Red Mosquito

He is a musical genius though. Best songwriter from the 90s?

VinylGuy wrote:He is a musical genius though. Best songwriter from the 90s?

To me, you've got a 3-way tie between Billy, Kurt Cobain and Thom Yorke. In terms of songwriting ability those 3 stand above everyone else for me in terms of creativity, heart and ability - or rather, if you could see anybody perform on stage by themselves, who would hold your attention the most? You can also make an argument for Elliott Smith, Doug Martsch, Stephen Malkmus, Jeff Buckley and Chris Cornell, and you wouldn't be wrong with any of them. I love Cornell but I prefer him in the confines of a band - and he didn't really hit his stride as a songwriter until Superunknown. Elliott Smith is obvious, but his schtick gets old for me after awhile - there's only so much "woe is me" I can take before I turn it off (and I own all of his albums). Doug Martsch is seriously underrated, and Malkmus is a genius - but like Cornell, I much prefer him in a band setting. Buckley only has like 2 albums to his name, so I feel like you have to place a huge asterisk next to him - but you wouldn't be wrong calling him one of the best songwriters of his generation. There's also a convincing argument to be made for Neil Young, because he had a fantastic decade in the 90s. If you wanted to include rap (which I wasn't) you would be absolutely have to include Biggie and Tupac, at least.

I would pay serious amounts of money to see a Kurt Cobain solo show, were such a thing possible. Seeing Thom Yorke completely solo I think would be incredible - playing stuff from his entire career on guitar and piano. I don't think he'd do it. Billy may do that at some point, and I'll be there no matter what, so long as he doesn't spend the set covering butt rock songs from the 80s instead of playing stuff like "Ugly" and "Luna" (which is the kind of thing he's been known to do).

matt reeder wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:He is a musical genius though. Best songwriter from the 90s?

To me, you've got a 3-way tie between Billy, Kurt Cobain and Thom Yorke. In terms of songwriting ability those 3 stand above everyone else for me in terms of creativity, heart and ability - or rather, if you could see anybody perform on stage by themselves, who would hold your attention the most? You can also make an argument for Elliott Smith, Doug Martsch, Stephen Malkmus, Jeff Buckley and Chris Cornell, and you wouldn't be wrong with any of them. I love Cornell but I prefer him in the confines of a band - and he didn't really hit his stride as a songwriter until Superunknown. Elliott Smith is obvious, but his schtick gets old for me after awhile - there's only so much "woe is me" I can take before I turn it off (and I own all of his albums). Doug Martsch is seriously underrated, and Malkmus is a genius - but like Cornell, I much prefer him in a band setting. Buckley only has like 2 albums to his name, so I feel like you have to place a huge asterisk next to him - but you wouldn't be wrong calling him one of the best songwriters of his generation. There's also a convincing argument to be made for Neil Young, because he had a fantastic decade in the 90s. If you wanted to include rap (which I wasn't) you would be absolutely have to include Biggie and Tupac, at least.

I would pay serious amounts of money to see a Kurt Cobain solo show, were such a thing possible. Seeing Thom Yorke completely solo I think would be incredible - playing stuff from his entire career on guitar and piano. I don't think he'd do it. Billy may do that at some point, and I'll be there no matter what, so long as he doesn't spend the set covering butt rock songs from the 80s instead of playing stuff like "Ugly" and "Luna" (which is the kind of thing he's been known to do).

I agree...i dont care for Yorke outside RH though. Cornell might be the best one working with a band, when he collaborates with someone he is unstoppable.

Elliott Smith had a schtick?

zeb wrote:Elliott Smith had a schtick?

yeah, i dont think it was a schtick i mean the guy killed himself, but i know what Matt means.

VinylGuy wrote:

zeb wrote:Elliott Smith had a schtick?

yeah, i dont think it was a schtick i mean the guy killed himself, but i know what Matt means.

You know the line in "Zero" where Billy says he's in love with his sadness? That's what I hear when I listen to Elliott Smith. Now, like so many other people of my age, I went through a pretty serious Elliott Smith phase when I was at university. You know, the one where you walk around town listening to Elliott Smith on your mp3 player (or in my case, portable CD player), thinking about that guy/girl that rejected you and how people don't understand you, but that's alright because you're strong inside? Maybe you don't know what I'm talking about. When I moved to Portland (Smith's hometown, mind you), I was surrounded by people who went through that phase. You cannot help but think of Elliott Smith if you've ever spent a winter here and listen to his music. After awhile, I just COULD NOT WALLOW IN SADNESS ANYMORE. There's a good article in our local alternative weekly newspaper about Elliott Smith leaving Portland, and how the locals feel about him now: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-2 ... tards.html

I know a lot of you will probably think I'm either crazy, insensitive, or that I just don't get it (or will want to call me a hipster), but there's just something about always being sad and / or lonely - after awhile, you start to turn people off even if they love you.

And I say this as somebody who has suffered from depression for most of my life.

Sure, but they're great fucking songs, that's all that really matters.

Besides, it's not like the Smashing Pumpkins made the cheeriest music ever.

theplatypus wrote:Sure, but they're great fucking songs, that's all that really matters.

Besides, it's not like the Smashing Pumpkins made the cheeriest music ever.

Like I said, you can make a very convincing argument for Elliott Smith as the best songwriter of the 90s. I just cannot listen to him much anymore for reasons both personal and environmental (as in, where I happen to live). I befriended / went out with a girl who RENAMED HERSELF after an Elliott Smith song. Why did she move to Portland? I'll give you one guess.

Billy made some depressing music (Adore) but he also made some cheery music as well (much of their early material, before he fell in love with his sadness).

matt reeder wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

zeb wrote:Elliott Smith had a schtick?

yeah, i dont think it was a schtick i mean the guy killed himself, but i know what Matt means.

You know the line in "Zero" where Billy says he's in love with his sadness? That's what I hear when I listen to Elliott Smith. Now, like so many other people of my age, I went through a pretty serious Elliott Smith phase when I was at university. You know, the one where you walk around town listening to Elliott Smith on your mp3 player (or in my case, portable CD player), thinking about that guy/girl that rejected you and how people don't understand you, but that's alright because you're strong inside? Maybe you don't know what I'm talking about. When I moved to Portland (Smith's hometown, mind you), I was surrounded by people who went through that phase. You cannot help but think of Elliott Smith if you've ever spent a winter here and listen to his music. After awhile, I just COULD NOT WALLOW IN SADNESS ANYMORE. There's a good article in our local alternative weekly newspaper about Elliott Smith leaving Portland, and how the locals feel about him now: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-2 ... tards.html

I know a lot of you will probably think I'm either crazy, insensitive, or that I just don't get it (or will want to call me a hipster), but there's just something about always being sad and / or lonely - after awhile, you start to turn people off even if they love you.

And I say this as somebody who has suffered from depression for most of my life.

At some point you gotta make a decision about how you're gonna live, and in the more extreme cases, that you're gonna live.

Thank god the music is still around, though.

matt reeder wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:He is a musical genius though. Best songwriter from the 90s?

To me, you've got a 3-way tie between Billy, Kurt Cobain and Thom Yorke. In terms of songwriting ability those 3 stand above everyone else for me in terms of creativity, heart and ability - or rather, if you could see anybody perform on stage by themselves, who would hold your attention the most? You can also make an argument for Elliott Smith, Doug Martsch, Stephen Malkmus, Jeff Buckley and Chris Cornell, and you wouldn't be wrong with any of them. I love Cornell but I prefer him in the confines of a band - and he didn't really hit his stride as a songwriter until Superunknown. Elliott Smith is obvious, but his schtick gets old for me after awhile - there's only so much "woe is me" I can take before I turn it off (and I own all of his albums). Doug Martsch is seriously underrated, and Malkmus is a genius - but like Cornell, I much prefer him in a band setting. Buckley only has like 2 albums to his name, so I feel like you have to place a huge asterisk next to him - but you wouldn't be wrong calling him one of the best songwriters of his generation. There's also a convincing argument to be made for Neil Young, because he had a fantastic decade in the 90s. If you wanted to include rap (which I wasn't) you would be absolutely have to include Biggie and Tupac, at least.

I would pay serious amounts of money to see a Kurt Cobain solo show, were such a thing possible. Seeing Thom Yorke completely solo I think would be incredible - playing stuff from his entire career on guitar and piano. I don't think he'd do it. Billy may do that at some point, and I'll be there no matter what, so long as he doesn't spend the set covering butt rock songs from the 80s instead of playing stuff like "Ugly" and "Luna" (which is the kind of thing he's been known to do).

kurt cobain had two albums to his name. No one remembers him because of bleach or because of insecticide. If you're gonna count him you might as well include others with only two albums.

stip wrote:kurt cobain had two albums to his name. No one remembers him because of bleach or because of insecticide. If you're gonna count him you might as well include others with only two albums.

This is a baffling opinion.

zeb wrote:

stip wrote:kurt cobain had two albums to his name. No one remembers him because of bleach or because of insecticide. If you're gonna count him you might as well include others with only two albums.

This is a baffling opinion.

have you been formally introduced to stip? allow me - meet stip

zeb wrote:

stip wrote:kurt cobain had two albums to his name. No one remembers him because of bleach or because of insecticide. If you're gonna count him you might as well include others with only two albums.

This is a baffling opinion.

Yeah, seriously.

It's nonsensical.

I mean, so is reliance on any sense of objectivity when determining something as unavoidably subjective as "who is the best songwriter of the 90s", but hey.

Yeah, I know, stip is stip. There's nothing we can do about that.

zeb wrote:

stip wrote:kurt cobain had two albums to his name. No one remembers him because of bleach or because of insecticide. If you're gonna count him you might as well include others with only two albums.

This is a baffling opinion.

Really? Kurt Cobain's strength as a song writer comes down to In Utero and Nevermind. One plus one is two. If you're gonna count him you should feel free to include someone like Jeff Buckley in this conversation.

Unless I am wrong and people talk about him in hushed tones because of Love Buzz and Mexican Seafood.

Stip, you're ridiculous.

Dylan's strength as a song writer would arguably be based on a core of three or four records. Does that mean he only has three or four albums to his name?

Matt Reeder was reluctant to count Jeff Buckley because he only had two albums. I'm assuming he means two significant albums. Kurt Cobain had other records, and they're both fun for what they are, but they're not the records that made his mark as a songwriter, nor would they be records anyone would have even heard of if not for those other two. Bleach is a novelty record. If you need to have X number of albums to be considered for this conversation, they probably need to be albums that demanded you be taken seriously as a songwriter.

stip wrote:Matt Reeder was reluctant to count Jeff Buckley because he only had two albums. I'm assuming he means two significant albums. Kurt Cobain had other records, and they're both fun for what they are, but they're not the records that made his mark as a songwriter, nor would they be records anyone would have even heard of if not for those other two. Bleach is a novelty record. If you need to have X number of albums to be considered for this conversation, they probably need to be albums that demanded you be taken seriously as a songwriter.

You assumed wrong.

Jeff Buckley only had two albums, one of which was considered unfinished and was released posthumously.

stip wrote:Matt Reeder was reluctant to count Jeff Buckley because he only had two albums. I'm assuming he means two significant albums.

Why the hell would you assume that?

Jeff Buckley had 1 completed album and 1 unfinished album released in a collection along with home demos.

stip wrote:Bleach is a novelty record

I detest you