I don't know if I buy this framing. The intro Pearl Jam story is only noteworthy because it's unique. Cobain wasn't one of a million examples of counter-culture; we still talk about him today because it was uniquely his brand (to be incredibly famous while seemingly rejecting the fame).
Michael Jackson's hair caught on fire filming a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Bill Cosby famously hawked Jell-O Pudding. Sports stars were on Wheaties. Ronald Regan (the actor!) was a spokesperson for GE.
But that being said, celeb endorsements aside... I do think that the author is right that everything these days "feels fake/contrived" and almost nothing exists without an angle to make money somehow.
Everyone now has the ability to go viral and make it big financially, so it does feel like much of our actions (even if that's not our goal) are shaped that way. A random person may not want to be a rich, famous Instagram influencer... but that doesn't stop them from acting similarly (posting photos for likes).
Humans have always had versions of trying to monetize their lifestyles (tupperware parties?); now we all have the tools to do it at scale.
I think you're overstating the uniqueness of Cobain's "brand" and underestimating the size of the anti-corporate movement in the popular culture of the 1990s. First, it wasnt really Cobain per se—Nirvana were huge for a few years, but Cobain really only became a household name in death. More importantly the rejection of corporate influence and "mainstream" art was the guiding ethos of that whole genre, and eventually of lots of other artists as well . "Smells Like Teen Spirit" may have been the spark, but you could see the influence of that movement for many years, across the punk revival, riot girrls, zine culture, independent film, "culture-jamming" efforts like Naomi Klein's No Logo, etc (to say nothing of the glam, "hair" bands who were instantly put out of work by the advent of grunge). Not for nothing did the anti-WTO protest take place in Seattle.
This reminds me a lot of the tension the I felt when I was first coming of age as a young adult in the late 00s. At that point, it wasn't grunge, it was hipsters. But I always felt like: How can hipsters be hip and counterculture and a movement that is big deal culturally at the same time? As soon as a "counterculture" becomes a mainstream movement, it's no longer a counterculture...
So which is it? Was Cobain a big deal in the mainstream, or was he countercultural? I don't think you can have it both ways.
IMO the tension is a feature, not a bug. We (humans) put far too much emphasis on the current state (is Cobain a mainstream success or counter culture hero?). We need to focus on the change we're observing; Cobain was an alternative that we watched catch on and take over everyone with a pair of Doc Marten boots regardless if they were a punk or a sophmore at Duke. The tension exists in the change we are living within, and it does not move at a steady, universal state. I liken trying to decide "What is this?" to trying to stand still in a raging river. It doesn't really matter as the current churns past, with logs zipping along and rocky outcrops threatening. The "movement" either consumes itself (ex: Pop Music), is terminated prematurely (like Cobain) or consciously never lets itsef happen (ex: Nofx)
> So which is it? Was Cobain a big deal in the mainstream, or was he countercultural? I don't think you can have it both ways.
But why not? Result (huge sales, mainstream popularity) and process (not aiming at that goal, or even resenting ending up there) are entirely decoupled because the result is the sum of actions done by everyone else and only the process is the action of the person involved.
To be a big deal in the mainstream is about saturation and mass appeal.
To be countercultural is usually to be celebrated for the process/intent.
Entirely possible to hit both of those.
An even longer-lasting example: Radiohead repeatedly shifted directions after huge hits into more-and-more avant garde styles. But many of their songs kept ending up hugely popular regardless. Their intent was "let's do what we want to do, not just try to appease the lowest common denominator" - a classic "indie" sentiment. But it ended up appealing to huge numbers of people anyway, time after time. Even today's kids are picking them up in substantial amounts.
All punks - and quite a few non punks - are aware of NOFX. They refused to play the game yet had a 40+ year career and even bigger impact on punk music since the late 80's.
Not overstating his uniqueness in being anti-corporate, as much as his uniqueness in being both anti-corporate AND mainstream. And you might be right that his mainstream appeal came later, but I think the point still stands.
Indeed, in music there is a fandom subculture where bands are appreciated only so long as they aren't too successful - hence the indie music scene. Some fans want to discover new bands that are obscure, but not too obscure (after all, they need somebody they can talk to about the band, thus the fan can prove themselves to be cool for knowing all about them). The ideal band is one that only cool people know about, not those lame masses who only ever hear commercial music.
I well remember the "sell out" musicians of the 90s - even the Rolling Stones sold a song to... Microsoft! They might have lost their cool with some people, but that didn't stop them from remaining one of the most influential bands of their generation, and they've continued their success for decades.
As you say, Pearl Jam are the exception that proves the rule, the non-sell-out who managed to get huge anyway.
Right. If anything, the 1990s were the decade of apex celebrity superstardom? You had singers like George Michael on the covers of mainstream magazines and in TV ads, you had all the boy bands (New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys, NSYNC)... the Rolling Stones got paid millions for the promo song for Windows 95, Britney Spears was selling Pepsi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fugLhNbwoY), Celine Dion had her line of cosmetics, etc.
The author was a teen back then, and teens to be countercultural, but I don't think they're drawing the right conclusions from that.
I also generally think it's not that different today.
There's no numbers there to show that disliking fame was bigger than compared to now. Billie Eilish has written big hits about not being happy as a result of fame or the downsides of it.
Also, look at the amount of anti-AI/anti-big-tech memes/commentary/activity today. You can draw a straight line from No Logo to that. And I don't think it's that hard to extend that line MUCH further back than Naomi Klein. Open Source itself has plenty of adherents and is inherently a don't-sell-out movement and mentality.
"Selling out" as a concept back then only came about because everything felt fake and contrived (to some people). Just like today, not everyone would agree that everything is fake and contrived - look at how many people are still listening/watching some of the "nepo babies" or suspected"industry plants"...
The pop-culture part of this article is just "I have nostalgia for this thing I remember and knew a lot about" while ignoring the pre-existing-and-continual Michael Jackson / New Kids on the Block / Vanilla Ice / N Sync / Britney Spears mega-stardom super-celebrity mainstream hype machine that was also massively successful through the whole period.
Yeah I tend to agree. What is the thesis here? Is it that being indie and not selling out was mainstream and now it's not? I don't think that adds up. It wasn't mainstream then either, that's what was notable about it...
So is it that there is no culture that feels this way about selling out in the present? I'm pretty skeptical of that! Is it really true that if I went to a high school or university right now and asked every kid there what they think about selling out and consumerism, that I wouldn't find a subculture there that feels that way? I suspect I would find that subculture.
So is it just that this subculture is smaller now? Ok, maybe so. But this seems like a much weaker thesis?
Or is it actually that this subculture is less visible now? This seems the most plausible to me. Kurt Cobain and Pearl Jam were interesting and frequently reported upon. But then this is a more boring phenomenon: things that are interesting become less novel and less interesting over time.
I do very much like the section in this essay pointing out that the masses in the US have changed from temporarily embarrassed millionaires to temporarily embarrassed celebrities. That resonates!
There's one good part of this article, the chart of sequel/reboot/spinoff movies. And I wonder if it's just cause of movie piracy, cause it started going to crap in the 2000s. There's effectively a price ceiling now on how much you can charge to view a movie, which tilts the risk/reward in favor of reliably making ok-ish movies, and also milking old IP harder.
A non-percentage-based one would be more interesting. The whole MCU phenomenon would likely increase the absolute number, but I doubt that it would be as dramatic. What the chart as-is fails to show is the specific loss of other types of movies that have moved to other media.
Ever since made-for-cable TV series went mainstream with HBO in the late-90s, a huge chunk of yesterday's non-blockbuster movies have become today's TV series. And there are massively more TV series than ever before.
That "25%" in the 80s shows you that there were already tons of those, and it's easy to remember them (Jaws 2, Empire Strikes Back, Temple of Doom, Aliens, Godfather Pt 2, etc etc etc).
I think it's cyclical. Punk in the early 80s was a reaction to the excesses of 70s superbands (e.g. Johnny Rotten's "I hate Pink Floyd" t-shirt). Then things built up again to "monsters of rock" arena tours, The Spice Girls, and hair bands before getting torn down again by the likes of Nirvana.
(Hell, rock and roll was born as an anti-establishment thing in the 1950s)
Maybe we're just due for another one of the inflection points where being anti-cool will become cool again.
Ok, the Spice Girls were formed 1994, the same year Kurt Cobain died, but Take That and lots of other boy/girl bands and other extremely commercial pop acts were contemporary with Nirvana and the whole grunge phenomenon. So it's not cyclical, it's actually two sides of the same medal. There are to this day still lots of bands that hold their "indie ethos" high, the only thing different in the 1990s was that some of those indie/alternative bands were actually successful enough to be considered (shudder) mainstream...
> There are to this day still lots of bands that hold their "indie ethos" high, the only thing different in the 1990s was that some of those indie/alternative bands were actually successful enough to be considered (shudder) mainstream...
The late 80s to early 2000s was a distribution sweet-spot for groups like that.
Early MTV didn't always line up with what mainstream radio played, but gave more new artists opportunities. This continued up at least through Eminem getting his breakout in that way - I wouldn't say he shunned fame, but until breaking through with a music video there the radio machine wasn't giving him that fame. Tapes, and later CD burners, also massively accelerated word-of-mouth for stuff that wasn't the immediate first choice for top-40 format radio stations because it let more people share more things. Then you had the internet/napster era supercharge that. "It Wasn't Me" by Shaggy became a huge hit because a local DJ in Hawaii found it on Napster and started playing it.
Now we've crossed a tipping point where there's more indie stuff available than ever, but also so much personalized listening where it's getting harder again to get Nirvana-level famous outside of the system. But a Chappel Roan still fits the bill pretty well. Did you have lesbian dance-pop with 80s camp on your bingo card for massive mainstream popularity a few years ago?
Michael Jackson, Bill Cosby, and Ronald Regan are all great examples of people who were considered sellouts at the time. It didn't hinder their mainstream commercial success, but there were a large number of people that definitely did not consider them cool.
Sellouts have always existed at some level, but now it's different, I don't even think a lot of kids know what "sellout" means.
I was alert to popular culture by the time Thriller happened and I don't recall anybody thinking Michael Jackson was a "sellout". Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson did not one but two duets together.
if you were into indie music scenes at the time, basically anyone in the pop genre was considered a sellout
Indie music isn’t a unified entity, there’s always been a lot of different cultures under that label.
Some define themselves in relation to mainstream, but others just don’t care about what is or isn’t popular.
To a degree that was a sentiment, for sure. But many of us just like good music no matter what shape and size it comes in. Some of us even like bad music. I listen to a lot of bad music. I make a lot of bad music, too. But I'm having fun and I like to see other people have fun and even make money doing it.
When I was 5 I had every Backstreet Boys CD. I had Backstreet Boys action figures from Burger King. I love the Spice Girls and stadium bands like Pink Floyd. They stay on rotation. And I also really love finding the most obscure music possible and frequently dive into old, obscure artists, particularly folk and early electronic music. I love hearing masterpieces that have gone unnoticed for decades. I love hearing some stranger's brand new shitty song with 20 views on YouTube. My algorithm knows this too and very frequently shows me videos that are 10 minutes old with 5 views from accounts with a dozen subscribers. All of these things bring me different joys.
The line is when a celebrity starts actively hawking harmful things to everyday people. Doing a Pepsi commercial is a sellout move. But I still listen to the Jackson 5 all the time. It's good music.
If you had every Backstreet Boys CD when you were 5, you are probably not a reliable narrator of the zeitgeist of Michael Jackson in the early 1980s. :)
Did I get something wrong?
I'm not talking about the existence of individual anecdotes, I'm talking broadly as a culture because this is a comment section for a blog post about culture. I was an adult working in the music industry in the 1990s.
By and large if you were part of the indie music scene it was incredibly common to consider anything in mainstream commercial music "not cool." Boy bands were reviled for it, and people felt strongly about it.
From a cultural standpoint much of this sentiment has been lost entirely. This is part of the change the author is talking about.
We're not talking about Steve Albini, Ian MacKaye, or even Bob Mould. We're comparing Pearl Jam to Nirvana --- artists on Epic and Geffen. If you knew who SST Records was, you believed everyone was a sellout, including everyone on Touch And Go and Dischord.
Yeah, and I completely believe in the punk rock DIY ethos and independent artistic control from start to finish. I don't like big labels and I don't like to support them because they aren't supporting artists. All of these are important conversations to have when discussing what "sell out" really means. But much of the music is still good, that's my point. I can articulate the issues with the music industry while still enjoying the fruits of human creativity.
> I don't even think a lot of kids know what "sellout" means.
I think they still do, but selling out to do a deal with a brand to put your name on some clothes or cookies is so far down the scale it doesn't really register to begin with. At worst, all the harm it does is a potential harm to their future art, but a man's gotta make money somehow. It is capitalism after all.
Selling out when there are moral or ethical problems in the mix, they're still able to get very mad about that, but most artists are smart enough to not sell out to Northrup Grumman, OpenAI, Nestlé, nor to your favourite local crypto coin or gambling website.
And in those examples you don’t see any difference to:
>Maroon 5 is covering Bob Marley’s “Three Little Birds” as a tribute to Hyundai
Because that sentence hits hard in the smh.
A band covering a song for a Hyundai ad?
Michael Jackson did a parody of his own song Billie Jean for Pepsi ("You're the Pepsi generation")
Michael Jackson was a pop star. Selling out was never a sin in pop music.
Agreed, which is my point: the framing of the article (specifically the title) is about Lady Gaga, and she's a pop star. There's a lot of good points in there, cheapened by the framing.
One of Nancy Ajram's most popular songs was originally made as a Coca Cola ad soundtrack
Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life" was used in a cruise ship ad in 2003. Not the 90's, but not exactly recent.
Nobody was doing ads exactly like that decades ago, but celebrity endorsements in some form have been a staple of advertising for at least a century.
The Medici Banking family paid Michelangelo to paint the Medici Chapel.
Scrovegni Chapel by Giotto was made to help the reputation of the scrovegni family who were big creditors.
This is as old as time.
Isn't it pretty normal for car commercials or soda commercials to get covers of songs made?
"I'd like to teach the world to sing" was covered as a tribute to coca cola in 1971, that's classic now.
I think plenty of bands back in the day would have done the same if someone paid them.
Bob Marley's original recording of "Jammin'" was used in a Budweiser commercial in 1996.