The Smiley Smile Message Board

yet another Mike Love interview.. but I don't know, this one seems a bit too ridiculous.

http://troun.tripod.com/mikelove.html

If this is authentic...interesting fodder for conversation/argument.

It's real.  I bought the Goldmine the week it came out, and still have it.

I read this one awhile back...definitely interesting.  He's a bit harsh on BW88, and Brian in general, but I guess that's not too much of a surprised. 

It keeps surprising me how Mike is pretty much the only musician that openly says that something isn't good because "it's not commercial enough". That guy has no artistic integrity whatsoever.

There are links to some recent interviews with Mike on this board, what did you fellas think of those?

phew ... the cavalry arrives just in time!  ;D

I loved your "Disco Duck". :D

Carl Wilson once described the Smiley Smile album as being a bunt instead of a grand slam, meaning it was a cheap substitute for the Smile album. How do you look back on that record?

Too much acid. Brian got so wacked out by that time. He was so sensitive, so fragile from whatever he was doing and ingesting those non-prescribed medicinals. Anyway, he completely changed form being dynamic and competitive to being non-combative and non-dynamic, the opposite. And so Smile was in the same direction as "Good Vibrations" and "Heroes And Villains" and then all of the sudden a grinding screeching halt, a hundred and eighty degree turn, and it became Smiley Smile for whatever reason.

...................

That means that he liked SMiLE. In the article he quotes GV and HnV as being great songs. Says Smile was the same thing, then it crashed into Smiley.

I love how Mike only quotes songs off of albums which he sung on.  :D "Airplane was pretty....cuz ma voice is AWESOME".

Why is he so in love with Kokomo? If it failed in the charts he'd never speak of it; he thinks that because it was a hit that it has any artistic merit in it. It's as bad as a Hilary Duff song that's filling the airwaves now. It's a shitty attempt at writing a Brian Wilson type of song -- yet it falls into all the traps of a songwriter who is NOT Brian Wilson. All the cliche's that BW avoided in songwriting were used on the song. I find it hard to believe that he meditates each day also, a man so occupied with the commercial aspects of his own music and money is not a person who is usually looking for spiritual help. He probably does it to convince himself that he's not a shallow moron all the time. Once he's alone and there's no talk of music or royalties he'll be faced with himself and have to talk things over with himself.

There's another interview from that time, maybe it's the same, where Bruce says really awful things about "Smile" and not the nicest things about Brian, if I remember correctly

I dunno - commercial equals popular equals artistically successful, for some. The more people accepting your message, the more worthwhile your message must be. The difference between Mike Love and some other 'artists'  is that Mike was very open about having this opinion.

I'm just happy to find out that the guy can actually levitate.

I'd like to read that. I never thought Bruce to have a sour bone in his body.

Isn't Popular Music the art of being popular musically?

The term "popular music" is used in broad and narrow senses. At its broadest, it refers to all music other than classical music, also known as art music. In the early 19th century, the traditional songs of the common people were referred to as "popular songs." By the late 19th century these songs were referred to as "folk songs." At that time, a distinction was made between folk music and more recently developed urban popular music. Today, popular music is distributed via mass media such as recordings and radio (as classical music is now also). Popular music forms part of popular culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music

While Pop music is sometimes described as music produced commercially, for profit, "as a matter of enterprise, not art" it may more usefully be defined as a music whose content is driven by market as well as aesthetic forces. Pop "is designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste." In musical terms, it is essentially conservative" in that it attemps to resonate with a large segment of its target demographic rather than pushing artistic boundaries. It is "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers and concert promoters) rather than being made from below...Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged." (Frith 2001, p.95-96)

While Pop and Rock music each appeal to mass culture, often aim for (and achieve) commercial success, feature catchy tunes and melodies, and emphasize rhythm, Rock music has a more direct connection to the blues and folk from which it originated, while Pop can be thought of as the current incarnation of Popular music, which has existed for centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music

Maybe Mike loves "Kokomo" because he had a hand in composing it, it went to No. 1, and it sold more than any other Beach Boys' single.

Maybe he's proud of "Kokomo" because Brian Wilson had nothing to do with it, and it gives Mike a sense of vindication.

Maybe Mike likes "Kokomo" because millions of people came to see The Beach Boys in concert in the late 80's/early 90's based largely of the strength of that one song.

Maybe Mike does consider "Kokomo" art. If Brian had written it, I guarantee many people on this board would be calling Brian a genius, saying "See, he still has it. He can write a hit record any time he wants". Being a big Brian Wilson fan, I hesitate to criticize "Kokomo", even though I don't particularly care for it. I just think about "Night Time" (is delight time, it's starlight time, and it's the right time for me), "Baby Let Your Hair Grow Long", "How Could We Still Be Dancin", "You've Touched Me", and the re-recording of "Little St. Nick" - and then I don't feel like criticizing Mike Love anymore...

Try asking Brian about Smiley Smile. What was the last time he talked about this album, 1968? Smiley Smile was his first flop  and it still hurts.

Very nicely put. I hate Kokomo, but you're damn straight Brianistas would be having a mass orgasm if BW put something equally shallow on the top of the charts...in a way "Rock and Roll Music" was already his Kokomo in 1976...sell out to have a hit.

 

The thing is, I thought Mike's only contribution to Kokomo was "Aruba, Jamaica, ooh I wanna take ya to Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama, Key Largo, Montego, baby why don't we go", but he claims that he wrote the part about defying gravity and that he meant it as some sort of spiritual levitation thing.. I don't know.

Though it's funny when the guy alludes to the fact he has Smile bootlegs and Mike says, "You owe me twenty dollars!"

The interviewer was later beaten up by Mike's posse. They took the twenty and left the guy with a black eye and a severe case of watch-that-Mike Love-he's-gonna-get-ya-itus.

I like "Kokomo."

Always did.

Had Brian been involved in it, I genuinely believe that a lot of the dislike felt by BB fans toward the song would not exist.

It's far from the best thing the Beach Boys ever did, but it's catchy, it's memorable, it's harmless, and it's kinda fun.  It's relatable--who WOULDN'T want to go to a place like the one described in the song?

That said, my tastes lean more towards PET SOUNDS, SUNFLOWER. and SMiLE.

But finding out that Mike wrote the words to California Girls didn't make me hate the song just because Mike was involved.

When I was getting into the Beach Boys, my knowledge was vague, I didn't even know who was who, but I could still distinguish what I would and wouldn't like in the future. 

He called it one of his fav Beach Boys-albums in 2004.

@Mr. Frogg: I only have that interview in german. There was a english version on the net but they did cut Bruce's part out of that.

Pet Sounds going to #10 was much more of a flop to Brian personally, than Smiley going to 45 or whatever was. Smiley was a f***-you move. I doubt he expected it to do any better than it did.

Well said. If PS had been more of a hit, who knows where Brian would've gone next? The failure of SMiLE to appear , added with the relative failure of PS, is what sealed his fate.

Sure, I meant first commercial flop - to the outside world. But how do we know? Brian gave 300 interviews about Smile to promote his solo release, and he failed to mention Smiley everytime. I wonder if management vetoes those questions.


Smiley is what it is and i'm glad to have it in my collection, but I REALLY don't know if it was f***-you music. Whenever Brian released a turd in the last 39 years, he must not be really trying? In theory 'Darling' wasn't a f***-you move, and I'd rather listen to most of Smiley Smile than this rehash of a Sharon Marie obscure single.

PS: I don't consider Smiley a turd

Wow.  "Darling" is one of my favorite Beach Boys songs.

I still am amazed that a record that sold enough by 1967 to go gold and went Top 10 and had two Top 10 singles is still called "flop" in today's scholarship, especially for a band whose arguably best album went to #151 and did absolutely nothing sales-wise.  Maybe perception at the time said it was disappointing, but that was mere perception.  The truth is that Pet Sounds was a decent hit whose commercial potential was undercut by a desperate label whose "prestige" acts were either leaving the label or nosediving, and whose most popular act had just cost them tens of thousands of dollars in losses because of a SNAFU with an album cover.

 :D He actually said "commercial" 15 times.

Which acts were leaving the label?

Which acts were nosediving?

The most popular act has to be the Beatles, but which album cover are you referring to?  And what was the SNAFU?

I don't know about that interview, but I remember that a few years ago when Bruce started appearing on the Beach Boys Britain message board, he made some comments, particularly about Brian, that I found to be pretty insulting. He called Brian's band something along the lines of a "tribute band", and I think this was also around the same time that he referred to attempts to release archival BB material as "bottomfeeding."

Interestingly, it seemed to me that when the fans weren't responding very postively to some of Bruce's comments, particularly when it came to Brian's band, it wasn't long before Bruce was all of a sudden posting about how great Brian's touring was and how he recommended every fan to go see Brian's show, etc.

Certainly Bruce is not always postive and glowing. Just read his commonly cited quote about the "Surf's Up" album! "A big, hyped up lie!"

Mike's philosophy seems to be that you don't make music for yourself and if there isn't an audience for it, then what's the point?

test test. Steve is freaking out.

I don't get it.. he has all these personal stories for lots of the songs he's written.. and one of his songs is unecessarily five and a half minutes long, yet he complains BW'88 isn't commercial enough?!

And he sort of implies he's a surfer.. interesting..

I'm back.

I had a huge post typed out for this thread too but have since lost it.

I don't understand how Mike can be saying, in 1992, that the Beach Boys shouldn't have tried to go psychedelic considering that's what became "popular" music in the late 60's and the Beach Boys failure to catch on is what destroyed their careers?

Psychedelia wasn't the ONLY music that was charting in the 60's. I think Mike (Even though I'm sure he tried every drug the others did) is strongly against the drug scene. He probably associates everything B.W 1965-onwards as DRUGS, DRUGS, DRUGS. Rather than, ART, ART, ART.  Maybe he thought that the Beach Boys could've saved music history by continuing to write the formulaic stuff.

I think, rather, he associates everything Beach Boys pre-1965 as SUCCESS, SUCCESS, SUCCESS. Simple as that.

He should just have been glad all along that he was no longer pumping gas all day long.

I think I remember reading that Mike used pot for a year or so around 1967 (I think I calculated that the Good Vibrations lyrics were written during this, but I can't back that up now) then stopped after he went to the Maharishi's transcendental meditation camp, as meditation gave him the release that pot, and alcohol before that (he claimed in a recent the entirety of the Beach Boys touring band doesn't get drunk). Maybe after Maharishi his opinion on drugs changed.

Another way to look at it: he's seen what substance abuse has done to those around him, Brian especially. I don't think that would give anyone a good opinion on drugs to be personally subjected to the effects of Brian Wilson's use.

Mike was definitely still smoking pot at least into the early seventies, and in the Beach Boys show at the Filmore where they appear with the Grateful Dead in (I think) 1974, Mike's laughing up there on the stage, having a good time talking about how they were all stoned on the tour bus or something like that (it's been a while since I listened to it).

Things we've learned:

1. Mike Love has an Opinion
2. Mike Love's opinion is he doesn't like drugs
3. Mike Love is sometimes hypocritical

Welcome to the human race, Mr. Mike Love!

I realize my opinion isn't always very popular on the board, but again, I have to put my two cents in because I just can't keep my mouth shut.

Mike likes Kokomo.  It was huge.  Deal with it.  I like the song, it's alright, not their best but nowhere near their worst.  Is it REALLY that much worse than "Get You Back"?  I love Get You Back... but you never see it get trashed like Kokomo does.  Similar cheeziness, etc. just one had Brian Wilson in it so it's now off limits.

This interview was in 92, isn't that about the time Mike was suing Brian for the years and years of royalties Brian by all accounts (including his own) screwed Mike out of?  I'd be pissed too.

He doesn't like drugs.  Face it, half the world doesn't like drugs.  I don't like drugs.  I think people that take drugs are idiots, and I'm not alone.  Mike Love, for instance, agrees with me.

The Beach Boys were founded to make money and to get famous and get chicks.  Again; deal with it.  They were intended to be commercial, they were commercial, and they always will be commercial.  Brian Wilson was such a talented musician that he was capable of being commercial, AND making artistic box-expanding music, that's a testament to his gift.  From "Surfin' Safari" to "What I Really Want For Christmas" Brian has been trying to make money.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Artists do not have to suffer.  Artists should make as much money as they can physically carry to the bank if at all possible. 

in summation:

1. Capitalism is not evil.
2.  Mike Love is not evil.
3. Kokomo is not evil.
4. Brian Wilson is not god.
5. Drugs are evil.

That about sums it up, class dismissed!

First off, yes, I do hate Getcha Back and a lot of the other crap on the 80s discs, Brian-related or not.

But second, while I think Mike is a piece of sh*t, I also think Brian is just as guilty of revisionist history, capitalist motivations and other self-serving actions. Who isn't? Mike is just more fun to make fun of, probably because he doesn't have a gift so obvious as Brian's. I mean, a couple of catchy lines, or writing indisputably brilliant melodies and harmonies? I know whose side I'll end up taking every time.

"Big Sur" is undisputedly a brilliant melody with brilliant harmonies, right?

This Goldmine article has all of your questions answered:

http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/psyt.html

You're reducing one of the greatest lead vocalists and lyric writers of rock history to "a couple catchy lines"????????
Whatever, dude. Love is no more of an asshole than anyone else in the BB world. He's just honest about saying his thoughts in public. For that I respect him more than Brian Wilson, who was and is an asshole too. As are you, sometimes, as is me, sometimes.

The quote is something to the effect of, "We did this on a bus with the Buffalo Springfield one time, all stoned and drunk, it was great!" Buffalo Springfield broke up in 1968, I think.

And the concert was April 1971.

I think calling him "one of the great lyric writers in rock history" is stretching just a bit.  Yes, he wrote beautiful lyrics to Warmth of the Sun, and he certainly knew what type of lyrics would sell, but c'mon, Brian worked with far better lyricists than Mike.  Not saying Mike was a bad lyric writer but certainly no better than a Dylan, a Lennon/McCartney, an Asher, a Parks, etc. 

I'll take the lyrics of Good Vibes over anything Lennon/McCartney, Asher or VDP wrote put together. GV's psychedelia-of-sensuality and surreal reality is far more mindbending to me than Parks' masturbatory and eratic wordplay.
Dylan is my favorite lyricist. But I'll bet he wishes he wrote I Get Around.

The lyrics to Good Vibrations are pretty damn good. I wouldn't mind a psychedelic album full of songs with lyrics of that caliber. I wonder what Smile would of been like if Mike Love had a hand in writing the lyrics to the songs. The only Van Dyke Parks lyrics I ever really fell in love with are from 'Surf's Up'. 

As the lyric writer of some of the greatest songs of rock history, it seems far from a stretch; perhaps not to your personal taste instead.

Oh yeah, I also agree that 'Warm Of The Sun' is psychadelic.

Van Dyke Parks is overrated, for sure, but "columnated ruins domino" is the best lyric I can think of to fit that part of the song. Better than something like, "Don't you sweet baby I love you so" or "I popped the clutch in time and man I flew". The music of Surf's Up is not fit for the lyrics of I Get Around.

Exactly. Brian chose the right lyricists for the right material.

I don't know what a furo do burro is.

But yeah, I don't think Love's lyrics were often that great. And as for the rest of it, I think we agree (regarding who says what and where).

furo do burro -- try typing A $ $ h * le into a post and see what it does to edit it...

I think it was Elvis Costello who said (in the "Endless Harmony" documentary, I believe) that the words to "Surf's Up" sound good when they are sung. In other words, the alliteration and how the sounds of the words go together, as opposed to what the words mean or what they can be interpreted to mean. This is how I feel about most of VDP's lyrics. I'm not terribly interesting in dissecting potential meanings, but most of his words on those BB songs sound good when sung.

Absolutely neither brilliant melody or harmonies. Very nice. Good song. But not brilliant.

Might be, but Brian wrote most of the lyrics to that song..

Hurrah for subjectivity!

He's just jealous  :lol

I really, really, really like that song. But I don't think it's brilliant. To me, brilliant would mean I'd be dazzled by some aspect of it. And there is nothing musically dazzling about it. It's simple. Very pleasant, but simple. Not brilliant.

Again, I really like it.
 
(Now is when everyone goes on about what's wrong with me, and how I'm a Brianista, or whatever other sh*t you all feel like saying. My favorite thing about this board is that no matter what side I take in any given argument, I know I'm going to get sh*t for it.)

Yeah, but at least Brian has never referred to himself publicly as "Dr. Love."  And I hope you haven't either. ;D


About Mike's lyrics, I think they're VERY hit-or-miss, and I think the misses have an edge here.  He did write some great lyrics, but he's also written a lot of crap.  And I'm not just talking about his post-70s work.  He certainly had his moments, but I think he was far too inconsistent to be placed as one of the great lyricists.  Although that could probably be said of Brian's other lyricsts as well.

OK, but by definition the Pop songs with Love's lyrics are the greatest of the Beach Boys catalog and no other single lyricist or all other lryricist of BBs' songs combined even come close to Mike's mark I believe it is accurate to say.  If the BBs are one of the greatest Pop groups of all time and their songs are among the best Pop songs of all time and most of their best have lyrics by Mike then it seems to me he is certifiably [not subjectively] one of the greatest Pop lyricists [not to mention vocalists] of all time. 

Those of you in the minority still have rights however. ;)

I'm not sure that's at all true, Cam -- that's pure opinion! I'd say the pop songs with Tony Asher's lyrics are the greatest of the Beach Boys catalog and that's one lyricist that not only came close to Mike's mark but surpassed it by a long while. That album so perfectly captures the sound of love and loss, better than any album ever made, I think -- Mike's great at writing about certain things, and I'd never denigrete him as a lyricist, but IMO both Asher and Parks surpass him significantly in terms of creating a perfect mood.

I think the most underrated lyricist is actually Jack Reiley -- I really like a ton of his songs, and I think if you wanna talk about a lyricist that doesn't get his fair shakes, its HIM. Listen to Steamboat or Trader or any of those -- hoo boy, those are good stuff.

They all bring different things to the table.  I wouldn't want Fun Fun Fun written by Jack, Trader written by Van Dyke, Wonderful by Tony, or IJWMFTT by Mike.  The lyricists were perfect for the song in almost all cases, and all contribute to the monolithic power of the catalog.

I was thinking, wasn't Mike very influenced by Chuck Berry as a lyric writer, they have the same way of using words, it seems to me. "Fun,Fun,Fun" in a way is a sort of white Chuck Berry lyric/tune. I like his lyrics, they're not very deep, but he's very inventive, when it comes to basing the lyrics on unexpected associations and making clever rhymes, and they work great in that context. In fact a lot of the lot of the early BB songs, seem to owe a lot to Berry's hip, good humoured type of lyrics, not to mention the music of course.

Søren

Exactly. Can I hear a word for the great Roger Christian?

Everyone was influenced by Chuck's lyrics, I'd say the Mick Jagger of Satisfaction and Get Off My Cloud most of all. But Mike, definitely.

Yeah you're right, it sounds like Jagger was very influenced by him too, but in a way he was more cynical and direct, still is to this day. Maybe Berry couldn't afford to be that way, I can't imagine him doing a song like "Satisfaction", even though it clearly owes to him. But with regards to BB's it's also like they transplanted Chuck Berry's attitude to their own early songs, lyrically and otherwise.

Søren

Exactly, I remember an interview with Mike saying something about writing "syncopated Chuck Berry lyrics" or something.

I don't think so, I believe it is a numeric fact.


I won't argue with your opinion and I'm a fan of all of that [though Jack Reilly's work is some down my personal list] but still the songs with Mike's lyrics are way out in front I'm pretty sure.

What, that Mike wrote more songs with Brian than anyone else?
And that the tunes with Mike were more successful in the charts?
Yeah, OK, that doesn't prove they were better artistically. It means they were more commercial.
But, Mike is my fave BB lyricist by a country mile.

Yeah, it means they were more Popular.  I don't think it was because more people deemed them to be worse artistically.

Cam, you are well aware that because something is more accessible i.e., radio-friendy, it does not mean it is any more artistically successful. What is pleasant to people's ears on the radio is a whole other world than we are in on this board.
You think The Beach Boys are better than Miles Davis? If so, do you ascribe that to chart statistics?

For the term, 'artistically successful', could we please substitute the term 'cool'? The former has elitist conotations with which I am uncomfortable, while the latter is vague and subjective enough for me to never have to defend its use.

Here's my take on the Wilson/Love team: while Brian's music often transcended its influnces, Mike's lyrics never came close. Still, they were pretty cool, right?

I better stop posting to this board and listening to the band -- because if they are "cool", and I am not "cool" but a geek, I have to bail.

The Beach Boys are the better Pop group just as Mike is the better Pop lyricist and Brian is the better Pop composer, so say the numbers which are the measure in Pop music. You and I may continue to like whatever we like.

Of sales, not quality.
If you believe they are one and the same, you must dig the Beatles far more than the Beach Boys. They have sold many, many more records than the Beach Boys ever will.
Pop is a sound that got the classification because the smooth sound was one that appealed to most white audiences. Homogenised. Clean. Pop does not mean most popular. It's a style of music.
Your semantics are as usual, very off the mark and annoying.

For annoying, how about this: I HAVE to note that there is no reason to capitalize "pop" (when it isn't the first word of the sentence). And yes, that actually drives me nuts. I'm that much of a fucking nerd.

By Cam's definition:

"Sugar Shack" is a better song than "Little Deuce Coupe" or "Surfer Girl", all three of which were released in 1963.  The former was the biggest hit of that year.

By Cam's definition:

The single greatest song of the 70's was "You Light Up My Life" by Debby Boone.  It was the best selling song of the 70's.

By Cam's definition:

Thriller is the best album of original music ever recorded.  The best compilation was Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 1.

Sales are the only thing that we can use to objectively judge a record, though.  Since the "goodness" and "quality" of a recording will always be mostly subjective, if an objective judgement of a record is needed, we have to go to sales.  So, going by that, in a sense one could say Mike was the best lyric writer for the BB.  Best at facilitating moving units, at least, and again, that's all we have that is indisputable.

Yes, I agree with that!  Long Promised Road and Fourth Of July along with those two

I can't do that.  One of my favorite albums ever is Village Green Preservation Society.  In its first run it didn't make the Top 200 and sold less than 50,000 copies.  I think Sunflower outperformed it.  And so are we to say that on sales it is one of the Kinks' worst?  Or for that matter, is Sunflower one of the Beach Boys' worst?


Sales may be "objective" in that it is measurable, but it tells you NOTHING about how good a record really is.  And so what if there is no objective measure?  You like what you like, and that's all that matters.

I have no idea what you said. Your yellow hurts my eyes.

Well, sales tell you how good a record is at making people want to buy it.  But of course you're correct that you like what you like, but individual taste doesn't tell you how good a record really is either, unless it's your own taste.

Maybe less important than what you like is why you like.

Less important, perhaps, but way more fascinating to people like me that are prone to needless psychoanalysis.

Y'know, I honestly meant to say "More important", not less. And psychoanalysis is never needless - not for this cowboy, at any rate.

Well, there you go.

So, why do you think we like what we like?

Look at it this way:  I know that you love the Wild Honey album, but that was a poor seller compared to other BB albums of the 60's.  And I know that you will still to this day say that it was a good mix away from being an all time classic.  Poor sales did not affect your opinion.

One fan's taste may not say much.  Lots of fans saying the same thing?  More informative.

So, Mr. Aeijtzsche and Mr. Spaceman - do you guys like:

1. The Girl From New York City
2. Amusement Parks U.S.A.
3. Then I Kissed Her
4. Salt Lake City

??????????

People usually use those songs as a way to put down 'Summer Days(And Summer Nights!!)'

Exactly why sales are objective, the consensus of individual's subjective taste.  You guys don't really think you speak for the entire Pop appreciating public do you? You keep harping on your personal taste.

Excuse me Mr. Mott, but WE are connoisseurs of Pop.

Damnit, it's pop, not Pop. >:(

SLC is in my top 10 favourite Beach Boys songs.  Girl from NYC is a great track, I love the vocals and it's an unusual track for Brian in some ways.  Amusement Parks is another great backing track that would be hailed universally if it were about melancholia and bittersweet young adult love.  Then I Kissed her isn't my favourite, but it's a neat example of Brian taking a big wrecking crew type production and using the boys to recreate it.

Pop is capitalized in all instances because it is a deity to some.

The thing is, I doubt that sales are either objective or the consensus of individuals' subjective taste. Not really. Unless you account for manufactured taste by marketing. Taste isn't individual for the majority of the market, and people are, of course, a market. Pop sales are, realistically, the dozen or so acts the company (or are there TWO companies, still? I forget...) pushes. And that's all. Leaving everyone else marginalized to chat about what the definition of "Pop" or pop is, and whether Dennis was a good drummer, on website like this.

Pardon me. I'm going to sober up now.

Then I'm going to begin capitalizing Alcohol and Pizza.

Amen.

If you wanted to get more specific, we're talking about 1960's Pop Music. Which is more of a musical style in the mold of the Beach Boys, Beatles, Phil Spector, Monkees, Zombies, etc. That's what I think of anway, not what had the most sales.

Such a deep and all-encompassing question deserves a flip and superficial answer, and you're gonna get one. It would be easy enough to say that we are nothing but our likes and dislikes, and that they define us. That would reduce our personalities to a series of tics, though - not a nice way to look at people. I could only tell you why I like what I like. If talking about the Beach Boys, I like them because I'm a weenie. One look at my avatar will tell you this. Really, any good music fulfills some primal need, I'm guessing. You can sing along with it, do the electric boogaloo to it, take a dump to it. Perhaps it reminds you of your favorite meal - steak, Heinekin and birthday cake, for example. Maybe your brain links certain music to what you heard when you were an infant - when your emotions were forming. Love, hatred, anger, hunger, communication, putting the universe in some kind of order - as long as it can make you feel on a deeper-than-conscious level, you'll probably want more of it.

Cam, it ain't about taste. It's about facts. Pop is a form of music. That isn't opinion.
From Princeton's word.net definition site:
pop music, pop (music of general appeal to teenagers; a bland watered-down version of rock'n'roll with more rhythm and harmony and an emphasis on romantic love)

Hmm, sounds like EXACTLY what I defined it as, right?


OK? It's a form of music, whether it sells or not.
Cam, what's a better pop album, going just by what happened in one year, Party or Pet Sounds? I want your opinion.

Jeff, do you sometimes wonder why we even post here, considering the mentalities we come up against?

rb,
   Is your avatar a picture of Mitch Miller? If it is, or if it isn't, do you know he's still alive? He'll be 94 years old in a few weeks! Sing along with Mitch...

Hell yes, SJS - it is indeed. A picture of him circa 1969, when he was into peace and love and such. I wonder if he still conducts? I also wonder if he is still continent?

Hate Then I Kissed Her with a passion. Love the others, dig the sax-bass groove of Girl, the carnival-seasick vibe of Parks, and the fantasia of sound combinations that is Salt Lake.

THAT has to be one of the best lines I've ever read on any message board. ROTFLMAO. :lol

THAT has to be one of the best lines I've ever read on any message board. ROTFLMAO. :lol

I think you missed the point Ian.

Josh, "do you sometimes wonder why we even post here, considering the mentalities we come up against?" [overly dramatic sigh]

Ian, I feel your pain.

And Cam seems to have admitted by omission that You Light Up My Life is one of the best records ever made, better than any Beatles or Beach Boys record. 

Ugh.

I know everyone is sooooo curious about my personal taste  ::) but Jeff, I think you missed the point too.

Then what IS the point, if you aren't saying "record sales is the best measurement of record quality?"  Because that's what you are communicating to me for all the world...

     It's easy to come up with a scenario that proves you can't judge a song's worth based solely on it's sales.  Imagine if Brian had written a song back in the sixties that he never played for anyone.  Finally he brings you into his home and says, "Listen to this!"  You hear it and you think it's the greatest song you've ever heard.  He gives you a copy telling you that you can never let anyone else hear it.  So for the rest of your life you get to listen to this song over and over, and you never get tired of it and you never get over the feeling that this is the best song you've ever heard.  However, no one else has ever heard it, it never appeared on any charts, and it never sold a single copy.  Does that mean you have to say to yourself that there is no possible way this could be the greatest song ever written?

     Sales and chart action are definitely things that can be helpful in some cases, but they can't possibly be the final word because things like promotion, and radio playlists, and availability for purchase are things that are not uniformly equal across the whole spectrum of music.

     I believe SMiLE would have sold better in its first week of release if there had been more copies of it in shops.  I think it may have charted much closer to number one for the week if that had happened.  (It was number one at Amazon.com in it's first week, wasn't it?)  It charted where it charted though, but because it didn't chart higher doesn't mean it's any less good than it is. 

     "Mony, Mony" never got a bit of airplay when it was first released.  A couple of years later some disc jockey starts playing it, and eventually it becomes a big hit.  The song didn't physically change over those years from when it was first released until it became a hit.  The only thing that changed was that someone in power liked it and promoted it. 

      The lesson in all this: all things are not equal in record promotion, therefore you can't base artistic conclusions only on sales and chart action.

     Love and merci,   Dan Lega

Wasn't that "Hanky Panky"?

That happens with lots of songs.. "Get Together" by the Youngbloods is another.

And I find it really hard to believe that Cam & co actually think that sales have anything to do with whether or not a song is good. What about a great song that a band only plays live but never bothered recording? Is "Denny's Drums" a better song than "You Are So Beautiful" just because the former had more commercial sucess? Don't be ridiculous. A great orchestra that hardly ever records is automatically deemed much worse than The Backstreet Boys?

Or how about this: Sure, the Beach Boys sold alot in the 60s, but those same songs don't sell nearly as well now. Are the songs themselves losing quality? No, of course not.

I think Cam has a high level of faith in the discrimination of the record buyer. If a song is "good", it will attract a large number of buyers and that will verify its quality.  Sometimes this works, a la Good Vibrations.  But most people consider River Deep Mountain High to be Spector's ultimate song, and it stiffed.

The modern music scene proves two things to me:

1) the average music buyers are lemmings with poor taste, and the number of people buying, say, a Mariah Carey album is not a sufficient criteria for quality (since that only proves that they can be convinced to buy something and stow it away after one listen), and

2) Payola lives.  Sales get skewed when you consider how pop gets marketed.  Many great bands never have a prayer of getting heard.  Or consider how, whatever else you may think of American Idol, they go through a season playing songs that were proven standards in general, then for the big finale they bring up brand new schlock that reeks to high heaven.  And somehow it sells despite its obvious lack of quality.

I am happy for my favorite musicians when they have hits.  I do not think of my tastes as invalid if their albums should fail and I like it anyway.

Or consider this:  Village Green stiffed.  People today revere it and it sells better now than then.  How many people listen today to You Light Up My Life?  30 years later, sales are a meaningless criteria for judgment.  Now, we have to evaluate something about how it impacts us now.  The former work clearly still matters, the latter one is a historical curio.

Great post, as always, Jeff. Nailed it.
The three biggest acts of the early 70's, the bands that played stadium shows, were Three Dog Night, The Osmonds and Grand Funk Railroad. Where are their places in ANY published or filmed history of rock and roll. You won't see them mentioned anywhere. Who is mentioned? Bands like The Velvet Underground, MC5, Stooges and New York Dolls, who sold nearly no copies when they were around. History and critical consensus are far greater objective judges than chart statistics.

Not when you're talking about the Monkees...  ;D

Well, you know, there are box sets, and many, many great musicians have hailed them. There's a general lack of serious scholarship, but how many other bands have an exhaustive day-by-day almanac about them? Beatles, Beach Boys, Elvis, Stones, Kinks, not many others.

Give it another 10 years -- I think that you will find an ever greater appreciation of the music once the baby boomers are all gone.  Within a few subgroups of music fans the Monkees already rule.

How morbid.

Three Dog Night and The Osmonds played stadium shows?  I did not know that.

Sheep, pay attention, we are being told what is really good. Take notes.

It seems ironic to have elitism used as a standard for a populist genre; not to mention some of us seem awful full of ourselves while being awfully dismissive of the "sheep".

Promotion is over-credited in my opinion, used as an excuse mainly.  Promotion is supposedly all powerful yet bands with tons of it and buzz and payola and momentum on top still have songs tank regularly, one example is RD,MH for instance.  Bands with none of it have songs that catch. It might just be that the sheep judge each song critically and on its merit and by how artfully it moves them regardless of what they are told to like. It seems to me history and critical consensus IS the judge and jury in Pop Music, quantified in chart statistics. The consensus from the BBS heyday seems especially meanful to me since their was not all the compartmentalization of today and lots of genre were going toe to toe in the same marketplace.

Cam, what the HELL are you talking about? That is some seriously incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo.
WHy have you not addressed any of the points me, Jeff or the others ( who number pretty much everybody except yourself) have made. There's confusion on your "point" because it is simply incomprehensible. "Elitism"? You're on a fodaing Beach Boys board, dude. You're preaching to the converted. We are here now because of the CRITICAL groundswell of Pet Sounds appreciation, not because of charts, and not because of Endless Summer. Get your facts straight, man, and stop confronting people who know what they're talking about.
The "elite", as you call them and which you number among whether you like it or not, were responsible for BWPS's release. We forced him to do it because we couldn't stop asking him about the damn thing.
So who are you baiting and why, exactly? Is You Light Up My Life better than This Whole World? Is Party better than Pet Sounds? Answer the damn question and stop evading the real issue, which is clarifying what the hell you mean. We don't get it.

Explain to me again how this logic doesn't mean that You Light Up My Life isn't the greatest song ever done in the 1970's.  And explain to me why I should care what the charts said about a record 30 or 40 years ago.  And explain to me why Wild Honey, an album with nothing but Mike Love lyrics, underperformed Pet Sounds if Love is a better lyricist than Asher and sales mean everything.

I am not saying anything about what you SHOULD like or being elitist.  I am only saying this:  people still rave over music that sold nothing 40 years later, while some of the biggest hits ever have sunk into obscurity today.  The Osmonds were the biggest pop act from 1971-1973.  How many songs of theirs can YOU name?  How about Grand Funk?  Are there other acts from the same time frame you like better?  If so, why do you ignore the pop consensus that says that the Osmonds made the best music of the early 70's?

(said with a grain of salt, as we all know that the Crazy Horses album RULES!)

You don't have to be an elitest to know that bad songs make it to number one.  REALLY bad songs. REALLY REALLY bad songs.

Didn't you get the memo, Jeff? I'm Too Sexy and Rock Me Amadeus were two of the greatest songs ever written! They have to be, they were at #1 for about 3000 weeks!

OK class, these are the 50 best songs of the 70s in order according to Cam's logic:

1 You Light Up My Life Deby Boone 1977
2 Bridge Over Troubled Water Simon and Garfunkel 1970
3 Joy To the World Three Dog Night 1971
4 The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face Roberta Flack 1972
5 Alone Again (Naturally) Gilbert O'Sullivan 1972
6 Tonight's the Night (Gonna Be Alright) Rod Stewart 1976
7 American Pie (Parts 1 and 2) Don McLean 1972
8 How Deep Is Your Love The Bee Gees 1977
9 Staylin' Alive The Bee Gees 1978
10 My Sharona The Knack 1979
11 One Bad Apple The Osmonds 1971
12 Shadow Dancing Andy Gibb 1978
13 Maggie May/Reason To Believe Rod Stewart 1971
14 It's Too Late/I Feel the Earth Move Carole King 1971
15 My Sweet Lord/Isn't It a Pity George Harrison 1970
16 Night Fever The Bee Gees 1978
17 Silly Love Songs Wings 1976
18 Le Freak Chic 1978
19 I'll Be There Jackson 5 1970
20 Best Of My Love The Emotions 1977
21 How Can You Mend a Broken Heart The Bee Gees 1971
22 A Horse With No Name America 1972
23 (They Long To Be) Close To You The Carpenters 1970
24 Bad Girls Donna Summer 1979
25 Reunited Peaches and Herb 1979
26 I Can See Clearly Now Johnny Nash 1972
27 Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree Dawn Featuring Tony Orlando 1973
28 My Love Paul McCartney and Wings 1973
29 You're So Vain Carly Simon 1973
30 Ain't No Mountain High Enough Diana Ross 1970
31 Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head B.J. Thomas 1970
32 Love Will Keep Us Together The Captain and Tennille 1975
33 Hot Stuff Donna Summer 1979
34 Without You Nilsson 1972
35 Da Ya Think I'm Sexy Rod Stewart 1979
36 Crocodile Rock Elton John 1973
37 I Will Survive Gloria Gaynor 1979
38 American Woman/No Sugar Tonight The Guess Who 1970
39 Let It Be The Beatles 1970
40 I Just Want To Be Your Everything Andy Gibb 1977
41 I Honestly Love You Olivia Newton-John 1974
42 December 1963 (Oh What I Night) The Four Seasons 1976
43 Three Times a Lady The Commodores 1978
44 Don't Go Breaking My Heart Elton John and Kiki Dee 1976
45 Me and Mrs. Jones Billy Paul 1972
46 I Think I Love You The Partridge Family 1970
47 The Way We Were Barbra Streisand 1974
48 50 Ways To Leave Your Lover Paul Simon 1976
49 Kiss You All Over Exile 1978
50 Family Affair Sly and the Family Stone 1971


In Cam's defense, that is actually a pretty dang fine list of music.  But it isn't the very best of the 70's, as punk, new wave, and hard rock are virtually non-existent on the list.  And no Elvis.  And Tonight's the Night STILL makes me barf, cringe, want to run barbed wire over my ears, etc.

WHO LET THE DAWGS OUT!  Who-who-who-who WHO LET THE DAWGS OUT!

Ice Ice, Baby!

As of 1971 these were the biggest pop acts ever.  Oops -- maybe the Beach Boys weren't so great after all....

Pos Artist
 Song Played
 Accomplishments
 
1 Elvis Presley
 Don't Be Cruel/It's Now Of Never/Suspicious Minds 18 #1 hits, 37 Top 10 hits, 95 Top 40 hits
2 The Beatles I Want To Hold Your Hand/Let It Be 20 #1 hits, 32 Top 10 hits, 47 Top 40 hits
3 Pat Boone Love Letters In the Sand 5 #1 hits, 12 Top 10 hits, 38 Top 40 hits
4 Connie Francis Who's Sorry Now 3 #1 hits, 16 Top 10 hits, 35 Top 40 hits
5 The Supremes Where Did Our Love Go 12 #1 hits, 20 Top 10 hits, 29 Top 40 hits
6 Rick Nelson Poor Little Fool 2 #1 hits, 17 Top 10 hits, 35 Top 40 hits
7 Ray Charles Hit the Road Jack 3 #1 hits, 11 Top 10 hits, 30 Top 40 hits
8 The Four Seasons Sherry 4 #1 hits, 13 Top 10 hits, 27 Top 40 hits
9 Fats Domino Blueberry Hill No #1 hits, 8 Top 10 hits, 36 Top 40 hits
10 Brenda Lee I'm Sorry 2 #1 hits, 12 Top 10 hits, 29 Top 40 hits
11 The Everly Brothers Bye Bye Love 3 #1 hits, 15 Top 10 hits, 27 Top 40 hits
12 James Brown I Got You (I Feel Good) No #1 hits, 6 Top 10 hits, 32 Top 40 hits
13 Marvin Gaye I Heard It Through the Grapevine 1 #1 hit, 12 Top 10 hits, 29 Top 40 hits
14 Bobby Vinton Blue Velvet 4 #1 hits, 8 Top 10 hits, 26 Top 40 hits
15 Bobby Darin Mack the Knife 1 #1 hit, 10 Top 10 hits, 22 Top 40 hits
16 Sam Cooke You Send Me 1 #1 hit, 5 Top 10 hits, 29 Top 40 hits
17 The Beach Boys Good Vibrations 3 #1 hits, 13 Top 10 hits, 27 Top 40 hits
18 The Rolling Stones (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction 5 #1 hits, 12 Top 10 hits, 18 Top 40 hits
19 The Temptations Ball Of Confusion (That's What the World Is Today) 3 #1 hits, 13 Top 10 hits, 27 Top 40 hits
20 The Miracles Shop Around 1 #1 hit, 4 Top 10 hits, 26 Top 40 hits
21 Paul Anka Diana 1 #1 hit, 8 Top 10 hits, 25 Top 40 hits
22 Nat King Cole Rambin' Rose No #1 hits, 6 Top 10 hits, 25 Top 40 hits
23 Perry Como It's Impossible 1 #1 hits, 7 Top 10 hits, 27 Top 40 hits
24 The Platters Smoke Gets In Your Eyes 2 #1 hits, 7 Top 10 hits, 23 Top 40 hits
25 Chubby Checker The Twist 3 #1 hits (one hit #1 twice), 8 Top 10 hits, 22 Top 40 hits
26 Dean Martin Everybody Loves Somebody 2 #1 hits, 5 Top 10 hits, 17 Top 40 hits
27 Brook Benton It's Just a Matter Of Time No #1 hits, 8 Top 10 hits, 24 Top 40 hits
28 Andy Williams Can't Get Used To Losing You 1 #1 hit, 8 Top 10 hits, 26 Top 40 hits
29 Frank Sinatra Strangers In the Night 2 #1 hits, 8 Top 10 hits, 27 Top 40 hits
30 The 5th Dimension Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (The Flesh Failure) (Medley) 2 #1 hits, 5 Top 10 hits,15 Top 40 hits
31 Roy Orbison Oh, Pretty Woman 2 #1 hits, 9 Top 10 hits, 22 Top 40 hits
32 Areatha Franklin I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Loved You) 1 #1 hit, 10 Top 10 hits, 23 Top 40 hits
33 Dionne Warwick This Guy's In Love With You No #1 hits, 8 Top 10 hits, 22 Top 40 hits
34 Jackie Wilson Lonely Teardrops No #1 hits, 6 Top 10 hits, 24 Top 40 hits
35 Simon and Garfunkel Mrs. Robinson 3 #1 hits, 7 Top 10 hits, 13 Top 40 hits
36 Stevie Wonder Fingertips (Part 2) 1 #1 hit, 11 Top 10 hits, 20 Top 40 hits
37 The Young Rascals/The Rascals People Got To Be Free 3 #1 hits, 6 Top 10 hits, 13 Top 40 hits
38 The Monkees I'm a Believer 3 #1 hits, 6 Top 10 hits, 11 Top 40 hits
39 The Four Tops Baby, I Need Your Loving 2 #1 hits, 5 Top 10 hits, 17 Top 40 hits
40 Dion Abraham, Martin and John 1 #1 hit, 9 Top 10 hits, 14 Top 40 hits

Oh my!
At least Blondie is in the Top 10.



1 Endless Love Diana Ross & Lionel Richie 1(10) 20 1981
2 Bette Davis Eyes Kim Carnes  1(9) 21 1981
3 Physical Olivia Newton-John  1(5) 23 1981
4 Every Breath You Take The Police 1(8) 20 1983
5 Flashdance...What A Feeling Irene Cara  1(5) 21 1983
6 Call Me Blondie 1(7) 19 1980
7 Waiting For A Girl Like You Foreigner  1(3) 19 1981
8 Centerfold The J. Geils Band 1(3) 21 1982
9 Eye Of The Tiger Survivor  1(5) 18 1982
10 Billie Jean Michael Jackson 1(7) 19 1983
11 (Just Like) Starting Over John Lennon  1(4) 19 1981
12 Lady Kenny Rogers  1(5) 18 1980
13 Down Under Men At Work  1(4) 19 1983
14 Jessie's Girl Rick Springfield  1(1) 21 1981
15 Hard To Say I'm Sorry Chicago  1(3) 18 1982
16 Do That To Me One More Time Captain & Tennille  1(1) 22 1980
17 I Love Rock `N Roll Joan Jett & The Blackhearts  1(5) 17 1982
18 Woman In Love Barbra Streisand  1(4) 19 1980
19 Say Say Say Paul McCartney & Michael Jackson 1(3) 18 1983
20 Abracadabra The Steve Miller Band  1(1) 19 1982
21 Don't You Want Me Human League  1(3) 20 1982
22 Upside Down Diana Ross  1(3) 18 1980
23 When Doves Cry Prince 1(5) 16 1984
24 Another One Bites The Dust Queen  1(2) 20 1980
25 Ebony & Ivory Paul McCartney & Stevie Wonder  1(7) 16 1982
26 Total Eclipse Of The Heart Bonnie Tyler  1(4) 18 1983
27 All Night Long (All Night) Lionel Richie  1(3) 17 1983
28 Beat It Michael Jackson  1(3) 19 1983
29 I Can't Go For That (No Can Do) Daryl Hall & John Oates  1(3) 17 1982
30 Like A Virgin Madonna 1(6) 14 1985
31 What's Love Got To Do With It Tina Turner  1(3) 18 1984
32 Maneater Daryl Hall & John Oates  1(4) 16 1982
33 Queen Of Hearts Juice Newton  2 19 1981
34 Magic Olivia Newton-John  1(3) 17 1980
35 Another Brick In The Wall (Part 2) Pink Floyd  1(3) 16 1980
36 Gloria Laura Branigan 1(1) 19 1982
37 Crazy Little Thing Called Love Queen  1(4) 16 1980
38 Islands In The Stream Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton  1(2) 17 1983
39 Rosanna Toto  1(1) 17 1982
40 That's What Friends Are For Dionne & Friends 1(4) 15 1986
41 Karma Chameleon Culture Club 1(4) 16 1984
42 I Love A Rainy Night Eddie Rabbitt  1(1) 19 1981
43 Hello Lionel Richie  1(3) 16 1984
44 Arthur's Theme (The Best That You Can Do) Christopher Cross  1(2) 17 1981
45 Who Can It Be Now Men At Work  1(2) 17 1982
46 Careless Whisper Wham!  1(2) 16 1985
47 Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This) Eurythmics  1(1) 19 1983
48 The Tide Is High Blondie  1(2) 17 1981
49 Celebration Kool & The Gang  1(1) 18 1981
50 Don't Talk To Strangers Rick Springfield  2 16 1982

HELL yes. I'm doin' the Macarena to Disco Duck right now!

Dude, Pat Boone is TOTALLY 14 times better than he beach Boys! Ever hear his version of Tutti Frutti? INCENDIARY!

As of 1972, these were the top 40 songs of the entire rock era.  Please note: NO Beach Boys songs at ALL.

1 The Twist
 Chubby Checker 1960/62
2 Hey Jude The Beatles 1968
3 Mack the Knife Bobby Darin 1959
4 I Want To Hold Your Hand The Beatles 1964
5 I'm a Beliver The Monkees 1966
6 All Shook Up Elvis Presley 1957
7 Don't Be Cruel/Hound Dog Elvis Presley 1956
8 Love Letters In the Sand Pat Boone 1957
9 Jailhouse Rock Elvis Prelsey 1957
10 Sixteen Tons "Tennessee" Ernie Ford 1955
11 (Let Me Be Your) Teddy Bear Elvis Presley  1957
12 Singing the Blues Guy Mitchell 1956
13 (We're Gonna) Rock Around the Clock Bill Haley and His Comets 1955
14 Theme From "A Summer Place" Percy Faith and His Orchestra 1960
15 Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head B.J. Thomas 1970
16 Sugar Sugar The Archies 1969
17 I Heard It Through the Grapevine Marvin Gaye 1968
18 Joy To the World Three Dog Night 1971
19 Love Me Tender Elvis Presley 1956
20 I'll Be There Jackson 5 1970
21 Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (The Flesh Failures) (Medley) The 5th Dimension 1969
22 Cherry Pink and Apple Blossom White Prez Prado and His Orchestra 1955
23 Autumn Leaves Roger Williams 1955
24 It's All In the Game Tommy Edwards 1958
25 American Pie (Parts 1 and 2) Don McLean 1972
26 I Think I Love You The Partridge Family 1970
27 It's Now Or Never Elvis Presley 1960
28 Are You Lonesome To-night? Elvis Presley 1960
29 Knock Three Times Dawn 1971
30 Maggie May/Reason To Believe Rod Stewart 1971
31 Love Is Blue Paul Mauriat 1968
32 Bridge Over Troubled Water Simon and Garfunkel 1970
33 It's Too Late/I Feel the Earth Move Carole King 1971
34 Memories Are Made Of This Dean Martin 1956
35 Tammy Debbie Reynolds 1957
36 At the Hop Danny and the Juniors 1958
37 The Battle Of New Orleans Johnny Horton 1959
38 To Sir With Love Lulu 1967
39 I Can't Stop Loving You Ray Charles 1962
40 Big Girls Don't Cry The Four Seasons 1962

Top 10 LP's of all time. And I thought Shania Twain being better than the Beatles was just my opinion!

1 Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975
The Eagles
29 million 
2 Thriller
Michael Jackson
27 million 
3 Led Zeppelin IV
Led Zeppelin
24 million 
4 The Wall
Pink Floyd
23 million 
5 Greatest Hits, Volumes 1 and 2 (1973-1985)
Billy Joel
21 million 
6 Back In Black
AC/DC
21 million 
7 Come On Over
Shania Twain
20 million 
8 Garth Double Live
Garth Brooks
20 million 
9 Rumours
Fleetwood Mac
19 million 
10 The Beatles (The White Album)
The Beatles
19 million

Cam, I am not trying to be difficult here -- but I have a specific point.  Do these lists REALLY reflect to you the best music ever?  Because you are looking at the biggest hits of all time.  And in context, the Beach Boys are way down on the list.  Yet I suspect that you still like them best of all of these groups.  Why?  JUST BECAUSE!  There's no accounting for taste, and no true objective measures of quality -- at ALL!  The best you can do is look at what people still enjoy listening to 30 years on.  I bet half of those songs from the 70's are only played by hardcore fans of those acts today.  But there are millions of people who love the Flying Burrito Brothers (myself included), whose best album sold 50,000 copies.  And my favorite album of the Beach Boys, which I would seriously argue as their very best, is Sunflower, one of the worst selling of all.

Ian -- seriously, I thought that the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack would make that list.  And is the White Album REALLY the biggest selling Beatles album?  Or does it count double as a 2LP set?

Here's the rest of the Top 25, and yes, White is indeed the biggest-selling Beatles.

11 Boston
Boston
17 million 
12 The Bodyguard (Soundtrack)
Whitney Houston
17 million 
13 Cracked Rear View
Hootie & The Blowfish
16 million 
14 Greatest Hits
Elton John
16 million 
15 Hotel California
The Eagles
16 million 
16 The Beatles 1967-1970
The Beatles
16 million 
17 No Fences
Garth Brooks
16 million 
18 Jagged Little Pill
Alanis Morissette
16 million 
19 Physical Graffiti
Led Zeppelin
16 million 
20 Born In The U.S.A.
Bruce Springsteen
15 million 
21 Dark Side Of The Moon
Pink Floyd
15 million 
22 Saturday Night Fever (Soundtrack)
Bee Gees
15 million 
23 The Beatles 1962-1966
The Beatles
15 million 
24 Appetite For Destruction
Guns N' Roses
15 million 
25 Supernatural
Santana
15 million

For those wondering what my sources are, I got my posts from this website:

http://leemichaelwithers.tripod.com/at40special.htm

I think that sales and "critical appreciation" are just two sides of the same coin.  One measures how many teenagers with decent allowances think a record is good, the other measures how many english majors that wear Chucks think a record is good.  Sure, that's an oversimplification, but in any case, the only source from which we can derive statistical information from is sales.  The only category of goodness that can be objectively judged is how good a record's sales are.  Critical groundswells can certainly be felt but not measured.  To somebody, somewhere, You Light Up My Life is the greatest song of all time.  Neither sales or mass public opinion will persuade this person.  It's always going to come down to an immeasureable individual taste.  So either there is no good or bad, or there is good based on sales.  I'm fine with either choice, but I do think it's a little strange that people still try to exert their tastes onto other people.

It's not about that, Aeij.
It's about this: the majority of folks who buy records in the quantities of millions hear and appreciate music in a way that is more of the moment and less analytical. NOTHING wrong with that, just a different form of appreciation.
Musical historians and critics hear things in a way that is based more on context, with knowledge of the history of the form. Again, no better or worse, but different. These historians and critics sometimes write books and histories of music based on what has proved most influential and powerful over time. Records that didn't sell initially building up sales over time, etc.
Now, Aeij, if you were new to this thing, and needed something to guide you towards the best music of the modern era, would you buy a book of chart statistics or would you buy a historical summary by a committee of knowledgeable rock fans and critics?
 

Exactly. Thanks for un-mumboing my jumbo.  Or maybe you didn't even read my un-understandable posts. [stretching collar while jutting chin]

Personally I quit paying attention to such just out of college mumbo-jumbo years ago.

Just out of college? Who the foda you talkin' about, bud? Greil Marcus, Lester Bangs, Peter Guralnick, Nick Tosches?
You should thank the critics and historians. They're the only reason you are on a message board getting people to read you. The critics, historians and musicians talking about PS and SMiLE are the only reason the BBs are considered more than an oldies act today.
And, I'm a rock writer, so please shut yer mouth. I ain't out of college.

Or put it another way -- when trying to make a convert to Brian Wilson's music, are you going to just play someone the hits from 1963 or 1964?  Or are you going to offer up Pet Sounds and Smile?  Or in my case, will you make a comp of 1967-73 music to REALLY wow them?  I won't limit myself or my attempts to make new fans by only doing the hit records.  

And again, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MEASURE TO THE QUALITY OF A RECORD!  Sales is not a measure of quality in any stretch, it is purely a measure of popularity.  On American Idol there are often talentless singers making it to the top 5 or even top 3 simply because they are cute or perky or have good personality.  People vote for them for non-musical reasons.  Just because they made the top 5 didn't mean that they were the best singers, it meant that they were most popular.

I do not accept sales as an objective measure.  You either feel the music or you don't.  Ian would probably love for me to love the Velvet Underground.  Can't do it.  Doesn't move me in the slightest.  Listening to it for me is like musical broccoli -- you know some people think it's "good" for you but I still don't enjoy it.  How many casual fans who buy a record still feel it deeply and keep spinning the record 10 years later?  Or how many sell it at a garage sale?  Ever try to find a copy of 15 Big Ones at a used store?  It went Top 10 but it seems to have had the staying power of milk on a hot summer day.

If we could measure the quality of music objectively, this message board would be unnecessary.  But we can't which means we have to discuss it over and over.

And I LOVE reading rock books -- even if I think the writer is an idiot (*cough* Dave Marsh *cough*).  Doesn't mean I am pretentious, it just gives me a stab of pleasure (to quote Norman Maine).

 
I'd do an amalgamation of things.  I would look at the charts, I would look at hip magazines that cover new music, I'd  scour the internet, but that would be about 5% of it, the other 95% would involve me listening to the actual music and deciding for my own tastes.

But that's beside the point I think.  If we're talking about how to find new music (to you) that you'll like, than the charts are probably not the way to go.  I didn't think that's what we were talking about though.  

Bringing it back to Mike Love, I think he's absolutely justified in using the commercial potential of a record to judge it.  There's a continuum of commerciality and art and anybody can fall anywhere.  I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with valuing one demographics immediatly gratifying acceptance of a record over another demographic's less immediate, perhaps more considered and less gratifying acceptance of a record.

I think it's easier to see Mike's position when you're in that position.  When I'm at a bar watching a band play, I can do a couple of things in response to what I hear that will directly impact the band.  I can directly compliment them.  "Hey, thanks for playing, I liked the music a lot."

I'm sure that means something to them.  I can also buy one of their self-produced records for $10.  That probably means something to them too.

To somebody like Mike Love, that 10 spot will always mean something, even if it's a drop in the bucket.  It's still a need for affirmation.  

JOLT of pleasure!  ;D
Dave Marsh, ugh.

Yeah, but it ain't any less objective, therefore him pronouncing one as better than the other just because it sold more makes him look just as much of a fool as some uber-nerd thinking that PS is the only good BB album, just because Rolling Stone said so.
Time and history are not the only judge, but merely the most accurate. The Beach Boys' appeal today as more than an oldies act proves that.

Aeij, Brian thought that way too.  He was addicted to sales and reveled in the performance of GV, and his fears of commercial failure probably aided in Smile's demise.  But he never judges music strictly in its commercial potential.  That's too narrow.

It's why Spector was doomed to miss the album era, I think -- he was so focused on sales potential in the music he made (is it dumb enough?) that he missed the signs of musical change.  He didn't see the rules get overturned overnight.

OK OK I haven't seen the movie in a while.

At least we agree on Marsh.  His Elvis book is OK, but his view of the Beach Boys absolutely mystifies me.

Everyone needs to purchase this....and Mike Love needs a copy as well.  That way we can talk about such things with a common vocabulary.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767918738/sr=8-1/qid=1149218717/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2719801-4492827?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Great points as usual.

In my experience, when playing Brian's music to the non-converted, it is the 67-72 period that they seem to enjoy the most. I was doing a session for someone a few years back, and she went outside to go have a smoke. Her and the band were gone for quite a while (what the hell WERE they smoking ;) ) so I put some music to listen to on. They came back in while "Busy Doin' Nothing" was on. They REALLY really liked it; I ended up teaching them the song, and the next week I recorded them doing a ska version of that song. So, you never know.

So I'm not the only one who doesn't "get" the 'Underground. I don't feel so bad then.

Music really is subjective. I think the crap that gets played on the radio these days is exactly that, but you never know how it will sound, say, 10 years from now. I hated the music in the early 90s at the time, but now I really like it. I used to think Nirvana was nothing but noise, but I can really hear the craft behind all the bombast. Interestingly, I find myself liking Incesticide as my favorite Nirvana album (besides the Unplugged in NY), despite it being their  least commercial stuff. So you gotta take in the fact that a song/album may sound completely different to you in later years. Sales are just one thing. You may find yourself liking something you used to hate; sometimes it's as simple as nostalgia, other times it's a case of listenng with "different" ears.

"Mumbo-jumbo" is the number of years ago I got out of college and I'm not here because of any critic or taste arbiter.  The Beach Boys didn't and don't need any critics, historians or musicians [except those who buy their records] to establish their creds, it's a done deal.

By all means rock write away but I won't be shutting my mouth, sorry.

Bull. I lived through the 80's. I had to argue my way through the entire decade defending my love of The Beach Boys. Because of critical and musical reappreciation en masse, I don't have to do that any more. They had cred, of course, but they had no stret cred whatsoever, for many years. You're no historian.

And again, there is an objective measure to the subjective quality of a record, you and I may not always personally agree with its measure but that doesn't make it invalid.

We will just disagree.

Well, "street cred" is no necessary or noble goal to me, so I guess the BBs are lucky you were there in the 80s. And you're right, I'm no historian but I guess you are?

Disagree we will then.  But I have at least shown evidence as to why I disagree, whereas I see no evidence in your assertions.  There is no way on earth, no matter how well they chart in the Top 50 of the 70's, that "Tonight's the NIght" or "Do You Think I'm Sexy" are all time classics.  Yes, people bought them.  I don't know why.  There is no way humans should be able to listen to anything by Lionel Richie without spontaneous vomiting destroying their system.  And somehow a duet with Diana Ross (as if that were any better) manages to top what I assume is a "best of the first half of the 80's" chart.  I can't explain it.  I also know that those songs don't get heard anymore, while I hear less popular Beach Boys music everywhere I go.  It's not about initial sales which can mean anything, it's about what people want to listen to years after the fact.  And that sort of can be measured by sales (certainly the BB back catalog is a big seller relative to other artists) to SOME extent.  But I rest my case with Sunflower.  It's my favorite Beach Boys album.  It rivals Pet Sounds in my mind for their best, certainly better than any of the pre-66 albums in my book.  It was one of the worst sellers that they ever had, and not for lack of promotion.  I am not going to let some arbitrary notion that music has to sell well to be legit ruin my pleasure in listening to that album nor will it cause me to back down from my assessment of its quality.  Sales tell me nothing truthful about Sunflower.

Didn't Salieri make more money than Mozart did?  Yet, whose music do we listen more to today?

Van Gogh barely sold a painting in his life, yet today they sell for millions.  If you only judge Van Gogh's paintings by how much they were worth in his lifetime you're missing the whole story.

What about the story that, I believe, Mo Ostin tells about a disc jockey who says he really likes one of the Beach Boys' new 70's songs.  Mo then asks him if he's going to play it on the radio, and the disc jockey tells him no way, because the Beach Boys aren't hip anymore.  Where is the qualitative musical decision in this?  There is none.  He won't play a Beach Boy record he thinks is great because he thinks as soon as people hear that it's a song written The Beach Boys that they automatically won't like it.


Again, it's as easy as pie to see there is absolutely no way that sales accumulated soon after the completion of a piece of art can be the best and ultimate judge of its worth.


Love and merci,   Dan Lega

That was actually Fred Vail, not Mo Ostin.

Truth.

I, sad to say, was one of those people.It wasn't until I heard Brian's 88 album, and then Smiley Smile, that I became a fan. Interestingly, this was in 1995, when Brian started his  real comeback.

I remember having to constantly defend my love of the music. Of course, it was funny as hell when I went to my first Brian show in 2004 and met up with some of the same people that used to give me such hell back in high school about it...

That's pretty interesting.  I'd kinda like to see what else you have on that list if that's on there...

The charts are self-evident unlike personal opinion.

I'm not discrediting personal opinions or analysis or critical commentary, it is inherent in the charts, but at the personal level is not as objective as charts. Some seem to think that their personal opinion trumps the validity or inherent critical discernment of the charts, maybe I misunderstand them.

In the case of the BBs, after decades of critical analysis, the top charters [mainly in the form of comps] are still judged best and are flying off the shelves and carving a presence in the charts while the two-fers and rarity comps aren't. 

So this tells us two things:

1) It is self-evident that "Endless Love" was one of the greatest songs of the 80's.

2) Those of us who prefer the direction of the Beach Boys from 1966-1973 are deluding ourselves and we need to wake up and smell the coffee -- if Sounds of Summer is still selling, it MUST be better than Sunflower or Wild Honey.  The preference of the audience for the hits must mean that it is better.  We are just stupid for not seeing that obvious fact (as if assessment of music quality could EVER be fact).

Sorry, Cam, that is NOT an artistic judgment -- it is a POPULARITY judgment.  It is NOT a critical judgment.  Most people who buy SoS are completely unaware of albums like Sunflower which never got a fair chance to win an audience.  The charts don't reflect people's critical analysis -- it reflects how often someone buys something.  How popular it is.  It is one thing to use this to argue that the BB as a band still have an impact on the national consciousness.  I will not argue that point; it is self-evident.  But I will argue with you all night long if you jump from that to "Sunflower" is not as good an album as a hits comp because it doesn't sell like the regular BB albums do.

And don't get me started about great music that DOESN'T sell.  Ever hear of the Free Design?  A GREAT band that NEVER got the sales they deserved because their label didn't know how to market pop records.  Today no one has heard of them, yet play them for people who love the BB and quite likely they will be fans pretty quickly.  Do I say that their music is worthless today because no one knows who they are?  Is THAT a fair judgment?  Is it fair to judge the relatively poor sales of Kinks music and say that their music is worse than someone else's who sells better (say, Creedence Clearwater Revival)?  The Kinks will win most of those battles in my book according to quality (including a trouncing of CCR) but because of their history in the US and the lack of knowledge of them, according to you they must be considered second rate today because they don't sell as well.

It's about saturation, Cam.  Everyone knows who the BB are and so their music lives.  The Kinks never got that saturation because they were BANNED from the US during the best part of their career.  So do we hold that against them since no one seems to know their music?  And thank God in one case for commercials: because of those the Kinks' lesser known great works are finally being heard by the masses (i.e. Picture Book as an example).

Sorry Cam, sales alone would condemn half of the music I love and relegate us all to being fans of only the biggest acts of all, and the Beatles and the Stones alone would get dull very quickly.  I will leave you to Billboard's catalog charts to decide what music to buy.  Me?  I will continue to revel in some of the great discoveries I am finding by being on the Smile Shop and recognize that using sales alone caused many GREAT albums to be overlooked by dreck that DID sell.

All I'm getting out of this thread is that art is art, and commerce is commerce. Sometimes, the two meet. Perhaps Big Macs are the  best food ever ingested by mankind, but it could also be that they are cheap, marketable, easy to obtain and immediate-need-satisfying. Doesn't necessarily mean they're any good. Also doesn't mean that I won't eat the occasional one of 'em, though I tell myself I know better.

I don't think there is ANY objective way to assign artistic quality to anything - except maybe the qualities that others tell me about (and sometimes discuss endlessly.) 

Of course, for themselves, they're right.

Now THAT is a good analogy.  Works for me.

I think the individuals assign their subjective artistic quality and the charts are an objective measurement of the consensus of those individual assignments.

BWPS wasn't that great imo but I understand by the chart that lots of people disagree and they discerned its artistic merit to a #10 ranking and I feel it deserves the honor and stature that confers, as one of the all-time great albums, regardless of my opinion. My personal opinion [or a consensus of opinion of a miniscule group of the fanbase comprised of us buds on a message board, or historians, or critics, or musicians] does not trump that consensus.

Cam, that's one way to look at it (though it was #13 actually, #7 in England). 

Here's how I see it:

Did you see the 12 albums that were ranked ABOVE it?  By your reasoning, and this is the killer blow IMO, those 12 albums were all more classic than BWPS.

FWIW I wanted BWPS to chart high.  I wanted it to hit number one.  Not because that would prove anything to anyone, though it probably would (at least to Mike Love) but because of what that would have meant personally to Brian.

I don't remember what they were and you or I might have "voted" no with our non-purchase but yes they were judged better regardless of our individual personal opinions.

Cam, you are just weird.  I give.  I will leave you with your copies of Eagles Greatest Vol.1 and Ropin the Wind, which you must have - and consider some of the greatest pop music ever - since they are 2 of the top 10 selling albums of all time, and continue to ignore the charts and like what I want to like and take the advice of people who feel the same.  And I suspect that in 50 years the chart sales of the Eagles will mean nothing and they will be a historical footnote, while the Beach Boys will still be adored and studied (and that includes their "esoteric" music).

...I own the Eagles Greatest Hits, and am glad it has now outsold Thriller.....*runs*....

I still see a difference betwenn 'product' and 'art'. Why assign artistic value to something that doesn't want it, or need it? I mean, if it touches your soul, and sets off complex emotions and thoughts in you, by all means call it art. If everything does that for you, you've a more generous spirit than I. But surely you must agree that with some music heard on the radio, people might be responding not to artistic merit, but to a well-crafted product that satisfies a need (that may have been created by marketing.)

Perhaps we can confer 'art' status on a work when a bunch of fuddy-duddies (I'm not pointing fingers) can gather and chaw the fat about feeling created, creator's intent, etc. - much like the legendary group of experts conferrring perceived magnificence upon an abstract painting which, unbeknownst to them, was actually hung upside down.

All part of the individual subjectivity and I have a lot of faith in people knowing what they like regardless of marketing.  If marketing and promotion were so influential  it seems to me everything ever released could go to the top of the charts and no popular band would ever go out of favor.

Here is the crux and where we differ the most.  Hoping not to sound too elitest, but I don't share your faith.  Looking at the modern charts, and charts since the mid 80's when the industry really began to settle in and change radio and the career path of musicians, I see tons of junk selling.  The average music buyer today I see as sheep passively accepting what is given to them without critical consideration. 

I mean, how could Lionel Richie, the New Kids on the Block, Sting solo, or the Black Eyed Peas, just to name a few of my hates in music, have had any sort of career unless people liked lowest common denominator music?  Big Mac music indeed, rb.

Whoa...first time I've *ever* disagreed with you. Okay, you're 100% correct on NKOTB- I mean, that was pure marketing...replace a harmony group made up of black teens (New Edition) with white teens and keep the music exactly the same. Lionel Richie, though...dude had a pretty good voice. Yeah, it's pretty sappy, but good background music for...umm..."shagging". Sting... granted, he was the MAN with the Police (one of my all-time favorite groups, esp. the earlier music), but his solo stuff, although leaning a bit too much towards pseudo-elevator music, still is lot more compositionally interesting than 95% of everyone else. Now the Black Eyed Peas...are much MUCH better than radio would lead you to believe. In a way, they're sort of a poor-man's OutKast; not as groundbreaking as that group, but there's a lot more going on production-wise than your standard hip-hop. When they sample a previous hit, they do it in a way that is unexpected...I mean, they sampled DICK DALE for one of their songs. Pretty ingenious, esp. considering most hip-hop groups stick to sampling material that is easier to rap to (i.e. James Brown). Well, their last album *was* IMHO a pop sell-out, but before that they actually were more towards the territory of groups like A Tribe Called Quest (whose Drummer ?uestLove, happens to be a huge fan of Brian's...).

You can fill in the gap with any number of marketing-driven music by people with minimal talent.  You could add in Britney, or JLo, or any number of studio-concocted divas chosen for their looks who couldn't survive live without lipsynching.  I just picked acts I hated that I think aren't worthy for the sales/accolades that they get.  Sting is more of a personal thing than a marketing thing, and I have only seen BLP on TV performances, and I have hated every one that I have seen.  I don't see why people enjoy that music, though it does sell so someone must like it.  Can't conceive why.

I like the Black Eyed Peas, but I honestly don't know why I do. Good music trascends genre.

Maybe this is why:

(http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/fergie-wetspot.jpg)

I think what's worse than the giant pee stain in that picture is the expression on her face.. makes me gag.

...are you sure it's pee...?  :-X

...looks like she peed her pants to me. That must have been one scary high note...

The tabloids and stuff say it's pee, but she claims it was just intense sweat.

And just why would her vagina be sweating? Umm, on second thought, DON'T answer that. (This isn't the Sandbox).


 :p

Gross pic guys I really DON'T want to find out what it is!

It's a "grace slick".   Another singer in a band full of guys.

Things WILL happen prior to shows, you know. 



At any rate, after reading various articles from the group and seeing many viewpoints, I've come to this conclusion...The Beach Boys are mainly talented and lucky white trash.

All this back and forth "I wrote that song, bla bla bla" and "Mike's an egotistical maniac, bla bla bla" is nothing more than typical family yapping with a lot of money at their disposal.

If they didn't have all that money, they'd use their fists and ballbats instead of lawyers.   No question they'd all move next to each other because anything outside of their family compound would startle them.

...This IS the most logical explantation I have heard so far. CTA

This being the case, who would be the one living in the basement?