Nirvana - GAH Week 12 - 1.28.23
Another Seattle band this week.
I can't go anywhere these days without bumping into a twelve year old at the orthodontist wearing a Nirvana shirt.
Reminds me of the TOOL song Hooker with a Penis.
For me, and I want to be straightforward about my bias, Nirvana makes no sense as a greatest band if it's about the music itself. Nirvana seems to be more about the music + Cobain's *spectacular* suicide + style points + winning lottery ticket.I met a boy wearing Vans, 501s
And a dope Beastie tee, nipple rings, new tattoos
That claimed that he was OGT
Back from '92, from the first EP
And in between sips of Coke
He told me that he thought we were sellin' out
Layin' down, suckin' up to the man
Well now, I've got some advice for you, little buddy
Before you point your finger, you should know that I'm the man
I'm the man and you're the man and he's the man as well
So you can point that ******' finger up your ass
Sorta like an anti-Lee Greenwood of sorts. Proud to be an American is a good song, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't occupy our collective consciousness if we don't associate it so strongly with other institutional features like the 4th of July. So Greenwood & his song become a symbol for patriotism.
Nirvana is a symbol and is strongly associated with teenage or young adult disenfranchisement.
The copyrighted smiley symbol on all the tshirts is the subject of ongoing legal friction, as one might expect from any profitable IP property.
It's weird how many people want to give money to David Geffen, like his 10.8 billion isn't enough already.Nirvana files new complaint after discovery calls into question whether Kurt Cobain was truly the artist behind the band’s highly-recognizable design, with the band’s infringement suit against fashion designer Marc Jacobs hanging in the balance.
Hey! Wait! Nirvana’s got a new complaint! In its ongoing legal battle over the band’s infamous “smiley face” logo, Nirvana LLC is now asking a California federal court to declare that Robert Fisher, a former art director for the band’s label, does not own any rights to the design. It’s the latest twist in a case with all the trappings of an IP law school exam question that leaves very little to smile about.
The overarching question in the case, involving Nirvana, fashion designer Marc Jacobs International LLC (“Marc Jacobs”), and now graphic designer Robert Fisher, is just who actually created the iconic design – the infamous smile with x’s for eyes, and a crooked grin with its tongue hanging out – and, ultimately, who has the right to permit or enforce against its use. It’s an issue that has remained hazy in this case, especially because the one person who, according to Nirvana, is best situated to settle the issue has been dead for more than 25 years. Pop culture lore, and the records at the U.S. copyright office, have long held that Kurt Cobain, the band’s prolific frontman crafted the design. But Marc Jacobs, and now Fisher, are spinning a different tune.
The case began in 2018 when Nirvana, LLC (“Nirvana”), the corporate entity for the now-defunct grunge band that popularized the “alternative rock” and “grunge” musical genres, sued fashion designer Marc Jacobs after its “Bootleg Redux Grunge” clothing collection which included clothing bearing a design that was virtually identical to Nirvana’s recognizable smiley face design, for which Nirvana holds a U.S. Copyright Registration. Additionally, promotional materials for the collection incorporated references to famous Nirvana songs. Nirvana contends that Marc Jacobs intentionally infringed the band’s IP to “make the ‘Grunge’ association with the collection more authentic.” Also named in the complaint are Neiman Marcus and Saks 5th Avenue which sold Marc Jacobs’ smiley face products in the U.S.
According to the complaint, Nirvana’s smiley face logo was first used on a poster advertising the launch of the band’s 1991 album “Nevermind.” The squiggly-eyed smile with x’s for eyes has become an iconic feature on licensed merchandise for the band, including t-shirts, hats, hoodies, bags and other items which, according to Nirvana, have been sold for decades. Nirvana claims that Cobain created the smiley face logo in 1991 and “Nirvana has used that copyright-protected design and logo continuously since [then] to identify its music and licensed merchandise.”
I figure it's common knowledge, but Nirvana "sold out" and signed with Geffen on April 30 1991, and released Nevermind in Sept 1991. Bands sign with big labels all the time, no big deal, but it's an important factor in understanding popularity. Turning music into money is what the big labels do, and that requires marketing and distribution and so on.
But all these kids don't know that. They just think they are celebrating the inherent rebellion of youth and the creative/destructive cycle of generations.
Anyways, enough talk. Time to dive into the music, all two albums or whatever.
Bleach is a shit album, I'm just putting that out there. I listened to a few songs without knowing it was Nirvana and was incredulous that it was a "greatest American band" contender. If it was well-engineered and produced, would the creative content be more compelling? Idk.
Another confession.
I was huge into Jane's Addiction in my youth. Living on the west coast when I did was such a treat, because all the good music flowed along the I-5 corridor.
I'd say that Nirvana was the biggest beneficiary of the heavy lifting that Jane's did. Both the music and the scene.
Without further ado...
Why in the hell is Nirvana even remotely considered a great American band? Because they aped a Boston song? Help me out here.
Originally Posted by Sting
Reply With Quote
