On April 8, 1994, the musical world was brought to a standstill. As I arrived home from my last year of Junior High School, I was shocked to learn that Nirvana frontman, Kurt Cobain, had taken his own life. Now, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I was the biggest Nirvana fan in the world. I wasn’t. In fact, over the years, I have become more intrigued with their legacy as “one of the greatest bands ever”, rather than an avid disciple of their musical creations.What strikes me now is that back in 1994, I had my whole life ahead of me. I was excited about the future and the possibilities it would eventually present.

As I viewed the CNN report of Cobain’s demise, my thoughts became grounded in the reality that no matter how successful one can become, personal demons still have the ability to manipulate and destroy. Life wasn’t like ‘Leave it to Beaver’.

In a sense, the world changed for me that day. I learned that success and money were merely mirages sent to distract us from our own inabilities as human beings. Cobain struggled with many issues such as drugs, depression, women, fame, and understanding of his place in this world*. He destroyed himself because he was unable to overcome the vices and issues that constricted him. Nirvana died that day, and to a greater extent, so did a sense of my innocence and naiveté.

But what if Kurt Cobain had decided that life was worth living? What if he had eventually kicked his demons? What if…? In reality, around the time of Cobain’s death, Grunge music was beginning to falter as a progressive medium. Society was beginning to tire of the self-loathing lyrical content symbolized by Grunge**, and as a result, the movement began to taper out. Many people consider Nirvana as one of the greatest bands of all time***, and Cobain as a ‘musical messiah’, but if Cobain had continued living, would he still be considered a genius?

With only three studio albums to their credit, Nirvana never had an extensive discography. If Nirvana had continued on as a band, then perhaps they may have become a parody of their own success. In fact, how would they have fit in during the pop era? Perhaps Nirvana’s popularity would have faded out, and Cobain could have once again been exuberant about music, and the fact that the band was no longer a mainstream success. Or, the band could have continued on with their unique brand of music, alternating their style and becoming much more artistically diverse (like Pearl Jam).

In my opinion, a more likely hypothesis is that Nirvana would have eventually disbanded. I truly believe that Cobain would have gone on to develop a solo career, and that he would have begun to focus more on an acoustic sound rather than an electric. His songs would remain poetic, but he would be doing it on his terms-playing small clubs, writing self-indulgent?/self-loathing poems targeting the marginalized. In my opinion, out of all the possibilities, this seems to be the most logical step considering his disdain for the spotlight (And why not start fresh and rid yourself of the band that made you famous in the first place). Apparently, Michael Stipe, lead singer of R.E.M. agrees, “Cobain’s future work would have been very quiet and acoustic, with lots of stringed instruments.”

I think the key issue here, for me, anyways, is whether or not Cobain would still be considered a ‘musical genius’ if his life had progressed onward? For some bizarre reason, most artists that die young are (incorrectly?) categorized as iconic. Granted, these young stars may have been talented in their own right, but only time would have told if they would have faded out over time and been forgotten completely. Stars like James Dean****, Marilyn Monroe, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and, of course, Kurt Cobain are just some of the examples that have been defined by this ‘cult’ status. Dying young allowed these artists to be encapsulated as something special within a specific time period*****. But would they have still been considered legendary and messianic if they hadn’t died?

Of course, all of these thoughts are arbitrary. The fact of the matter is that Kurt Cobain is dead. Speculating about what might have been has no bearing in reality. But it is certainly interesting to think about, don’t you think?

*Nirvana was considered “the flagship band” of Generation X, and Cobain hailed as “the spokesman of a generation”. Cobain, however, was often uncomfortable and frustrated, believing his message and artistic vision to have been misinterpreted by the public, with his personal issues often subject to media attention. He challenged Nirvana’s audience with its final studio album ‘In Utero’ (1993). *Chuck Klosterman has a great essay about Cobain and the making of ‘In Utero’ in his book ‘Eating the Dinosaur’.

**Not to mention themes based on somberness, melancholy, tragedy, hopelessness, and angst

***With the lead single “Smells Like Teen Spirit” from Nirvana’s second album ‘Nevermind’ (1991), Nirvana entered the mainstream, popularizing a subgenre of alternative rock, euphemistically titled grunge. Since their debut, Nirvana, with Cobain as a songwriter, have sold over 25 million albums in the United States alone, and over 50 million worldwide.

****I am a huge fan of James Dean, but honestly, I’m not really sure why. Was it his sense of rebelliousness? Or perhaps the photographs taken of him walking down the streets of New York City have inspired me in some sort of way? Though he was in a very small amount of films, perhaps it was his acting ability that intrigued me? Or maybe the media has persuaded me through ideas as dramatic as ‘wayward youth’, ‘tragic death of rising star’, or even ‘the epitome of cool’. To sum it up, I still don’t have the answer.

*****Look how much they accomplished, even though their lives ended prematurely.

I get music. I do. The music industry, though capable of becoming a complex system, does not baffle me in the slightest. I understand its intricacies.

In my estimation, a band’s popularity exists within a 3-5 year span (there are exceptions). For most musical groups, that popularity typically arises as a result of the success of a similar sounding band (in essence, a band/catalyst that helps to highlight that particular genre of music). For instance, a band that is “on fire” at a particular moment (tremendous record sales, continuous radio play, sold out concerts) is more than definitely garnering a hefty amount of income for their record label. So, if consumers are enthralled by this particular band, why not sign other acts that emulate that style of music? As it is a business like any other, a record companies’ top priority is money. To cash in, or not to cash in: That is the question*.

Here’s an example. Back in the early 90s, Grunge music** began to ascend as an innovative musical genre within the mainstream. During the late 80s, bands like the Pixies, the Melvins and Sonic Youth were watering the roots of this latest movement, but it was Nirvana, with their 1991 highly influential album entitled ‘Nevermind’ that opened the eyes of the world to the Seattle grunge scene (much to Kurt Cobain’s disdain). As well, the album was also the catalyst in bringing alternative rock into the mainstream as a cultural and commercially viable art form (‘Nevermind’, as of 2010, has sold more than 10 million copies).

As a result of these unprecedented sales, record labels began to take notice of this once ignored genre of music. Suddenly, the Grunge movement had replaced the (stale) hair metal era that had reigned supreme during the mid to late 80s, thus shockingly becoming a profitable new direction for the music industry (As of today, many people continue to support the idea that the Grunge era was the last original musical period to have ever taken place). As a condition of this success, bands that had been struggling to highlight their musical talent began to emerge.

Nirvana’s success permitted the (mainstream) materialization of other bands like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, The Smashing Pumpkins, and Candlebox (to name just a few). Granted some of these bands have had continued success over the years, but most dwindled out (or broke up) as the grunge movement’s demise accelerated***.

The basic idea behind this idea is that these bands were part of a movement. In essence, a movement usually arises as a means to voice an opinion that is contrary to an opinion held by the majority of society****. However, more often than not, they are short-lived.

The unfortunate reality of the situation is that they have a tendency to lose their way as society begins to comprehend and absorb them into their dominant belief system. A movement needs to sustain its personal philosophies, because if it becomes universally accepted (or if the initial goals are deviated from), it has lost all purpose.

Once Grunge began to be widely accepted as part of the establishment, it began to fizzle out as a creative medium for thought-provoking critiques of the mainstream. As well, the Grunge era eventually began to be exploited for financial reasons. Nirvana’s music was a hit, so why not sign and expose other similar sounding bands to exploit that success? Because the more consumers buy into it, the more profitable it becomes.

It’s a tragedy to look at it from this perspective, but it’s the art of business.

Examples from other genres of music:

Pop- Backstreet Boys, Nsync, LFO, O Town, B4 4, 5ive, Boyzone, Take That, Spice Girls, Bewitched

Britpop- Oasis, Blur, Elastica, Pulp, Radiohead, Suede, Supergrass, The Verve

*As a result (though the record label will more than likely deny it), the emphasis shifts towards making a profit rather than a solid and stable loyalty to a band. When a singer or music group is no longer commercially or economically viable, they are dropped at a moment’s notice.

**A style of rock music that incorporates elements of punk rock and heavy metal, popularized in the early 1990s, and often marked by lyrics exhibiting nihilism, dissatisfaction, or apathy.

***Many agree that Kurt Cobain’s Suicide in 1994 was the final nail in the coffin-Pardon the sour tasting pun.

****What is not understood by society is deemed dangerous and a challenge to the dominant ideology of that particular culture.

There is no denying the fact that the world is marked by imbalance. Gender roles have been strictly codified by patriarchal society and have remained relatively unchanged for centuries. In 1975, Laura Mulvey made note of this in her article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. Though, she was merely focusing onHollywoodnarrative film, her words could be stretched to include every facet of the woman and her struggles for equality/subjectivity.

According to Mulvey: “…the male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly….women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness”. As a result, women hold the look of the male, play to it and thus signify male desire.

This definition of gender roles is clearly existent within the world of narrative cinema. However, it is presently being challenged by both male and female artists deeming to take a stand against these stereotypical and dangerous coding signifiers. Can the same be said for women in the music industry?

Women as Sexual Objects   

Sex sells. There is no denying this fact. It is a tremendous marketing tool and fuels the insatiable cravings of a sex-obsessed society. Women are sexually objectified to maintain the strong patriarchal values that the world has been built on since the beginning of time. The Feminist movement made vast improvements during the 1960s because change was an acceptable and respected practice during this era. However, for as much as the 1960s accomplished, the Patriarchal establishment still reigns supreme. In essence, it is extremely difficult to challenge a system that has been set in stone for centuries.

There are many female singers present in the music industry. Many have great voices and maintain a strong subjectivity throughout their songs or performances. Artists such as Whitney Huston, Aretha Franklin and Reba McEntire are rarely criticized for their raunchy lyrics or fashions. The sole factor being is that they do not need to be vulgar or raunchy. They have been around for quite sometime and are respected on the merit of their talents alone. They have proven themselves. It is the younger generation of singers that are the most troublesome.

The Younger Generation of Singers

There have been many young artists that have started out as legitimate singers. Vowing to make it on the strength of their voice rather then the size of their body, artists begin their career with a dream. However, record companies place a lot of trust, time and money into an artist and if that particular singer’s record sales begin to dwindle, changes must ensue.

The most crucial aspect of this singer is no longer her voice. It has now become about her body and how she can sexualize herself to appeal to a large male audience (in hopes of obtaining fans that may not have been attracted to her music in the first place). If one would reminisce for a brief moment. Think about the artists that started off as innocent, wholesome singers and then abruptly transitioned into highly sexualized objects. Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, Mariah Carey (breast implants and all), Jewel, Fergie, Avril Lavigne and so on.

These artists will fabricate and state that they altered their look because they had personally changed inside. How naïve do these singers believe society is? There is no record company in this world (who has invested millions into this particular singer) that would allow one of its artists to alter their image for their own benefit. There is too much at risk. That is why there are executives sitting around a boardroom table for hours on end contemplating how they can better market their performer to the world. So when Christina Aguilera mentions that she became “dirrty” as a result of her maturation, one can just imagine the Public Relations group for Christina silently padding themselves on the back.

Music, Sex and Teenagers

The world is a highly sexually charged entity and sex is a key component for young adults. There is no denying this fact.  Thus, it is appropriate to discuss the nature of sexuality with teenagers at an early age. However, it is when these spin doctors of the music industry begin to exploit sexuality for the purpose of record sales that it begins to become a problem.

These artists are role models to young females around the world. They respect them and want to emulate their every move. They are so enthralled by their idol that they begin to dress like them in hopes of being like them (unaware of the potential risks). Males, on the other hand, lustfully desire these singers. They place their gaze upon them and begin to objectify them. The fact that males sexualize these singers will only increase the chances of these males sexualizing these young females.

Patriarchal society is a dominant structure and will more then likely stand the test of time. There will be movements and pleas for change but the roles will more then likely never be reversed. In light of this belief, the longer women continue to be objectified and classified as sexual beings, the longer it will take to rid the world of these sexual images threatening the innocence of today’s youth.