In a fairly good mood again today, despite being tired again.
Been thinking about death a lot this morning.
Hmm, okay, maybe those two statements don;t seem to go together well, but I've never been bothered by death in itself, or talking about it. More by the effect death has on those left behind. Anyway, I wasn't thinking anything deep or profound. Just sat on the bus over to work this morning and listening to a Clash CD and thinking about Joe Strummer, leader of the band, who recently died.
Just pondering about the nature of fame and how the death of celebrities effects people. How people like Sid Vicious, Kurt Cobain and John Lennon have been upheld as great heroes and the interest in them is still strong while interest in people like Joe Strummer, George Harrison or Frank Sinatra's deaths pass by with pretty much minimal grieving and press coverage.
I suppose by definition the first three 'died too soon' whereas the others have had their time. However, the later three examples would seem to be every bit as creative as the first three. If not more. Was Sid Vicious really more important than Joe Strummer? Hell no, Joe Strummer was an active member of one of the Punk movement's most defining bands and can lay claim to having changed the course of modern music. Sid Vicious was at best a pathetic junkie whose association with the -other- important Punk band The Sex Pistols brought about their iminent self-destruction. He's nowhere near as important, but remembered far more.
In George Harrison's case his death seems to have been largely ignored. The reason? His best time was behind hm. It's 20 years since he made any -great- records, probably coming in on 30. His time was past. However, after 10 years before he was killed, could lennon claim any different? I've never rated Lennon's solo music - Imagine is a badly played and overly sentimental dirge. Barely a good song, let alone the best song ever written. His best years were behind him. If he hadn't been killed would he have come close to reaching new heights of creativity? I doubt it, he'd just be another aging rocker in the Mick Jagger mold who used to be important.
Kurt Cobain again seems to be a very popular figure at the moment. I like Nirvana, a great deal in fact, but he was a sad junkie who wasted his talent on drugs (although I suppose you could argue that it was the experience of drugs that made him so creative). When he finally ended his life it can;t have come as a surprise to anyone. But would even -he- have gone on to make any more great music. I think he would have made more -good- music, but I don't like In Utero much, and didn't think it was a patch on Nevermind.
Actually, the one person who I think still had some great music in them but never had the chance to get to it is Kirsty MacColl. When she was killed on holiday a couple of years ago by a jetski while swimming I thought it was a shame. Having since bought her greatest hits and other albums by her I think it's a real tragedy. A caring family woman who'd contributed some great song and -to- some great songs (Shiny Happy People, Welcome to the Cheap Seats, Sexuality, Fairytale of New York), and having heard her albums I think she's an incredibly underrated talent.
Funny how many songs on her greatest hits, that I was listening to this morning as well, mention water and drowning. It's poignant and tragic.
Anyway, strange the things you think about.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
