Yesterday's Jukebox

Nirvana: Bleach

[5 November 2009]

Starting with Nevermind, Kurt Cobain intentionally simplified his compositions in order to emphasize their pop components. Less song-focused than later Nirvana works, Bleach acts as an interesting showcase of the band’s musical chops.

By AJ Ramirez

It’s amazing to note that it’s now been 20 years since Nirvana released its first album. It only seems like yesterday that the grunge group emerged from the American indie scene to knock Michael Jackson off the top of the Billboard album charts, in the process bringing mass acceptance to the alternative rock genre and underground music in general. Despite this milestone, Sub Pop’s 20th anniversary Deluxe Edition reissue of the band’s debut album Bleach comes off as both unnecessary and oddly muted.

cover art

Nirvana

Bleach [Deluxe Edition]

(Sub Pop; US: 3 Nov 2009; UK: 2 Nov 2009)

 Amazon
 Lala

Bleach is generally considered more a historical footnote than a necessary addition to music lovers’ record collections. Illustrating a band only beginning to find its voice, the album pales in comparison to the artistic glories that the trio later reached with Nevermind (1991) and In Utero (1993). Sure, there have been enough curious Nirvana neophytes over the years to generate sales of 1.7 million copies in the US alone for the record. What these fans quickly discover, however, is an album that is raw, murky, and lacking the catchy songcraft that make Nevermind and In Utero indelible listens. Bear in mind that, solely based on SoundScan sales figures, nearly four times as many people have heard the MTV Unplugged in New York rendition of the Bleach track “About a Girl” than the original recording. And a greater number than that have never heard the rest of the album.

Furthermore, it’s not like Bleach was begging for a re-release. While it’s nowhere near the best-selling Nirvana album, it is Sub Pop’s biggest selling-record ever, and the indie label has long ensured that Bleach is always in print and available even at big box retailers. Hell, I bought my copy at Kmart nearly a decade ago. It’s quite likely record buyers decided years ago whether or not they want to own Bleach, and chances are that a disturbingly slight Deluxe Edition release that offers little more than new mastering job and the inclusion of an unreleased Nirvana live performance are not going to entice them to pick it up.

Regardless, this reissue does provide an opportunity for listeners to reexamine Nirvana’s early music. It may not have the instant appeal of Nevermind, but judged on its own merits, Bleach actually holds up pretty well. Bleach is very much a grunge album in the truest definition of the genre. Drawing inspiration from the drunken punk/metal fusion propagated by Soundgarden, Mudhoney, and the Melvins, Nirvana constructs song after song out of grinding riffs and lurching rhythms that move like conveyer belts. More than any other Nirvana release, Bleach prominently displays the trio’s metal influences. Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath are the major reference points throughout Bleach, while the twisting riffs of “Swap Meet” could be mistaken for slowed-down Metallica. As a result, it’s the one Nirvana album better suited for headbanging than moshing.

Late Nirvana singer and guitarist Kurt Cobain admitted in the early 1990s that Bleach intentionally showcased the ‘70s-influenced heavy rock sound Sub Pop coveted at the time, but that by doing so it helped the band acknowledge its previously-underplayed metal roots and subsequently craft its own identity. Here, Cobain displays a preference for single note riffing and more conventional rock guitar soloing that is largely absent from later works. As the group had yet to develop its classic quiet verses/loud choruses dynamics, Nirvana’s song arrangements rely on a variety of riff changes to keep things interesting. Starting with Nevermind, Cobain intentionally simplified his compositions in order to emphasize their pop components. Less song-focused than later Nirvana works, Bleach acts as an interesting showcase of the band’s musical chops.

Aside from his able riffing, Cobain’s vocals deserve special notice. Cobain dismissed his lyrics on Bleach as little more than afterthoughts, completed the night before the group began recording. While that is a bit unfair (“School” may contain only two lines, but “Floyd the Barber” and “Swap Meet” are particularly interesting character sketches), the way Cobain sings the album’s words definitely bear greater scrutiny. Throughout, Cobain’s vocals are strangled and anguished, often sounding as if it takes monumental effort to wrench his songs out of his body. Cobain’s growling is indicative of a period when his delivery was far more important than what words or notes he sang. Bassist Krist Novoselic’s bass is weighty, but is also allowed to craft its own melodic path in counterpoint to Cobain’s guitar tracks. Over the years, drummers Chad Channing and Dale Crover (who appears on three tracks) have received unfair criticism about their drumming abilities on the album, when really their biggest crime is simply that neither of them are Dave Grohl, who joined Nirvana the year after Bleach came out. Channing and Crover lack Grohl’s sheer power, but they acquit themselves well in delivering the album’s thudding rhythms, laced with some nice fills.

Many of the songs on Bleach are quite good, and at least one—the jangly Beatles-esque anomaly “About a Girl”—is great. Still, the album has also has its share of flaws. Repetitiveness is a recurring problem on Bleach, namely in “School” and “Negative Creep”, the latter of which would be a far stronger track if the verse and chorus sections didn’t go on forever. A few tracks fail to hit the mark completely: “Papercuts” is an exercise in Melvins-style sludge that lacks charisma, while “Downer” is by Cobain’s admission an unsuccessful attempt to approximate the more politically-strident hardcore punk bands he favored.

As part of this Deluxe Edition release, Bleach has been remastered for a second time (the first was for the 1992 CD reissue). Typical of Sub Pop grunge recordings, Jack Endino’s production for Bleach was suitably murky and gnarled, almost claustrophobic at times. The remastering process (supervised by Endino) clarifies things a bit while still retaining the album’s dense sound. While Cobain’s vocals are virtually unaltered, the guitars have been sharpened and the low end has been turned up. This is most noticeable on “Floyd the Barber”, where the guitar and bass slam together like depth charges. In addition, the drums have a bit more weight and definition, with the snare in particular becoming more prominent. Still, the changes won’t be obvious to most listeners unless they are comparing past releases of Bleach side-by-side.

The true draw of this release is the inclusion of a complete Nirvana concert performance from February 1990. Featuring plenty of material from Bleach as well as contemporaneous compositions such as “Dive”, “Spank Thru”, and “Been a Son”, the live material is solid, although Endino’s mixing of the tapes makes the performances sound little different from the album versions. Consequently, it’s really of interest only to hardcore Nirvana fans. Beyond that, the Deluxe Edition offers little else. The set features a gatefold digipak that contains a single disc with both the album and the concert, as well as a thick booklet stored inconveniently in the middle section of the case. There are no liner notes at all in the booklet, just scores of pictures that can mostly be found elsewhere, along with a few curiosities like a reproduction of Nirvana’s original Sub Pop contract.

The lack of liner notes underscores one of the set’s biggest weaknesses: there’s no context, and thus this release exists on the notion that commemorating the 20th anniversary of the first Nirvana album is worthwhile without bothering to explain why. Certainly more could have been done to convey the historical importance of the group’s early work. Furthermore, given everything fits on a single disc on the CD release at least, Sub Pop could’ve easily included another disc that, in combination with what is already offered in the package, could have acted as a compendium of Nirvana’s material on the label. Where are the Blew EP, the “Sliver” single, and “Spank Thru”? In addition to detailed liner notes, adding these tracks would have made this reissue a more appealing purchase, as well as gone a ways towards demonstrating how Nirvana evolved into the group the world came to know them as (particularly in the case of the “Sliver”, the first song where Nirvana’s sound was fully realized). Compared to the royal treatment last year’s excellent Deluxe Edition reissue of Mudhoney’s Superfuzz Bigmuff received, Sub Pop seems to have dropped the ball here.

Bleach is a stronger record than it is commonly perceived to be, and does deserve to be checked out in some form by fans of heavy riff-driven rock. Regardless, this reissue is underwhelming, seemingly more concerned with enticing Nirvana completists to purchase it for the live material than in illuminating why Nirvana’s first album was an important step in a career that has helped define rock music for the last two decades.

 
Bookmark and Share
Share

Hailing from California, AJ Ramirez is a PopMatters contributor with a propensity to hang around libraries looking for books on music and history.  Having graduated with a BA in English in 2006, he then spent two years working as co-music director at freeform college radio station KDVS 90.3 FM.  He firmly believes that Prince’s Purple Rain is the greatest album of the 1980s.

Tagged as: nirvana | sub pop
Comments

I am glad that a reviewer finally did the following:

1. Noted that Soundgarden was an influence on this album.  Very few people realize that.  Screaming Life helped prompt Kurt Cobain to record with Jack Endino and join up with Sub Pop in the first place.

2. Give due credit to Dale Crover and Chad Channing, who were not slouches at all.  They unfairly get glossed over as the NOT Dave Grohl drummers.  In fact, I’d posit that Dale Crover is the best drummer of the three of them.

All in all, this is a well put together review.  Good work!

Comment by Bob — November 5, 2009 @ 12:28 am

This review misses on a few points…A: while Bleach was never considered a great album and offers no clues regarding the future sea-change of Nevermind and Nirvana’s shoot to stardom, it was a crucial release if only for the reason that it was basically 1 of 3 Sub Pop full length LPs available at the time that touted the new ‘grunge’ sound (or ‘sub pop’ sound, as it was called then), the other two being Tad and Mudhoney (which were superior LPs).  Yes, it was really recorded for $600 and it sounds like it.  B: The Soundgarden connection?  Nirvana hired a second guitarist after the recording to tour the Bleach album.  They guy later quit and became the second guitarist Soundgarden on their ‘Louder than Love’ tour, he quit Soundgarden too, and has never beeen heard from since.  That’s it.  C:  the OBVIOUS Melvins influence combined with early nuggets, hc, and metal makes for a few great cuts that still age well…Love Buzz, School, Negative Creep, and About a Girl still resound.  I dare you to pick up a guitar, put the amp on 10, play School and not be impressed.  Dude listens to too much Prince I say.

Comment by David — November 5, 2009 @ 11:20 am

So, is it not-that-good, or good-and-underrated?  The review opens with a fairly disparaging overview of the album but ends by suggesting that it actually is underrated. Seriously, this review should have either better articulated its attempts at subtlety, or an editor (if there was one) should have pointed out that it’s somewhat overlong and repetitive and seems unsure as to its overall opinion of Bleach.

Comment by The Big Crunch from Bethesda, MD — November 5, 2009 @ 12:02 pm

David, you make a lot of good points. 

I will say that the Soundgarden connection is deeper than you think.  Kurt Cobain himself told Kim Thayil that they were a big influence on him, and it’s well known that Screaming Life inspired him to join Sub Pop.  If you read interviews, he was a pretty big fan of Soundgarden’s early material.  Also, as an interesting aside, Ben Shepherd was Nirvana’s roadie before joining Soundgarden, and according to Kurt’s ex-girlfriend, Kurt himself considered joining Soundgarden as bassist after Hiro Yamamoto left.  Greg Prato’s Grunge Not Dead has a lot of interesting stuff on this.  So perhaps the influence isn’t obvious on a musical level, but Soundgarden was very important to that whole scene, including to Nirvana’s own development.

Comment by Bob — November 5, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

Bob: Thanks. It helps that I’ve read most every book on Nirvana ever written.

David: I mention the Melvins influence. As for the other two points, the first is debatable and the second is not worth noting. Jason Everman didn’t play on the album, and as I was primarily concerned with discussing the music, I saw no reason to mention him.  And everyone should listen to more Prince.  I suggest starting with the “Controversy” album.  If you want, you can break it up with some Husker Du.

The Big Crunch: it’s good and underrated, as I begin noting in the fourth paragraph after establishing the context of the reissue, and then reiterate throughout the article. However, the reissue is largely unnecessary.

Comment by AJ Ramirez from California — November 5, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

Reviewer seems to hedge his bets somewhat by painting the reissue itself as unnecessary, but I can’t disagree strongly enough with the assessment of the music itself as merely a misguided, immature version of the band that recorded “Nevermind” and “In Utero”.  Although the latter two albums are easily superior in conventional songwriting/production terms they are also exactly that… more conventional.  I think there is something to be said for the raw, unique sound of early Sub Pop albums like “Bleach” and “Ultramega OK” that - in spite of their immaturity - have something to offer that slicker, post-“Nevermind” grunge decisively lacks.  If “Bleach” came out today it would still be heralded as a masterpiece, just because the reviewer greatly prefers the more commercial material doesn’t make it worthy of anywhere near a 5, which is literally the apex of mediocrity.

Comment by Jeremy Ulrey from Austin, TX — November 5, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

Just wanted to second the praise for Dale Crover. The tracks he plays on Bleach are the best performances on the record. Not the best songs necessarily, but on a record that was trying pretty hard to sound like the Melvins, it was pretty handy to actually have Dale Crover play drums. 

Chad Channing is certainly the weakest drummer Nirvana recorded with, but that’s not his fault. The others, Dale Crover, Dan Peters, and Dave Grohl are all really original players who could knock the shit out of the drums. They’re just three really remarkable rock drummers. Chad was a decent drummer who was plenty good enough to play with a touring punk metal band, but not particularly special as a musician. But if you listen to demos of Nevermind stuff recorded with Chad from before Dave joined, you’ll hear that the parts Dave played aren’t that different from what Chad was doing. Dave just played harder and with a better sense of groove.

Really though, you gotta admit that Dave Grohl was the missing piece. He just fit right in there in a way nobody else did. Well, I think Dan Peters fit into Nirvana’s music really well too, but he already had a job.

Comment by Jamie — November 5, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

Jeremy: The rating I chose for the album takes into account the lackluster nature of the reissue. If I were rating the music alone the rating would be higher.  The songs still aren’t as good as the tracks on the following albums, though.

Jamie: Damn straight Dave Grohl was the missing piece.  Some of the tracks he played on still give me chills after numerous listens.

Comment by AJ Ramirez from California — November 6, 2009 @ 8:31 am

Yeah, I concur that Dave Grohl was the best drummer for Nirvana.  I mostly meant that I think Dale Crover is the better drummer based on his work for the Melvins, itself a pretty debatable assertion.  For some reason though, I find myself a bit bothered by the drums on Nevermind and In Utero.  The big stadium sound can be overbearing for me sometimes.

Comment by Bob — November 6, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

Bob: To be fair, both “Nevermind” and “In Utero” don’t serve Grohl’s drumming well all the time. In the case of the former, you have all that mix-stage trickery, which sometimes dulls the sound (drumrolls in particular suffer; the intro to “Breed” doesn’t sound as powerful as it should, and you know Dave beat the hell out of those drums when recording his part).  In the case of “In Utero”, Steve Albini is commonly criticized for making drummers sound “boxy”.

Comment by AJ Ramirez from California — November 6, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

That’s a fair assessment.  I enjoyed Grohl’s drumming on Songs for the Deaf, for instance, a lot more.  I think the production did indeed have a lot to do with how I felt about the drums on Nevermind and In Utero.  To my ears, they just felt too big for the music - a punk band with arena rock drums.  What he actually played, on the other hand, seemed fitting.  Of course, this is a highly debatable opinion.  A lot of people probably disagree with me.

Comment by Bob — November 7, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

That’s the thing, though: Nirvana was never actually a punk band. Cobain’s definition of punk included Gang of Four (post-punk), Beat Happening (indie pop), and Butthole Surfers (anarchic neo psychedelic noise rock). Despite his posturing in interviews, Cobain never wanted a punk drummer for the group; he always wanted one who sounded like John Bonham.  I can understand how the drums can be disorienting; after all, Nirvana formed at a time it was totally unacceptable to be a fan of Black Flag, Led Zeppelin, and R.E.M. simultaneously, yet Cobain loved them all equally. It’s fitting that the punk band Nirvana drew the most from was Black Flag, who worshipped Black Sabbath and Dio and tried to incorporate those sounds (not always successfully) into their later music.

Comment by AJ Ramirez from California — November 10, 2009 @ 4:36 am

Alright.  That’s a fair assessment.  Thanks!

Comment by Bob — November 10, 2009 @ 8:35 am

I think this review does “Bleach” a disservice by judging it based on the merits of whether a “re-issue” was necessary.  To me, that is besides the point.  A release should reviewed based on its content. 

One can argue that a “greatest hits” may be judged negatively due to a poor track-listing or sequencing of the songs.  But the “Bleach” re-issue is neither of these.  It is “Bleach”, but remastered.  It is certainly not “unnecessary” for those that never bought “Bleach” or more so, have never heard it.

As for his critique of the actual songs, it couldn’t be more shallow and off-the-mark.  “Bleach” is not about the sing-a-long pop that Cobain could write in his sleep, alas it is obviously what the reviewer prefers to single out “About a Girl” as the best song.

No, “Bleach” is about annihilation and liberation.  The absolute abandonment it brings to the listener is undebatable.  Part of why it works is because it’s “repetitive”.  But if you listen closely, within the surface-level repetition are many clever and subtle variances in phrasing, reflections and intonation in Kurt’s vocals.

And please, because the reviewer claims to have read “most every book on Nirvana ever written” also makes him terribly misinformed as most people know those books are garbage, just like his review.

“Bleach” is a classic album, and there are many Nirvana fans that prefer it to “Nevermind”.  While that is not my opinion, I see “Bleach” as a remarkable debut effort filled with classic songs like “School”, “Negative Creep”, and “Floyd the Barber”, etc., and still the best record Sub Pop ever released.

Comment by White Mascis — November 17, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

“One can argue that a “greatest hits” may be judged negatively due to a poor track-listing or sequencing of the songs.”

I review albums myself and that’s pretty much the criteria that I use.  I’ll rip the shit out of an unnecessary greatest hits if it excludes so many essential tracks or includes garbage just to be representative of as many albums as possible.  But there’s a logic behind that, in that regardless of whether an individual owns any material by that band, a bad review indicates that it’s inessential to the hardcore fan and also the neophyte is better off starting off with one of the original albums (or a different comp, if applicable).

I don’t see any real reason to score an album low if you either have it or you don’t, and if you don’t the reissue is at least equal to the original release.  Even if the extra material added on doesn’t enhance the value it can be ignored, and as such doesn’t detract from the value either.  The one exception I would make for scoring low on a reissue is something like the recent “Get Your Ya-Ya’s Out” reissue, where it’s essentially been reconfigured into a much pricier box set, and the relative fluff that’s supposed to constitute the added value doesn’t justify the higher expense.  But per Popmatter’s own link Amazon is selling “Bleach” for $11.98, so under what circumstance would you prefer the original release if you found yourself in need of a copy.

In this case the reviewer seems to be mostly downgrading it based on the packaging.  Would you drop a brand new release from a 7 to a 5 just because it lacked a lyric sheet and had shitty cover art?  I’d guess not.  Then you shouldn’t mark down a reissue for that reason either, because you’re only relating to people who already own the album in some other format.


There’s nothing wrong with pointing out missed opportunities with what is ostensibly a “commerative” edition, but that’s what the body of the text is for.  I must respectfully disagree in the strongest terms with the policy of severely downgrading the overall score based on what the album doesn’t include.

Comment by Jeremy Ulrey from Austin, TX — November 17, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

White Mascis: “About a Girl” is the best song because it’s the best song, not because it’s the poppiest.  Personally I feel the second-best song is “Negative Creep”; the only reason it doesn’t top “About a Girl” is because the verses and choruses run on too long.  This is a common occurance in Nirvana songs which is normally rectified before recording, as evidenced by the demos on the “With the Lights Out” box set.

Also, yeah, many Nirvana books are crap, mainly because they don’t provide any new information or are too concerned with “the legend”. But there are some essential tomes that are invaluable as sources of research. Personally I recommend Michael Azerrad’s “Come as You Are” (still the definitive and most informative Nirvana biography, even if he bought Kurt’s line about sleeping under a bridge), Charles Cross and Jim Berkenstadt’s Classic Rock Albums book on “Nevermind”, and Gillian Gaar’s 33 1/3 book on “In Utero”.  Also, the “Nirvana Companion” is an essential compendium of numerous Nirvana articles published by various publications.  And that’s not even getting into what’s available online.

And personally, Mudhoney’s “Superfuzz Bigmuff” is a far superior Sub Pop release than “Bleach”.  “In ‘n Out of Grace” alone blows “Bleach” out of the water.

Jeremy: I would agree with you more if this CD didn’t cost a person on average 15 dollars.  The album has been readily available for years, and Sub Pop is asking you to double dip for an underwhelming “deluxe” edition if you have it already.  Make no mistake, the target audience for this release in all likelihood already owns the original record.  The whole selling point of this release is that it’s a “special” version of a Nirvana record, rather than being equivalent to a new release that can be judged solely on musical merit.  Judging by past Deluxe Editions Sub Pop put out, they really didn’t bring their A-game with this release.  Is it a good album?  Yeah.  Do you need this particular release?  Not really (and “hell no” if you already own the record).

Comment by AJ Ramirez from California — November 18, 2009 @ 3:36 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?