I’m a little late to the party, but Nirvana’s Nevermind just clocked in its 20th birthday. The first time they performed Smells Like Teen Spirit, someone yelled out “Freebird!” Unbelievable, there are still unreleased tracks. The Nevermind baby would like to show off again. He now works for Shepard Fairey, better known as the OBEY or HOPE guy [Mefi link].
Those influenced by Nevermind include Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Miley Cyrus. SPIN magazine has collected some covers. You can download the album here or listen on YouTube. SPIN also commissioned this comic strip tribute (on Facebook) and an infographic showing Nevermind by the numbers. SPIN also debunked some Nevermind myths. There’s a more indie-minded tribute album as well. There’s a special website where you can contribute your thoughts. Come to think of it, July 1991 was a pretty epic month for music. SiriusXM also featured a Town Hall with Nirvana hosted by Jon Stewart. MTV HIVE has a Nirvana chapter excerpt from the book “Everybody loves our town” [Amazon].
If today is October 31st, you can watch the entirety of the Live at the Paramount Theater on YouTube’s VEVO. If it’s not Halloween 2011, it’s still easy enough to find the individual tracks.
Guilty secret time. I listen to Howard Stern. Not even just that, but I was basically raised by the man, from the Summer of ’89 till he left terrestrial airwaves.
We bought a Dodge Grand Caravan last year, and have had a 1-year Sirius subscription. As a result, I’ve had no problem making late-night errand running since I can time-travel back to the 1990s.
Something I’m really surprised by is the low quality advertisers. Ashley Madis0n? Third-tier eBay competitors? Late-night TV pitches? To be fair, whenever I’ve done a drive-by on FOXNEWS, I’ve seen similar caliber ads – Head-On, anyone? I understand that the content may be contentious, but I suppose given the content, that’s the best that they can do?
What if we could divorce content and commercials? What if the commercials that you received when consuming content were solely based on your own personal preferences and not based on the demographics of the program’s viewers? Could we get better content (as in not pandering to the lowest common denominator) and deliver better value to advertisers?
I’m just not seeing the win.
Sure, the fanboy who has iEverything will grab one. I likewise suppose that the person who would buy one of Apple’s other fine products but were deterred by the relative high price may also consider one. Like others have mentioned, the iPad (horrible name, BTW. iSlate, iBook, and iTablet would have been much better IMHO) has a series of shortcomings that are inexcusable:
Yes, yes, I know that it gets you the iPhone (or iPod Touch) experience on a larger screen for less money with internet connectivity. If compared to the Kindle DX, the iPad is a far superior product. But, for core competencies (book reader), the regular Kindle would be sufficient. Might you be better off pocketing an 8GB iPod Touch and a regular Kindle for the same price?
I know that Apple products are made of angel-wing feathers and unicorn tears, but the iPad is a tough sell. I wrote before that there was fundamentally no difference between Microsoft locking users in with software and Apple doing the same with hardware. The iPad continues Apple’s plan but now includes both hardware and software. You can’t easily get content either on or off the iPad. Content on the iProducts largely flows through the funnel that ends and begins with the app store/iTunes. Further, the same shortcomings that were on early versions of the iPhone are still present on the iPad, several years later. Shouldn’t the iPad have a similar feature set to the contemporary iPhone?
I think the omission of Flash is the most telling. No Hulu. No Slideshare. No YouTube. No Flash games. No Scribd. Yes, Flash is annoying in some of its implementations, but there is no denying that it is THE standard for online multimedia content. So why omit it?
Adobe certainly gets royalties of some sort from Flash installs – but I suspect it’s from authoring and distribution software, and not device players. I think what we are looking at is along the lines of Apple refusing to let Google Voice into the app store – it’s not about “confusing the user” with software that apes the products core functionality, it is about maintaining a monopoly on a channel of distribution. Apple is positioning itself as the savior for legacy media – print and broadcast. In order to do that, they need to garner exclusivity. The means video and other rich content through iTunes and not the browser. In short, a software and hardware granted monopoly. At the same time, Google sees the tyranny of Apple and will exploit the trojan horse that lives on every internet connected computing device – the browser. Hence their purchase of Gizmo 5, allowing VOIP calling on the iPhone, completely skipping the app store. Apple’s only response will be blocking content, which would go ever well.
I will readily admit that I am a Google fanboy, and have a horrible tendency to like the opposite of the crowd, simply for the sake of contrarianism. I find it hard to believe that the other tablet manufacturers – not just Google – won’t capitalize on Apple’s perceived weaknesses, and won’t do so well before v2 of the iPad comes out. If Amazon gets out of the hardware business and licenses the Kindle software to the next generation of Microsoft, Android, and Linux mobile platforms, especially at a superior price point with a richer feature-set, a plus-sized iPhone experience will not be sufficient.
Shame that my concert-going days are well behind me. This is a playlist of their entire performance at Download Fest in 2009 in Brixton, UK.
As always, I deeply appreciate the covers (Lady Gaga and Peaches & Herb).