Goner Message Board
 | Forums | Register | Reply | Search | Statistics | Manual |
Goner Message Board / ???? / Michael Azerrad is a pud.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 12:29 am
Our Band Could Be Your Life is a tome of idiocy.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 4:48 am
after a few chapters it all started to blur together like he was using some sort of flow chart to write each one. even though i like mission of burma, their section made me realize that they are one boring band to read about.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 6:49 am
It's not too terribly bad, for what it is. All rock literature suffers from the desire to be cooler than thou. The one real problem I would have with this work is something that is soooooooooooo rampant in rock criticism, the idea that something momentous occurred in 1991 with Nirvana (see epilogue). I like(d) Nirvana but this was obviously no "rock revolution", and Azerrad's real problem is that this is the crux of his thesis that is supposed to give credence to the variously entertaining and tedious chapters. I think it's all in all a good book, that also suffers a bit from this flawed desire to be in the know about a "rock revolution". Ever since the sixties and seventies rock writers,performers and fans have been chasing the elusive "big thing". Nirvana was pretty good, but no big fuckin deal. I'd much, much rather listen to the Pixies or Husker Du or the Replacements when it comes down to it, and I think,most "real" rock fans who were in to minor,but not obscure rock bands in the eighties and early nineties would concur. It's no wonder, see the back jacket, author also wrote a Nirvana book and a book on the Seattle scene. "Scene"-Mudhoney and Nirvana were good, that's fucking it. All that metal garbage like Alice in Chains and Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and its progeny are what-not just sucked, but what are the current cause of the super-lame current mainstream rock.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 7:30 am
Ew. That book is fun to read if you're really pilled out, but forget it otherwise. The Replacements chapter seemed great on Xanax, but when I tried to re-read it I couldn't make it too far.
As far as that Nirvana book, it was pretty standard ass-kissing crap. I think it would've probably been better had he written it post-Cobain suicide. Less Cameron Crowe-y "Look, I got to hang out with these guys at the height of their popularity".
But have you ever seen the guy?
He looks totally rad, like some sort of slightly more mutated Kevin Corrigan.
Andy Kaufman
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 4:46 pm
no "rock revolution?" Nevermind sold 12 MILLION copies, dude. 12 FUCKING MILLION. Before Nirvana, punk and alternative music were relegated to the specialty & import sections of any mainstream record store. Today this stuff is the meat of these record stores. I know as a "garage rocker" you have to pretend the Nirvana thing didn't happen cause there were many better bands who didn't get that kind of attention (which I agree with), but lets face it, Nevermind for better or worse has shaped the course of popular music for the next 13 years and beyond. It's a landmark album.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 5:20 pm
Andy- you just used the word "alternative" hence you fucking lose. Don't call me a garage rocker either dickhead, because you don't know how far from the truth that is. And I belive I mentioned twice that I liked Nirvana.
Andy Kaufman
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 8:11 pm
schmegma: "alternative" in the 80s was what "indie rock" means today, douchefag. where the fuck else do you think these words come from (even Byron Coley could be spoted scribing the word "grunge" pre-Smells Like Teen Spirit)? face it, you're an idiot and I called you on it. Name one rock album since "Nevermind" that has sold anywhere near as many copies. end of fucking story. i lose? you aren't even playing the game, toots.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 8:25 pm
I hate Michael Azerrad because Muslim hates him. And Muslim knows everything in some strange way.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 8:39 pm
Journeyfan, have you ever watched the movie Xanadu on Xanax?
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 8:47 pm
or "dark crystal" on DMT?
CS Eunuch
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 8:57 pm
Look I'm 25. Nirvana happened when I was in junior high. Before then, I listened to hair metal, Metallica, etc. Six months after I bought Nevermind I had records by Black Flag, Mission of Burma, Buzzcocks, Stooges, etc. shit I heard of by being obsessed with Nirvana. And I imagine there's a millon or more others out there just like me. Rock revolution? Call it what you will.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 9:12 pm
That book may suck as much as other pieces of rock journalism, but I liked the section on the Butthole Surfers...
kevin e
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 9:33 pm
I read an article in I think Rolling Stone a while back that said Nevermind actually killed alternative music. The crux was that before Nirvana, bands like Violent Femmes and Fishbone could sell 50,000 records and play some successful club tours and the majors would be happy with that. After Nevermind, alternative bands were expected to sell a gazillion copies and if they didn't, they would be dropped.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 10:05 pm
Andy- you alterantive guy, you with all your crazy alterantive ideas, named after an alternative comic, using alternative putdowns like "douchefag" and "schmegma". 1991-92 "alternative"=Neds Atomic Dustbin, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, Nine Inch Nails, and soon thereafter Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots. Pretty weighty alternative revolution right there. You're right, I'm wrong, I'm going to go listen to Blink 182 and read Alternative Press now and get learned on this stuff. You believe the MTV version of life if you buy your own crap. Selling records=important alternative music phenomenon. I was a freshamn in college when Nevermind came out and it was popular yes, and I loved it yes, but come on, you don't have to buy the lameass watery MTV theory that Nirvana changed everything. They were just a band and the lead singer married a nasty syncophant hag and shot dope.
I tend to buy Kevin E. version of things. When I was growing up you could read about all sorts of minor but good groups that sold a few records, enough to record and tour and make livings and that was it, but Nirvana inadvertantly ruined it. They created the tatooed mass culture pervades the middle of the road rock landscape today. I read about the Replacements for the 1st time in the Raleigh News and Observer(local paper) and went and saw them shortly thereafter. They were both known but unknown, they were on teh cover of Rolling Stone and still didn't sell much. I first read about Husker Du in fucking Rolling Stone and saw them at a place called the Rialto theater. Music like that from the late 70s b-52s, through Pscychocandy through Violent Femmes even Jane's Addiction (until they themselves became part of the revolution with Lolapalooza) was somewhat obscure but still easy to find, that notion was blown away by the Nirvana. Andy do you have alot of tatoos and some guilty manlove for Chris Cornell or Scott Weiland. The same bullshit thing that is today's "punk" is today's "alternative". College music or whatever it is called was once as diverse as the Hoodoo Gurus to the Smiths to Black Flag to Dinosaur Jr to Let's Active to Echo and the Bunnymen to the Only Ones. There was no "alternative" sound and there was no switch in paradigm in 1991 that became a bastardized corporate MTV concept/attempt to convince you any many others that there was one.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 10:30 pm
nirvana didn't ruin anything. geffen and the like 'ruined' it. taking that little underground scene and dumping a shit load of money into it and selling it to the best buy/coconuts nation. same thing the big labels did with ska, goth, swing...you name it..and even garage. don't worry, y'all can still pat yourselves on the back and say you were there when it was cool. i know i do.
i liked the buttholes part also, but some(if not most) was ripped verbatim from other sources. speaking of bands 'ruining' things, the buttholes are a prime example. they were almost successful in suing touch-n-go to the point where they could have owned that label and in turn sell the whole catalog to a major. one pretty shitty ass-fuck to a label that basically supported that band until they went to a major.
i guess there's always klezmer or skiffle i guess...the majors'll never touch that.
Posted: Nov 26, 2003 10:52 pm
The idea of "Dark Crystal Meth" is kind of intriguing.
Posted: Nov 27, 2003 12:45 am
note the word "inadvertantly", not on purpose, not to be found at fault, but set off a causal chain of events. The shit started rolling down hill faster after that band Nirvana and now in 2003 there are a bunch of 21 Hoobastank and Staind fans with pierced noses and retarded tatoos that worship at the "alternative altar". I don't know why the fuck I've written so much on this thread because I couldn't give less of a fuck.
Doctor Sardonicus
Posted: Nov 27, 2003 7:06 am
Nirvana were revolutionary in the sense that they snuck into the mainstream under the guise of a hair-band, and once established, they set about fucking everything up....they were a kind of punk rock trojan horse...

Not that the Seatle apple fell all too far from the hairmetal tree....all those bands where as rooted in heavymetal and hard rock as they were in punk and underground rock. I got into punk through the influence of Motley Crue and GnR....GnR influenced me to buy a Rhino UK Punk Comp becuase it had the Damned on it and they covered the Damned....likewise with Motley Crue name dropping The Ramones and Sex Pistols constantly.....it was almost logical for a band like Nirvana to happen right at that moment.....But what they did realy did kind of harken in a new era of mainstream culture, all of the sudden Axl Rose went from being Rocknroll Royalty to like bike shorts wearing white trash.....you can understand why MTV would be so influenced by it....Nirvana basically forced them to change thier whole presentationg and format.

From the Entrepenurial percpective, Nirvana clued all the corporate labels on two this, seemingly, new and prety much untapped resource, The Modern Rock Underground (for lack of a better term)....It was like Bill Gates turning the rest of the world on to fucking computers...or more poinantly, the fucking Internet! It was all happening around that time and it was very exiting! Especially if you were a 13 year old.

I personaly never got all that into Nirvana untill about 4 years ago....When I first got into punk rock, I had no clue that there was any kind of punk rock revival going on....put when Nirvana hit and all these underground bands started getting more exposure...that's what I got into. I mean just shit that was better suited for a 13 year olds taste...It's funny because I was never part of any particular punk scene, never was, I mostly got into shit that I thought was great, and also shit that I thought other people would be impressed by, and allow me to influence them...In other words I got into all kinds of music good and bad...and that's how I formed strong opinions about music......anyway to end that tangent....I don't see how a 13 year old could realy get into Bleach....That's my favorite Nirvana album....I mean I just don't see how a 13 year old could possibly relate to that album....it's meant for 24 year olds watching thier lives past by in front of thier lives.....Nirvana realy dumbed it up after that...and that's what allowed them to get famous and start "A Revolution"....but it was only cuz Kurdt Cobain basically didn't give a shit about anything....he could "sell out", he could right dumb pop songs...and he did. He wrote most all of his good songs before they even recorded Bleach....Nirvana just like GnR..wrote most thier best material before they even got famous...and basically got threw 3 albums off of that shit's merit...and then self-destructed....He just didn't give a shit. Alot of people are going to disagree with me, but this is just my opinion.

Doctor Sardonicus
Posted: Nov 27, 2003 7:12 am
Also, I should have elaborated on that crack about Seatle music being like Punk Hair Metal.

If you don't believe me listen to early Sound Garden or Screaming Trees or Melvins even....Alice in Chains...fucking Mother Love Bone will realy drive the point home....they were buttrockers, but they were also influenced by like The Butthole Surfers and the Stooges.....I mean it realy was like a logical progression of everything happening at the time....I understand why 40 year old Rock Journalists still romanticize about it.

Doctor Sardonicus
Posted: Nov 27, 2003 7:15 am
Also, Cobain wrote all the lyrics for Bleach like 15 minutes befor he went into the studio...I don't want anyone to think he even realy gave a shit back then too.
Posted: Nov 28, 2003 7:16 am
Books like his are good for the anecdotes and stories, if you like the band, and, at best, make you want to check out (or revisit) a band you haven't thought about in a while. I loved hearing about Henry doing acid and then getting into the van coffin. Now wonder the guy spilled so much overly self-conscious verbiage. Did you ever see how even Lydia Lunch ragged on him after a while. Not sure why, since she definitely encouraged his "writing career" early on. But, yeah, I don't consider the book "rock criticism"- for that, I'll take the obvious ones (Meltzer, Bangs, Tosches and even Carducci).

Has anybody read that From the Velvets to the Voidoids? Kind of a lesser Pls. Kill Me but also good for some laffs. However, I almost threw it down when the author goes off in the introduction about how the Brits didn't cop punk from the Yanks...

The whole Seattlealt bla-bla. Changed pop music? I dunno. I donna care. Today's evil twin axis of Blinksum Charlatans and Limplinktones is the '00's equivalent of '80's hair farmers metal and new-romantic synth crap except this new breed is all about macho posturing and non-sarcastic negativity. Fuggem'!

Posted: Nov 29, 2003 7:48 pm
Zardos on Zima?
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

  Goner Message Board Powered by PHP Forum Software miniBB ®