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

[smile-holland]

No, you're still missing the point.  Van Gogh while he was alive, could not be objectively shown to be a good painter.  How do you still not get this?  Read back over what I've said. 

Smile-Holland,

what Ron is saying is that, objectively, in order for ones art to be known as "good" or "best" a capitalistic monetary system has to be in place for that artist to know whether or not he is good....even if his family and friends told him it was good, it was crap until a population with commodity/currency could evaluate whether or not his work was good by buying said work....I see Ron's point, but he is telling us to base our opinion on a market that can con people out of anything by whimsical advertising and upbeat cheap thrills....there is far more to art than money.

It all has to do with personal opinion, and personal opinion adds up to popular opinion which usually reflects itself in the market....however, being the most popular on the market does not always mean it is better: there are ways that one can play the market....thus Celine Dion records have outsold Pet Sounds (remember the story about the marketing of Pet Sounds?)

Again – I’m not saying that Ron isn’t correct here (didn’t I start with “Totally correct Ron”?). Au contraire! Of course I see your point of view success being linked to sales numbers. Which is true.

So don’t worry: I get your point, I agree with you. Pure objectively sales is the only way to measure success. IF you see success indissoluble attached to money


But


It doesn’t work that simple in this world. Opinions do matter. And opinions are mostly subjective, no doubt. And they can hugely differ from one another.
And probably it’s kinda difficult to throw this topic on a message board, a place especially where opinions predominate. (AGD’s research on Billboard etc not with counted). Many folks over here have to radically switch their way of thinking right now 

Measuring success on merits (I am talking about the money here) is one way. But how about measuring success on artistic appreciation? I know it’s still subjective. But what about investigations on such matters. Talking mathematics now, doing statistical research, using a sample taken at random, minimal response, statistical reliability, etc. Now you CAN say that’s still not the same as sales figures, but it does say something about … well... pretty much everything that is researched. Under the condition of course that the research is done properly (there’s a lot of rubbish when it comes to research).

Only trying to show you the other side of how talent or success is also approached. Which is not the point you try to prove, but I think is the point many others tried to throw into the discussion as a counter-argument.

To close with the Nick Drake Van Gogh example.

Van Gogh:
- During his life sells not even 100 paintings. And if one does they pay 10cents at most (OK, might be 50 Euro now. But I still conclude: crap painter (then)
versus
- nowadays of the couple of hundred (or thousand?) paintings he made, all sell for no less than 1 million $. So hugely successfull

Drake:
- Sold only 3000 copies in the 70ies thus he is talentless and a horrible musician.
versus
- Influenced 1000-s of other artists, of which several made it big time.
(and now doing a risky future prediction) Within 75 years Drake is recognised as one of THE composers of the 20th century, the early albums – if you can find one – change of owner for $1000000 at least. I conclude: great artist, and very successful

So apparently opinions can matter – depending on what time frame you’re in – and have influence on sales = success as well.

Love this topic Ron, no offence at all, just having fun here…   

[Ron]

O.K., I like the direction you're going.  Let me clarify slightly on Van Gogh, since I think that's a brilliant example.


Van Gogh by any SANE interpretation was a wonderful painter, certainly a great one and by any comparison as comparisons are to other painters, definately one of the greatest. If I were an art critic who was knowledgeable of him at the time he lived, I'm positive I would have infinite artistic respect for him, would love his paintings, and think he was a genius.

If nobody else bought his paintings, though... while I may still feel that he was a genius, I wouldn't have much to point to.  I could lament for days about his technique and skill, and it wouldn't matter if nobody had bought his stuff, or ever seen it, or whatever. 

Van Gogh's paintings are of course now priceless, but i'm talking about the public's appreciate of him.  He's sold millions upon millions of painting copies... pictures of his work hang in houses from the poorest to the richest, all around the world.  He's universally recognized as a wonderful painter, and the way I can prove that to you is to show you that everybody agrees!  Everybody has his stuff! HE'S MADE TONS OF MONEY AT IT.

Of course he never received it, he's dead, his family probably doesn't even get much of the money from copies or pictures of his work, but the point stands.  His work is valuable, and it's a commodity, and it's bought.  Often.  People love to spend money on a Van Gogh painting, and the originals themselves are priceless now.  He SCREAMS money.  Gosh Darn I WISH I HAD SOME VAN GOGH ACTION.  I could be rich.

THAT is the ultimate measure of what you call Artistic appreciation.  If someone tells me they have great appreciation for an artist, but they've never spent any money in regards to that artist, I'd have to ask if that's really true.

Even the poorest person will go out and buy the new Brian Wilson album if they've got artistic appreciation for him.  If they don't like that particular album, they've bought others... because they love what he does and feel it's quality.



As for the people like Britney Spears... while I don't think she's completely talentless, she'll never have long lasting money making appeal.  Even if she made 500,000,000 dollars with her crappy albums, after the buzz is gone, she won't make any more.  God bless her, Im not trying to pick on somebody, just using an example.  In the end, the money argument will still win out... Nick Drake may not make much money, but if you look at his estate 50 years from now verses hers, chances are he's probably going to be making as much or more because NOBODY is going to be buying her stuff.  Of course there's lots of other factors like promotion, the record machine blah blah blah but in general, good music and talented artists generally make money for SOMEBODY, that's how people show their artistic appreciation as you put it. 

[Ron]

[rab2591]

No, you're still missing the point.  Van Gogh while he was alive, could not be objectively shown to be a good painter.  How do you still not get this?  Read back over what I've said. 

Smile-Holland,

what Ron is saying is that, objectively, in order for ones art to be known as "good" or "best" a capitalistic monetary system has to be in place for that artist to know whether or not he is good....even if his family and friends told him it was good, it was crap until a population with commodity/currency could evaluate whether or not his work was good by buying said work....I see Ron's point, but he is telling us to base our opinion on a market that can con people out of anything by whimsical advertising and upbeat cheap thrills....there is far more to art than money.

It all has to do with personal opinion, and personal opinion adds up to popular opinion which usually reflects itself in the market....however, being the most popular on the market does not always mean it is better: there are ways that one can play the market....thus Celine Dion records have outsold Pet Sounds (remember the story about the marketing of Pet Sounds?)

Again – I’m not saying that Ron isn’t correct here (didn’t I start with “Totally correct Ron”?). Au contraire! Of course I see your point of view success being linked to sales numbers. Which is true.

So don’t worry: I get your point, I agree with you. Pure objectively sales is the only way to measure success. IF you see success indissoluble attached to money

SmileHolland,
I meant to take your name off the top of my post but forgot - it was more pointless sarcasm than a constructive thought. I 100% agree with what you're saying - and most with what Ron is saying.

Ron, I 95% agree with your point - in the end, as you've said, the money will win out and show who is the best; it just takes time - I just hope to see the day when the Beach Boys are outselling Celine Dion  

[Ron]

Don't know if you'll live that long   Radio plays, though, they're probably already outselling her.

[Don_Zabu]

Ron is the kind of person they would call a Backpfeifengesicht in Germany.

[smile-holland]

SmileHolland,
I meant to take your name off the top of my post but forgot - it was more pointless sarcasm than a constructive thought. I 100% agree with what you're saying - and most with what Ron is saying.

I hadn't even read it like that. I didn't feel offended in anyway though.



so where was this topic all about? California Gurls/Girls right?

[phirnis]

I just heard this for the first time. Too bad the only thing Snoop Dogg still seems to be capable of is posing in pimp clothes on other people's records...

[Alex]

I just heard this for the first time. Too bad the only thing Snoop Dogg still seems to be capable of is posing in pimp clothes on other people's records...

That's all he was ever capable of...that and...uh,  .

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Hey now...no dissin' the Dogg....

[Ron]

Ron is the kind of person they would call a Backpfeifengesicht in Germany.

Love you too man.  Lose the argument with logic, start calling people names.  No, i'm not going to go look up what it means.  Back on topic, dear child. 

[Alex]

Hey now...no dissin' the Dogg....

Dissin'? I was stating fact. I think he's better at  than he is at making actual music. I don't mean it as an insult. I love  !!

[Ron]

It depends on what you want out of Snoop.  For what he does, he's very talented.  If you don't relate to him though, it's hard to appreciate anything he does. 

Here's a guy who grew up in gangs, no father around, got in trouble for selling crack, and went to prison.  When he gets out, he gets a lucky break and starts rapping about it instead of actually doing it.  It's easy to criticise these guys and frankly some of them I can't stand, but if I grew up in that environment watching everybody in the neighborhood who has any money or any decent quality of life... and all of them are drug dealers who everybody else is afraid of, I might mistake that for respect and want to be like them when I grow up too. 

Anyways, regardless, instead of getting his agression out shooting people he instead runs his mouth on record about it, sells millions of copies, and gets rich.  Now he's not angry anymore and doesn't want to kill anybody, lol.  The music grew him up a little bit, as immature as it was.  There isn't a guy alive who somewhere down in their mind doesn't think the same thing Snoop raps about.  Music a lot of time is taken to the extreme, people write entire songs about fleeting thoughts that we feel for a few seconds, and people really relate to it.  When Snoop talks about getting with all these women and stuff, there's a small part of me (lol) that wants to do the same thing.  I might not dwell on it to the extent he does in a song, but I can relate.  When he talks about shooting somebody because they disrespected him, sometimes a small part of me feels just as immature.  So people can relate. 

Snoop's talent isn't in his abilities as a writer, it's more in his charisma and ability to promote a good time instead of negativity... there's a lot of hypocrisy in what he says sometimes, but most people are often hypocrites, they're just not famous.  Snoop has always made white people music.  He's done more for racial harmony than Rodney King did, lol.  Now he's singing about hot white women in california, what's not to like?  He's a character, people don't really care what he's doing, they just think he's cool... nobody's listening to Katy Perry for anything of artistic value, so why not have a cool pothead on the song?