Scan barcode
A review by neilsarver
Serving the Servant: Remembering Kurt Cobain by Danny Goldberg
2.0
There's nothing new in this, which is very disappointing. I wasn't expecting, or hoping for, dirt or exciting gossip, but some insight would have made this a valuable addition. For me, that didn't feel like it was here.
Mind you, [a:Goldberg|178993|Danny Goldberg|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] spends a fair amount of time defending the decisions involved in bringing Kurt Cobain and Nirvana to the mainstream. I understand that with a narrative that "punk/indie genius was lured onto a major label and into the MTV fold and the demands of fame killed him" being popular, his defense that Kurt and company were major forces in the choice to bring themselves into the mainstream.
Ultimately, however, he introduces a dichotomy in the form an idea he quotes [a:Everett True|60736|Everett True|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1256260954p2/60736.jpg] as stating that there are two kinds of punk rock. There is the [a:Jello Biafra|10732|Jello Biafra|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1309464750p2/10732.jpg]/[a:Ian Mackaye|486258|Ian Mackaye|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1357116608p2/486258.jpg] school in which one forms an alternative community parallel to the mainstream or there's the version in which one joins the mainstream and subverts it from the inside.
Nirvana's philosophy was the latter, which they argued for in nearly every interview they gave, so the argument that this was their intention and that Goldberg and those around him were working diligently to get them what they wanted is a solid point. Unfortunately, I'm also not sure Nirvana is a good case study for that philosophy working. Once they themselves were gone, the subversion was gone, it seems to me, and once we pass the recording of In Utero, Goldberg never takes up the thread again, and certainly not in terms of the legacy left behind. This is not meaningless, as much of the first two-thirds of the book are dedicated to discussing this point.
This might have been a solid memoir in the immediate aftermath of Kurt's death, but it feels woefully inadequate for a book with two and a half decades to reflect on these memories and the questions raised by all of it.
Mind you, [a:Goldberg|178993|Danny Goldberg|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png] spends a fair amount of time defending the decisions involved in bringing Kurt Cobain and Nirvana to the mainstream. I understand that with a narrative that "punk/indie genius was lured onto a major label and into the MTV fold and the demands of fame killed him" being popular, his defense that Kurt and company were major forces in the choice to bring themselves into the mainstream.
Ultimately, however, he introduces a dichotomy in the form an idea he quotes [a:Everett True|60736|Everett True|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1256260954p2/60736.jpg] as stating that there are two kinds of punk rock. There is the [a:Jello Biafra|10732|Jello Biafra|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1309464750p2/10732.jpg]/[a:Ian Mackaye|486258|Ian Mackaye|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1357116608p2/486258.jpg] school in which one forms an alternative community parallel to the mainstream or there's the version in which one joins the mainstream and subverts it from the inside.
Nirvana's philosophy was the latter, which they argued for in nearly every interview they gave, so the argument that this was their intention and that Goldberg and those around him were working diligently to get them what they wanted is a solid point. Unfortunately, I'm also not sure Nirvana is a good case study for that philosophy working. Once they themselves were gone, the subversion was gone, it seems to me, and once we pass the recording of In Utero, Goldberg never takes up the thread again, and certainly not in terms of the legacy left behind. This is not meaningless, as much of the first two-thirds of the book are dedicated to discussing this point.
This might have been a solid memoir in the immediate aftermath of Kurt's death, but it feels woefully inadequate for a book with two and a half decades to reflect on these memories and the questions raised by all of it.