Cobain was a good plagiarist

[axlslash]

but the bealtes were good.

well thats interesting because so were nirvana

Beatles- did things that musically had never been done before, and (with the exception of Ringo and somewhat Paul) were extraordinary musicians and songwriters

Nirvana- knew power chords and basic drumming, wrote decent-at-best lyrics, and just played the music that was popular at the time

Grunge doesn't have to fit a formula. Musically, Pearl Jam do a lot of incredible stuff. They use different types of layering with their sound and do a great jub of taking a distort pedal and heavy drums and making music with them. Nirvana just made noise and complained into a microphone, called it music, and went home for the day.

I think Paul was/s is a really good songwriter

I don't think he's bad, persay, I just don't think he's in the same league as John or George. Paul's songs always seemed a bit more commercial to me than Lennon's or especially Harrison's. I loved the stuff that John and George wrote, particularly the stuff that messes around with all the psychadellic motifs. I don't claim to know that much about the Beatles as I'm not particularly into them, but Paul always seemed to be a more modernistic songwriter, while John and George always seemed more forward-thinking (if that makes any sense).

I think you need to get into The Beatles then.

I'm very into SOME beatles. I don't really dig the more commercial stuff from the 60s (including the Beatles' more commercial stuff). I really dig stuff like Rubber Soul, Old Brown Shoe, Strawberry Fields, Walrus, etc. I just prefer the stuff that made Brian Wilson pull over to the side of the road in amazement than the stuff that made the girls scream.

[sabre]

Led Zeppelin's (arguably) two most well known songs - Stairway to Heaven and Whole Lotta Love 'ripped off' old blues songs, I forget which ones.

"Whole Lotta Love" was basically a cover of "You Need Love". "Stairway to Heaven" isn't remotely based on any Blues song.

Fine, I looked it up, the song is taurus by spirit.

If Cobain was such a rubbish songwriter and musician, why don't you make something better? If it's so much better surely you'll sell more albums than Nirvana did.

So record sales determine a song's value? Apparently, Britney Spears is better than Cinderella, then....

You know that's a stupid argument, and it misses the point anyway.

I was saying there are very few people who can write songs that can appeal to people in a way that nevermind did. Whatever your thoughts on marketing/being in the right place whatever, the songs still have to be decent enough for people to like them. evidently, Nirvana's songs were good enough.

[frankwhite]

to the guy sayin paul aint all that, all the points ur bringing up suggest only that he has a different style, not anything pertaining to better or worse. i think pauls amazing.

[JeanGenie]

All hail Sir Paul McCartney!

[frankwhite]

All hail Sir Paul McCartney!

fuck yeah!!! n his songs werent all totally commercially palatable lyrically...look at Get Back.

[feconroses]

Nirvana sucks? Hell no. Shame on you Axlites.

[Mr-brownstone]

axlslash is obviously very wrong here, and is probably an axllite, who feels that since axl and kurt had problems with eachother, he has to diss Kurt. Ignore the idiot.

Nirvana rocks!

What if he just doesn't like Nirvana? Even if Axl and Kurt were best of friends i'de still think nirvanas music was shit.