The "No Star" Syndrome

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Inspired by today's Pavement thread. I put on Slanted and Enchanted again for the first time in ages and found that my opinion is unchanged. I think it is an OK album by an OK group. But there were hundreds of indie rock bands around at the time and the question that always comes to my mind is, "Why them?" To me, the exact same thing can be said about the rise of Nirvana.

I'm sure that there are historical factors in both of these bands' stories that can be identified as reasons why their ascendancies occurred. I guess I'm more interested, though, in the sociological aspects of why Pavement and Nirvana, both of whom seem to be bands with very unlikely star personnel, came to be so huge.

The rise of the "No Star" star WAS unusual at the time. Apart from hardcore (which was never that huge), punk rock traditionally involved musicians with definite star qualities. The indie bands who were big prior to Nirvana and Pavement - R.E.M. and Sonic Youth, for example - had star qualities.

So why, all of a sudden, the "No Star?"

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:28 (twenty-one years ago)

"I guess I'm more interested, though, in the sociological aspects of why Pavement and Nirvana, both of whom seem to be bands with very unlikely star personnel, came to be so huge."

no way, their singers were megababes in a sea of frank blacks.

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:31 (twenty-one years ago)

courtney compared malkmus to grace kelly! KURDT was superduper pin-up material. he was soulful and angry. boys & girls could love him equal-like.

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, i was gonna say. kurt had the look, and stephen still had it through the cover of his first solo album, and maybe still does.

and you know, i listened to slanted & enchanted todays. i still absolutely love it. what are these hundreds of other albums from around then as remarkable?

sun ship, Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:34 (twenty-one years ago)

No, way MORE remarkable. I don't know, '92? Gories, Royal Trux, Dwarves ... any number of Japanese bands, New Zealand bands ...

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:37 (twenty-one years ago)

this is just another one of those pavement threads, isn't it. veeeeery sneaky. number 493283 for the books.

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Royal Trux, Dwarves

Fine bands, but they didn't really have the catchy pop sensibilities of either Nirvana or Pavement....also, one what planet do you think the Dwarves could have been a mainstream band?

I agree with Scott, I think your two examples (Kurdt and Malky) actually disprove yr thesis.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

The Dwarves were a million times more catchy than either Nirvana or Pavement. Listen to their second and third Sub Pop albums. (And I see you conveniently left Gories out ; ) )

So Scott, you don't think there was some sociological shift where the alternative rock stars were now going to be more average guys rather than Dionysian glamour dudes aspiring to geniushood?

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Good point from Scott. Kurt's eyes were so blue in the "Heart Shaped Box" video that my girlfriend at the time thought they'd been retouched by computer.

Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, re. point on impossibility of Dwarves being mainstream: Pavement were never very mainstream either. Guys like Blag and Neil Hagerty seem like stars lost in an era when there were no stars.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:51 (twenty-one years ago)

All the chix in HS thought Eddie Vedder was hot too..

xpost I've never actually HEARD the Gories, so I couldn't say...

Also, Pavement "broke" my second year in the dorms...Cut Yr Hair was alwasy on the daily Top 5 show at 5 on the local alternative station that everybody listened too...They weren't totally mainstream, but way more so than the Dwarves...

I think it was more glamor dudes PRETENDING to be regular dudes than actual regular dudes that were big in the 90s...

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:55 (twenty-one years ago)

You don't think Sonic Youth members had more of an "average guy" persona than Kurt Cobain? He seemed to virtually personify every tragic-Romantic-countercultural artist archetype even prior to the suicide, e.g. in some of those interviews.

Sundar (sundar), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

(I mean, if Michael Stipe was a star persona, KC must have been more so, no? I guess he didn't dance. But REM in the 80s made more of a point of being 'faceless', didn't they?)

Sundar (sundar), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but rock stars before Cobain generally seem to be people who felt that they were on top of their game, whereas Cobain probably didn't even know if his band was as good as the Melvins.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Stipe was way more of a glam star than Cobain from the very beginning.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

everyone doubts themselves, tim. i'll grant that kurt and stephen didn't try as hard (or didn't seem to try as hard) as jani lane and jon bon jovi. is that what you mean? but like what about metallica? and the replacements? and sugar? how much of face men were those guys?

sun ship, Saturday, 28 May 2005 01:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I'm not saying Cobain and Malkmus are the only examples. Metallica before they cut their hair were obviously more glam than afterwards, though. And I think they had a certain hubris that Nirvana and Pavement did not have.

"You don't think Sonic Youth members had more of an "average guy" persona than Kurt Cobain?"

No way, they were weirdo punk intellectuals. Their music was obviously supposed to have seductive layers.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 02:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Musically, yeah. I was thinking more of how they presented themselves as people in interviews, etc. Like Thurston's foreword to Confusion Is Next: "There are no rock and roll incidents a la Led Zeppelin. Nor are there any major catastrophes. Boring? yeh, maybe." I think they come across more as fairly well-adjusted middle-class people who work hard but consistently at a long-term career (with possibly a weirdo choice of careers). (They might have seemed different in the 80s, I grant. I might be influenced more by their image from the mid-90s onwards.) They even prominently feature a longstanding married couple with child. Take the suburban photos that accompany Washing Machine vs the decadent rock star photos that accompany In Utero. (It's not too hard to imagine Guns n Roses in the latter shots.)

Sundar (sundar), Saturday, 28 May 2005 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

"They might have seemed different in the 80s, I grant."

Absolutely.

"the decadent rock star photos that accompany In Utero"

I don't know the photos. Was there some sort of self-consciousness or irony to them?

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 02:27 (twenty-one years ago)

"So Scott, you don't think there was some sociological shift where the alternative rock stars were now going to be more average guys rather than Dionysian glamour dudes aspiring to geniushood?"

doesn't this go back a ways, though? to the james gang and poco. to name two. it pre-dates punk. the we are stars/back to the land/roots utopian ethos. we are all in this together. bare feet. long hair. how many people going to a foghat concert could name their bass player or even knew what he looked like? but as far as alternanation goes, yeah, faceless freeks & geeks were the norm as far as punk and hardcore and alt and the like were concerned. two nirvana precursors, husker du & pixies are famous examples. they had star appeal after the fact, but they were just schlubs playing clubs for a long time. as far as sonic youth go, well, starpower is in the eye of the beholder, but they were and are led by a geeky, gawky record collector from connecticut, and lemme tellya, i look at that sight every morning in the bathroom mirror and it ain't pretty. kobain, on the other hand, always dreamt of glory for his band. he wanted to be the raincoats, but he also wanted to sell a million records and he had no problem using his mug to do it. well, as it turned out, he had a problem doing it, but that's hindsight. did nirvana make a conscious decision not to appear glossy and pop? of course. that wasn't who they were. same with the grateful dead. until they went to heaven and wore white suits. but both bands wanted to look cool. and listen to old blues records in their spare time. and shoot heroin. the keep it simple stupid skool of ripped t-shirt cool is as old as brando & dean.

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 28 May 2005 04:10 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, but if James Gang and Foghat and Grateful Dead were just naturally faceless, their music did not come across as self-EFFACING and timid, which is how I see Nirvana. Pavement, likewise, were timid. They weren't trying to RULE in any way at all. They were just trying to be decent craftsmen who were somewhat clever.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 05:49 (twenty-one years ago)

older. it goes back to charles chesnutt and paul lawrence dunbar saying fuck you whitey, fuck your money, and fuck your rules. jazz. blues, too. rock wasn't about looks, but musicianship, some rock at least, for a long time in the 70s, until punk came along, and then there was adam ant and duran duran. tim, are you trying to distinguish between aspiring celebrities and musicians? because the difference between glam metal, late 80s style, and cobain and malkmus, is those latter boys knew their rock music history, or at least put that history way before celebrity ("meat puppets," "raincoats," etc.), whereas it might be said vince neil and kip winger are vulnerably unlearned in their interviews? it's hard for me to understand this quasi-intimacy with people i'm unfamiliar with

sun ship, Saturday, 28 May 2005 05:49 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I'm saying these are a new type of star. They are the timid "No Star." Beck is another example.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 05:52 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry. xpost to build off scott.

i can't understand how you'd find the fucking james gang self effacing. nirvana too wanted to be huge. otherwise why deal with butch vig? why contract to geffen and then go record nevermind in madison? why not stay in seattle with jack endino?

sun ship, Saturday, 28 May 2005 05:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I DON'T find the James Gang self-effacing. I'm not disputing that Nirvana wanted to be huge. I am saying that, as a star, Cobain was timid and self-effacing.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 05:57 (twenty-one years ago)

but joe walsh joined the eagles to be their guitarist. isn't that self-effacing somehow? it's not like kurt was ever about to pull an o'rourke and join sonic youth. he was such a rock star he shot his head off.

i sort of see where you're coming from. but i'm not buying malkmus and cobain as the avatars or whatever. maybe bob mould and matt johnson. i guess i just don't buy this early 90s thing. why not bring eno into it? the guy completely eschewed pop stardom to record wallpaper music and produce!

sun ship, Saturday, 28 May 2005 06:01 (twenty-one years ago)

"but joe walsh joined the eagles to be their guitarist. isn't that self-effacing somehow?"

I'm talking about Nirvana producing MUSIC that had a self-effacing feeling to it. Music that, in stating its case, was not much of a celebration, but more like a timid participation in a particular scene. A staking out of some merely middle-of-the-road underground aesthetic. Did they even give the impression that they thought they were as good as Mudhoney or the Jesus Lizard or Monster Magnet?

I read an interview with Salt Peter from the Dwarves and he talked about the time they played a gig with Nirvana. He said that Cobain knelt and kissed his feet. Why? Because the Dwarves were awesome and Cobain knew it.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 06:14 (twenty-one years ago)

And there's no way I see Joe Walsh kissing someone's feet.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 28 May 2005 06:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Add Olivelawn as part of the hundred great "no star" amazements of that era.
And faceless but not timid.
There were quite a few really good bands.
really...why pavement...mabey cuz "debris slide" was such a great hit? Or greeeeeat "anti-hit".

cat busbee, Saturday, 28 May 2005 08:03 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah I never understood pavement or their veneration either. self-effacing (and self-referential)to the point of being impenetrable and boring, it always seemed like you had to be their peer or self-identified as a kindred spirit to really engage w/their music.

a la kurt cobain & the dwarves, IIRC joe walsh got his feet kissed by pete townshend back when james gang opened for the who.

m coleman (lovebug starski), Saturday, 28 May 2005 11:59 (twenty-one years ago)

"No Star" is a crock of shit. "Faux-Reluctant Star" might be a better example.

miccio (miccio), Saturday, 28 May 2005 12:46 (twenty-one years ago)

and at the risk of the girl I'm seeing finding this, Billy Corgan is a better example of an inexplicable 90s star. Ugly dude, ugly voice, little to no macho to explain why the dudes care, somehow sold millions.

miccio (miccio), Saturday, 28 May 2005 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not that 90s stars were more normal guys than "more average guys rather than Dionysian glamour dudes aspiring to geniushood?" It was still the usual rock god bullshit just covered in fuzz, mumbling and sluggish tempos. I hope to god that aint signs of average humanity.

miccio (miccio), Saturday, 28 May 2005 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

scratch the 'more normal guys than' in that last post

miccio (miccio), Saturday, 28 May 2005 12:57 (twenty-one years ago)

no one is as good as monster magnet

album zutique, Saturday, 28 May 2005 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Metallica before they cut their hair were obviously more glam than afterwards, though.

No way! They were much more glam AFTER the haircut in the press photos...they started "dressing up"....before they looked like a total blue collar thrash band. That's why we Metallica fans were so taken aback!


"No Star" is a crock of shit. "Faux-Reluctant Star" might be a better example.

Exactly.

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Saturday, 28 May 2005 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah I never understood pavement or their veneration either. self-effacing (and self-referential)to the point of being impenetrable and boring, it always seemed like you had to be their peer or self-identified as a kindred spirit to really engage w/their music.

I was in high school when S&E came out, so I'm answering this based on how I felt at the time...but I NEVER thought Pavement were my 'peers' they felt cooler and UPPER CLASS...very snobby rich kids that went to private schools...not commoners....that's how I imagined them. Malkmus was too glamorous to be a "average guy"

M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Saturday, 28 May 2005 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.