++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not to take anything away from the Beatles' music (which would be just plain ignorant), but one of the reasons why they are still considered such a musical powerhouse is because Apple/Capitol/EMI has been so successful in keeping them in the public eye. Examples: it wasn't until three years after the band broke up that a retrospective collection was released ("1964-1966" & "1967-1970"). Three years later came the double album "Rock and Roll Music" which was a huge seller, the same with another double album, "Love Songs" a year later. 1980, big hype for the "Rarities" album. It wasn't until 1987 that the band's catalog became available on CD (a few years after the advent of the medium, wisely held back to pique consumer interest). Unreleased material, a LOT of it on the double disc "Live at the BBC" kept things rolling in 94, with the sprawling "Anthology" collection (with accompanying press juggernaut) rounding out that decade. Then, to mark the turn of the century, a proper Beatles Greatest Hits collection ("1"), re-mastered (just like the "Yellow Submarine (Song Track)"...both of which whetted the appetite of those who were ready for a remaster job on the entire catalog). A few years are allowed to elapse before the unleashing of the "Love" spectacle from Cirque de Soleil and the mash-up CD that came from it (a concept that is so cool that even the most hardened anti-Beatles gen-Xers should agree). That one definitely had an impact in bringing a LOT of people, both young and old, into the fan base. The remasters finally come out, but the real coup in this whole process was "The Beatles Rock Band", which made it "cool" to love the Beatles again, and once again, likely most successfully brought in an entire new demographic.
All of which is nothing new. But I bring it up to make this point... tireless promotion has helped keep the Beatles in the hearts and minds of the public...it has been the primary means through which the legacy has been passed down from generation to generation (or at least made it "ok" to listen to, even though it IS "your parents' music").
When all that stops, what next? Will the music still be acknowledged for it's influence or anything else by even the record buying public? I mean, go into a CD store and ask a few people what they think of Chariey Patton's music and it's a safe bet you're going to get this answer: "Who is Charley Patton"? Or even Robert Johnson. Or Blind Lemon Jefferson or ANY of the blues pioneers whose style is a huge part of what made rock music what it STILL is today. Will that be the case with the Beatles in 2050? Well, I don't know, but the publicity machine has been running strong for FORTY solid years now with no signs of letting up. Yes, the music is timeless...IF YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD IT.
Will that be the case with Nirvana? Will anyone have even heard Nirvana's music in 2050, save the genre's hardcore devotees? And I mean REALLY hardcore, because there will be scads of bands that will come along down that line who will make a LOT of people forget about Kurt Cobain and Nirvana. Maybe not in 2050, that may be unreasonable, but 2100??? I wish I could be around to find out. Hopefully I'll get the scoop from wherever I happen to be and I can discuss it with Mr. Cobain himself.
Of course, none of the postmortem proselytism of the Beatles (or ANY group) is going to amount to anything if the music isn't relevant to the target audience. The Beatles' music has proven to be. Will Nirvana's be similarly relevant at the close of this century? I'm not saying yay or nay, just thinking, and wondering.
And does it even matter how relevant it is if it's not kept in the public eye? I don't see it happening. I mean, the "passing down" ritual being effectively implemented. Nirvana is a non-entity on television anymore. You SOMETIMES hear them on a modern rock station, but most of the people who listen to that don't give a shit about whether or not Nirvana is going to be appreciated and listened to a few decades from now. It's not like, "Son, come here, listen to this...this is the music that helped shape the person I am today..." God help that person if it is, you know? A man's gonna grow out of that emotional mindset by the time he has children, anyway. IMO.
Geffen sure as hell hasn't done much to keep the band in the spotlight, and the bickering between Love and the Grohl/Novaselik camp hasn't helped matters. Hell, I bought my copy of Cobain's "Journals" in the Clearance section of Barnes & Noble YEARS ago...I'm not sure if that means anything or not... I'm not trying to demean him here, or to say that his work has diminished in value. I'm just saying that IF a performer's legend status is affected by continual promotion, then Nirvana stands on shaky ground.
These are all just thoughts I'm writing down. Different ways of considering the question. I don't think there's any real point in coming flat out and saying, with any degree of confidence, that Nirvana is gonna stand the test of time. Or that the Beatle's reign will end one day. Of course it will. It's all just a matter of predicting WHEN. That's no fun, is it?
So, in order to put it all in perspective for my own peace of mind, I asked my 15 year old son if he'd ever heard of Nirvana. Now my boy is one of the most musically literate people you could know. He has a wide spectrum of musical taste and is very, very passionate about it. New music and old, alike. He loves the Decembrists and Death Cab For Cutie. But he likes Hendrix and the Who just as much. He practically worships the Beatles, but he also loves Sigur Ros, Jonsi, The Postal Service, Jack's Mannequin, the Films, Vampire Weekend...so, as I said, I asked him if he'd ever heard of Nirvana. As I figured, he said yes, he knew of them. I asked if he'd ever heard any of their music and he said yes to that one as well. He liked "Heart Shaped Box". "So you think they will be remembered 40 or 50 years down the road?" He said probably, they would.
A few moments I went back and asked him another question...what do you think of Marvin Gaye? His response? "Never heard of him".
Maybe someday he will...maybe not. I don't know if it even means anything in the context of this writing. But it seemed significant, and I'll leave it you to sort out whether it actually is or not.
Well, now I've heard of Marvin Gaye, so that pretty much takes the maybe someday out of it.
ReplyDelete