[thisismytest]

When it comes to cultural significance and catchiness the fact that people have been doing it for a long time doesn’t matter.

In fact, the ability to tap into mass media only makes the impact of a song greater. Access to electric instruments and effects only gave them more ability to create interesting music.

I’m a fan of all kinds of music old and new. But anyone saying German leders or old timey civil war ditties are better than Smells Like Teen spirit are high on their own supply.

Most of history humans expressed an extraordinarily limited range of emotion in song, in rigid form. Kurt Cobain wrote more than one song that you could play for a toddler and they’d love it. He wrote more than one song that hundreds of millions of people are listening to 30 years later. I’m sorry but your favorite Gregorian Chant is just not very good in comparison.

[globnomulous]

This comment is such a weird way to defend the patently absurd claim that he wrote some of the best songs in human history.

Even the first sentence makes no cogent sense, especially when read alongside your original comment:

> When it comes to cultural significance and catchiness the fact that people have been doing it for a long time doesn’t matter.

You've apparently changed your argument. "Best in human history" does not mean "most culturally significant and catchiest."

If "the fact that people have been doing it for a long time doesn't matter," then why did you mention all of human history?

If what you mean instead is that you care only about contemporary, present-day cultural impact, then, again, why did you mention all of human history? You've already decided that no time period other than the present matters.

[quesera]

> You've apparently changed your argument. "Best in human history" does not mean "most culturally significant and catchiest."

To be fair, "best" has no correct definition.

What's yours?

[globnomulous]

> What's yours?

Just not whatever that guy's is.

Less cheekily, I agree with you that, in the case of something like music, the concept of "best" has no correct meaning. It's literal nonsense.

[thisismytest]

The point was that the guy was a genius.

Most definitions of genius are more liberal than a 1 and a million talent and he was at least that.

Actually try a definition and see what happens.

Rolling stone made a best list. SLTS was number 5.

He’s written some of the best songs ever by many definitions. That makes him a genius. Both terms are ambiguous, debating that is boring.

[quesera]

I think it's important not to overlook Butch Vig though.

Are there Nevermind demos circulating? (Maybe an official release even, I've never looked)...

They were good songs, maybe even great songs. But I think I could name a dozen bands from the same period who had equally-good songs.

Butch Vig turned those good-great songs into anthemic stadium crashers. I'm not a huge fan of Butch Vig, I think he has a very heavy touch! But he met (or predicted) the moment on that record. The industry/audience moment at least, I don't think the band entirely wanted what they got!

Most people would never have heard those songs without Butch Vig. They would not be on any RS Top X lists.

Kurt might still have been a genius, but he'd have been sharing a tour bus with others. I wonder if he'd still be alive.

[globnomulous]

Both terms are flexible, sure. And I agree that debating definitions is boring.

> The point is that the guy was a genius.

Is that the point? Are we discussing the man himself, or are we discussing his work? Both, I guess, according to the following:

> He’s written some of the best songs ever by many definitions. That makes him a genius.

It doesn't. Genius is a capacity, not an accomplishment. One can be a genius without accomplishing anything, and one who isn't a genius can do high-level, history-making work.

[jrowen]

This whole subthread - arguing about "the best songs in human history" without even the slightest attempt to define one of the most subjective things ever - is patently absurd.

[amiga386]

It's an odd thing to even compare. Musical styles and genres come in and out of fashion. Instruments and timbres likewise. People clamour both for novelty and also familiarity. There's no "best" music, just music that has more or fewer fans.

Ideally, the measure of timelessness of a tune is how many people will still go to the effort to play it or reference it once all people who were alive at its release (the people who "liked it before it was cool") are dead. By that measure, the one-hit-wonder of Pachelbel's Canon in D is probably top of the list.