Thesis: Nirvana’s Use of Creative Expression in Promoting an Ideology
The Mainstream: They Know Not What It Means
Nirvana’s
Use of Creative Expression in Promoting an Ideology
TLDR: This is a thesis paper that discusses Nirvana's ridicule of mainstream media, using their own music and performances.
Part I
Introduction
Genesis of the Problem
Music has always invited
me into an unexplored universe, a window into another person’s life and
perspective. It has been a place of both refuge and enjoyment, an aural utopia that
provides a way for me to understand an experience outside my own. Music is a
medium where I can learn about others without having met them, and understand
their experiences even if I have not experienced them myself.
I
was very young—maybe nine or ten—when I really started getting into music, but
it was not until Ninth Grade when I began to understand that some groups of
musicians shared similar feelings and values. The bands I was attracted to that
shared these qualities in their music were grouped under the moniker of “Grunge,”
a culture of music that began in
The
bands of the Grunge culture were somewhat enigmatic. Many shunned success,
preferring the company of fellow
I
have always wondered: what was it about Nirvana’s music that the critics and
public adored? Was it Nirvana’s dirty, indifferent image, as described by
journalists and portrayed by the media? Or was it something deeper, more
emotive, such as the lyrical content of their work? There were many questions
that deserved to be answered, but finding the answers to all of them would be
beyond the scope of the project.
Tentative Statement of the Problem
As I began to research
the band in preparation for this project, I found that the members of the Nirvana
made remarks and displayed types of behavior that carried many consistent themes.
The band was pro-feminist and anti-homophobic, and they also cared deeply about
the artistic merits of their work, as opposed to success. The band’s statements
and actions created an ideology: a
set of beliefs and attitudes about how to respond to the external world. It
piqued my interest. What was the ideology of the band Nirvana in the early
1990s?
Overview of Indices Used
The Hiram
Library’s microfiche collection contained several issues of the Rolling Stone (a magazine dedicated to
music and culture) that were helpful in forming the research question. Hiram’s
Interlibrary Loan system also provided copies of articles from Spin, a magazine that provides music
coverage. Fourteen books on the subjects of music and culture came from Hiram’s
Ohiolink system. Some of the most helpful were Rock ‘N’ Roll: Year by Year,
which chronicled the major events in rock history via columns in popular
magazines, and Live Through This, which examined the rock music scene in
the 1990s. From the researcher’s personal collection came the biography Heavier
Than Heaven and a Rolling Stone
anthology, Cobain.
Academic
Search Premiere, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Humanities
International Complete, and ArticlesFirst provided articles from the Rolling Stone, Spin, Newsweek, and the Utne Reader. The engines also provided articles
from scholarly journals such as Musical
Quarterly, the Chronicle of Higher
Education, Midwest Quarterly, and
the Journal of Cultural Geography.
Certain
key words were essential in finding material. Bands and musicians that were
important in Grunge culture were used as search terms and combined with other
search terms such as “interview,” “grunge,” “culture,” “music,” “Seattle,”
“art,” film,” “fashion,” “youth,” and “rock.” The authors of the results were
subsequently also used as search terms.
The review of literature was divided
into four sections: (1) Standpoint Theory (2) the Ideology of Punk Rock, (3)
Grunge Music and Culture, and (4) Nirvana and their Impact on Music Culture.
Literature Concerned with the Problem
Standpoint Theory
Em
Standpoint
theory evolved from the ideas of several philosophers, including Georg Hegel,
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Georg Lukacs, beginning in the early 19th
century. Hegel postulated that those in captivity (slaves) have very different
perspectives than those in charge (masters), but those who are in control have
the power to control history and the visibility of the perspectives of those in
captivity (Griffin 483-484). He claimed that those who are oppressed are at an
advantage because of the strife that they must face (Cameron 21). Marx and
Engels furthered the concept by writing that those who are impoverished have an
ideal understanding of society (
Women
as an oppressed group have come under the scrutiny of standpoint theorists
since the 1960s and 1970s, when feminists began to formulate ideas of class
separation into a method of studying women’s struggle under the subordination
of men. There are many variations of feminist standpoint theory, but they are
all unified under the idea that knowledge comes from relationships of power and
social location. Nancy Hartsock, in 1983, wrote of the characteristics of
standpoint theories and that women have a privileged standpoint, and that feminist
standpoint theory prioritizes the experiences of the underprivileged as the
core component of research (Allen 832-833). Hartsock, Alison Jaggar, and Sandra
Harding contributed the idea that women are cognitively privileged and that
“gender-specific forms of oppression allow women insights systematically denied
to men” (Cameron 19). Harding, in particular, argued that “through their
oppression, women are exposed to experiences from which men are sheltered…the
oppression they share with other women both invites and forces them to develop
a language in which they can share insights…” (20).
These
oppressed groups are not helpless in responding against their oppressors.
Bonnie Mitchell and Joe Feagin theorized that “subjugated groups will generate
a ‘culture of resistance’ that represents a ‘coherent set of values, beliefs,
and practices which mitigates the effects of oppression and reaffirms that
which is distinct from the majority culture’ ” (
Standpoint
Theory evolved out of a diverse spectrum of philosophers. More recently, women
have begun to make a special mark in the theory by contributing their
experiences as an oppressed group. Standpoint Theory has brought the division
between the oppressed and their oppressors into the light from the darkness of
those in control. These groups are aware of their oppression, and have many creative
outlets available to resist their oppressors. One of these outlets is music.
The Ideology of Punk Rock
1970s’ Punk Rock in
Musically, punk
rock was dominated by “fast playing, ‘dirty’ production, and an often sloppy,
unrehearsed instrumentation” (Matula
21). Early punk acts like the Sex Pistols were widely known to commit
outrageous and sometimes violent acts, both on and off the stage. Put simply,
punks “loved to be offensive” (Simonelli 125) and relied heavily on shock value to reach audiences
(Matula 24-25); for example,
punks wore provocative clothing and symbols such as the swastika—not to promote
Nazi ideology, but to offend as many as possible— and were booked in country
and western clubs just to offend the club’s audience. They also shattered glass
onstage, sometimes injuring audience members as well as themselves. Actions
such as these were public sins in
Punk music was
essentially anti-mainstream, so when punk bands attempted to reach wider
audiences, they encountered a paradox—the anti-mainstream ideology of the music
did not match the ideology of becoming popular and becoming mainstream. Music
newsletters were quick to point out that punk bands were enticed by money as
easily as the rock stars that they abhorred (130).
Punk idealism got its rebellious
start in 1976, but by 1977, it had already become “the sound of the moment” (137). Despite the attempts to shock
and offend the mainstream, punk ideals were eventually co-opted into the mainstream
British culture that they rallied against. Eventually, punk behavior, politics,
and musical sound became the standard rather than a shocking statement against
the status quo; Punk Rock became the mainstream music that it originally fought
against, and punk musicians were categorized as “dole-queue kids, bored and
frustrated and taking out their aggressions on their guitars” (129). Several bands latched on to the
hype, changing their songs and style in order to get an audience and record
deal (121-144).
English Punk Rock in the 1970s was
a rebellion against the mainstream, rock stardom, and society in general. The
musicians and followers of this movement used music and performance to shock
their audiences. Eventually, the punk rebellion turned against itself by
becoming part of the mainstream that it sought to destroy, which, in effect, led
to the self-destruction of the movement. The ideals of the movement did not
die, however, and re-emerged in the Grunge culture of
Grunge Music and Culture
The Grunge movement
took place in
Due to the media
exposure and the amount of coverage by the press, the Grunge culture was
quickly discovered, mainstreamed, and destroyed (
The Grunge scene’s
final year has dually been called a “…happy ending in that the bands that
started it are all having great success” (Azerrad 48), and “rock-tragedy central” (Foege 103), due to the
many deaths that occurred over the course of the movement. By the end of 1994,
the Grunge scene had faded, according to the Rolling Stone (104).
The music of
Grunge culture became collectively known as the “
According to the
press, Grunge bands were heavily influenced by the heavy metal of the 1970s (Azerrad 44; Foege 104) —a statement
Cornell denied concerning his role in Soundgarden, saying that he was not even
slightly interested in 1970s heavy metal (Foege 106). Jack Endino, the “godfather of Grunge”
for his work on Deep Six (Rocco xx), claimed
that the music was “seventies-influenced, slowed-down punk music” (Azerrad 44). Kim Thayil,
the guitarist of Soundgarden, and Jonathan Poneman offered more humorous definitions,
such as “sloppy, smeary, staggering, drunken music,” and “a backwoods yeti
stomp” (44).
It appeared that the only agreed-upon musical influence
among the more popular Grunge musicians was Punk Rock. Chris Cornell
claimed that his band, Soundgarden, covered punk acts like the Ramones and the
Sex Pistols (Foege 106).
Bruce Pavitt, co-founder of the record label Sub Pop, had a bachelor’s degree
in Punk Rock (Azerrad 44),
and Kurt Cobain of Nirvana was often quoted as saying, “punk rock is freedom” (Dettmar 5).
Despite the
influence of Punk Rock on Grunge music, Theodore Matula distinguished punk
motifs from Grunge, writing that “power chords, heavy distortion, and long
solos…characterize grunge’s wall of sound” (Matula 21). Thomas Bell, of the Journal of Cultural Geography,
wrote that there was never really a
There was…a
group of extraordinarily talented and inventive musicians… the notion that they
sound alike is almost ludicrous. They range from the folk-inspired Walkabouts
to the quasi-heavy metal sound of Soundgarden… Journalists have been…trying to…create
a sense of commonality about
The Grunge approach
did not favor studio techniques in order to create music; instead, bands relied
on live performances. It was the lack of artificial studio technique that gave
Grunge music its inherent honest quality; the emotional meaning of the music
was translated through the artists’ direct, simplistic approach to live
performance, which mirrored the bands’ approach to studio recording. A possible
explanation for this approach to music could be that before the media frenzy
surrounded
From the vantage
point of many Grunge musicians, the mainstream media’s impact on the Seattle
Grunge culture was predominantly negative. Chris Cornell of Soundgarden said
that, because of the popularization of the Seattle scene, “… it turned into
something that’s considered a fashion statement…it’s like somebody came into
your city with bulldozers and…mined your own perfect mountain…and left the rest
to rot” (Foege 104).
Cornell claimed that people treated him differently after Soundgarden became
successful and were broadcast on television (104). In the song “Overblown,” Mark
Arm of Mudhoney sang of the Seattle Grunge scene, “everybody loves us/everybody
loves our town/that’s why I’m thinking of leaving it/ it’s so overblown” (Azerrad 43).
The Grunge scene
in
Nirvana and their Impact on Music Culture
Nirvana has been
characterized as part of the
Throughout 1992,
Cobain’s personal problems, which included stomach illnesses, allegations of
heroin abuse, and child custody battles with the
Nirvana began as a
relatively unknown band from
Summary of Review
The following can
be summarized about the review of literature concerning Standpoint Theory, Punk
Rock, Grunge, and Nirvana:
Standpoint
Theory
·
Standpoint Theory explores the attitudes,
values, and beliefs of the under-privileged in society, in order to better
understand their experiences.
·
As a result of being under-privileged, oppressed
groups have an advantage over the privileged because of the hardships they have
endured.
·
In order to create better realities for
themselves, the under-privileged can respond to oppression in the form of creative
expression.
Punk Rock
·
The English Punk Rock movement of the 1970s
thrived on offensive and shocking behavior, in a rebellion against the status
quo of English politics.
·
Sexism, racism, social apathy, and distaste for
mainstream rock musicians drove the ideology of the Punk Rock movement.
Grunge
·
The Grunge movement took place in
·
Few agree on a single definition of what Grunge
music is, but many of the bands and producers have been influenced by Punk
Rock.
·
The scene ended when media overexposure drew
non-native bands to
Nirvana
·
Nirvana brought alternative music out of the
underground and shocked the music world (and themselves) by achieving
mainstream success in 1992.
Revised Statement of the Problem
From the
literature, it was clear that Punk Rock had a marked influence on both the
Grunge movement and Nirvana. From the band’s shocked response to achieving
mainstream success, and the influences of Punk Rock on the culture from which
they arose, it can be inferred that the band had a specific attitude toward the
mainstream. Standpoint Theory claims that oppressed groups use forms of
creative expression, such as art and music, to rebel against the privileged. After
reviewing this information, the research question became more focused.
Research Question
How did Nirvana
use creative expression to promote their attitude and values concerning mainstream
success and society?
Hypotheses
The review of
literature and re-consideration of the question produced two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1:
Nirvana’s ideology advocated a rebellion against mainstream values, including
those that promote rock stardom, sexism, and racism.
Hypothesis 2:
Nirvana used a variety of creative mediums to support their ideology.
Definitions
Two
terms needed to be defined conceptually—views of the term from outside
sources—and operationally—the use of the term within the research—for the project.
Grunge
Conceptual:
A music culture of
Operational:
Any artifact referring to the art, music, and culture of
Punk
Conceptual:
A 1970s English movement in music and culture; the followers and musicians of the
punk movement were characterized by their offensive and violent behavior. The
music was used as a critical response to issues plaguing English mainstream
society—in particular, racism, social apathy, and sexism were addressed. Rock
stars who had been co-opted into the mainstream were also the subjects of
criticism (Matula 19; Simonelli 144).
Operational:
The ideals and culture of the English Punk Rock movement in the 1970s, which
emphasized rebellion against rock stardom, racism, sexism, and mainstream
society in general.
Part II
Methods and Procedures
Research Method
Rhetorical
Criticism is a tool that can be used to uncover messages embedded within
artifacts. The term rhetoric encompasses a wide variety of materials that
convey messages, from speeches to artwork. While the types of rhetoric may
vary, the purposes of rhetoric do not. Although a concrete definition of
rhetoric is debatable, it generally has three main components: humans are the
creators of rhetoric, symbols are the medium of rhetoric, and communication is
the purpose of rhetoric (Foss 4). These three dimensions are important to note
in the selection of this methodology over others. Humans create and use symbols
to frame and understand their experiences. The symbols humans use define their realities
and how they perceive the world, indicating a relationship between two or more
ideas, objects, or perceptions that are linked indirectly. Words themselves are
symbols, a series of letters that indirectly represents a referent concept.
Sonja Foss wrote in Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, “The
word cup, for example, has no natural relationship to an open container of
beverages. It is a symbol invented by someone who wanted to refer to this kind
of object” (Foss 4).
Music is also a type
of symbol—it indirectly represents emotions and subject matter. The concept of
symbols is very important, as Nirvana defined their worldview through the
abstract symbols of music and lyricism. Nirvana also made use of performance as
a symbol for what they stood for as a band. Their album jackets and concert
behavior, as well as their actions in interviews, were symbolic of a consistent
viewpoint. Finally, their music, lyrics, and behavior communicated certain
ideals and values that the band members shared. Their use of symbols allowed
the world outside of the band to understand how they defined their reality of
rock stardom, as well as explore Kurt Cobain’s personal perspective. An
understanding of their experience is important, as it undoubtedly pushed the
band’s success and helped further the phenomenon of Grunge music’s popularity.
Rhetorical
Criticism was the ideal choice in answering the proposed research question
because the purpose of rhetorical criticism is to investigate and explain
rhetorical acts and artifacts; Nirvana used both to convey their point of view.
Rhetorical Criticism has three objectives as deemed by Foss: “systematic
analysis as the act of criticism, acts and artifacts as the objects of analysis
in criticism, and understanding rhetorical processes as the purpose of
criticism” (Foss 6). Rhetorical Criticism offers an understanding of symbols
and messages, which can be used to investigate and analyze acts and artifacts. It
is systematic analysis—a conscious, focused explanation and understanding of
symbols and messages and the responses to them. Acts and artifacts are the
subjects of Rhetorical Criticism. A rhetorical act occurs in the presence of an
audience, while an artifact is preserved, as tangible evidence of
rhetoric. In Nirvana’s case, a speech at
a concert is an act and an album of recorded music is an artifact. The rhetorical
process has many objectives. Rhetorical Critics do not do criticism in order to
relate their own experiences with acts and artifacts, as do movie critics.
Rhetorical critics seek to make a lasting contribution to rhetorical and
communication theory by explaining how a piece of rhetoric works. Rhetorical Critics
are theorists, both questioning and creating explanations for rhetorical
phenomena (Foss 3-7).
There are many
variations of Rhetorical Criticism. The choice to use a particular method of
Rhetorical Criticism depends on the artifacts being studied and the purpose of
the study. To understand Nirvana’s perception of themselves and others within
the mainstream is to understand the ideology of the band regarding the
mainstream. Therefore, a study such as this encouraged the use of Ideological
Criticism. The word ideology is derived from “ideo– (idea)” and “–logy (logic)”
(Sillars 261). Destutt de Tracy used the word to refer to the structure of
dominant ideas in society; Karl Marx pushed the envelope of the term’s use in
the nineteenth century, when he used it to describe the ideology of capitalism,
in which the powerful upper class delivered their system of beliefs and values
to the lower classes, establishing the ideology of the lower class as well. In
particular, he examined how this ideology was not inborn of the lower class,
but pushed upon them by the upper class (Sillars 261).
Semiotics, the
study of signs, has also proved to be a help to the Ideological Critic. Signs
give clues to the meaning and ideology of a group’s message. The perspective of
structuralism, which uses linguistics to understand a given artifact, and
deconstructionism, which deciphers the underlying messages and motives of
artifacts, were also important contributors to the development of Ideological
Criticism (Foss 240-243).
The goal of
Ideological Criticism is to explore a group of people’s beliefs and values
regarding an aspect of their reality. Ideological Criticism seeks to uncover a
group’s identities by looking at the values they hold for themselves as well as
the standards that they set for other groups, in particular, those that
challenge their own set of values. Ideologies come in many forms and from many
groups—from American patriots to college fraternities. Although these groups
are very different, the thread of commonality they share is within their
ideologies; they both share ideas that compose their understanding of
themselves, their perception of the outer world. Ultimately, their ideology
affects their attitude. These attitudes influence not only the group’s behavior
within the group, but in the daily lives of group members as well (Foss
239-243).
Ideologies
come into power and dominance through “hegemony” – one ideology’s dominance
over other ideologies. Hegemonic ideologies, when they become dominant in
society, give the group supporting the hegemonic ideology power over other
groups. When one ideology holds a dominant position in society, it provides and
sustains a worldview for those not already present in the hegemonic group. The
hegemonic ideology solidifies itself in society when that ideology becomes the way
in which the majority of people think and challenges to the ideology are
repressed (Foss 242-243).
To
gain insight into Nirvana’s ideology concerning the mainstream, it was
necessary to look at a variety of different artifacts. Nirvana used interviews,
videos, live performance, and artwork in addition to their music to promote
their values. Using Ideological Criticism, Nirvana’s messages were extracted
from artifacts; consequently, analysis unveiled the pattern of messages that
constituted Nirvana’s ideology.
To
collect the data necessary for the Ideological Criticism, it was necessary to
draw from a multitude of sources. Nirvana’s music, lyrics, and performances
were important, as each revealed a possible creative outlet for the band to
express themselves. Interviews drawn from magazine articles and in-person video
recordings were also helpful, as the band revealed much about themselves and
their viewpoint through conversation. The band also used music videos to
promote their ideas.
Analysis of Data
The
primary tools used to select certain artifacts were the level of recognition
that the artifact received and how well it articulated the band’s ideology. It was
beyond the scope of this research to examine every single artifact that the
band used to promote their values, so the research only included those
artifacts that received widespread attention, as it was during these moments
that the band had the greatest opportunity to promote their ideology. To
identify the level of attention each artifact received, it was necessary to
examine how many people were exposed to it. The standards for determining this were
based on the artifact itself; for example, an album’s sales indicated one level
of exposure, the number of possible viewers during a performance indicated
another. The artifact’s relevance toward communicating the band’s ideology was
also important—the more specific the artifact was in defining Nirvana’s
ideology toward the mainstream, the more relevant it was to the research. The patterns
of messages within the artifacts defined Nirvana’s ideology.
Part III
Results and Discussion
The Ideological Criticism
To understand
Nirvana’s approach toward the mainstream, it was necessary to find input from
the band members concerning their views of the mainstream. Much of the
information was taken from interviews with the band as well as those who were
able to supply legitimate discussion of the band by being part of the music
industry at the time of the band’s notoriety. The information provided was
essential in the analysis of the three artifacts chosen for the project;
without prior research concerning the band’s attitude, an accurate perception
of the Nirvana’s use of creative expression would not have been identified, as
the researcher would not have been able to understand the ideology that drove the
band’s behavior.
From several
accounts from the members of the band, it was clear that Nirvana never had any aspirations
of success, let alone creating an album of such cultural importance. Kurt Loder
of MTV exemplified Nirvana’s view on this topic by saying that the band was
“dragged kicking and whining into the pop music mainstream” (“Media”). Gary
Gersh, a spokesperson for DGC (Nirvana’s major label), said that he did not
think the band would “change the face of popular music,” but that there was
“something really special that happened between Dave and Krist and Kurt when
they got onstage” (“In Bloom”). When asked if he thought Nevermind could reach number one, Nirvana’s manager, John Silva,
replied, “No way, not a chance” (“Drummers”). Drummer Dave Grohl said,
“Honestly, there was hardly any career ambition at all… There was no way we
could be the biggest band in the world, we just wanted to play” (“Drummers”).
On success, vocalist Kurt Cobain said, “We weren’t prepared for it…It’s never
been a main goal of ours…we never really cared about anything like that, we
just want to put out a good record…as far as getting in the top ten…we don’t
care at all…” (“the top 10”). Grohl said that the band never meant to produce a
classic album and according to Cobain, the band “never set out to be rock
stars” (“Drummers”). Referring to the scale of their success, Grohl said that
it was “perverse” and “bizarre,” and they “definitely [weren’t] the ones who
wanted [it]” (True 64).
Despite being
criticized for signing to the major label DGC (True 36), and Gersh’s
speculation that Cobain wanted to reach a large number of people with his music
(“In Bloom”), Cobain said that major labels were not important. He claimed that
Nirvana would be comfortable going back to a less famous label at any time (
Although the band
allowed the producer of Nevermind,
Butch Vig, to help them mold their music into pop songs (Kanter 67), Cobain
said that he was “disgusted with having to deal with the commercial side of
[the] band” (True 62); in response to the band’s large-scale arena shows,
Cobain joyously exclaimed “Hey! We’re on our way out!” when he discovered that
a venue in
Cobain’s sentiment
against the mainstream was echoed by Noveselic and Grohl. In one interview
concerning the media and the band, Grohl stated, “Journalists lie about us, why
can’t we lie about them?” and Noveselic sarcastically added, “Never let the
truth get in the way of a good story” (“Media”). Noveselic remarked that even
if he was broke, “he was not going to return to…mainstream culture” (True 62).
The band’s
distaste for commercialism and the mainstream even extended toward other bands
in the industry. Cobain stated that he did not “want to be associated with
ninety-nine percent of the rock ‘n’ roll bands out there” (True 35); Noveselic
and he mocked rock bands such as Van Halen (36), Motley Crue (True 62), and
Bruce Springsteen (69), making them out to be commercial entertainers. Cobain
also looked down upon Pearl Jam, believing that they were “a commercial rock
band” (Allman 151). In one interview, Noveselic insulted a “shlock-rock” band,
The Extremes, and Cobain justified the insult with “they surround themselves
with these professional…commercial rock ‘n’ roll guys” (The Chosen Rejects). Of
The Extremes, Grohl said “I don’t think they’re aware of how much they suck”
(The Chosen Rejects).
Nirvana also had a
penchant for destroying their instruments. In many of the shows throughout
their career, the band would often destroy their set before leaving the stage, even
while they were on Sub Pop. This forced the label to put Nirvana on an
equipment allowance. Of destroying their instruments, Cobain said, “‘It feels
good…We only do it if the feeling’s right. It doesn’t matter where we are’ ” (True
19). In the band’s early years before DGC, Cobain would actually spend time
repairing guitars and amplifiers that he destroyed during shows (Cross 135).
Sometimes, the destruction would ruin the show, as when the band played
After Nirvana
gained mainstream success and had become “corporate entertainment,” the band
seemed to lose interest in giving emotional performances and destroying their
instruments, particularly at one festival in
Artifact I: “Smells like Teen Spirit” at
the Top of the Pops
The Top of the Pops
The Top of the Pops was a British-based
television series that first aired on January 1, 1964. The show featured
popular music acts such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, and the show
required each band to mime (pretend to play) their own songs, rather than
perform them. According to the official website of the Top of the Pops, “the miming thing really took off” (“Top of the
Pops 1960s” 2) when the show began to air. The Top of the Pops took its acts from the top forty charts, provided a
“weekly snapshot of what’s truly popular in popular music” (“The History of the
TOTP!” 2), and included “virtually every star in popular music” (“Part 4 – the
best is yet to come…” 1). In the 1970s, the show reportedly attracted fifteen
million viewers (Barkham 12). In the mid-1990s the show still held the
attention of more than six million, but by 2004, the numbers had dropped to
approximately three million (“Top of the Pops Leaves BBC One” 6). Due to the
development of media outlets that offered music all the time, the show could no
longer compete in a weekly slot (“Why Did the TOTP Weekly Show Finish?” 1). The
final weekly show aired on July 30, 2006 (“Part 4 – the best is yet to come…” 3).
In keeping with the show’s reputation for inviting stars to perform, Nirvana
was asked to mime “Smells Like Teen Spirit” on the Top of the Pops.
“Smells like Teen Spirit”
In
January 1992, Nevermind reached the
number one spot on the Billboard
charts (Rocco 51) and the band’s “break-through single” (Gaar 187), “Smells
like Teen Spirit,” reached the American Top Ten in music (Bogdanov 660). According
to Charles Cross, author of Cobain’s biography Heavier Than Heaven, “1991’s most recognizable song (“Smells Like
Teen Spirit”)” was the “true beginning of nineties’ rock” (Cross 2). The video,
which was inspired by a film titled “Over the Edge”—about a group of kids
“rebelling and destroying a high school” (The Making of the Smells Like Teen
Spirit Video)—won Best Alternative Music Video on the 1992 MTV Music Video Awards (Gaar 198). One correspondent from MTV said,
“It changed the entire look of MTV, and it made the band successful and helped
them sell a lot of records, but it made MTV successful, it gave them a whole
new platform to work from, and…a whole new generation to sell to” (“Smells Like
Teen Spirit”). David Fricke of the Rolling
Stone said that, at the time, “there was literally nothing else on
television like it” (“Smells Like Teen Spirit”). Jim Merlis, the director of
publicity at DGC records (Gaar 195), said that “Smells like Teen Spirit” “took
on a life of its own” (211) and even though the record company generally did
not release singles from its artists’ albums, they released singles from
Nirvana because of the high demand for the band (211). The director, Sam Bayer
(who did not have much experience in filmmaking at the time), said that hiring
a “crap director” was a “very punk and cool thing to do,” and that they would
“get something not corporate” (“Smells Like Teen Spirit”).
Nirvana’s reaction
to the success of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” was predominantly negative. The
video for the song became a staple on MTV (Bogdanov 660, Rocco 51), much to the
dismay of Cobain, who was disappointed that the video would be in rotation with
mainstream acts such as Mariah Carey and Paula Abdul. After the video became
popular on MTV, Cobain became cynical of it; as he said in one interview,
“We’ve been lucky enough not to see MTV. We’re not really aware of exactly how
much hype is going on. We’ve been told about it by a lot of people—mainly by
our friends making fun of us” (True 65). According to Everett True, who had
begun writing almost exclusively about Nirvana in 1991, Cobain wanted to scrap
the video (True 28). David Fricke wrote that Cobain “cherry-picked” songs for
the band’s MTV Unplugged in New York
concert, but “deliberately [eliminated] obvious crowd-pleasers” (Fricke 231)
and cited “Smells like Teen Spirit” as one of the deposed songs (231). When
discussing the new songs available for an upcoming tour, Grohl mentioned,
“…We’ll never have to play “Smells like Teen Spirit” again…It’s fun to play,
it’s just…for a lot of people, it’s the only Nirvana song, and that’s upsetting” (“the top ten”).
Analysis
From
the beginning of the performance, the band exaggerated that they were not really
playing their instruments in their refusal to mime their instruments
accurately. As the album version of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” rang throughout
the set, the band made an overt and conscious effort to mock themselves and the
tradition of miming. The performance began with a camera shot of Cobain blatantly
pretending to play guitar by alternating
his hand up and down the guitar’s neck in only two locations, obviously not playing
to the rhythm of the song. His other hand was moving in a monotonous,
repetitive gesture out of sync with the song and was pulled away from the
strings, once again embellishing that he was not truly playing his instrument.
Grohl seemed to be making an effort at looking like he was playing drums, but
upon scrutiny, he was not playing to the rhythm of the song, either. Noveselic
was twirling his bass guitar over his head.
Even
though there were guitar parts throughout the entirety of the song, Cobain completely
removed his hands from his guitar during the verse. He sang in a very low,
operatic voice during the performance, as opposed to the recording on Nevermind, in which his voice was higher
in pitch and was distorted by his screaming. Cobain’s delivery of the song on
the Top of the Pops has been likened to
a “booming baritone” (Gaar 194), a “Vegas-like lounge” act (Cross 208), and vocalist
Ian Curtis of Joy Division (Bogdanov 660). Cobain said that he wanted to sound
like Morrissey of The Smiths (Cross 208). He also changed the lyrics several
times throughout the song (one example—the lines, “load up on guns, bring your
friends” offensively became “load up on drugs, kill your friends”). At one
point during the verse (“hello, hello, hello, how low”), Cobain put the
microphone into his mouth while singing, effectively muffling his already low,
warped voice. With the effect of a microphone in his mouth, his voice took on a
horror film-like quality—scratchy, low, and gruff. He also sang this portion of
the song out of tune.
During
the chorus, Noveselic dropped to his knees in front of the audience while
jerking his bass forward and upward, and the camera cut from him to Cobain’s
guitar during a pronounced guitar part in the recording—yet, Cobain’s hands
remained on the microphone; so, from the viewer’s position, the only item of
interest during the shot was the guitar not being played. During the line
beginning with “a mulatto, an albino…,” Cobain spread his arms to his right and
left, completely removing them from both the microphone and the guitar.
The
band continued their performance in the same manner during the second verse and
chorus. However, during the song’s guitar solo, Cobain pulled his guitar strap
over his head and pulled his guitar off his body as the audience rushed the
stage. The only sounds to be heard were aural lacerations—sounds of people
running into and brushing against the microphone. The camera and the song faded
out shortly after Cobain removed his guitar, before the announcer came back to
re-announce the band.
The band promoted
an anti-mainstream attitude in three ways during this performance: by mocking
their own success, by mocking the traditions of a popular mainstream television
program, and by mocking the expectations of the show’s producers and mainstream
audience. To mock the mainstream success of the song (and themselves), Cobain
purposely changed the song’s lyrics, often singing them incorrectly and out of
tune. As prior evidence indicated, the band was dissatisfied with being only
known by “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” As a result, Cobain’s emotionless singing implied
that the band did not have any more interest in the song or its success. The
band as a whole also played out of rhythm, if they were playing at all. This
gesture also implied that the band was uninterested in performing the song, as
indicated by Grohl’s desire not to play the song again (“the top 10”). Such a detached
attitude toward their own music suggested that Nirvana was fed up with the
mainstream success of the song, and no longer had any interest in performing
it, regardless of its popularity.
Nirvana’s
performance at the Top of the Pops
was one of many where they performed differently (often, to the anger of
program executives) than the show’s producers originally intended. The
implications of the band’s improper use of instruments were two-fold. As
previously stated, their lack of concern for their performance indicated that
they were not only uninterested in their own song, but that they were also uninterested
in conforming to the traditions of a mainstream television program. They mocked
the song and the show by miming their instruments out of sync with the
pre-recorded music or by not miming their instruments at all. Noveselic tossed
his bass around his body, Grohl was not playing the correct rhythm, and Cobain
did not even have his hands on his instrument for half of the performance. In
effect, the band amplified, exposed, and mocked the tradition of miming
instruments, which had become the show’s signature motif.
The band also
mocked their own reputation and the expectations of the audience and producers
by delivering a monotone performance. Traditionally, Nirvana destroyed their
instruments during performances; during their stay on the Top of the Pops, the band chose not
to destroy their instruments during the set—purposely violating the
expectations of the audience and mainstream. It was as if the band members were
thumbing their noses at the popularization of their own style of performance
(which included smashing the equipment), as well as the mainstream audience of
the Top of the Pops. Cobain’s
position onstage remained idle throughout the set; he only moved around the
stage when he was taking off his guitar. Due to Nirvana’s destructive
reputation (Bogdanov 851), Cobain’s stance mocked Nirvana’s traditional performances
by not engaging in destructive behavior or even any visual movement, but creating
a dull, emotionless stage presence. Throughout the entire performance, Cobain
sang without emotion; he did not scream or raise his voice. His delivery during
this performance was much different than the song on Nevermind, in which Cobain’s voice was distorted with anger and
angst-ridden, as evidenced by his howls on the recording. The song’s early
cut-off was likely due to the anger of the producers, who cut the performance
when they realized the band was not performing as expected. Cross wrote that
the producers were furious about the band’s behavior (Cross 208), and True
wrote that the performance almost guaranteed that the song would not reach
number one in the
The primary use of
creative expression against the mainstream in this artifact was humor, which
affected every aspect of the performance. Musically, humor was presented by
Cobain’s absurd vocal delivery. Lyrically, the changes completely altered the
meaning of the song. The presentation of the vocals and lyrics gave the
performance a sarcastic quality, which resonated with the band’s mockery of
their own success and of the audience’s expectations for the band. Visually,
Cobain created humor by using overly feigned guitar playing and by removing his
guitar from his body; Noveselic used his instrument as a prop to wield, toss,
and twirl onstage. Cobain’s grin during the opening of the set also indicated
that this performance was not in the vein of serious musicianship, but was more
of a comedic stunt. The band’s refusal to destroy (and even mime) their
instruments was ironic, as the band was poking fun at their own popularity as
well as the expectations of the audience during the performance. This gesture
was not only disrespectful to the show’s producers, but the audience as well. If
the audience was expecting a traditional Nirvana performance, the band’s
delivery only gave them a self-deprecating, faked recital. Nirvana performed in
this self-deprecating manner again at the MTV
Video Music Awards.
Artifact II: “Rape Me” and “Lithium” at the
MTV Video Music Awards
The MTV Video Music Awards
The first MTV Video Music Awards (MVMA)
took place on September 14, 1984. According to Charles Cross, the show was
the “highest-profile music awards,” as well as the “Grunge Academy Awards”
(Cross 246). The show currently airs on MTV every year, and draws much of its
entertainment from a variety of hosts and performers, which have included
Michael Jackson, Madonna (“1984 Video Music Awards”) and Eddie Murphy (“1985
Video Music Awards”). The purpose of the program is to deliver awards in the form
of trophies—“Moonmen”—in many musical categories surrounding the music video.
Some of the categories have included Best Choreography, Best Special Effects,
and Viewer’s Choice (“1984 Video Music Awards” 3-4). Because of the line-up of
star performers, the MVMA can
potentially attract viewers of all ages and backgrounds, making it an important
attraction to MTV.
Nirvana and MTV
Nirvana never took
MTV very seriously, and eventually became angry with the network’s treatment of
their popularity. On Headbanger’s Ball,
an MTV program dedicated to heavy metal music, Cobain wore a bright yellow
dress and said that he figured he should wear a gown because he was at a ball,
then pretended to be upset because his band-mate, Noveselic, did not wear a tux
or buy him a corsage. To this, Noveselic replied, “At least I asked you out”
(“Headbanger’s Ball: A Big Buzz”). The band did not support the MVMA, either. Referring to the MVMA,
Noveselic said, “The whole thing sucks…The MTV Awards and all the schmoozing,
and all the people who are just in this to be popular and make money…they are
just out for some kind of ulterior motive” (Rosen 90). In 1992, the band won
the award for Best Alternative Video (for “Smells Like Teen Spirit”), but
instead of coming to the stage to accept it, they sent a Michael Jackson
impersonator who dubbed himself “The King of Grunge.” Of the joke, Cobain
explained that he wanted people to know that he was dealing with the problems
of fame (Rocco xxiv). After the MTV media publicized an article in Vanity Fair that questioned the health
of Cobain’s daughter and his wife’s drug use during pregnancy, Cobain wrote a
hostile letter to the network. Some excerpts from the letter included: “Dear
Empty TV, the entity of all corporate Gods…My life’s dedication is now to do
nothing but slag MTV…We will survive without you. Easily” (Cross 239). Nirvana’s
conflict with MTV came to a head at the 1992 MVMA.
“Rape Me” and MTV
Before the actual
performance on the MVMA, Cobain
debuted the song “Rape Me” in front of MTV executives, who were immediately
appalled. Although the song was written in 1990, by 1992, the song had become
an allegory for the abuse Cobain had taken from the popular media, which
included MTV. MTV understood the new meaning of the song, and wanted Nirvana to
play something popular from Nevermind instead.
When Nirvana insisted on playing “Rape Me,” the network threatened to pull them
from the awards program and take their videos off MTV. Cobain did not object to
the threats (Cross 247-8), until MTV threatened to boycott the bands under
Nirvana’s management company,
Cobain originally
intended the song “Rape Me” as a support for rape victims, and justified his
idea by saying, “It’s like she’s saying…go ahead, rape me, beat me. You’ll
never kill me. I’ll survive this and I’m gonna…rape you one of these days and
you won’t even know it” (Steinke 84). Cobain also said, “[I] was trying to
write a song that supported women and dealt with the issue of rape…I just
decided to be as bold as possible” (Fricke 68). The album that carried the
track, In Utero, was edited to read
“Waif Me” instead of “Rape Me” in Wal-Mart and K-Mart; otherwise, the
franchises would refuse to carry the album (Rocco 91). Cobain agreed to the
edit, saying that “When I was a kid, I could only go to Wal-Mart. I want the
kids to be able to get this record. I’ll do what they want” (Cross 287). In
1993, during Nirvana’s MTV Unplugged in
New York concert, the crowd requested that the band play “Rape Me,” and
Cobain sarcastically cracked, “I don’t think MTV would let us play that” (Gaar
213).
Analysis
Nirvana’s
performance of “Rape Me” on the MVMA was
very brief; Cobain played and sang only the first two bars of the song: “Rape
me, rape me.” The shot of the band opened far from the stage, using a fade-in
from black (presumably from a commercial). The camera zoomed closer to the band
as Cobain began playing the song’s chords on guitar. He sang the lines: “rape
me, rape me,” before stopping abruptly and beginning to play “Lithium.” The band
proceeded without any more surprises until approximately three minutes into the
performance, when Cobain altered the lyrics of “Lithium” to include the lines,
“I’m a turd,” and “I’m so retarded” in place of two lines of the original
lyrics. Near the end of the set, Cobain mocked the original lyrics by singing
the line “I love you” in an overly cutesy, childish tone of voice, and swinging
his hips back and forth in a similarly childish gesture. Meanwhile, Noveselic
tossed his bass into the air, and it came down on his forehead, knocking him to
the ground. The performance ended with Noveselic struggling to stumble
offstage, and Cobain trashing the equipment by shoving his guitar into an
amplifier, throwing it into the drum kit, and toppling the amplifiers. Just
before the scene ended, Grohl rushed to the microphone, yelling “Hi Axl! Hi
Axl!” in reference to an altercation that occurred before the performance
between Cobain and Axl Rose of Guns ‘N’ Roses (Cross 249). Despite MTV’s
threats, the band had performed as they pleased.
MTV is an example
of mainstream network. The fact that the band chose to openly disregard MTV’s
rules is not only a rebellion against the network, but, in a broader sense, a
rebellion against the mainstream. If MTV represented a large corporate
mainstream network, and Nirvana explicitly played a song that would offend
viewers as well as MTV executives, the performance was a rebellion against
MTV’s mainstreaming of their music, MTV’s values, and MTV’s image. To Nirvana,
MTV could have represented the height of mainstream success, something which
the band clearly did not support. If MTV was the height of mainstream success,
and the band openly mocked and disregarded one of the most important and
well-recognized music programs on the network, the band also mocked the entire
mainstream music industry by refusing to listen to those in charge. Thus, the
performance was a rebellion against corporate mainstream networks as a whole,
rather than just a personal vendetta with MTV.
This performance
was not the only time the band performed a song that conflicted with a popular
show’s interests. On The Jonathan Ross
Show in the
Nirvana’s teaser performance
of “Rape Me” lasted only a few seconds, but it was enough for the band to prove
their point: they did not care about MTV’s standards, nor did they care about the
audience’s reception—they were indifferent as to who the song would offend. It
was as if the band was taunting the network by playing a song with an offensive
theme and title. From the band’s disagreement with the producers of the show
before the actual performance, it was clear that Nirvana knew MTV was very
uncomfortable with and opposed to the song. Being that the MVMA was such a popular program, the band had the attention of a
huge audience; not only was there a crowd gathered in front of and around the
stage, the show was also broadcast to millions across the globe. MTV’s line-up
of superstar entertainers would also attract an audience of both children and
adults. Simply put, the venue of the MVMA
afforded the band the opportunity to rebel against the mainstream network
and its mainstream audience on a mass scale, and they took advantage of the
opportunity. In subsequent airings, MTV edited “Rape Me” out of the program
altogether (Cross 250).
Nirvana’s
performance of “Rape Me” worked on many different levels as a creative
rebellion against the mainstream. The initial use of creative expression was
the shock value of the song’s title and lyrics. Parents and the easily offended
would be upset by the song’s title and subject matter. This created a problem
for MTV, as the network would have to fight bad publicity and the possible
degradation of its image due to Nirvana’s performance. MTV originally did not
want the band to perform the song because the network’s executives knew that
the song had become a rally against the media that had been plaguing Cobain,
regardless of the original intent of the song. By performing the song at the MVMA, the band was able to make a public
outcry against the media that had plagued them over the past year, using the
same media that they rallied against. The irony was that the band was using the
actual medium that they loathed, in an attempt to get the audience to
understand their plight. Essentially, they were using MTV, a mainstream
corporation, to denounce the mainstream media and other corporations like MTV.
Understandably, MTV was uncomfortable with the song, but Nirvana chose to
perform it anyway as an ironic gesture of disrespect toward MTV’s producers and
audience.
Self-deprecating
humor was also a key component in this artifact—in particular, it was found in Cobain’s
self-deprecating performance and the presentation of the lyrics of “Lithium.” By
arguing with MTV over what song they were going to play, it was clear Cobain
did not want to play “Lithium.” By inserting the lines “I’m a turd” and “I’m so
retarded,” and patronizing his performance by swinging his hips and changing
his tone of voice in the line, “I love you,” Cobain was making fun of himself,
his own lyrics, and ultimately, his own band. Cobain was not just mocking any
Nirvana song—it was the song that MTV wanted them to play, a popular single. In
effect, Cobain was mocking MTV’s choice of music, as well as the fact that the
song had become popular, part of the mainstream. So, by mocking his own song,
Cobain effectively mocked a mainstream television network’s ability to choose music
for their programs, which was ironic considering that MTV itself was supposed
to be centered around music. The self-deprecation also indicated that he was
also making fun of the level of popularity to which the band had risen, because
he chose to mock the lyrics of one of Nirvana’s popular songs, one that MTV
wanted them to perform in order to appease an audience. Because MTV was a
large-scale television network that needed universal mainstream appeal, Nirvana
was making fun of themselves in order to destroy that mainstream appeal. The
band’s disgust with mainstream television even extended into the realm of the
music video.
Artifact III: “In Bloom” Music Video
The Ed Sullivan Show
The Ed
Sullivan Show debuted on June 20, 1948, as Toast of the Town, and changed its name to The Ed Sullivan Show in 1955. The program was a variety show that
featured (among other talents) singers, dancers, and comedians. Some important
guest appearances included the Beatles, whose performances on the show were some
of the highest-rated of the 1960s, and Elvis Presley. Buddy Holly, “an
enormously important and influential performer” whose music continued to top
the charts nineteen years after his death (Bogdanov 433), also performed on the
show (“Buddy Holly and the Crickets / Sam Cooke / Bobby Helms”). Since the
show’s cancellation in 1971, numerous tributes have been dedicated to The Ed Sullivan Show, the most recent
being in 2004. The majority of these tributes were re-edits of the show, with
some appearances removed from the original program (“The Ed Sullivan Show”). Nirvana
took the concept and style of The Ed
Sullivan Show and used it as the blueprint for the video for “In Bloom.”
“In Bloom”
Michael Azerrad
suggested that the song “In Bloom” was aimed at:
…jocks and shallow
mainstream types who began to blunder into Nirvana shows…it translated even
better to the kind of mass popularity the band enjoyed…It’s also a good
description of former band members…who were honestly attracted to the band’s
music but didn’t quite go along with Kurt and Chris’s punk rock ethos (Azerrad
215).
The earliest
version of the video was created in Smart Studios in 1991 while the band was
still with Sub Pop, and with a drummer other than Grohl (Cross 182). In 1992,
the band prepared to release a different version of the video. For this,
Cobain’s concepts were too ambitious, so, as an alternative, he decided that he
wanted to parody The Ed Sullivan Show,
which according to Azerrad, spurned the “dawn of rock video” (Azerrad 291). He
even insisted that the video be shot with cameras from the time period (291).
Three versions of the video using Cobain’s new concept were developed, but only
one made its way to MTV. In the first, the band would be dressed as sixties pop
idols throughout the video; in the second, the band changed into dresses
halfway through; in the final, the band changed into dresses and destroyed the
set. The final version was shipped to MTV, because Nirvana did not think
viewers would get the joke if they acted as pop idols throughout the entire
video. The first incarnation of the new video never aired (293-4). The final
version for “In Bloom” won Best Alternative Video at the 1993 MVMA (Cross 286).
According to
Charles Cross, many of Cobain’s songs were written about those around him, and
“In Bloom” was a “thinly disguised portrait” about his friend Dylan Carlson
(Cross 149). A quote from Come as You Are may explain the relationship.
“I shot a gun with Dylan about a year ago. We went down to Aberdeen and went
out in the woods and shot this gun and it was just such a reminder of how
brutal they are, how much damage they can do to a person,” Cobain said of an
experience he had with Carlson (Azerrad 244). Carlson also gave Cobain a
handgun, which he kept in his home (244).
Analysis
The
music video for “In Bloom” was essentially a stab at the popular mainstream
acts, television, and audience of the 1960s. The band also mocked its own
mainstream success by pretending to appear as one of these popular entertainers
from the 1960s.
The primary use of
creative expression in the piece was the use of humor. The video opened with a
mock 1960s variety show host, similar in style to the host of The Ed Sullivan Show. The show and the
performance itself were completely scripted, an act, except for the shots of
the audience, which appear to be clips of early television audiences. One of
the mocked themes of the show was the idea of the teen pop stars of the 1960s,
the era in which The Ed Sullivan Show was
at the height of its popularity. This clean-cut image was mocked in the form of
the announcer, the band, and the audience. Cobain said that the humor was
intentional, that he’d “just been so tired for the last year of people taking
us so seriously…[he] wanted to…show them that [Nirvana had] a humorous side to [them]”
(Azerrad 293).
The video began
with the show’s host (an impersonator of Ed Sullivan) saying, “Next, ladies and
gentlemen, we have three fine young men from
[It] was kind of an
attack on what those kids turned into. I’m sure the majority of them turned
into yuppies. It was kind of a dis on their generation…there was nothing wrong
with those kids at the time—they were totally innocent and into rock ‘n’ roll.
Now they’re in control of the media and the corporations and they’re cranking
out the very same shit that they used to despise (Azerrad 293).
Those fans that
were, in the 1990s, “in control of the media and the corporations” had become
the mainstream, as the media and corporations were part of a greater mainstream
culture. Cobain’s statement indicated that the video was an insult toward not
only the obnoxious excitement that the mainstream audience of the 1960s had for
pop stars, but also toward the mainstream audience of the 1990s that was rabid
for Nirvana, which included the same fans from the 1960s that now were in
control of the mainstream. To mock the excitement for the band, several clips
of the audience showed close-ups of them knocking into one another, screaming,
and clapping feverishly in response to the performance.
Nirvana also
became part of the anachronism by mocking the performances of 1960s’ pop stars
by acting as if they were 1960s’ pop stars themselves. Cross wrote that
Cobain’s glasses in the video were similar to those that Buddy Holly liked to
wear (Cross 235), and the band also wore “Beach-boys style suits” (Azerrad 292).
In the early part of the video, Noveselic swayed like a pendulum, Cobain leaned
into the microphone with a pleasant smile to deliver his vocals (even during
the chorus, where the singing became more distorted and angry), and Grohl
mirrored Noveselic’s pendulum by swaying back and forth while playing the drum
kit. Cobain also exaggerated his own satisfaction with the performance on the
show by stepping away from the microphone with an overly large, frozen grin
plastered to his face. In the second verse, he continued the false pleasantness
by batting his eyes off-camera and singing with another comically enlarged
grin. Nirvana’s physical gestures, Cobain’s large, square glasses, and
old-fashioned pinstripe suits all mirror the behavior and style of 1960s’ pop
stars, especially when compared with Buddy Holly’s appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show. Of the band’s
appearance and gestures during the video, Azerrad wrote, “The slicked-back
hair, the nerdy suits, and the band’s stiff, repressed movements highlighted
the absurdity of the notion of squeaky-clean pop idols and the uncompromising
moral standard they were expected to live up to” (Azerrad 293).
During the
mid-point of the song, the direction of the video changed. Instead of continuing
with the clean-cut pop idol image, the camera cut to shots of the band in drag while
they destroyed the set. When asked about his dress in the “In Bloom” video,
Cobain replied:
I like to wear dresses
because they’re comfortable. If I could wear a sheet I would…If I said we do it
to be subversive then that would be a load of shit because men in bands wearing
dresses aren’t controversial anymore…there was no hidden agenda… It may be
subversive as far as a very small amount of people go, who’ve never seen men in
dresses before or who aren’t comfortable with the concept, but I don’t give a
shit about those people any way. It’s not subversive. There’s no point in being
subversive in rock any more…There’s no way you can be…Male bands do it all the
time (True 40).
From this
testimony, it would appear that Nirvana had no intention of rebelling against
current trends in rock performance. However, in the context of the video, the
dresses were a rebellion against the traditional values of the pop stars of the
1960s, who appeared on programs like The
Ed Sullivan Show; the band would have been ostracized for dressing in drag
due to the mainstream culture of the era, which had a very traditional, narrow
view of how men and women should dress and behave. It also blatantly contrasted
the pinstriped suits the band was wearing previously, which came as a surprise
in the video and suggested not only that the band did not support the persona
that embodied the mainstream style of the 1960s—“squeaky-clean”—but that they
were actually mocking it by performing in drag on a traditional television
program whose viewers would have been offended by the gesture in the time
period of the 1960s.
The destruction of
the equipment also set up an ironic contrast in the video—one between the
announcer and the band. In the introduction and ending to the video, the
announcer referred to the band as “nice,” “decent,” and “clean-cut”—all
adjectives that contradicted the band’s destruction of the set. As the
destruction continued, clips of the audience screaming with delight continued
throughout the video, which was reminiscent of the sentiment expressed by True’s
opinion of the band’s performance in Scandinavia, where “it could have been
anyone” performing and the audience would have cheered, regardless of who or
what was onstage. The continued screams from the audience as the band’s attire
changed to dresses and the band destroyed the set suggested that the mainstream
audience was mindless, willing to cheer at anything that was put on mainstream
television, no matter what it was. Although the audience that was cheering was
of the mainstream culture of the 1960s, they were also an allegory for the
mainstream audience at the time of Nirvana’s popularity; the band was bored and
disappointed with this audience, as evidenced by their lackluster, uninterested
performances to the mainstream crowd and remarks concerning their own
popularity. The host was also part of this mindless culture; he shook hands
with the band after the performance, saying “I really can’t say enough nice
things about them,” even though the band members had destroyed his set. Thus,
the band was pushing that the mainstream audience of popular bands in the 1960s
and the mainstream audience of Nirvana were mindless, willing to support
anything that was popular on mainstream television. The band once again threw a
jab at their own popularity and stardom by having the announcer include “they’re
really big stars!” as the video ended. The fact that the announcer was a joke
as a symbol for the mindlessness of 1960s’ mainstream culture and its audience
made the remark self-deprecating and sarcastic; even though Nirvana were stars
at the time of the video’s release, the audience that made them stars in the
video suggested that only the mindless mainstream made the band popular and
supported their music.
The humor of the
video was disrespectful to, specifically, the mainstream audience of the 1960s
and the values of the era. As Cobain said, he believed that the audiences of
the 1960s now controlled the mainstream corporations and media. Thus, the
disrespect extended both into the past and into the time of the video’s
release, in that it mocked the mainstream of both eras of time.
Ideology Identification and Use of Creative Expression
From Nirvana’s own
testimony, the band did not appreciate mainstream values or the mainstream’s
opinion of and obsession with the band; their ideology can be labeled as a
rejection of the mainstream. In these three artifacts, the band used humor as
the primary creative tool to rebel against their own mainstream success and
mock the mainstream media and audience. More specifically, the band often made
use of self-deprecating, disrespectful, and ironic humor to make fun of its own
popularity, its mainstream audience, and mainstream television networks. In
each artifact, the band was able to reach a mass audience by either performing
on a popular television program or submitting a video to be played on a
mainstream television network (MTV). To accomplish their goal, the band
intertwined several styles of humor with their music, lyrics, and performances
to promote their ideology against the mainstream.
Disrespectful humor
In each artifact,
the band used humor as a form of disrespect to mainstream television networks,
mainstream audiences, and other performers. For both the performances of “Rape
Me” and “Lithium,” and “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” the band disrespected the
producers of both the MVMA and the Top of the Pops. However, the band’s
manner of disrespect varied in both programs. For the MVMA, the band openly disregarded MTV’s command not to play “Rape Me” by performing two
bars of the song, ignoring MTV’s discomfort with the band performing the song
on the MVMA; during the Top of the Pops, the band mocked the
show’s popular custom of miming in order to disrespect the show and its
traditions. For the Top of the Pops,
Cobain disrespected the program by not giving a true performance on the show;
he just mocked his own singing and lyrics. The video for “In Bloom”
disrespected the values of the 1960s’ television programs by placing the band
in the time period of the 1960s, and having them perform in drag and destroy
the set, something that would not have been tolerated on The Ed Sullivan Show
because of the traditional, conservative values of the time period. The band
also disrespected the show’s host by having him announce that the band was “decent”
and “clean-cut”—obvious contrasts to the band’s destruction of the set; the
statement made the host appear to be a mindless drone, as he complimented the
band even though they had just disrespected his show and his program by
destroying his set. Such a gesture suggested that the hosts of the mainstream
programs of the 1950s and 1960s (and even the programs at the time the video
was released in the 1990s) were mindless, only following the trends of the
mainstream by supporting any popular act, regardless of their behavior.
In addition to the
networks and those in charge of them, Nirvana also disrespected the mainstream
audience of each artifact. Cobain’s lack of interest in performing “Smells Like
Teen Spirit” was an insult to the mainstream audience of the Top of the Pops, who likely expected him
to perform as if he cared about his own material. The lack of interest in
performing his own mainstream song also suggested a lack of interest in
performing to a mainstream audience. The
performance of the two bars of “Rape Me” during the MVMA indicated that Nirvana held no reverence for the network’s
mainstream audience, who tuned in to see mainstream, popular performers. This
audience would have included children, so the band effectively disrespected the
audience even further by performing a song with an offensive title and lyrics,
which would have upset parents and anyone who was offended by the song’s title.
The video for “In Bloom” was largely based on the band’s mockery of the
mainstream television audience of the 1950s and 1960s, who had become the
owners of the mainstream that the band resented at the time of the video’s
release. The band poked fun at this audience by playing clips of the audience’s
zeal throughout the video, regardless of the band’s actions on the stage,
making the audience seem as mindless as the host—willing to follow anything
mainstream that was put on the show. As indicated in interviews, the band had
problems with commercial bands. In the
video, the band also disrespected other popular bands of the time by dressing
up as those bands and exaggerating their onstage personas.
Self-deprecating humor
In each artifact,
Nirvana’s self-deprecating humor was evident in the band’s lyrical changes and
body language—mostly due to Cobain’s behavior. During “Smells Like Teen Spirit”
on the Top of the Pops, Cobain
combined lyrical changes with altering his tone of voice and singing off-key.
In effect, the band was mocking its own material. During the band’s performance
of “Lithium” at the 1992 MVMA Cobain
mocked his own lyrics by changing them to make fun of himself (“I’m a turd”;
“I’m so retarded”) and sang one line of the lyrics in a childish voice and backed
it up with childish hip swings. Both of these performances allowed the band members
to mock themselves as a band—the band members were now a mainstream commodity, as they had become stars by the time the
performances occurred. In effect, they made fun of their own band in order to
make fun of the mainstream. For “In Bloom,” the band used sarcasm to mock its
own popularity. The band used the host and the context of the music video (The Ed Sullivan Show) to set up a sarcastic
contrast. The members of the band made themselves out to be mainstream teen
idols by performing in the style of the pop stars of the 1950s and 1960s. Considering
the Nirvana’s anti-mainstream attitude (as expressed in numerous interviews), the
video can be considered self-deprecating; once again, the band was mocking its
own popularity (“they’re really big stars!”) by pretending to perform on a
program that only featured pop music sensations. In effect, the band mocked its
own position in mainstream culture by making fun of how popular they had
become.
Ironic humor
The use of irony
was also present in each form of humor, as the band presented itself as a
mainstream commodity to be mocked rather than externalizing their distaste for mainstream
success. Nirvana’s performances on mainstream television used mainstream
programming against itself by mocking the mainstream on popular shows that
featured the band. This was ironic because the band, at its own expense, mocked
the traditions and expectations of the mainstream using its own music, lyrics,
and performances, and did so by using their own mainstream power to perform on
networks that they wanted to ridicule. During the Top of the Pops, the band’s decision to give a lackluster, overly
feigned performance and mock their own music was ironic because the band chose not to smash their instruments, a
tradition in many of their live shows. This was a rebellious move to counter
the expectations of the mainstream producers and audience. The band’s
manipulation of their mainstream prowess using a mainstream television network
to promote their anti-mainstream attitude was especially present in their
performance of “Rape Me” on the MVMA,
where the band actually used a song that had become an anthem against the mainstream’s abuse of the
band members (especially Cobain) in the media. The video for “In Bloom” ended ironically,
as the host continued to compliment the band, calling Nirvana “decent” and
“clean-cut,” even after they destroyed the set; the compliments set up the idea
that the host was a mindless follower of whatever was popular in the
mainstream, regardless of the performer’s behavior.
Shock
The band also used
a limited amount of offensive behavior to shock audiences and networks during
their performances. The shock components were based on the lyrics of the songs.
For the performance of “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” Cobain switched the lines,
“load up on guns, bring your friends,” to offensive suggestions—“load up on
drugs, kill your friends.” The lines “rape me,” in Nirvana’s performance of the
same-titled song, were offensive in themselves, and Nirvana exploited this by
performing it regardless of MTV’s discomfort with the song.
Thus, the band’s
uses of creative expression did
include music, lyricism, and performance, but each of these tools was driven by
one overarching form of expression, and in Nirvana’s case, rebellion: humor.
One minor form of expression the band used was shock, specifically aimed at the
band’s use of lyrics during the performances of their music.
From the analyses
of the artifacts and the band’s testimony in interviews, the band’s ideology
suggested a consistent distaste for mainstream programming and audiences. Upon
further scrutiny, Nirvana denounced the mainstream in several ways, using humor
as their primary creative tool, and their music, lyrics, video, and
performances as their secondary creative tools. The band’s use of each tool
differed with every artifact, but essentially the ideology that the mainstream
(and even success) was something to be mocked prevailed in each artifact.
Nirvana scoffed at becoming mainstream and popular; their attitude toward the
mainstream was one of disregard and disrespect, even though the band had become
part of the mainstream. To promote this ideology, the band members used humor
to present their attitude in music, lyrics, performances, and video.
Regarding
Standpoint Theory, Nirvana’s use of creative expression against the mainstream
created an interesting case study for master-slave relationships in society.
From the research, it can be inferred that Nirvana was the “slave,” and the
mainstream was the “master,” forcing the band into stardom. Those in charge of
the mainstream were the oppressors, trying to influence the band’s behavior in
performance and video. Theorists Hartsock, Jaggar, and Harding wrote that
“through their oppression, women are exposed to experiences from which men are
sheltered…the oppression they share with other women both invites and forces
them to develop a language in which they can share insights…” (Cameron
20). Similarly, scholars can look at
Nirvana as an example of an oppressed group that possessed insight not
available to the mainstream. Thus, the band was cognitively privileged with an
understanding of reality that the mainstream could not reach as an oppressive
group. Their use of disrespectful humor could suggest an arrogant attitude, as
if the band suggested that they were into something that the mainstream could
not be a part of and would not understand.
The hypotheses
were shown to be partially correct in the research. Hypothesis 1 (“Nirvana’s
ideology advocated a rebellion against mainstream values, including those that
promote rock stardom, sexism, and racism”) was found to be true concerning
mainstream rock stardom, but the band’s behavior in the artifacts did not
suggest a rebellion against any other set of mainstream values. Hypothesis 2 (“Nirvana
used a variety of creative mediums to support their ideology”) was also
partially true, as the band made use of music, lyrics, performance, and video,
but only when humor was involved did these tools become rebellious against the
mainstream. Nirvana’s ideology only surfaced when the band used humor to
promote an ideology, as opposed to using, for example, lyrical changes that
specifically denounced mainstream success.
Implications
Concerning
Nirvana, the band continued to thrive and make appearances on mainstream
television, despite claiming that the mainstream was an antagonist of the band
and their music. This could have been because their major label, DGC, pushed
them to make such appearances. However, as Cobain said, the band would have
been comfortable leaving the label and returning to the underground at any
point in time. So, despite being weary of the mainstream media and success, the
band continued to perform large-scale, popular venues such as MTV Unplugged in New York until the band
dissolved. This set up an inherent contradiction within the band’s motives. If
Nirvana was so ill of their mainstream success, why did they not simply return
to an underground label in order to receive less attention? From readings that
were beyond the scope of this research, the researcher inferred that the
primary songwriter of the band, Cobain, desired the success and attention of
being a rock star, but did not want the responsibility and baggage that came with
it, as Grohl clarified in an interview. Nirvana’s thrust into the mainstream,
however unexpected, afforded the band an interesting and paradoxical
opportunity: they were able to expose their music to a wider audience at the
expense of their own personal well-being. One can only speculate as to why the
band continued in this path. It could be argued that the band suffered for
their music, but the band could simply have also enjoyed the money and stardom,
even if they did not originally set out to become stars with their music.
Assuming that
Nirvana truly loathed the mainstream, their behavior could have actually
impeded their struggle to become anti-mainstream. Many of Nirvana’s
performances actually contributed to
the band’s notoriety, out of the absurdity of the band’s behavior. As a result,
more people could have been turned on to the band by seeing or reading about
their outrageous performances. If the mainstream audience enjoyed the band’s
sense of humor, regardless of the anti-mainstream attitude, the band’s
performances could have made them even more popular with the mainstream crowd,
rather than removing them from the mainstream. By blatantly disregarding
mainstream norms, the band’s actions could have actually generated more interest in the band, co-opting
them even further into the mainstream.
The band’s
ideology during these performances shared many ideals with the punk generation
of the 1970s. Both punk bands and Nirvana shared a public disapproval of
mainstream values, using outrageous and shocking behaviors to promote their
ideologies, and were disrespectful toward mainstream values, audiences, and
society. This indicated a strong correlation between the influence of punk and
Nirvana’s use of creative expression. As expressed by Cobain and Grunge music
in general, punk was the predominant influence of the band and the culture. It
would not be surprising that the band’s love for punk music extended into an
adoration of punk ethics as well. Both punk bands and Nirvana shared a mutual
distaste for commercial rock stars; punk values decreed that rock stars
destroyed and devalued their art in order to be successful. Given the influence
of punk on Nirvana, it is likely that punk influenced the band’s perception of
other bands in the industry—other rock stars forsook their artistic integrity
in order to become famous and mainstream. Nirvana also indicated that they
simply wanted to perform music rather than become rock stars, which was a very
punk sentiment considering punk’s pro-art and anti-mainstream stance. Cobain
said he did not care whether or not the band got in the top ten, and Noveselic
was only enthused that the mainstream were being attracted to different types
of music. From their statements, the band members were interested in the music,
not the fame.
Part IV
Summary and Conclusion
Summary of Research
The review of
literature provided a wealth of information that was used in answering the
research question. The question itself evolved from the ideas developed within
Standpoint Theory over the past years. Standpoint Theory explores the vantage
point of oppressed groups, who tend to be under-represented by oppressors—those
with the ability to define points of view. Standpoint Theory attempts to
identify the attitudes, values, and beliefs of oppressed groups and how these
oppressed groups define their realities. One way oppressed groups can rebel
against oppression is by using creative expression. Art, music, and dance have
all been ways in which oppressed groups have rebelled against their oppressors.
1970s
Punk Rock was a movement that exemplified such a rebellion. Members that shared
the ideology of punks in the 1970s used music and shock to advocate a negative
attitude toward mainstream rock stars, values, and society. Not surprisingly,
many punk bands during this time period held a left-wing political stance.
According
to many sources, punk music made an enormous impact on the Grunge scene, as
several bands and producers within the culture were heavily influenced by punk
music and values. Grunge culture thrived in
Nirvana
was characterized as part of the Grunge culture, although the band was formed
outside of
The band held a very rigid, negative view of
the mainstream’s appreciation of music. In numerous interviews, the band
members claimed that the mainstream was something that they did not want to be part
of. Nor did they appreciate the amount of mainstream success Nirvana was
having. Cobain, in particular, loathed the attention he and his wife were
receiving in the press, and took his frustrations out on MTV, as the network
contributed to the gossip surrounding the couple’s already-tainted reputation. However,
the band had unwittingly become part of the mainstream that they detested.
The
artifacts of the research revealed key patterns in identifying Nirvana’s
attitude toward the mainstream and the band’s use of creative expression to
rebel against it. The most significant ideological pattern was the band’s
distaste of and disregard for the mainstream. The most common and important
form of creative expression used to promote this ideology was humor, which was
prevalent in all aspects of the band’s creative expression—music, lyrics,
performance, and video. More specifically, Nirvana used disrespectful,
self-deprecating, and ironic humor to promote their ideology against the
mainstream. Shock was also used as a minor tool.
Limitations of Research
The main
limitation of my research project was time, which affected the number of
artifacts that could be chosen for analysis. Originally the researcher wanted
to use two more artifacts—the album jacket for Incesticide and an interview titled “Nirvana: Crucified by
Success?”—in which Cobain described in detail his dissatisfaction with the
media’s portrayal of him and his wife, and his level of disgust with how people
treated him after he became successful. Three artifacts were chosen in the
research based on the number of people that would have the opportunity to be
exposed to them and that most clearly promoted the band’s ideology. However,
the research was limited to artifacts that most precisely conveyed the band’s
ideology toward the mainstream. This bias left out many possible artifacts that
could have also contributed to Nirvana’s anti-mainstream ideology, and
increased the ways that the band promoted that ideology. For example, the research
found that several of the song lyrics made negative references to the
mainstream—“In Bloom” was about mainstream audiences not understanding the
music, but singing along with the songs anyway; “Smells Like Teen Spirit” was
about bored, inattentive audiences that expected only commercialized mainstream
entertainment; “Rape Me” became a denouncement of the media. The lyrics of
these songs could have been used as artifacts in themselves, had more time been
available. The researcher suspects that he would have found more instances of
creative expression that used only lyricism, art, or music, without using humor
to carry the message.
Another
limitation of the research was not having commentary from the band to discuss
the details of the performances and video. The research could only be developed
from a rough outline of the band’s intentions, the events leading up to a
performance, or the opinions of other authors. Thus, much of the research was
subject to my interpretation of the artifacts; as a result, the research was
based solely on my perception of the
band’s behavior.
Suggestions for Future Research
Some implications
of the research warrant future study in communication theory. A researcher
could expand on this study by drawing more artifacts into the Ideological
Criticism, in order to find more ways that Nirvana incorporated humor as a
creative tool in their rebellion. Many artifacts outside of Nirvana, such as
political cartoons, also use humor as a creative tool to rebel against
oppressive groups. A researcher could study other oppressed groups in order to
understand the different methods that humor has been used to rebel against
oppressive regimes. In a more sociological approach, one could study the
culture that enabled Nirvana to promote their ideology successfully, and the
messages that led the band to become accepted into the mainstream. Another
expansion of the study could be research that examines how those that are part
of a group in power (such as Nirvana within the mainstream) use creative
expression to bring themselves and their group down when they are dissatisfied
with the group’s ideology—as Nirvana brought themselves down with
self-deprecating humor in order to bring down the mainstream. Essentially, a
study of this sort would look at how groups in control (and that are oppressive)
use communication to destroy their own oppressive ideology.
Nirvana’s lyrics
lend themselves to further examination, as a researcher could feasibly discover
the patterns of an ideology using the lyrics alone; the title of this research
project was derived from a line from “In Bloom,” —“they know not what it means”—which
was a slam against mainstream audiences who listen to music but do not
understand the meanings of songs. The lyrics warrant a Metaphoric Criticism in
order to understand the meanings behind Cobain’s words. Following the
Metaphoric Criticism, a researcher could employ an Ideological Criticism in
order to examine how the lyrics revealed ideologies outside of Nirvana’s
rejection of the mainstream.
Many of Nirvana’s values
concerning the mainstream shared a similar attitude with Punk Rock. It would be
interesting to compare the ideology of Nirvana and the ideology of a punk band
such as the Sex Pistols to find any correlations between ideologies. In a
similar fashion, it would also be interesting to look at how the Grunge
movement as a whole reflected Nirvana’s anti-mainstream mentality, and if any other
Grunge bands used similar creative tools to promote an anti-mainstream ideology.
Regarding
communication theory, the band’s behavior offered a specific application of
humor as a creative resource to rebel against an oppressive group—in this case,
the mainstream. When put into the paradigm of Standpoint Theory, Nirvana became
an oppressed underground band that did not want mainstream success, and the
oppressors became the mainstream audience and media that forced them into mainstream
success. It would be interesting to compare other bands as victims of success,
as it would become a study of Standpoint Theory that involved musical figures
rather than groups oppressed by gender, race, or socio-economic status. These
groups have been the prevailing subjects for the majority of applications using
Standpoint Theory; it would be interesting to explore groups that were
oppressed because of self-imposed ethics rather than biological background.
Conclusion
Nirvana used their popularity as a platform to ridicule the mainstream. To do this, the band members employed many instances of humor in their art. Their reasons for this seemed to stem from the media’s invasion of their privacy and their already-established disregard for mainstream success. Shows such as the MTV Video Music Awards and the Top of the Pops allowed the band to showcase their distaste for the mainstream by abusing the privilege of performing live, where they altered their performances to mock themselves, the producers, and the audience in an attempt to deride the mainstream. Nirvana’s actions can be perceived as either a hopeful step forward in artistic integrity, or a sophomoric attempt to receive attention—like class clowns, with the mainstream as both their classmates and the subjects of their jokes. In Nirvana’s case, the band’s propulsion into the mainstream came as a surprise, but rather than accept their place in the mainstream, they chose to ridicule it by making fun of themselves, other commercial bands, and their audiences. Whether the band members were viewed as artists who compromised their personal lives for their art, or were just attention-seeking comedians in their behavior is debatable. However, their choice to rebel against an oppressive mainstream is evident in the band’s ideology, as an oppressed group seeking refuge from the watchful eye of the mainstream media and public.
References
"1984 Video Music
Awards." Video Music Awards. 3 Mar. 2008. MTV. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/past-vmas/1984/>.
"1985 Video Music
Awards." Video Music Awards. 3 Mar. 2008. MTV. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://www.mtv.com/ontv/vma/past-vmas/1985/>.
Allen, Myria Watkins, Deborah J.
Armstrong, Cynthia K. Riemenschneider, and
Margaret F. Reid.
"Making Sense of the Barriers Women Face in the Information
Technology Work
Force: Standpoint Theory, Self-Disclosure, and Causal Maps." Sex Roles
54 (2006): 831-844.
Allman, Kevin. "The Dark Side
of Kurt Cobain." The Nirvana Companion: Two Decades
of Commentary.
Anderson, Dawn. "Nirvana:
Signin’ on the Dotted Line and Other Tales of Terror." The
Nirvana
Companion: Two Decades of Commentary.
Arnold, Gina. "From Route 66: On the Road to Nirvana." The
Nirvana Companion: Two
Decades of
Commentary.
Azerrad, Michael. Come as You
Are: the Story of Nirvana.
215-294.
Azerrad, Michael. "On the
Mudhoney, Nirvana,
628 (1992): 43-50.
Barkham, Patrick. "Band Snubs
Top of the Pops After Fat Remark." Guardian.Co.Uk. 10
Aug. 2005. The
Guardian. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/10/arts.artsnews>.
Journal of
Cultural Geography 18 (1998). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.
Bogdanov, Vladimir, Michael Bogdanov,
Stephen Thomas Bogdanov, and Richie
Unterberger. All
Music Guide to Rock.
1997. 660-661,
433, 851.
"Buddy Holly and the Crickets
/ Sam Cooke / Bobby Helms." The Ed Sullivan Show. 3
Mar. 2008. CNET
Networks Entertainment. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://www.tv.com/the-ed-sullivan-show/buddy-holly-and-the-crickets---sam-cooke---bobby-helms/episode/107008/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;20>.
Cameron, W. Scott. "The
Genesis and Justification of Feminist Standpoint Theory in
Hegel and
Lukacs." Dialogue & Universalism 15 (2005): 19-41.
“The Chosen Rejects.” Live!
Tonight!! Sold Out!!!. Perf. Nirvana. DVD. Geffen
Records, 2006.
Cross, Charles R. Heavier Than
Heaven : a Biography of Kurt Cobain. 1st ed.
Hyperion, 2001.
Dettmar, Kevin J.H. "Uneasy
Listening, Uneasy Commerce." Chronicle of Higher
Education
48 (2001). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.
“Drummers.” Nirvana: Nevermind.
DVD.
"The Ed Sullivan Show." 3
Mar. 2008. CNET Networks Entertainment. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://www.tv.com/the-ed-sullivan-show/show/1156/summary.html?tag=tabs;summary>.
Foege, Alec. "Chris Cornell. Members of the
That Success Comes with Too High a
Price. And Chris Cornell of Soundgarden Is
No Exception." Rolling Stone.
698-699 (1994): 103-106.
Foss, Sonja. Rhetorical
Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Long Grove: Waveland
Press, 2004.
Fricke, David. "Blood on the
Tracks." The Nirvana Companion: Two Decades of
Commentary.
Fricke, David. "Kurt Cobain:
the Rolling Stone Interview." Cobain. Rolling Stone P,
1994. 68.
Garr, Gillian G. "Verse Chorus
Verse: The Recording History of Nirvana." The Nirvana
Companion: Two
Decades of Commentary.
2006. 482-492.
Gronbeck, Bruce E. and Malcolm O.
Sillars. Communication Criticism.
Heights: Waveland
Press, 2001.
“Headbanger’s Ball: A Big Buzz.” Live!
Tonight!! Sold Out!!!. Perf. Nirvana. DVD.
Geffen Records,
2006.
"The History of TOTP!" Bbc.Co.Uk.
3 Mar. 2008. BBC. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/trivia/history/>.
“In Bloom.” Nirvana: Nevermind.
DVD.
Kanter,
Decades of
Commentary.
“Lithium.” Live! Tonight!! Sold
Out!!!. Perf. Nirvana. DVD. Geffen Records, 2006.
Gloria Anzaldua's
Borderlands." Sociological Spectrum 25 (2005): 539-570.
Matula,
Theodore. "Pow! to the People: The Make‐Up's Reorganization of Punk
Rhetoric."
Popular Music & Society 30.1 (2007): 19-25.
“Media.” Live! Tonight!! Sold
Out!!!. Perf. Nirvana. DVD. Geffen Records, 2006.
“Drummers.” Nirvana
Nevermind. DVD.
"Part 4 - the Best is Yet to
Come..." Bbc.Co.Uk. 3 Mar. 2008. BBC. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/trivia/history/history4.shtml>.
Rocco, John. "Introduction:
Nirvana At the End of History." The Nirvana Companion:
Two Decades of
Commentary.
Rosen, Craig. "Nirvana Set Has
Smell of Success." The Nirvana Companion:
Two Decades of
Commentary.
Seliger, Mark. "Normal
Weirdness in
Search Premier.
EBSCO.
Sillars, Malcolm O. Communication
Criticism : Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies.
Simonelli, David. "Anarchy, Pop and Violence: Punk
Rock Subculture and the Rhetoric
of Class, 1976-78." Contemporary
British History 16.2 (2002), 121-144.
“Smells Like Teen Spirit.” Nirvana:
Nevermind. DVD.
Steinke, Darcey. "Smashing
Their Heads on that Punk Rock." The Nirvana Companion:
Two Decades of
Commentary.
“Territorial Pissings.” Nirvana: Nevermind.
DVD.
"Top of the Pops 1960s." Bbc.Co.Uk.
3 Mar. 2008. BBC. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp/history/>.
"Top of the Pops Leaves BBC
One." BBC News. 29 Nov. 2004. BBC News. 3 Mar. 2008
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4051231.stm>.
“the top 10.” Live! Tonight!! Sold
Out!!!. Perf. Nirvana. DVD. Geffen Records, 2006.
True,
Nirvana
Companion: Two Decades of Commentary.
1998. 118-135.
True,
Two Decades of
Commentary.
True,
19, 50, 65, 28,
39, 40.
True,
Commentary.
True,
Two Decades of
Commentary.
"Why Did the TOTP Weekly Show
Finish?" Top of the Pops. 3 Mar. 2008. BBC. 3 Mar.
2008
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp/faq/tvshow_01.shtml>.