think N1rvana is a better title for the long-anticipated Nirvana “Best Of” compilation; sure Nirvana wasn’t much for #1 singles, but their albums Nevermind and In Utero (which 9 of the 14 songs on this compilation are from) were both #1 albums, so I think they could have gotten away with it. Title aside, Nirvana is being marketed in a similar fashion as the Beatles and Elvis #1 albums; there’s even a half-hour long info-commercial showing every couple hours on MTV, examining the cultural phenomenon and music of this legendary band. It’s to the credit of Kurt Cobain’s legacy that his band is marketed like the Beatles and Elvis, especially when one considers the briefness of Nirvana’s existence; they only had four studio albums and their run as rock super-stars lasted only three years before Cobain’s infamous suicide. It’s also to his credit, that Nirvana falls short of showcasing the best he had to offer as a songwriter and performer. Of course, any Nirvana album that contains pop-punk gems like “About A Girl”, “Come As You Are”, “In Bloom”, “Heart Shaped Box” and “All Apologies” all on one disk couldn’t be labeled crap—far from it. Still, they could have squeezed a couple more songs on the disk, especially since most of the selected songs clock under four minutes. With only four studio efforts, a double album would have been over-kill for a Greatest Hits package, but a loaded single disk with 16 songs probably would have been an ideal overview and a better deal for consumers. And when you have such a lean compilation for a group with so many memorable songs, why the hell would one of them be “Been A Son” (from Incesticide). It’s a fine enough little ditty, but among a catalogue of numerous great songs, there’s nothing special about “Been A Son”. With such a selective track listing, a more popular song like “Drain You” or “Polly” would have served this compilation better and if they wanted to include a song solely on its artistic merit, either “On A Plane” or the Unplugged cover of Leadbelly’s “Where Did You Sleep Last Night” would have been a superior choice. Nevertheless, one questionable song choice and too lean a track listing, doesn’t cause Nirvana to be a bad sum-up of the band for the casual, classic-rock radio listening fan. For teenagers, however, who really want to sink their teeth into Nirvana, they’d be better off simply buying Nevermind, In Utero and Unplugged In New York, which are really three essential rock albums that need to be heard in their entirety. And in regards to old schools fans like myself—who were in high school when the whole Nirvana/Seattle phenomenon was happening—and most likely own the above three albums, there’s no reason whatsoever to buy Nirvana.


Okay. I lied. There’s one reason—maybe—the much talked about, never-released before, last song Nirvana ever recorded: “You Know You’re Right”. If you have basic cable, there’s a good chance many of you have already heard this track via its video (pieced together by various concert footage) or have heard it on a classic or modern rock station or maybe you even downloaded it from the Net. For the few who haven’t heard “You Know You’re Right”, I’ll tell you this: It’s good. Is it so good that it’s worth buying a whole album just to own it? I don’t know. It really depends on how much of a Nirvana fan you are. If in the past you’ve bought the Beavis and Butthead and No Alternative compilations simply to get an extra Nirvana song...well, you already bought this album. If you’re not a fanatical fan, but own all their albums, I’d say you should simply copy the song and leave it at that. If you own only one or two Nirvana albums, don’t worry about it at all. “You Know You’re Right” is a haunting piece of the Nirvana rock, but it’s not too different from their harder songs on Incesticide and In Utero. However, while drowning in a puddle of mud of corporate rock Nirvana clones, it’s refreshing to hear the real deal again. There’s a chaotic beauty, a distinct pathos, a melodic edge in “You Know You’re Right” that is pure Cobain and it helps to illustrate why nearly a decade after his death, his music still resonates so powerfully.


Of all the Seattle bands from the early 1990s, Nirvana is clearly the band that sounds the least dated; because of this, they’re also the band most frequently played on rock radio from that time-period. Though many will cite Kurt Cobain being a spokesman for Generation X (and perhaps Y as well) as the main reason for his enduring legacy, I’ll be bold enough to say it’s primarily because of the tunefulness of his songs. Unlike his head-banging peers, Kurt Cobain was foremost a crafter of songs like John Lennon who influenced him so heavily during his formative years. Also like Lennon, Cobain knew how to retain a melody while screaming his head off. In fact, Cobain was once quoted saying that melody was the most important part of a song. Even though the media labeled them grunge, Nirvana had little to do with bands like Alice In Chains and Soundgarden, who were essentially heavy metal acts. Though there was a metallic quality to his power-chord usage and blistering shrieks, Cobain was a fan of groups like the Vaselines, Beat Happening and even Devo—all of whom knew the impact of a short and snappy tune. It’s because of this Nirvana songs never drag like so much metal (including the corporate grunge of today). Even when Cobain’s guttural snarl of “you know you’re right” blends with a whining, disjointed guitar line, the resulting effect is closer to a hook than noise. Maybe the release of “You Know You’re Right” as a single will inspire artists to write actual songs again with fire and melody versus heartless drones of slick nothingness. If this one single alone converts a new generation, then Nirvana is an important release this year, even if it’s inferior to Nevermind, In Utero and Unplugged In New York.