Well you know, Stephen Foster wrote some really catchy stuff. I really don't put much stock in "who's the best" kind of arguments. If I like something I hear and it inspires me, then that's all I need. Whether it's deep lyrically, or idiotic lyrically with brilliant melody doesn't really matter to me if it strikes a fire for me.
Again this is one of those subjective things. I think Bob Dylan is a great lyricist, but I have never bought any of his records. I love some of his songs when done by other people. I like listening to his interviews to see what makes his process. Guys like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger were great as well, and influenced Dylan a great deal. Does the average Beatles or Dylan fan care about that stuff? Who knows? I don't know.
I love american folk/traditional music predating Dylan and think that it has some of the best story telling lyrical quality of any music, often not credited. However I understand if my friends don't want to sit around listening to some poorly recorded Leadbelly (or other) album because they are used to hearing slick modern production. Part of my point is that I would never try to convince another person that my choice of inspiration should be there choice of inspiration.
The Beatles don't light my fire, and I can say that after listening to the core of their critically acclaimed work several times (my parents had all of the records). I listened to a lot of Beatles stuff when I was younger because ya' know - you're supposed to if you're an aspiring rock musician. Short of a handful of McCartney songs, it does nothing for me.
So you think "Sitting on a corn flake" is brilliant, but i respectfully disagree.
