $700million. That's a healthy demand. It will be interesting to see what happens to Xscape next month.

 

[Hewson]

I'm not really sure the potential work lost would have amounted to anything greater than what he already produced, to be honest. I mean, have there been recordings released post humously that give any indication of this? I'm asking sincerely,

This is a head scratcher to me. How would any lost recording released posthumously be any indication of his future work had he lived?

 

[iron yuppie]

For all either of us know, he could have petered off into irrelevance or make some really shitty music that ended up flopping. I mean, noone really knows. Compare him and Bono at 27...safe to say that we absolutely knew Bono had a hell of alot more to give the world at 27. Absolutely without a doubt.

Of course we can't say for sure what Cobain's future output would have looked like, but I would say that In Utero was a masterwork that pointed at several daring and artistically promising directions. I would think that he would have become a Nick Cave like figure with a great deal of genre experimentation. The odds that he was going to start releasing a bunch of Bon Jovi-esque shit ballads or something are pretty small.

 

[gvox]

This is a head scratcher to me. How would any lost recording released posthumously be any indication of his future work had he lived?

Well ostensibly it would be stuff since the last album which would give some clue as to what might have been next ie what he was working on but unfinished..

 

[Imperor]

we might as well write off U2 completely now lol!

Now we're talkin'.

 

[cobl04]

Gabe and Laz arguing about MJ

my reaction also.

 

[gvox]

Sorry we couldn't be more entertaining for you kids.

 

[PhilsFan]

I'm trying to think of what would be a current day equivalent to Kurt Cobain's sudden death 20 years ago. I suppose maybe Kanye West, maybe Alex Turner or Lady Gaga? What would have the most identical impact and resonance? I really don't know.

Gaga might be too big. Kanye has had too much sustained success and Turner isn't nearly well known enough.

I'm not sure there is a proper comparison right now. What popped into my head was Kendrick but he hasn't made as much of a mark.

 

[lazarus]

You'll probably not be able to understand my opinion until you accept that I really really liked MJs music and didn't really like Cobain's that much at all. I dont think he was nearly as creative as MJ and I don't see what you say was apparently forthcoming from him had he not killed himself. That's not being obtuse, it's just a taste thing.

I accept it. But I can still talk about artists I'm not really into from a relatively object viewpoint. I'm not an Elliot Smith or Jeff Buckley fan. Did they likely have more great work ahead? For sure.

Of course we can't say for sure what Cobain's future output would have looked like, but I would say that In Utero was a masterwork that pointed at several daring and artistically promising directions. I would think that he would have become a Nick Cave like figure with a great deal of genre experimentation. The odds that he was going to start releasing a bunch of Bon Jovi-esque shit ballads or something are pretty small.

This.

If you can't set aside your own personal taste to objectively recognize this, I'm not sure why one would even want to take part in the discussion.

 

[djerdap]

I think the fourth album would have been in a similar vein as Pearl Jam's No Code. A more quiet, melancholic, meditative effort. Somebody already mentioned Automatic For the People. A collaboration with Michael Stipe on a record was also supposedly on the cards. There was definitely a lot of potential and undiscovered territory there.

I'll assume age and geography probably limit your full understanding of the Beatles' and Lennon's impact on culture, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I can assure you that geography has little to do with that kind of ignorance.

 

[gvox]

If you can't set aside your own personal taste to objectively recognize this, I'm not sure why one would even want to take part in the discussion.

On the other hand, if one's personal taste causes one to not like much of it in the first place, it's pretty obvious that one would probably conclude that it's not going to get much better.

At any rate, I didn't realize this was The Completely Objective Academic Study Of Pop Culture Forum or that objectivity was the only thing welcome in what boils down to another thread of opinions...(but I do understand what you're saying about being able to objectively look at an artist you might not necessarily love). The OPs original post and the main questions that have been bandied about on this and other forums over the past few days while this anniversary of his death has been remembered, have been in a very personal (read: subjective) vein: where were you...how did it affect you..that kind of thing. And for me the answers are: "Dancing my ass off to house music" and "not much at all". I was sad that another musician died. That's about it. It didn't mean much else to me, because it's not like I liked his music that much or even grunge that much at all..

But anyways I've stated that a couple ways now and this is a thread for people to remember what he meant to them/their musical world, so I can let it rest..I'm certainly not wanting to trample on people's positive memories of the guy, that wasn't my intent at all..sorry if it came across that way.

 

[Hewson]

Well ostensibly it would be stuff since the last album which would give some clue as to what might have been next ie what he was working on but unfinished..

In Utero was released Sept 13 1993, they toured consistently until the beginning of March 1994, he died April 5, 1994, so I don't think there was much worked on between In Utero and his death.

Spoiler

He didn't have the benefit of 5 plus years and 23 different producers like some bands.

 

[Hewson]

I'm not sure there is a proper comparison right now. What popped into my head was Kendrick but he hasn't made as much of a mark.

Yeah I don't think there's any artist currently that would translate similarly.

 

[U2DMfan]

In Utero was released Sept 13 1993, they toured consistently until the beginning of March 1994, he died April 5, 1994, so I don't think there was much worked on between In Utero and his death.

There wasn't much. Two songs on the Box Set. And as far as I know, Novaselic went through everything to put that Box Set together. So it's not like there is something lying around waiting to be found.

You Know You're Right was released. Do Re Mi is, for all practical purposes, likely considered the last song he ever wrote (less finished than YKYR). It was an acoustic song from the Box Set. It's rough (early demo) but a great tune.

 

[U2girl]

I'll assume age and geography probably limit your full understanding of the Beatles' and Lennon's impact on culture, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But be sure Lennon's "godlike status" in comparison to the other 3 you refer to was well in place long before his death. Lennon was always the most revered of the Beatles and had he lived and never released anything else, or released multiple albums of Yoko imitating injured animals, he would always be the most revered. (to even in passing suggest Ringo would be bigger is so laughable it destroys any credibility your opinion on the subject might warrant.)

Lennon's death was second to only one other musician's in terms of cultural impact. Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, Cobain, Tupac, Biggie, Jackson, Houston, Hutchence, Mercury, Holly and every other musician who died tragically young didn't measure up to Lennon in terms of their impact, there is only one who did and exceeded him and that's Elvis Presley.

Assume away.

Maybe he would be, but at least the gap would be smaller between him and McCartney and Harrison had he lived. (no one said Ringo wold be bigger)

True. Then again, none of the others were a former Beatle.

 

[U2girl]

It's about your perverse agenda to reduce any other band and/or musician to a stereotype based on a pathetic pun you got from the only band you actually seem to know something about. Educate yourself and stop being a wise-ass. You have no idea how stupid you look to people here.



"Choosing" depression? Go and troll in your own backyard.

I doubt U2 invented the line.

And refer to the person who originally brought up "choosing" depression.

 

[U2girl]

My argument wasn't that Double Fantasy's sales weren't to some degree benefited from by passing (although it was far too early to judge the fate of that album after three weeks of sales), merely that it wasn't exactly a huge career move when there wasn't much further up for him to go. His legacy was already sealed, unlike Kurt, who probably wouldn't be as respected today if he had run out of ideas. Two classic albums followed by years of garbage wouldn't be enough.

Plus, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that Lennon would have only damaged his discography after 1980. That's not a foregone conclusion. McCartney hit on some inspiration in the late 90s and has been riding it ever since. Lennon surely had more great material left in him.

Like I said...it was a comeback after 5 years of no recording. It then got the sales and the Grammy. And thus the Lennon myth was born, compared to other Beatles. Even compared to other prematurely gone 60's legends.

He had very good opening two solo albums that he never matched. To say nothing of the songwriting level of the Beatles.
McCartney did get good reviews for his latter day solo albums but I think few would argue his solo work would rival his best writing as a Beatle.

 

[lazarus]

The myth was born? As it's already been said here, John was the most enigmatic, fascinating, and funniest of the Fab Four. His mythology was well in place by that point, his assassination just put a dark punctuation on it. He had already hit rock bottom, come back up to a happy family life, and was writing his most accessible (if tamer) music in 10 years.

Get real. Better yet, get out. No one takes you seriously.

 

[djerdap]

I doubt U2 invented the line.

And you miss the point yet again.

 

[IWasBored]

so, how about that kurt cobain guy?


to be honest, i don't think i heard a single nirvana song til about 1997 or 98. i lived under a rock until then, and listened exclusively to the beatles and the local oldies station, and if i heard anyone talking about cobain at the time of his death, it didn't register cos i had no idea who the guy was. and i had practically no interest in the band til 2001, when all that 10th anniversary of nevermind stuff was going on in all the guitar magazines i read at the time. i figured that was as good a time as any to get into them, so i went and found nevermind and in utero on cassette from the used music store (my cd player was broken, i swear i was not trying to live up any pathetic hipster fantasy of 10 years prior with 10 year old technology. really). 2001 doesn't seem like it was that long ago to me now, as i'm sure 1991 didn't seem like it was that long ago in 2001 to people born about 8+ years earlier than i was.

sliver would easily rank in my top 20 favorite songs of all time.

 

[Hewson]

(no one said Ringo wold be bigger)

.

. I would argue Lennon would not be seen as bigger than the other three

So you meant Paul, George and who? Pete Best? Stu Sutcliffe?

 

[Hewson]

and listened exclusively to the beatles and the local oldies station,

So you know Ringo was a bigger cultural icon than John Lennon, right.

 

[cobl04]

I know we all hate U2girl, but I get where she was coming from. MJ and Elvis are probably the two greatest examples of artists whose sales exploded when they passed on.

 

[IWasBored]

So you know Ringo was a bigger cultural icon than John Lennon, right.

Being so far removed from the 60s, I missed that memo and fell for the revisionist history that painted Lennon as a much bigger deal. ya know, he was killed before I was born.

 

[lemonfly]

Like I said...it was a comeback after 5 years of no recording. It then got the sales and the Grammy. And thus the Lennon myth was born, compared to other Beatles. Even compared to other prematurely gone 60's legends.

He had very good opening two solo albums that he never matched. To say nothing of the songwriting level of the Beatles.
McCartney did get good reviews for his latter day solo albums but I think few would argue his solo work would rival his best writing as a Beatle.

I'm at a complete loss to this birth of the "Lennon myth" that you refer to. He was well established as a musical genius and cultural icon long before he was killed. Hell, I wasn't even born when he died, but a cursory exploration of the music archives makes that fact abundantly clear. Your post is the most bizarre example of revisionist history I've read on a music forum anywhere. Which is saying something.

 

[U2fan20]

I know this is supposed to be one of those events that you remember exactly where you were when you heard the news. But you know what? I don't.

I was very busy with my last semester of college and I didn't have a TV at the time. Internet of course barely existed. I'm sure someone told me but I really have no memory of it.

It was the headline on ABC news, the 6:30 evening news with Peter Jennings. That's where are I heard it. Others may have heard it earlier on CNN, MTV, or the radio.

Its strange, almost no one knew who Kurt Cobain was in September 1991, and in just 2 years and 7 months, he would leave the planet in this way.