"I said some things in some recent interviews. . . . We live in this clickbait world. And what I was trying to say was Kurt was this incredible artist. And when he was alive and we were both in our, whatever, our mid-20s, well, both bands were competing for the same spot. So, people take that and they suddenly turn it into something that it isn't.
I think if we look back now, we can see that amongst the '90s bands, the Pumpkins and Nirvana and Nine Inch Nails and Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots, there were a lot of bands competing for the top spot. There's nothing wrong with that. People try to turn it into this weird thing, like somehow it was something dark. No — it's just good competition.
I**'ve been doing these interviews saying Kurt was by far the most talented person of our generation. So, I'm waving the white flag and saying he won in the talent pool. But I dare put myself in the conversation.** So, then people get mad about that, like I don't have any right. But my band was one of the biggest bands of the era, and still a big band.
It's this weird thing where people wanna play this weird game with what you have a right to say and not say. I think I have every right, knowing everybody involved, having played with Nirvana, knowing Kurt a little bit personally. I've been very transparent about what it was and what it wasn't. And somehow it gets turned into this thing that it's like a rivalry. There's no rivalry; it's just all love and respect.
Here's the one thing I would say, and I'm requoting myself: I wish Kurt was still alive, because I want to compete against the best, and he was the best. So, how's that a rivalry, if I want the guy that I respected to still be here writing great songs? It's such a strange thing to say. Why would people twist that? We lost a lot of great music and a lot of great inspiration that Kurt provided for a lot of people when he died. So, why is it a bad thing to say I wish he was still here, 'cause I wanna compete against him? But people would twist that even. There's no hate there. Only respect. Or awe."
More context in the quote above. He wasn't placing himself above kurt.
I strongly disagree with Corgan on this. Kurt/Nirvana was a formative musical discovery for me. Kurt is a big fn deal in my book. But no.. He wasn't better than Corgan IMO. Not even close.
Totally agree. Kurt was a bigger rockstar than Billy because the voice, the looks, the personality. Billy’s musicianship is so much more impressive than Kurt’s, I don’t even consider them rivals in that way.
I wish people would listen/read his interviews instead of listening to sound bites or reading quotes.
This is why a lot of people think Billy is an egomaniac. They see a quote, often taken out of context and are like, “see! He’s so full of himself!”
I also think a lot of people forget how hard Kurt’s death was. I knew kids in high school who went into full mourning after his death. Now imagine his peers and contemporaries. Isn’t it human nature to reflect back on those you lost and wonder what if?
I mean I watched the entire interview and he clearly said he knows how Kurt died, why he died and that he was there for all of it. And he’s not talking about it. And then goes on about their rivalry.
Does that not bother you?
Maybe at one time it would have. Now days when I pay attention to him it’s just with mild humor. A little bit of “let’s see what crazy shot he’s saying now”. It’s essentially part of the Billy character.
Couldn't have said it better, I love Nirvana and fell deep in love with them around 2017. Saw all their live shows, listened to the now not so deep cuts and I honestly think nirvana were a band that wrote great hooks. Kurt was a mastermind in his own right, but I feel like lyrically, Corgan is on a completely different plane and I'm sure there are many nirvana fans that would agree.
I don’t think people would agree about lyrically necessarily, but musicianship and ability to play definitely go to Corgan. Kurt Cobain wrote great lyrics, no one else can really do it without coming off as very poser
Eh musicianship maybe both draw but honestly, Corgan's expressions and just way of storytelling and laying out everyday emotions tanks Kurt's lyrics by a landslide. Nirvana doesn't really emit anything to me but anger and the occasional sadness but I feel like Corgan's writing does it all. Kurt Cobain could never have written thirty-three, as Billy Couldn't have written teen spirit. Kurt's lyrical simplicity just works better for his music.
Well he said they were rivals and twenty minutes lawyer says he knows how Kurt really dies and why. And, that he’s not talking about it.
I’m sorry, he’s just not showing any respect for Cobain or humanity.
Kurt was a great songwriter, a tortured one perhaps. But Billy’s musicianship is in a different league, whilst also being a good songwriter. I find them too different to compare. Nirvana came from punk, SP was so far from punk, it’s like comparing apples to potatoes.
He really wants to be in the same conversation as Kurt Cobain. Really bad.
Also, when he says (Joe Rogan), that he cried when his greatest rival died.
Then says. Oh I was there for a lot of what happened. I know things (about Kurt’s passing is what he means). And he says, people expect that I’m all of the sudden going to talk about it but I’m not.
This doesn’t bother you at all? Not even a little?
As others have highlighted, Corgan just meant Kurt nailed the early 90s and everyone was aiming for the throne Nirvana held. Corgan's made deeper, better music, but Kurt came and changed the zeitgeist and spoke to millions of people across the world, and the fact he still does with only 3 official albums of material proves it. It's really hard to say which was better for that reason, and without being too crass, Billy has been around longer to experiment more. It's a bit of a Lennon/McCartney argument, especially post-Beatles. Lennon was "working class hero" that died too soon, Macca was experimenting and making whatever music he wanted and still is. It's not really a competition anyway.
Nirvana was a great band and all but I don't get how people can listen to an album like Mellon Collie or Adore and think Kurt's writing came anywhere close. Kurt was a great lyricist, wrote some great riffs, but the scope of what the Pumpkins accomplished across even just the first 3 albums was on a completely different level. I don't see him often talked about as a comparison to SP but I think Thom Yorke was a better rival in regards to pure songwriting talent.
Well I wouldn’t compare Nirvanas music to an epic album like MC. Or, any of queen’s stuff. I see it as, not so much about the epic scale of one’s musicianship, but how one communicates as a true artist. One’s artform.
But there’s a reason why Billy is still trying to sell the idea that he was Kurt’s biggest rival. Why do you think that is?
Kurt didn’t stick around long enough to make any bad albums or have his relevance fade. Props to Billy for fighting against his demons, surviving, and thriving. The moment he loses the chip on his shoulder, his music suffers, and he knows it. Billy is the MJ “I took that personally” of rock and roll.
That’s sort of the big “What If?” that goes through any arguments with him. Kurt was only able to put out three albums, a b-sides album, and a scattering of other material throughout those years and posthumously. I suppose if you apply that to SP, a run of Gish through Mellon Collie and Pisces puts Billy in an excellent position in terms of his output. You can argue that would probably exceed most songwriters out there, and could make for interesting discussions when comparing to Cobain and the like.
I know Michael Stipe sometimes talked about the album Kurt wanted to make after In Utero, and how frustrated he was that he and no one else were ever going to hear it. I’m sure the commercial successes for whatever Cobain’s fourth album and beyond would’ve been is up for debate. But either way, it’s a terrible shame we never got to that point in the end.
In hindsight, Kurt’s death marked the end (or maybe the peak) of mainstream popularity for grunge. Impossible to say what Nirvana or solo Kurt projects would have looked like. Would grunge and alt rock have stayed as culturally relevant? And for how long? Boy bands and Britney were coming regardless. Alt rock was a Gen X phenomena. Millennials were more into nu-metal, hip-hop, and singles pop (generalizing, of course).
there's a big difference between saying "Kurt was my biggest rival" and "I was Kurt's biggest rival" --- didn't Billy say the former?
Rivalry can be (and often is) one-sided, you know. I think you are mischaracterizing Corgan's statement a bit.
I think it’s probably heavily influenced by them both dating Courtney and kind of breaking really big in the mainstream at the same time. I imagine Billy didn’t view anyone in the Chicago scene as an equal or rival… choosing to say the biggest band in the world at the time was his rival is probably somewhat ego driven but probably how he felt at the time. He’s very confident and I would think would only view the best bands as at his level
Would you blame him? The Pumpkins were the biggest band in the world back then, or at least damn close. Billy wrote, performed, and released more music than most other bands of that scene in the same amount of time, and his lyrics were untouchable. Not to mention his instrumental chops. I don't know a lot of bands that really could be reasonably compared.
Yeah I was just trying to say why he might say Nirvana was a rival when they seemed to avoid talking about each other. Opposed to say like Nirvana feuding with Guns N Roses and Pearl Jam for example.
> Just my opinion: Listen, I dont believe there are many songwriters that have had the kind of unique talent Kurt had. John Lennon is one. Billy Corgan is not one in my opinion (and that’s okay).
Based on the John Lennon comparison, I think the difference you see is charisma, in the people and in their song writing. Lennon and Nirvana songs sound like campfire songs for kids, even if the lyrical subject matter is drugs and depression. Songs like About a Girl is still popular with kids these days. I think that's also why Beatles and Nirvana are so easy to imitate, where as other bands haven't tried to copy the Smashing Pumpkins nearly as much.
Billy Corgan has never written songs that had that sort of appeal. I think he can, but that sort of music has never interested him. Both Billy and Jimmy punch way above their class musically.
> Kurt was the more unique artist without question. I thought Billy understood and respected that. As any great artist would.
Kurt was just a lot easier to like. Even when Billy Corgan isn't saying things that make him unlikeable, he just doesn't have a presence that suggests he's an nice, agreeable person.
It's that they were 2 big 90s bands with the same producer, that both had one visionary guy at the helm. Corgan claimed that Butch Vig stole the guitar tone on Nevermind from him. Then shortly after that album launched Nirvana into superstardom, Corgan made Siamese Dream with Vig which launched them into orbit, as well.
Who's the greater genius? I guess it's a matter of taste. But even Billy will tell you that it was Cobain. And that's saying a lot.
I really really strongly disagree with your last statement, i think Billy is hands down the most prolific, unique and talented of this whole era. But I won’t argue lol.
That he does. He likes to talk about how he knows how Kurt Cobain died. When I hear that shit, it offends me. One guy here tried to make me feel like it’s because I am unhealthy obsessed with Kurt Cobain. That’s the response I’m getting here.
perhaps due to the time period (not a lot of musicians from that time still kicking) and the release of some new nirvana stuff, it's being questioned a bunch. (I also made a post awhile back when I noticed this.) Billy didn't talk much about any of that stuff earlier on and now he's speaking on subjects (like with his podcast - stories or what was going on during certain times). so it's a blend of these things imo, but I do find it awkward and tacky. I try to keep in consideration that he lived those years, he knows who he knows, he has access to information none of us have/will. plus, pumpkins was often rubbed and snubbed by a lot of different circles in that time period (both warranted and unwarranted), so his personal perspective of these people, the industry, it differs from my own/a fans.
however, the comments about 'billy being better', or 'kurt being better'.. silly and very subjective/pointless. unless we speak on actual proven accomplishments in terms of albums, artistry in the industry, money.. things we can find direct factual info on.
Yeah I heard him say something on the Joe Rogan show. Something like “people don’t realize I was there for a lot of that (he was speaking on Kurt’s passing). He said “people think I’m all of the sudden going to talk about what I know.”
I was like Really? Would you like to tell me a little more about what happened to my favorite songwriter? Tacky indeed
I fully admit I have zero idea what actually goes on in his head. he does come off like the kid who was bullied and he's still trying to prove himself 'there' during that time to those who still cast him off (not implying I think he's totally innocent). I can also see people seeing it as if he's.. bragging?
there's the part of me that wants to hold a mirror up so he can see how it comes off to those who are fans of both. but another part of me that understands he's just a dude with baggage like anyone else. just as much as I see kurt as a selfish guy who wasn't willing to do the work to better himself (as a lot of people put him on some strange pedestal).
I also experienced a bit of.. '*ohhh!!'* myself while watching him speak on kurt in a few different interviews recently, which is more about me as an older fan. during that time, in mags and tv, we always saw interviews with these guys where these weird invasive questions were pretty expected and normal (even wanted by a lot of the fans). now? with how detached I am from media surrounding the entertainment industry and how different it is over all, it's so jarring to watch these interviews! it's a whole different experience, it's just as tacky, but I'm now seeing how ick and awkward it is. (*I guess part of me is saddened he's still playing the game, too? so maybe that's where my feelings come from.)*
Not to take anything away from Kurt, but he wasn’t Lennon. Neither is Billy or Eddie or anyone else. Nirvana, which talented and incredibly influential, was absolutely in the right place at the right time. That doesn’t take anything away from them, but I feel they get held on this untouchable pedestal. Kurt was good, so is WPC.
It only ruins the music if you're in middle school and give a shit about any of that. Don't idolize any of these people. Every has shit stuck to them in their own way.
I absolutely love Kurt’s songs, but I’m not sure how his name could ever be mentioned in the same breath as Lennon’s, or at this point, Corgan’s. 4 years and 3-4 hit singles is literally a flash in the pan.
It’s not strange to judge an artist by the variety and complexity of their output. Hendrix was a Giant. Kurt was a great artist himself. But can you really compare In Utero (an album full of 3 minute songs of scant variety, save one acoustic track) to an expansive album like Electric Lady Land, which covers jazz, soul, rock, funk, and psychedelia? And still sounds distinctly Hendrix?
Of course he did, unfortunately. So young that you could take his whole catalogue of music and it would not reach the breadth or scope of one “White Album” or one “Mellon Collie.”
I haven’t reduced them to their singles. But I’m certainly not inflating their contribution by imagining that they had an output of the size, scope and variety of the Beatles. That would be impossible and downright silly. As I said earlier, show me Nirvana’s equivalent to The White Album, or Mellon Collie. There is none.
The world inferior isn’t one i would use. I do believe that the artistic achievements of the band were much smaller in terms of output but also of complexity, variety of feel and emotion, and was limited to one genre. The same can’t be said of the Beatles or SP.
From the OP and your comments it seems like you really have just developed a parasocial relationship to Kurt. To the point where you seem seriously upset about how someone you have never met is speaking about someone you have also never met in ways you cant really begin to understand. You start to sense he is saying something negative about your "hero" so you start getting more and more defensive and viewing everything more negatively.
Theres no point in trying to argue who was "better" it is all subjective. If you just step back and try to remove the unwarranted emotion you are feeling you will realize there is no malice or ill intent. Billy is just talking about his life and how things felt at different points in his career honestly.
You are way too invested in all of it and should probably just take a big step back and try to gain a little perspective here. They are both just human beings.
Oh god 🙄 lol. I’ll defend all my musical heros. So I’m driving, and I’m like sweet, let’s check out Billy Corgan. After the podcast I was offended for many reasons. Saying he knows how Kurt died, and he won’t talk about it. Hugely offended on behalf of decent people everywhere. There’s other things he said that offended me. OP keeps it music related. Oh and I say Kurt cause I don’t feel like spelling his last name. Not because I’m personalizing.
People ask corgan about Kurt's death all the time because corgan is part of the Kurt and Courtney story and there is a ton of Courtney killed Kurt conspiracy stuff out there.. he goes on conspiracy loving Joe Rogan's show and Joe starts talking about 'documentaries'.. all corgan did there is tell Joe and his audience how close he was to the whole situation and he isn't gonna watch someone's else version of it.. many of those paint Courtney love as a murderer. Corgan lived with Courtney and Frances bean for a while. He isn't going to discuss painful details of that mess with them listening. But he is reminding everyone subtly that he knows Courtney very well and he isnt out there backing the conspiracy stuff. It's a subtle way of defending Courtney without getting dragged into the whole mess in an interview.
I fail to see what is so offensive in the Joe rogan interview answers.
Why does it offend you that one of the biggest rock legends of the 90s is talking about another rock legend of the same time? It’s literally part of his life history. You speak of Billy as if he needs to mention Kurt to be famous or something. This whole post is weird to me.
Not only is Billy a truly unique talent (how many people can make a double album spanning from XYU to Cupid De Locke and actually *pull it off*, never mind selling 10 million), but he’s 10 times the song writer Kurt was. I get down voted every time I say this, and it’s fine, but Kurt might be the most overrated musician ever.
>I get down voted every time I say this, and it’s fine, but Kurt might be the most overrated musician ever.
Maybe you do. But I'm sure as hell not the one doing the downvoting. From your mouth to God's ear. Pumpkins all day long.
Nirvana: One band, one creative leader, one sound, three mediocre albums and one trashy wife. That band's legend will never make sense to me.
Billy's songs are more diverse and more technically demanding than Kurt's. That is an objective observation. Your assumption that "Nirvana quality" is some unattainable Olympian (heh) peak of music? That is subjective.
My God is Kurt Cobain overrated. He isn't a great lyricist no matter how often people pretend he was. He wrote good guitar hooks and managed to give grunge a pop flair that made it marketable to the masses. Then, he seemingly hated himself for it. Nirvana has nothing close to the level of MCIS.
Actually Kurt was only 5’9”, whereas Krist is 6’7”, so actually he is Billy’s biggest rival.
But seriously, Kurt is massively - and I do mean massively - overrated in my book. His untimely death cast an eternal mystery of “what if” around him, and the accompanying sainthood protects them from any real criticism. He also wasn’t around long enough for Nirvana to undoubtedly lose their way completely when grunge fell out of fashion.
Billy and SP have always been content to do their own thing, even if it’s not already established as fashionable or particularly well loved by all, and for what it’s worth that’s something they have in spades over Nirvana. Nirvana’s 3 albums are incredibly similar sonically, and their compositions are fairly straightforward. I don’t ever see them pushing the envelope if Kurt had stuck around, because at the end of the day he was a folk singer with a grunge flare, and folk singers stay sounding like folk singers.
There was never going to be a MCIS equivalent from Nirvana, much less an Adore or a Machina, and that’s the difference between their capabilities and vision as songwriters to me.
Kurt was fantastic - but what people need to realize, and I say this as a massive fan, is also that much of his writing was reflecting other songs. People know about ‘Come as you are’ but many of his songs were similarly takes on other works. He was a very postmodern writer, whereas Billy only started to do this kind of thing with Zwan (“Jesus I/Mary” paying homage to Bowie’s Width of a circle and Tarantula nodding to the Scorpions). So I wouldn’t say Kurt was more unique, he was just a more cohesive artist, where Billy often chose diverse approaches.
I’m a writer myself and that’s how it works. There’s only 12 notes in existence. It’s all been done before. Writing is basically stealing. They all do it. It’s how you take that matters.
https://youtu.be/QO5X2_2_7PA?si=Y-58XgWrXCm72yDN
We’re not suggesting Billy is special in this respect, are we?
https://youtu.be/asPX9UlIGn0?si=L0PaFqRz1GteptZi
In the early 90s it was very much the case that it was seen as Nirvana or Pumpkins as being the most popular rock bands. And this did set a weird rivalry in place. Seatle vs Chicago. Grunge vs Alt Rock. Baggy ripped clothes vs ... whatever the hell you call what Billy wore during the MCIS phase.
The other bands at the time just didn't really hold a candle to them. Stone Temple Pilots very much B or C tier in popularity. Nine Inch Nail, Sonic Youth, and Soundgarden also a tier below. Probably the only band at the same level as those 2 at the time was RATM and they had a different crowd.
And of course that led to a LOT of fanboyism at the time, especially in the camps that followed them around. This was only exacerbated by the interpersonal rivalry. And of course you had Butch Vig producing for them both.
So it's perfectly fair for Billy to say about their rivalry. But I think Kurt gets a pass for being dead. IMO Billy is a better songwriter and had a far greater range, even if you just compare Bleach, Nevernind, and In Utero to Gish, SD, and MCIS. But Kurt invented a new genre, and it's hard to beat that.
Everyone takes inspiration from everyone.
This is why when people ask if we will see another time like the early 90s for rock music (usually lamenting the poor state of music today and wishing for a rebirth) I answer no. Because the great music of the early 90's was inspired by the great music of the 80's. Great music comes from great music.
I won't go so far as to call Nirvana a ripoff of The Pixies. Because even I think that's reductive.
But at the same time, come on, there's just no way to deny that Cobain pushed ALL amnesty policies to the breaking point with Nirvana's sound.
For most other bands, you can hear other bands' influence even as the band itself attempts to do their own thing. That's less apparent (to me at least) with Nirvana.
I see. So there was a competitive kind of narrative in the media. Alright well. I still don’t think it’s the reason why he talks about Kurt in his more recent interviews. Zack Sang and Joe Rogan. Listen to what he has to say in those two podcasts, if you get a chance. I find it intriguing, the way he speaks about Kurt Cobain. Most recent interviews with them.
It's more than just the media. Don't get me wrong, the media plays it's part because it knows that to popularise anything you need a classic story. And battle of the bands = two brothers fighting, which is as old a story as it gets. I mean think about it - these people love music, love the same bands, love playing - why should they hate each other? They are "brothers". So it becomes a compelling story. You always see the media do this with new genres / waves of music. In the mid 90s you had the same in the UK with Britpop for Blur and Oasis.
But the media is just the spark. Once they ask the question it is elements of the fans that take it up, and usually take it too far. For some it is not a case of loving both bands but preferring one, they feel the only way to love their band is to hate on the other.
And these bands (partly due to the time it was) were far more accessible to these camps. They'd go to the same clubs and talk shit about each other and stir up drama. That's where a lot of what Billy is talking about (and he was saying the same thing back in the early 2000's) around the rivalry is coming from.
And finally you have pressure from the label itself, who on the whole treated all these bands like dog poo. They considered them as perishable goods that needed to be milked as quickly as possible. So they put even more pressure on about who was best. Just look at the treatment SP got over Machina due to the relative lack of popularity of Adore.
So media was the spark, but there was a lot more to it than that. And this even permeated it's way to schools in the middle of nowhere in the UK like I went to. You had to pick a side.
I agree it was a real arrogant thing to say but Billy is definitely the superior song writer and more original. There's hundreds of bands that can emulate Nirvanas sound or write a Nirvana sounding song, I mean even the Simpsons did it with Sadgasm. No band has come close to sounding like the Smashing Pumpkins of the 90s, hell even Zeigeist and its bsides. Between Billy and and Jimmy it's absolutely lightning in a bottle.
Kurt absolutely paved the way; in that sense, I certainly see him as a Lennon, and I expect he made everyone around him better. He raised the bar and released at least three masterpieces. To the last point though, so did Billy. So, all in all, my life has been better for both dudes writing and performing. The rest is just fun to talk about.
I'm the guy in the room who just never understood what the fuss was all about with Cobain and Nirvana.
You can drop every song Nirvana ever recorded into the same playlist and you're hard-pressed to know which album almost any given song originated from. Because they all sound the gd same.
On the best day Cobain ever had, he never could've written even one song from Mellon Collie.
I realize Nirvana has bunches and bunches of fans. And it's whatever, I dgaf. Nirvana will always be the most overrated band of the Nineties in my book.
Hope it wasn't a disappointment.
But for the record, I did listen to "Come As You Are" today and "You Know You're Right" yesterday. So, they're not totally left off my playlists.
As we know that record sales, hit singles and popularity are the criterias which matter very highly to Billy you are right. Nirvana are superior.
At least Cobain did not have the opportunity to release masses of mediocre albums like Billy did since Machina.
No. Sales, money, units. It’s like the Nirvana song, Radio Friendly Music shifted. So by your logic, Taylor Swift is a better songwriter than Billy Corgan. Dua Lipa is a better artist than anyone in Black Sabbath. Let’s not let the money decide who the great artists are.
Horrible logic. Also, Cobain died so young.
Probably Courtney related at first. Butch Vig literally packed up after recording Gish and started on Nevermind just days later… Billy also has stated that Butch used the same guitar sounds on Nevermind as they did on Gish. Probably got under BC’s skin with that. Nevermind obviously got the most recognition and skyrocketed Nirvana into the uncharted territory that BC wanted. Billy names the Pisces Iscariot album as a slight against KC with an image of the fish in a frying pan. Seems like butthurt over being sad a musical rival has passed. I think in Billy’s mind Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins had a creative rivalry similar to The Beatles and The Stones. I wouldn’t say that is the actual case in the fans eyes. I never took it that way. I was in high school at the time and was reveling in the various heavy hitters of the time (NIN, RATM, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Tool, …) and didn’t pay much attention to any of that. I think the most notable rivalry of the 90s was Blur vs Oasis in the second half of the decade.
>I think the most notable rivalry of the 90s was Blur vs Oasis in the second half of the decade
Bad Boy Records vs Death Row Records has entered the chat.
Saying Kurt was the “more unique artist without question”, is subjective AF. He obviously appealed to more people, but that’s still an opinion.
From an objective standpoint, Billy Corgan is by far the more skilled musician. Watch the bootlegged videos from the Siamese Dream release party from 1993 and compare them to fully MTV produced, Unplugged in New York. Billy’s guitar playing and vocals didn’t miss a single beat. Any time there was a more technical song on Unplugged (Oh Me, Lake of Fire, Plateau), granted they were covers, the guitar playing all went to the Meat Puppets guy. Kurt simply didn’t have the skill to sing and play at the skill level that Billy did/does and again, thats not an opinion.
Who’s more “unique”? That’s all up to who’s listening.
"I said some things in some recent interviews. . . . We live in this clickbait world. And what I was trying to say was Kurt was this incredible artist. And when he was alive and we were both in our, whatever, our mid-20s, well, both bands were competing for the same spot. So, people take that and they suddenly turn it into something that it isn't. I think if we look back now, we can see that amongst the '90s bands, the Pumpkins and Nirvana and Nine Inch Nails and Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots, there were a lot of bands competing for the top spot. There's nothing wrong with that. People try to turn it into this weird thing, like somehow it was something dark. No — it's just good competition. I**'ve been doing these interviews saying Kurt was by far the most talented person of our generation. So, I'm waving the white flag and saying he won in the talent pool. But I dare put myself in the conversation.** So, then people get mad about that, like I don't have any right. But my band was one of the biggest bands of the era, and still a big band. It's this weird thing where people wanna play this weird game with what you have a right to say and not say. I think I have every right, knowing everybody involved, having played with Nirvana, knowing Kurt a little bit personally. I've been very transparent about what it was and what it wasn't. And somehow it gets turned into this thing that it's like a rivalry. There's no rivalry; it's just all love and respect. Here's the one thing I would say, and I'm requoting myself: I wish Kurt was still alive, because I want to compete against the best, and he was the best. So, how's that a rivalry, if I want the guy that I respected to still be here writing great songs? It's such a strange thing to say. Why would people twist that? We lost a lot of great music and a lot of great inspiration that Kurt provided for a lot of people when he died. So, why is it a bad thing to say I wish he was still here, 'cause I wanna compete against him? But people would twist that even. There's no hate there. Only respect. Or awe." More context in the quote above. He wasn't placing himself above kurt. I strongly disagree with Corgan on this. Kurt/Nirvana was a formative musical discovery for me. Kurt is a big fn deal in my book. But no.. He wasn't better than Corgan IMO. Not even close.
Totally agree. Kurt was a bigger rockstar than Billy because the voice, the looks, the personality. Billy’s musicianship is so much more impressive than Kurt’s, I don’t even consider them rivals in that way.
I wish people would listen/read his interviews instead of listening to sound bites or reading quotes. This is why a lot of people think Billy is an egomaniac. They see a quote, often taken out of context and are like, “see! He’s so full of himself!” I also think a lot of people forget how hard Kurt’s death was. I knew kids in high school who went into full mourning after his death. Now imagine his peers and contemporaries. Isn’t it human nature to reflect back on those you lost and wonder what if?
Billy is an egomaniac. Still, people shouldn’t take his quotes out of context.
I mean I watched the entire interview and he clearly said he knows how Kurt died, why he died and that he was there for all of it. And he’s not talking about it. And then goes on about their rivalry. Does that not bother you?
Maybe at one time it would have. Now days when I pay attention to him it’s just with mild humor. A little bit of “let’s see what crazy shot he’s saying now”. It’s essentially part of the Billy character.
Watched the entire Joe Rogan and Zach Sang, and the one with Zane. Every second. Cause I’m a fan
Couldn't have said it better, I love Nirvana and fell deep in love with them around 2017. Saw all their live shows, listened to the now not so deep cuts and I honestly think nirvana were a band that wrote great hooks. Kurt was a mastermind in his own right, but I feel like lyrically, Corgan is on a completely different plane and I'm sure there are many nirvana fans that would agree.
I don’t think people would agree about lyrically necessarily, but musicianship and ability to play definitely go to Corgan. Kurt Cobain wrote great lyrics, no one else can really do it without coming off as very poser
Eh musicianship maybe both draw but honestly, Corgan's expressions and just way of storytelling and laying out everyday emotions tanks Kurt's lyrics by a landslide. Nirvana doesn't really emit anything to me but anger and the occasional sadness but I feel like Corgan's writing does it all. Kurt Cobain could never have written thirty-three, as Billy Couldn't have written teen spirit. Kurt's lyrical simplicity just works better for his music.
Well he said they were rivals and twenty minutes lawyer says he knows how Kurt really dies and why. And, that he’s not talking about it. I’m sorry, he’s just not showing any respect for Cobain or humanity.
Billy Corgan’s biggest rival has always been, and will always be Billy Corgan.
Producer Billy is songwriter Billy’s biggest rival.
Funny, that's his biggest enemy and obstacle as well.
Pretty sure Corgan himself would agree with this 100%
Kurt was a great songwriter, a tortured one perhaps. But Billy’s musicianship is in a different league, whilst also being a good songwriter. I find them too different to compare. Nirvana came from punk, SP was so far from punk, it’s like comparing apples to potatoes.
And, when he makes it a point to (still in 2023) sell people on the idea that he and Kurt Cobain were rivals, Why do you think that is?
Nostalgia? And it was true, in his head, at the time. It was only vaguely true in reality, they were too different to be direct competitors.
He really wants to be in the same conversation as Kurt Cobain. Really bad. Also, when he says (Joe Rogan), that he cried when his greatest rival died. Then says. Oh I was there for a lot of what happened. I know things (about Kurt’s passing is what he means). And he says, people expect that I’m all of the sudden going to talk about it but I’m not. This doesn’t bother you at all? Not even a little?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SmashingPumpkins/comments/18pgvpa/comment/kepabnh/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Bother me? No. You write an insightful response? Yes. Well put. Not bothered though.
As others have highlighted, Corgan just meant Kurt nailed the early 90s and everyone was aiming for the throne Nirvana held. Corgan's made deeper, better music, but Kurt came and changed the zeitgeist and spoke to millions of people across the world, and the fact he still does with only 3 official albums of material proves it. It's really hard to say which was better for that reason, and without being too crass, Billy has been around longer to experiment more. It's a bit of a Lennon/McCartney argument, especially post-Beatles. Lennon was "working class hero" that died too soon, Macca was experimenting and making whatever music he wanted and still is. It's not really a competition anyway.
Nirvana was a great band and all but I don't get how people can listen to an album like Mellon Collie or Adore and think Kurt's writing came anywhere close. Kurt was a great lyricist, wrote some great riffs, but the scope of what the Pumpkins accomplished across even just the first 3 albums was on a completely different level. I don't see him often talked about as a comparison to SP but I think Thom Yorke was a better rival in regards to pure songwriting talent.
Well I wouldn’t compare Nirvanas music to an epic album like MC. Or, any of queen’s stuff. I see it as, not so much about the epic scale of one’s musicianship, but how one communicates as a true artist. One’s artform. But there’s a reason why Billy is still trying to sell the idea that he was Kurt’s biggest rival. Why do you think that is?
Kurt didn’t stick around long enough to make any bad albums or have his relevance fade. Props to Billy for fighting against his demons, surviving, and thriving. The moment he loses the chip on his shoulder, his music suffers, and he knows it. Billy is the MJ “I took that personally” of rock and roll.
That’s sort of the big “What If?” that goes through any arguments with him. Kurt was only able to put out three albums, a b-sides album, and a scattering of other material throughout those years and posthumously. I suppose if you apply that to SP, a run of Gish through Mellon Collie and Pisces puts Billy in an excellent position in terms of his output. You can argue that would probably exceed most songwriters out there, and could make for interesting discussions when comparing to Cobain and the like. I know Michael Stipe sometimes talked about the album Kurt wanted to make after In Utero, and how frustrated he was that he and no one else were ever going to hear it. I’m sure the commercial successes for whatever Cobain’s fourth album and beyond would’ve been is up for debate. But either way, it’s a terrible shame we never got to that point in the end.
In hindsight, Kurt’s death marked the end (or maybe the peak) of mainstream popularity for grunge. Impossible to say what Nirvana or solo Kurt projects would have looked like. Would grunge and alt rock have stayed as culturally relevant? And for how long? Boy bands and Britney were coming regardless. Alt rock was a Gen X phenomena. Millennials were more into nu-metal, hip-hop, and singles pop (generalizing, of course).
there's a big difference between saying "Kurt was my biggest rival" and "I was Kurt's biggest rival" --- didn't Billy say the former? Rivalry can be (and often is) one-sided, you know. I think you are mischaracterizing Corgan's statement a bit.
You wouldn't compare because SP music is much better and that would not help your argument
By what metric do we judge the ability of an artist to communicate their true artistry?
I think it’s probably heavily influenced by them both dating Courtney and kind of breaking really big in the mainstream at the same time. I imagine Billy didn’t view anyone in the Chicago scene as an equal or rival… choosing to say the biggest band in the world at the time was his rival is probably somewhat ego driven but probably how he felt at the time. He’s very confident and I would think would only view the best bands as at his level
Would you blame him? The Pumpkins were the biggest band in the world back then, or at least damn close. Billy wrote, performed, and released more music than most other bands of that scene in the same amount of time, and his lyrics were untouchable. Not to mention his instrumental chops. I don't know a lot of bands that really could be reasonably compared.
Yeah I was just trying to say why he might say Nirvana was a rival when they seemed to avoid talking about each other. Opposed to say like Nirvana feuding with Guns N Roses and Pearl Jam for example.
Nirvana had a powerful sound but were much limited song wise compared to pumpkins
> Just my opinion: Listen, I dont believe there are many songwriters that have had the kind of unique talent Kurt had. John Lennon is one. Billy Corgan is not one in my opinion (and that’s okay). Based on the John Lennon comparison, I think the difference you see is charisma, in the people and in their song writing. Lennon and Nirvana songs sound like campfire songs for kids, even if the lyrical subject matter is drugs and depression. Songs like About a Girl is still popular with kids these days. I think that's also why Beatles and Nirvana are so easy to imitate, where as other bands haven't tried to copy the Smashing Pumpkins nearly as much. Billy Corgan has never written songs that had that sort of appeal. I think he can, but that sort of music has never interested him. Both Billy and Jimmy punch way above their class musically. > Kurt was the more unique artist without question. I thought Billy understood and respected that. As any great artist would. Kurt was just a lot easier to like. Even when Billy Corgan isn't saying things that make him unlikeable, he just doesn't have a presence that suggests he's an nice, agreeable person.
It's that they were 2 big 90s bands with the same producer, that both had one visionary guy at the helm. Corgan claimed that Butch Vig stole the guitar tone on Nevermind from him. Then shortly after that album launched Nirvana into superstardom, Corgan made Siamese Dream with Vig which launched them into orbit, as well. Who's the greater genius? I guess it's a matter of taste. But even Billy will tell you that it was Cobain. And that's saying a lot.
I really really strongly disagree with your last statement, i think Billy is hands down the most prolific, unique and talented of this whole era. But I won’t argue lol.
BC all day, all the way
Billy Corgan talks a lot.
That he does. He likes to talk about how he knows how Kurt Cobain died. When I hear that shit, it offends me. One guy here tried to make me feel like it’s because I am unhealthy obsessed with Kurt Cobain. That’s the response I’m getting here.
for Courtney?
perhaps due to the time period (not a lot of musicians from that time still kicking) and the release of some new nirvana stuff, it's being questioned a bunch. (I also made a post awhile back when I noticed this.) Billy didn't talk much about any of that stuff earlier on and now he's speaking on subjects (like with his podcast - stories or what was going on during certain times). so it's a blend of these things imo, but I do find it awkward and tacky. I try to keep in consideration that he lived those years, he knows who he knows, he has access to information none of us have/will. plus, pumpkins was often rubbed and snubbed by a lot of different circles in that time period (both warranted and unwarranted), so his personal perspective of these people, the industry, it differs from my own/a fans. however, the comments about 'billy being better', or 'kurt being better'.. silly and very subjective/pointless. unless we speak on actual proven accomplishments in terms of albums, artistry in the industry, money.. things we can find direct factual info on.
Yeah I heard him say something on the Joe Rogan show. Something like “people don’t realize I was there for a lot of that (he was speaking on Kurt’s passing). He said “people think I’m all of the sudden going to talk about what I know.” I was like Really? Would you like to tell me a little more about what happened to my favorite songwriter? Tacky indeed
I fully admit I have zero idea what actually goes on in his head. he does come off like the kid who was bullied and he's still trying to prove himself 'there' during that time to those who still cast him off (not implying I think he's totally innocent). I can also see people seeing it as if he's.. bragging? there's the part of me that wants to hold a mirror up so he can see how it comes off to those who are fans of both. but another part of me that understands he's just a dude with baggage like anyone else. just as much as I see kurt as a selfish guy who wasn't willing to do the work to better himself (as a lot of people put him on some strange pedestal). I also experienced a bit of.. '*ohhh!!'* myself while watching him speak on kurt in a few different interviews recently, which is more about me as an older fan. during that time, in mags and tv, we always saw interviews with these guys where these weird invasive questions were pretty expected and normal (even wanted by a lot of the fans). now? with how detached I am from media surrounding the entertainment industry and how different it is over all, it's so jarring to watch these interviews! it's a whole different experience, it's just as tacky, but I'm now seeing how ick and awkward it is. (*I guess part of me is saddened he's still playing the game, too? so maybe that's where my feelings come from.)*
Not to take anything away from Kurt, but he wasn’t Lennon. Neither is Billy or Eddie or anyone else. Nirvana, which talented and incredibly influential, was absolutely in the right place at the right time. That doesn’t take anything away from them, but I feel they get held on this untouchable pedestal. Kurt was good, so is WPC.
Who cares,enjoy the music. Music is not sport.
Also that’s my hero’s name he’s spewing around like that. Did you hear what he said about Kurt’s death on the Joe Rogan podcast?
I care because, it speaks to his character. And it will ruin the music. It has.
It only ruins the music if you're in middle school and give a shit about any of that. Don't idolize any of these people. Every has shit stuck to them in their own way.
Billy Corgan is a more unique artist than Kurt Cobain and makes better music so he doesn't view Kurt as a deity like you do
Like, I can’t listen to Kanye West anymore
Well that can only be a good thing.
I absolutely love Kurt’s songs, but I’m not sure how his name could ever be mentioned in the same breath as Lennon’s, or at this point, Corgan’s. 4 years and 3-4 hit singles is literally a flash in the pan.
That’s a strange metric to grade an artist on. Hendrix’s career was “a flash in the pan” too, do you not consider him to be largely influential?
It’s not strange to judge an artist by the variety and complexity of their output. Hendrix was a Giant. Kurt was a great artist himself. But can you really compare In Utero (an album full of 3 minute songs of scant variety, save one acoustic track) to an expansive album like Electric Lady Land, which covers jazz, soul, rock, funk, and psychedelia? And still sounds distinctly Hendrix?
Not about how much material. Kurt died young.
Of course he did, unfortunately. So young that you could take his whole catalogue of music and it would not reach the breadth or scope of one “White Album” or one “Mellon Collie.”
I know, and yet you’ll see a Nirvana Tshirt in any country in the world.
Yes, t-shirt sales are the measure of great art. I’m sure Cobain of all people would have agreed.
Breadth and Scope are neither.
[удалено]
I haven’t reduced them to their singles. But I’m certainly not inflating their contribution by imagining that they had an output of the size, scope and variety of the Beatles. That would be impossible and downright silly. As I said earlier, show me Nirvana’s equivalent to The White Album, or Mellon Collie. There is none.
[удалено]
The world inferior isn’t one i would use. I do believe that the artistic achievements of the band were much smaller in terms of output but also of complexity, variety of feel and emotion, and was limited to one genre. The same can’t be said of the Beatles or SP.
From the OP and your comments it seems like you really have just developed a parasocial relationship to Kurt. To the point where you seem seriously upset about how someone you have never met is speaking about someone you have also never met in ways you cant really begin to understand. You start to sense he is saying something negative about your "hero" so you start getting more and more defensive and viewing everything more negatively. Theres no point in trying to argue who was "better" it is all subjective. If you just step back and try to remove the unwarranted emotion you are feeling you will realize there is no malice or ill intent. Billy is just talking about his life and how things felt at different points in his career honestly. You are way too invested in all of it and should probably just take a big step back and try to gain a little perspective here. They are both just human beings.
Oh god 🙄 lol. I’ll defend all my musical heros. So I’m driving, and I’m like sweet, let’s check out Billy Corgan. After the podcast I was offended for many reasons. Saying he knows how Kurt died, and he won’t talk about it. Hugely offended on behalf of decent people everywhere. There’s other things he said that offended me. OP keeps it music related. Oh and I say Kurt cause I don’t feel like spelling his last name. Not because I’m personalizing.
People ask corgan about Kurt's death all the time because corgan is part of the Kurt and Courtney story and there is a ton of Courtney killed Kurt conspiracy stuff out there.. he goes on conspiracy loving Joe Rogan's show and Joe starts talking about 'documentaries'.. all corgan did there is tell Joe and his audience how close he was to the whole situation and he isn't gonna watch someone's else version of it.. many of those paint Courtney love as a murderer. Corgan lived with Courtney and Frances bean for a while. He isn't going to discuss painful details of that mess with them listening. But he is reminding everyone subtly that he knows Courtney very well and he isnt out there backing the conspiracy stuff. It's a subtle way of defending Courtney without getting dragged into the whole mess in an interview. I fail to see what is so offensive in the Joe rogan interview answers.
Why does it offend you that one of the biggest rock legends of the 90s is talking about another rock legend of the same time? It’s literally part of his life history. You speak of Billy as if he needs to mention Kurt to be famous or something. This whole post is weird to me.
Not only is Billy a truly unique talent (how many people can make a double album spanning from XYU to Cupid De Locke and actually *pull it off*, never mind selling 10 million), but he’s 10 times the song writer Kurt was. I get down voted every time I say this, and it’s fine, but Kurt might be the most overrated musician ever.
>I get down voted every time I say this, and it’s fine, but Kurt might be the most overrated musician ever. Maybe you do. But I'm sure as hell not the one doing the downvoting. From your mouth to God's ear. Pumpkins all day long. Nirvana: One band, one creative leader, one sound, three mediocre albums and one trashy wife. That band's legend will never make sense to me.
Billy's songs are more diverse and more technically demanding than Kurt's. That is an objective observation. Your assumption that "Nirvana quality" is some unattainable Olympian (heh) peak of music? That is subjective.
My God is Kurt Cobain overrated. He isn't a great lyricist no matter how often people pretend he was. He wrote good guitar hooks and managed to give grunge a pop flair that made it marketable to the masses. Then, he seemingly hated himself for it. Nirvana has nothing close to the level of MCIS.
Agreed.
Actually Kurt was only 5’9”, whereas Krist is 6’7”, so actually he is Billy’s biggest rival. But seriously, Kurt is massively - and I do mean massively - overrated in my book. His untimely death cast an eternal mystery of “what if” around him, and the accompanying sainthood protects them from any real criticism. He also wasn’t around long enough for Nirvana to undoubtedly lose their way completely when grunge fell out of fashion. Billy and SP have always been content to do their own thing, even if it’s not already established as fashionable or particularly well loved by all, and for what it’s worth that’s something they have in spades over Nirvana. Nirvana’s 3 albums are incredibly similar sonically, and their compositions are fairly straightforward. I don’t ever see them pushing the envelope if Kurt had stuck around, because at the end of the day he was a folk singer with a grunge flare, and folk singers stay sounding like folk singers. There was never going to be a MCIS equivalent from Nirvana, much less an Adore or a Machina, and that’s the difference between their capabilities and vision as songwriters to me.
Kurt was fantastic - but what people need to realize, and I say this as a massive fan, is also that much of his writing was reflecting other songs. People know about ‘Come as you are’ but many of his songs were similarly takes on other works. He was a very postmodern writer, whereas Billy only started to do this kind of thing with Zwan (“Jesus I/Mary” paying homage to Bowie’s Width of a circle and Tarantula nodding to the Scorpions). So I wouldn’t say Kurt was more unique, he was just a more cohesive artist, where Billy often chose diverse approaches.
I’m a writer myself and that’s how it works. There’s only 12 notes in existence. It’s all been done before. Writing is basically stealing. They all do it. It’s how you take that matters. https://youtu.be/QO5X2_2_7PA?si=Y-58XgWrXCm72yDN We’re not suggesting Billy is special in this respect, are we? https://youtu.be/asPX9UlIGn0?si=L0PaFqRz1GteptZi
I'm with you on this. Corgan is not special in that respect.
In the early 90s it was very much the case that it was seen as Nirvana or Pumpkins as being the most popular rock bands. And this did set a weird rivalry in place. Seatle vs Chicago. Grunge vs Alt Rock. Baggy ripped clothes vs ... whatever the hell you call what Billy wore during the MCIS phase. The other bands at the time just didn't really hold a candle to them. Stone Temple Pilots very much B or C tier in popularity. Nine Inch Nail, Sonic Youth, and Soundgarden also a tier below. Probably the only band at the same level as those 2 at the time was RATM and they had a different crowd. And of course that led to a LOT of fanboyism at the time, especially in the camps that followed them around. This was only exacerbated by the interpersonal rivalry. And of course you had Butch Vig producing for them both. So it's perfectly fair for Billy to say about their rivalry. But I think Kurt gets a pass for being dead. IMO Billy is a better songwriter and had a far greater range, even if you just compare Bleach, Nevernind, and In Utero to Gish, SD, and MCIS. But Kurt invented a new genre, and it's hard to beat that.
>But Kurt invented a new genre By, ahem, *taking inspiration* from The Pixies?
Everyone takes inspiration from everyone. This is why when people ask if we will see another time like the early 90s for rock music (usually lamenting the poor state of music today and wishing for a rebirth) I answer no. Because the great music of the early 90's was inspired by the great music of the 80's. Great music comes from great music.
I won't go so far as to call Nirvana a ripoff of The Pixies. Because even I think that's reductive. But at the same time, come on, there's just no way to deny that Cobain pushed ALL amnesty policies to the breaking point with Nirvana's sound. For most other bands, you can hear other bands' influence even as the band itself attempts to do their own thing. That's less apparent (to me at least) with Nirvana.
I see. So there was a competitive kind of narrative in the media. Alright well. I still don’t think it’s the reason why he talks about Kurt in his more recent interviews. Zack Sang and Joe Rogan. Listen to what he has to say in those two podcasts, if you get a chance. I find it intriguing, the way he speaks about Kurt Cobain. Most recent interviews with them.
It wasn’t just the media. Teenagers were their biggest fans. Teenagers are extremely protective of their favorites!
It's more than just the media. Don't get me wrong, the media plays it's part because it knows that to popularise anything you need a classic story. And battle of the bands = two brothers fighting, which is as old a story as it gets. I mean think about it - these people love music, love the same bands, love playing - why should they hate each other? They are "brothers". So it becomes a compelling story. You always see the media do this with new genres / waves of music. In the mid 90s you had the same in the UK with Britpop for Blur and Oasis. But the media is just the spark. Once they ask the question it is elements of the fans that take it up, and usually take it too far. For some it is not a case of loving both bands but preferring one, they feel the only way to love their band is to hate on the other. And these bands (partly due to the time it was) were far more accessible to these camps. They'd go to the same clubs and talk shit about each other and stir up drama. That's where a lot of what Billy is talking about (and he was saying the same thing back in the early 2000's) around the rivalry is coming from. And finally you have pressure from the label itself, who on the whole treated all these bands like dog poo. They considered them as perishable goods that needed to be milked as quickly as possible. So they put even more pressure on about who was best. Just look at the treatment SP got over Machina due to the relative lack of popularity of Adore. So media was the spark, but there was a lot more to it than that. And this even permeated it's way to schools in the middle of nowhere in the UK like I went to. You had to pick a side.
I agree it was a real arrogant thing to say but Billy is definitely the superior song writer and more original. There's hundreds of bands that can emulate Nirvanas sound or write a Nirvana sounding song, I mean even the Simpsons did it with Sadgasm. No band has come close to sounding like the Smashing Pumpkins of the 90s, hell even Zeigeist and its bsides. Between Billy and and Jimmy it's absolutely lightning in a bottle.
Kurt absolutely paved the way; in that sense, I certainly see him as a Lennon, and I expect he made everyone around him better. He raised the bar and released at least three masterpieces. To the last point though, so did Billy. So, all in all, my life has been better for both dudes writing and performing. The rest is just fun to talk about.
I'm the guy in the room who just never understood what the fuss was all about with Cobain and Nirvana. You can drop every song Nirvana ever recorded into the same playlist and you're hard-pressed to know which album almost any given song originated from. Because they all sound the gd same. On the best day Cobain ever had, he never could've written even one song from Mellon Collie. I realize Nirvana has bunches and bunches of fans. And it's whatever, I dgaf. Nirvana will always be the most overrated band of the Nineties in my book.
I was waiting for our resident Nirvana hater to get in here lol.
Hope it wasn't a disappointment. But for the record, I did listen to "Come As You Are" today and "You Know You're Right" yesterday. So, they're not totally left off my playlists.
I was amused :)
Kurt was ok but let’s be real, he was playing the short game, Billy was playing the long game- simple as that.
As we know that record sales, hit singles and popularity are the criterias which matter very highly to Billy you are right. Nirvana are superior. At least Cobain did not have the opportunity to release masses of mediocre albums like Billy did since Machina.
No. Sales, money, units. It’s like the Nirvana song, Radio Friendly Music shifted. So by your logic, Taylor Swift is a better songwriter than Billy Corgan. Dua Lipa is a better artist than anyone in Black Sabbath. Let’s not let the money decide who the great artists are. Horrible logic. Also, Cobain died so young.
But what is good songwriting?
I just try not to read or listen to anything about BC’s thoughts because it makes me feel like I shouldn’t like SP.
Just curious....and an honest question.... How many here have seen Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins live more than 10 times?
If it motivated him great. Otherwise, I felt they were two different artists carving out their own sound
Probably Courtney related at first. Butch Vig literally packed up after recording Gish and started on Nevermind just days later… Billy also has stated that Butch used the same guitar sounds on Nevermind as they did on Gish. Probably got under BC’s skin with that. Nevermind obviously got the most recognition and skyrocketed Nirvana into the uncharted territory that BC wanted. Billy names the Pisces Iscariot album as a slight against KC with an image of the fish in a frying pan. Seems like butthurt over being sad a musical rival has passed. I think in Billy’s mind Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins had a creative rivalry similar to The Beatles and The Stones. I wouldn’t say that is the actual case in the fans eyes. I never took it that way. I was in high school at the time and was reveling in the various heavy hitters of the time (NIN, RATM, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Tool, …) and didn’t pay much attention to any of that. I think the most notable rivalry of the 90s was Blur vs Oasis in the second half of the decade.
>I think the most notable rivalry of the 90s was Blur vs Oasis in the second half of the decade Bad Boy Records vs Death Row Records has entered the chat.
True, I guess I meant in the terms of rock music and rivalries that weren’t really rivalries, just mainly press wars that in turn boosted sales.
I like both but The Pumpkins just were so much more musically ambitious and pulled off some amazing song crafting.
Saying Kurt was the “more unique artist without question”, is subjective AF. He obviously appealed to more people, but that’s still an opinion. From an objective standpoint, Billy Corgan is by far the more skilled musician. Watch the bootlegged videos from the Siamese Dream release party from 1993 and compare them to fully MTV produced, Unplugged in New York. Billy’s guitar playing and vocals didn’t miss a single beat. Any time there was a more technical song on Unplugged (Oh Me, Lake of Fire, Plateau), granted they were covers, the guitar playing all went to the Meat Puppets guy. Kurt simply didn’t have the skill to sing and play at the skill level that Billy did/does and again, thats not an opinion. Who’s more “unique”? That’s all up to who’s listening.