This is for the most part true.

For example Nirvana had quite a few incluences from 60s music and underground music at the time, but they grew to have their own style for the most part

If Kurt Kobain is the one responsible for every rock vocalist in the past 6 years sounding EXACTLY the same, I will kill him.

The people who buy the **** are responsible. The industry just gives people what they want.

Oh, my, god. Blasphemy...

Anyway, Zoso (do you know what that means? I don't, does anyone, even?) the interesting thing about the Beatles is that so many of their songs are recreations of other songs. That's really what most popular music are. I don't think it's bad in any way. You like this riff, you use it, maybe in a different key, either consicously or subconsciously, you like that progresssion, use it!

Interstingly;

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.html

An analysis of EVERY song in the Beatles 'canon'. Fascinating.

I could care less about Kurt Cobain. I never liked grunge anyway.

80's rock is where it is at. Van Halen (pre-Hagar)! Winger! Rush!

^
couldn't

kurt cobain and nirvana are just as important to music as the likes of plant/page and led zep, lennon/mcartney and the beatles are.

Pinnacles of bad taste, one by one. :p

And Sean Combs. >.>

how so

One could argue that Nirvana is a pinnacle of bad taste. It's not exactly based on a science or common sense or something standard.

Please, go on.

It's already be convered, repeatedly in the thread.

We need Mort-Hog back for this.

:p

I've yet to see a good answer

Mwraar! Your musical preferences are an affront to my self righteous opinion that my choices are superior wah wah wah.

Good lord.

Not really...though Rush isn't exactly "80s" rock.

By the way...

shouldn't this be in the music forum?

Carry on.