Okay, so it wasn’t just one hit, but you get the point. Nirvana released three studio albums before Kurt Cobain was killed (yeah, they say he committed suicide, but I like to leave the conspiracy possibilities open). The first, Bleach, was a solid, raw and immature punk-leaning grunge album. Tracks like “Blew” and “Negative Creep” are good examples of grunge, unadorned by major label money and production and pressure. For what it is, it’s a really good album and it shows the promise that would explode into the mainstream with the next album. Nevermind is Nirvana at the peak of their short career. It borrowed enough pop from from punk and enough money from DGC to break out of a local underground scene and into the CD players of all of Gen X. The singles and most of the album tracks were pretty much good enough to stand alone. This album is the one hit to which I refer. But their last album is the one that I really want to discuss.
In Utero is a rotten album. Sure it was commerically successful, but it certainly wasn’t the first record to ride on the coattails of huge critical and commercial success like Nevermind, so sales don’t mean it was good. The singles were okay and “Rape Me” was kinda shocking even if it was a pretty lousy song. “Dumb” had a nice appeal for self-loathing Xers even if the song was only mediocre. But who wants to listen to “Frances Farmer…” or “Radio Friendly Unit Shifter”? Not me. I’m pretty sure that I’ve never even listened to the whole album in one sitting to this day. The bulk of the album was filler. After that, Kurt died and there were no new Nirvana albums, so the question is, “Was In Utero just a weak followup to Nevermind or was Nevermind the only great album they had in them?” Considering that even the singles from In Utero sound like B-sides to Nevermind singles, that Cobain seemed to be quickly folding under the pressures of fame and that Nevermind’s greatness stems at least in part from being in the right place at the right time, I tend to believe that Nirvana was really done, that Kurt Cobain was largely out of songs. Other than the strong Unplugged performance, I don’t see any real indication that there was much left in the tank. In dying, Kurt Cobain became a legend (which is dumb, but that’s another post) and also protected his legacy from coming under more scrutiny. More importantly, he never had to prove that he still had it. I don’t think he did, but not even time will tell if I’m right or if I’m wrong.
Look at me, I’m showing distaste for a slam-dunk album! That must mean I’m right, right?
So, would you suggest that I express the opinion of the millions who were fooled by the album even if I wasn’t? I think your moniker might explain why you are a bit less open to the possibility that the album isn’t very good though. In Utero shows the conflict between Mr Cobain’s admiration for Flipper (and we certainly don’t need more than one Flipper in the world) and his uncomfortable love for the fame and money. The result was an album that was neither truly esoteric nor easily engaging. It required work (which I’m not at all adverse to) without any reward.