'California Gurls' versus 'California Girls': Brian Wilson chimes in

[shelter]

Here's a good barometer to tell whether or not a song is any good. If you can take a song, re-arrange it into a different style and have it sound good, it is a well-written song.

Since I don't think that would go for, say, 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'Stairway To Heaven', 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', or 'Good Vibrations', I tend to disagree.

[Ron]

The dirty little secret is.... California Girls, California Gurls, David Lee Roth's California Girls, Snoop Dogg's Murder Was the Case, I Get Around, Tupac's I Get Around, Gretchen Wilson's California Girls, and Katy Perry's Whatever..... They all make people shake their asses.  Plus it's obviously all subjective.  Probably the MOST objective way to judge 'who's better' is to see who's richer.  That's a horrible reality.  Brian's pretty fuckin' rich, so he's not doing too bad... he doesn't really need us to stick up for his brilliance. 

I can't even count how many different things are wrong in this post.

No, you can't come up with a good reason that anything's wrong with that post.  Musical taste is subjective.  This is 101 stuff, I didn't say anything groundbreaking, lol.

[the captain]

The dirty little secret is.... California Girls, California Gurls, David Lee Roth's California Girls, Snoop Dogg's Murder Was the Case, I Get Around, Tupac's I Get Around, Gretchen Wilson's California Girls, and Katy Perry's Whatever..... They all make people shake their asses.  Plus it's obviously all subjective.  Probably the MOST objective way to judge 'who's better' is to see who's richer.  That's a horrible reality.  Brian's pretty fuckin' rich, so he's not doing too bad... he doesn't really need us to stick up for his brilliance. 

I can't even count how many different things are wrong in this post.

I think Ron was dead-on. Ass-shaking isn't the only measure of music, but it's a big one. Money isn't the only measure of success, but it's a big one (in that it means people liked it, whether to shake their asses or whatever else). The pretentious idea that what you ["you" meaning any person, not meaning you, D.Z.] find in music as being of high quality somehow is more legitimate than the enjoyment millions of other people found in something else is, well, just that: pretentious.

[LostArt]

Yeah, musical taste is subjective, but I think the real good songs have staying power.  We won't know for a number of years whether California Gurls will still be remembered as a great song.  I am of the opinion that it won't be, but we'll have to wait and see.  California Girls was covered by David Lee Roth 20 years after the original, and he had a #3 hit with it.  The Beach Boys' California Girls continues to be played on the radio and sell units (albeit on compilations) 45 years after it's original release.  I won't be around in 45 years to find out whether any of Katy Perry's stuff will be played on oldies radio, and if I am still around, I don't think I'll care much.

Probably the MOST objective way to judge 'who's better' is to see who's richer.   

It's this quote that I, and I suspect Don_Zabu as well, really have problems with. 

[Alex]

P.S.  I actually like Sugar Sugar by The Archies.............

It's an OK song, but there's some irony in the fact that in the year that Woodstock was held, the best-selling single of the year was credited to a cartoon figure...

But one of the organizers of Woodstock, Artie Kornfeld, penned his own bubblegum hit the year before, The Rain The Park and Other Things.

Plus, 60s bubblegum still holds up better today than most manufactured bubblegum pop from more recent decades. Long after Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers, Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears, NKTOB and Tiffany, The Osmonds and the Partridge Family are all but forgotten, The Monkees will still be blaring out of car stereos.

[Mike's Beard]

Exactly! A case could be made that most of the Beach Boys pre '65 stuff was indeed 'bubblegum pop'. And to be fair in a way it was. But the thing is even the more lightweight songs from back then had a class to them that you just don't get today from modern chart music.  And it didn't require people to shake their t&a in next to nothing to sell it either. Some jerkoff at work the other day actually said that the Beach Boys were just a boyband from the sixties and were no different than Westlife or The Backshaft Boys in that respect. I mean, where do you even start to disagree with a statement as preposterous as that?  

[Paulos]

Exactly! A case could be made that most of the Beach Boys pre '65 stuff was indeed 'bubblegum pop'. And to be fair in a way it was. But the thing is even the more lightweight songs from back then had a class to them that you just don't get today from modern chart music.  And it didn't require people to shake their t&a in next to nothing to sell it either. Some jerkoff at work the other day actually said that the Beach Boys were just a boyband from the sixties and were no different than Westlife or The Backshaft Boys in that respect. I mean, where do you even start to disagree with a statement as preposterous as that?  

I would have stabbed them to death. Twice.

[Ron]

Yeah, musical taste is subjective, but I think the real good songs have staying power.  We won't know for a number of years whether California Gurls will still be remembered as a great song.  I am of the opinion that it won't be, but we'll have to wait and see.  California Girls was covered by David Lee Roth 20 years after the original, and he had a #3 hit with it.  The Beach Boys' California Girls continues to be played on the radio and sell units (albeit on compilations) 45 years after it's original release.  I won't be around in 45 years to find out whether any of Katy Perry's stuff will be played on oldies radio, and if I am still around, I don't think I'll care much.

Probably the MOST objective way to judge 'who's better' is to see who's richer.   

It's this quote that I, and I suspect Don_Zabu as well, really have problems with. 

You may not like it, but it's reality. 

Like the poster above said, somebody told him the Beach Boys were the backstreet boys of the 60's AND HE HAD NO RETORT. 


Why is that?  Why can't you prove they were better? 

[Don_Zabu]

If there's any comparison to be made between a 60's group and the Backstreet Boys, it would be The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.

And no, whoever's richer being an objective quality measurement is not a harsh reality. You just call it that to give it some legitimacy. If there's any measure of the quality of a work that I would latch on to, it's the intent of the artist producing it. That's why van Gogh's paintings are masterpieces and Thomas Kinkade's paintings are products.

[the captain]

...The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.

But that's not true. People remember "Sugar Sugar" as a great 60s pop song. It's irrelevant that the band "The Archies" wasn't real, much like The Monkees weren't necessarily "real" (depending on the song / album / definition in question), in that whoever did the heavy lifting, the end product is great. That matters.

[Don_Zabu]

...The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.

But that's not true. People remember "Sugar Sugar" as a great 60s pop song. It's irrelevant that the band "The Archies" wasn't real, much like The Monkees weren't necessarily "real" (depending on the song / album / definition in question), in that whoever did the heavy lifting, the end product is great. That matters.

In that case, substitute any 60's bubblegum pop project that is less beloved than The Archies.
Either way, my point was that the comparison between the Backstreet Boys and the Beach Boys doesn't really hold water.

[gsmile]

...The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.

But that's not true. People remember "Sugar Sugar" as a great 60s pop song. It's irrelevant that the band "The Archies" wasn't real, much like The Monkees weren't necessarily "real" (depending on the song / album / definition in question), in that whoever did the heavy lifting, the end product is great. That matters.

Great point Luther.  I would also say that dismissing the Backstreet Boys outright is unfair as well.  Sure they were a singing group manufactured for pure profit, but it's not like they attempted to make a commercialized version of "Ok Computer"; they were a pop group!  There will always be pop groups...it's part of how we separate the wheat from the chaff.  Plus, what's wrong with manufactured pop when it's good?  As Luther mentioned, "Sugar Sugar" is a great, catchy, fun pop tune.  I'm not always in the mood for "Cabinessence", and in those moments the "bubblegum" songs give me an addictive shot of pure aural sugar.  I'm also gonna come right out and say it: "I Want it That Way" by the Backstreet Boys is an EPIC song.  Great melody, some fine singing and an effective arrangement.  I bet that most of you know the lyrics to it...it's impossible to not start singing along when the chorus kicks in...."TELL ME WHYYYYYY!"

The guy who made the comment about the Beach Boys being the "Backstreet Boys of the 60s" is less of a diss to either the Beach Boys or the Backstreet Boys, and more of a signal that this person knows next to nothing about music, musical genres, and probably is a very casual listener to music in general.

[rab2591]

...The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.

But that's not true. People remember "Sugar Sugar" as a great 60s pop song. It's irrelevant that the band "The Archies" wasn't real, much like The Monkees weren't necessarily "real" (depending on the song / album / definition in question), in that whoever did the heavy lifting, the end product is great. That matters.

Great point Luther.  I would also say that dismissing the Backstreet Boys outright is unfair as well.  Sure they were a singing group manufactured for pure profit, but it's not like they attempted to make a commercialized version of "Ok Computer"; they were a pop group!  There will always be pop groups...it's part of how we separate the wheat from the chaff.  Plus, what's wrong with manufactured pop when it's good?  As Luther mentioned, "Sugar Sugar" is a great, catchy, fun pop tune.  I'm not always in the mood for "Cabinessence", and in those moments the "bubblegum" songs give me an addictive shot of pure aural sugar.  I'm also gonna come right out and say it: "I Want it That Way" by the Backstreet Boys is an EPIC song.  Great melody, some fine singing and an effective arrangement.  I bet that most of you know the lyrics to it...it's impossible to not start singing along when the chorus kicks in...."TELL ME WHYYYYYY!"

The guy who made the comment about the Beach Boys being the "Backstreet Boys of the 60s" is less of a diss to either the Beach Boys or the Backstreet Boys, and more of a signal that this person knows next to nothing about music, musical genres, and probably is a very casual listener to music in general.

I admit, I know some lyrics from 'I Want It That Way' and yes, I find Katy Perry's 'Hot and Cold' to be catchy and fun. I also think that it is overproduced and has no artistic merit. Same with a Bob Ross painting - I find many of them beautiful, but it has no artistic value compared to societies standards of 'good art'.

I like DonZabu's quote here:

If there's any measure of the quality of a work that I would latch on to, it's the intent of the artist producing it. That's why van Gogh's paintings are masterpieces and Thomas Kinkade's paintings are products.

Yes, it has to do with money, but is Beethoven better than U2? Even though U2 makes a lot more money, they will never top the beauty of Beethoven. Nowadays (and in the 60s, as was previously posted), a drum machine and generic lyrics top the charts (and makes more money)....does it make it better? Heck no. It is as DonZabu says, artistic/emotional/spiritual intent and how that work effects people - sometimes, it will take a lifetime for that art to be recognized (Pet Sounds being proof)...will Pet Sounds make more money than Katy Perry's 'I kissed a girl'? maybe, maybe not, but the fact is that Pet Sounds has a far greater spiritual and emotional effect on people than any Katy Perry album ever will...and that is the true intent of music: to spiritually move people - Brian Wilson understood that and made the greatest album of all time with that knowledge.

True, objectively the market is a great tell for what is best, but sometimes it is far off.

[the captain]

What makes you think that the true intent of music is to spiritually move people? Many people don't believe in anything "spiritual." Many people find the primary value of music to be a beat to which they dance. Others, with which to sing along. Others, something else. What I consider the mistake in this area is people taking their own idea of "the true intent of music" and assuming it is universally true. Stupid, empty fun is a hugely popular use of music, and every bit as important as being spiritually moving. The dumb fun music doesn't spiritually move much of anyone, and the spiritually moving music is rarely dumb fun. Neither is more or less worthwhile for it.

[rab2591]

What makes you think that the true intent of music is to spiritually move people? Many people don't believe in anything "spiritual." Many people find the primary value of music to be a beat to which they dance. Others, with which to sing along. Others, something else. What I consider the mistake in this area is people taking their own idea of "the true intent of music" and assuming it is universally true. Stupid, empty fun is a hugely popular use of music, and every bit as important as being spiritually moving. The dumb fun music doesn't spiritually move much of anyone, and the spiritually moving music is rarely dumb fun. Neither is more or less worthwhile for it.

I suppose I come from the train of thought that spiritual music* does the world FAR greater good than a Kesha song. I admitted before, I like some modern pop songs, but the sole purpose is a cheap thrill...I'd much rather hear 'Don't Talk' when I die rather than 'Fun, Fun, Fun'...

*by spiritual music I do not mean 'religious' - rather music like Pet Sounds that truly moves us in a loving way....but I suppose you're right, it just depends on taste....some may find 'I Kissed A Girl' religious for all I know.

[the captain]

Regardless of the definition of "spiritual," my point is unchanged. Some sort of deep, moving, intellectual, or emotional kind of experience is still not necessarily superior to fun. It's just a different thing.

[Ron]

If there's any comparison to be made between a 60's group and the Backstreet Boys, it would be The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.

And no, whoever's richer being an objective quality measurement is not a harsh reality. You just call it that to give it some legitimacy. If there's any measure of the quality of a work that I would latch on to, it's the intent of the artist producing it. That's why van Gogh's paintings are masterpieces and Thomas Kinkade's paintings are products.

Ah, young padwan. You have much to learn.

Who's more famous? Van Gogh, or Thomas Kinkade?  Who has had more people buy their paintings?  Easily Van Gogh.  If he were properly paid for the paintings of his that have been sold (and prints, and copies, and photos)... Van Gogh would be richer than Thomas Kinkade.  You lose.

[Ron]

...The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.

But that's not true. People remember "Sugar Sugar" as a great 60s pop song. It's irrelevant that the band "The Archies" wasn't real, much like The Monkees weren't necessarily "real" (depending on the song / album / definition in question), in that whoever did the heavy lifting, the end product is great. That matters.

In that case, substitute any 60's bubblegum pop project that is less beloved than The Archies.
Either way, my point was that the comparison between the Backstreet Boys and the Beach Boys doesn't really hold water.

AGAIN, you're missing the point.  WHO WAS MORE POPULAR? WHO MADE MORE MONEY?


The fucking Beach Boys!  You lose again!

[Ron]

...The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.
[/q
uote]But that's not true. People remember "Sugar Sugar" as a great 60s pop song. It's irrelevant that the band "The Archies" wasn't real, much like The Monkees weren't necessarily "real" (depending on the song / album / definition in question), in that whoever did the heavy lifting, the end product is great. That matters.

Great point Luther.  I would also say that dismissing the Backstreet Boys outright is unfair as well.  Sure they were a singing group manufactured for pure profit, but it's not like they attempted to make a commercialized version of "Ok Computer"; they were a pop group!  There will always be pop groups...it's part of how we separate the wheat from the chaff.  Plus, what's wrong with manufactured pop when it's good?  As Luther mentioned, "Sugar Sugar" is a great, catchy, fun pop tune.  I'm not always in the mood for "Cabinessence", and in those moments the "bubblegum" songs give me an addictive shot of pure aural sugar.  I'm also gonna come right out and say it: "I Want it That Way" by the Backstreet Boys is an EPIC song.  Great melody, some fine singing and an effective arrangement.  I bet that most of you know the lyrics to it...it's impossible to not start singing along when the chorus kicks in...."TELL ME WHYYYYYY!"

Of course it's a great song.  If somebody is making music because they want to make good music, and they want to make popular music, more power to them.  The backstreet boys, when they were signing all those little love songs were being completely honest, that's how they felt, that's sincere, honest music whether people like it or not.  I can't really listen to them, but i'm not their intended audience.  No reason to hate talentless people, they couldn't write a song to save their life, didn't play instruments, and weren't the greatest singers ever, but they did what they did and never pretended to be anything more.  Why would anybody hate on them?  I've never got it. 

[Ron]

...The Archies; manufactured, one-dimensional, and remembered only nostalgically/ironically.

But that's not true. People remember "Sugar Sugar" as a great 60s pop song. It's irrelevant that the band "The Archies" wasn't real, much like The Monkees weren't necessarily "real" (depending on the song / album / definition in question), in that whoever did the heavy lifting, the end product is great. That matters.

Great point Luther.  I would also say that dismissing the Backstreet Boys outright is unfair as well.  Sure they were a singing group manufactured for pure profit, but it's not like they attempted to make a commercialized version of "Ok Computer"; they were a pop group!  There will always be pop groups...it's part of how we separate the wheat from the chaff.  Plus, what's wrong with manufactured pop when it's good?  As Luther mentioned, "Sugar Sugar" is a great, catchy, fun pop tune.  I'm not always in the mood for "Cabinessence", and in those moments the "bubblegum" songs give me an addictive shot of pure aural sugar.  I'm also gonna come right out and say it: "I Want it That Way" by the Backstreet Boys is an EPIC song.  Great melody, some fine singing and an effective arrangement.  I bet that most of you know the lyrics to it...it's impossible to not start singing along when the chorus kicks in...."TELL ME WHYYYYYY!"

The guy who made the comment about the Beach Boys being the "Backstreet Boys of the 60s" is less of a diss to either the Beach Boys or the Backstreet Boys, and more of a signal that this person knows next to nothing about music, musical genres, and probably is a very casual listener to music in general.

I admit, I know some lyrics from 'I Want It That Way' and yes, I find Katy Perry's 'Hot and Cold' to be catchy and fun. I also think that it is overproduced and has no artistic merit. Same with a Bob Ross painting - I find many of them beautiful, but it has no artistic value compared to societies standards of 'good art'.

I like DonZabu's quote here:

If there's any measure of the quality of a work that I would latch on to, it's the intent of the artist producing it. That's why van Gogh's paintings are masterpieces and Thomas Kinkade's paintings are products.

Yes, it has to do with money, but is Beethoven better than U2? Even though U2 makes a lot more money, they will never top the beauty of Beethoven. Nowadays (and in the 60s, as was previously posted), a drum machine and generic lyrics top the charts (and makes more money)....does it make it better? Heck no. It is as DonZabu says, artistic/emotional/spiritual intent and how that work effects people - sometimes, it will take a lifetime for that art to be recognized (Pet Sounds being proof)...will Pet Sounds make more money than Katy Perry's 'I kissed a girl'? maybe, maybe not, but the fact is that Pet Sounds has a far greater spiritual and emotional effect on people than any Katy Perry album ever will...and that is the true intent of music: to spiritually move people - Brian Wilson understood that and made the greatest album of all time with that knowledge.

True, objectively the market is a great tell for what is best, but sometimes it is far off.

Beethoven has sold infinitely more copies of his work than U2.  My point is once again proven.  Any others?

[Ron]

I'd also like to suggest that Pet Sounds, and it's radio royalties, have easier made more money than Katy Perry's ever dreamed of in her entire career.  I don't care that it wasn't a top 10 album, I don't care that it didn't sell that well, it has box sets devoted to it that sell.  It has cover albums devoted to it that sell.  It has countless covers of the songs in it, that have all sold, and all made money.  "Wouldn't it be Nice" and "God only Knows" are considered two of the most popular songs ever written.  "God Only Knows" has been played at more weddings than the number of people who have downloaded "I kissed a girl"...

... wait for it...


....










And if Brian were properly paid for all of those performances, he would have more money than Katy Perry.  Oh wait.  He DOES have more money than Katy Perry.... the analogy still stands.  Good music earns.  Period. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

By that logic, "Hit Me Baby One More Time" is a better album than "Sunflower".

I see your point, but there are still flaws with that premise.

[hypehat]

There are MASSIVE flaws with that premise!

Ron, either you work for a record label or are 12 years old, because those are the only types of people in my experience who buy the whole 'popular = better' argument.

There is great music that doesn't sell. Big Star must be shite, because those three albums didn't sell millions. Daniel Johnston? Talentless no-hoper. Van Dyke Parks? Loser. The Ramones? Harry Nilsson? Spacemen 3? Neu? John Cale? They must suck, because I sure as hell didn't see them selling out Wembley Arena. Bob Dylan's first album must be rubbish, because no-one bought it then and it's still not as popular as 'Like A Rolling Stone', which btw must be Bob's greatest song, next to 'Hurricane'. Speaking of which, Paul is the greatest Beatle because Yesterday is such a popular song, Motown is better than Stax and Garth Brooks, Celine Dion, Billy Joel, Mariah Carey, Neil Diamond, Shania Twain, Santana, Barry Manilow, Lionel Richie, Motley Crue, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam, Phil fucking Collins and Barbra fucking Streisand make BETTER MUSIC THAN THE BEACH BOYS BECAUSE THEY SOLD MORE.

Don't believe me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States
I don't see a certain surf band on this list.... Those surf hits being The Beach Boys greatest musical achievements, alongside KOKOMO.

Get it?

[shelter]

I agree. It's not necessarily the best artist that sell well. It's usually the smartest and/or most shameless ones.

A good example of how success says nothing about quality is Nick Drake. None of his albums sold more than 3 or 4,000 copies in his lifetime. At the time of his death, in 1974, he made just 20 pounds a week from his music. Must've been a pretty lousy musician, I suppose...? But then in the late 90s, bands like REM and The Cure started citing him as an influence and Volkswagen and AT&T started using his music in their commercials. Ever since, all three his albums have appeared in pretty much every "All-time best albums" list you can find, and 30 years after his death he even scored his very first Top 40 hit.

[smile-holland]

I agree. It's not necessarily the best artist that sell well. It's usually the smartest and/or most shameless ones.

A good example of how success says nothing about quality is Nick Drake. None of his albums sold more than 3 or 4,000 copies in his lifetime. At the time of his death, in 1974, he made just 20 pounds a week from his music. Must've been a pretty lousy musician, I suppose...? But then in the late 90s, bands like REM and The Cure started citing him as an influence and Volkswagen and AT&T started using his music in their commercials. Ever since, all three his albums have appeared in pretty much every "All-time best albums" list you can find, and 30 years after his death he even scored his very first Top 40 hit.

... and that makes me think of the earlier example made on Van Gogh and Thomas Kinkade. Van Gogh didn't earn a dime on his paintings while he was still alive. It was many years after his death that his work became really famous (and expensive).