Don wrote:
> In any case, there's hardly a legacy to equal the
> likes of Hendrix & Joplin ... though I'll grant you
> that Morrison's self-indulgence makes a somewhat
> better comparison.
>
> Just my take on it ... and one for which I'll beg
> forgiveness if I've seemed a bit harsh. I really
> would like to hear what others think about it.
I pretty much agree with you, that much of Nirvana's success or notoriety (I
can't find the right word here) was due to Cobain's death, and the
circumstances surrounding it. I personally (and don't jump down my throat,
this is just my opinion) don't see much of value in their music, and
definitely would never compare them to Joplin, Morrison or Hendrix.
But I do concede that perhaps Janis', Jim's and Jimi's "fame" was assisted
in some respects, in that they died in their prime, and again the
circumstances, ie. drugs, alcohol, etc. made them more newsworthy that if
they'd lived to a ripe old age and died quietly in their sleep. The idea
that they were matyrs to the hippie ideal may also be romantic to some -
personally I think dying by choking on your own vomit is not romantic at
all!
It's really impossible to say. Elvis was popular in his youth, and his
popularity did seem to decline as he got older (as far as I can tell - I'm
not really a fan of his either). But his premature death brought out a
whole new generation of fans, and I doubt he'd be as well-known around the
world now, if he was still singing in some cheesy Vegas night-club!
Hell
____________________________
"To have great poets, there must be
great audiences too." - Walt Whitman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hell's Personal Photo Page:
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~hell/main/personal.htm
Visit the NBLs (Natural Born Losers) at:
http://www.nbls.co.nz
