> 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.

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.

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.

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.