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

[runnersdialzero]

It does kinda suck though that 'California Gurls' will go down in history as a bigger hit than 'California Girls'.

Are you high?

I never said "better song" or "greater classic". I said "bigger hit". 'California Girls' was #3 in the US and as far as I know it didn't even make the top 10 anywhere else. 'California Gurls' is a US & UK #1. Like it or not, it's a cold hard fact that it'll go in the books as a bigger hit.

Srsly, are you high?

[Chris Brown]

BTW, Gretchen Wilson had a huge hit a few years back called "California Girls" that i'd bet was more heard than this, and Brian's never commented on it... probably because he never heard it, either. 

I remember that song a little bit...even though is was a decent country hit, it was nowhere near the hit that Katy Perry's song is in terms of mainstream popularity.  I would have been more interested to hear his take on that one actually, as it was more of a negative reply to the original ("aren't you glad we aren't all California girls"). 

And Ron, I see where you're coming from, but Brian isn't exactly your average "senior citizen," especially when it comes to music.  I think it would be impossible for music to be playing and Brian not absorb it on some level, even unconsciously.  He may be older, but he still has a brain that processes music in a unique way that most people aren't capable of.  If he has indeed come across the song, I would have to think he deveoped some opinion of it right then and there.

[shelter]

It does kinda suck though that 'California Gurls' will go down in history as a bigger hit than 'California Girls'.

Are you high?

I never said "better song" or "greater classic". I said "bigger hit". 'California Girls' was #3 in the US and as far as I know it didn't even make the top 10 anywhere else. 'California Gurls' is a US & UK #1. Like it or not, it's a cold hard fact that it'll go in the books as a bigger hit.

Srsly, are you high?

I've never done any drugs in my whole life and I believe I'm only stating facts here, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making such comments.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Personally, I don't think Brian's ever heard the song. 

It's currently the #1 hit in the US and it has the same title as one of Brian's greatest songs. Doesn't seem that hard to believe to me that it came to his attention one way or another. The guy doesn't live under a rock.

We have a lot in common now: We both have done songs called 'California Girls' and we've both kissed girls and liked it.

Has to be one of Mike's better jokes. 

One thing I like about Mike - he doesn't make jokes per se, rather these little observations. He might have made a good stand-up/observational comedian.

[hypehat]

A Mike Love stand-up tour would be proof that there is a God.





And that he hates each and every one of us.

[Mike's Beard]

I think Perry and Snoop should be dumped out in the ocean in shark infested waters I hate them that much! 

[kookadams]

There's 2 reasons why the Katy Perry song pisses me off- #1) NO ONE should have a song called California Girls other than the Beach Boys, even if it's spelled different; or unless it's a cover of their song. #2) Nowadays any piece of sh*t song can go to number one, but it pisses me off that this song was more commercially successful than the Beach Boys. But you cant put a song like hers and a Beach Boys classic in the same context, in fact I don't think you can put any of today's mainstream music in comparison. It's not so much about what is good or isn't anymore, I think the better question is who really gives a sh*t?

[shelter]

I just remembered something: this isn't the first time that a song with a title "stolen" from The Beach Boys became a US #1 hit. In 1991, Marky Mark & The Funky Bunch had a big hit wit a song called 'Good Vibrations' that was unrelated to the Beach Boys song.

But who still remembers that one, huh?  

[Chris Brown]

There's 2 reasons why the Katy Perry song pisses me off- #1) NO ONE should have a song called California Girls other than the Beach Boys, even if it's spelled different; or unless it's a cover of their song. #2) Nowadays any piece of merda song can go to number one, but it pisses me off that this song was more commercially successful than the Beach Boys. But you cant put a song like hers and a Beach Boys classic in the same context, in fact I don't think you can put any of today's mainstream music in comparison. It's not so much about what is good or isn't anymore, I think the better question is who really gives a merda?

The title thing bugged me at first too, as did the fact that she basically ripped off the idea/theme of the original and just modernized it.  It doesn't bother me as much anymore, but I definitely see where you're coming from.  There comes a point though where titles are bound to be recycled...as discussed in another thread not too long ago, it certainly isn't the first time (nor will it be the last) that a Beach Boys song title is used by another artist for a non-cover song.

As to your second point, this definitely annoys me as well, but it's all about context.  When "California Girls" came out, the Beach Boys were competing for chart position and sales against some legendary artists...the Beatles, the Stones, Motown groups, Dylan, etc.  Everybody was putting out classic stuff, songs that are still celebrated today.  Pop music today is quite different...the music is more disposable, the artists many times being popular due to various factors other than their talent.  If you take a look at the charts today vs. 1965, you'll see that the majority of what is on today's charts will be forgotten rather quickly, not still beloved and played in 45 years time. 

[rab2591]

There's 2 reasons why the Katy Perry song pisses me off- #1) NO ONE should have a song called California Girls other than the Beach Boys, even if it's spelled different; or unless it's a cover of their song. #2) Nowadays any piece of merda song can go to number one, but it pisses me off that this song was more commercially successful than the Beach Boys. But you cant put a song like hers and a Beach Boys classic in the same context, in fact I don't think you can put any of today's mainstream music in comparison. It's not so much about what is good or isn't anymore, I think the better question is who really gives a merda?

Everybody was putting out classic stuff, songs that are still celebrated today.  Pop music today is quite different...the music is more disposable, the artists many times being popular due to various factors other than their talent.  If you take a look at the charts today vs. 1965, you'll see that the majority of what is on today's charts will be forgotten rather quickly, not still beloved and played in 45 years time. 

Exactly. It took Brian Wilson MONTHS and countless hours of studio sessions to create one song (GV)....whereas nowadays record companies are happy with a drum machine and some synths and in 30 minutes you have a #1 tune. I can't stand anything on the radio anymore. It's either really bad rap or meaningless pop songs. Good art (which usually takes a long time to create) becomes timeless (Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper, Blonde on Blonde)...whereas bad art (which little thought goes into) will be forgotten (take a look at the top 100 in 2000: http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/2000.php - are there honestly any that are worth listening to?)

California Gurls is just another crap teenage sensation pop song created for the mere purpose of making money.

[BJL]

Exactly. It took Brian Wilson MONTHS and countless hours of studio sessions to create one song (GV)....whereas nowadays record companies are happy with a drum machine and some synths and in 30 minutes you have a #1 tune. I can't stand anything on the radio anymore. It's either really bad rap or meaningless pop songs. Good art (which usually takes a long time to create) becomes timeless (Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper, Blonde on Blonde)...whereas bad art (which little thought goes into) will be forgotten (take a look at the top 100 in 2000: http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/2000.php - are there honestly any that are worth listening to?)

California Gurls is just another crap teenage sensation pop song created for the mere purpose of making money.

I think you guys are taking a "rose colored glasses" view of the 1960s.  Let's take a closer look at that website: California Girls has become a classic overtime, but it was the 49th biggest song of 1965.  So what was the biggest hit of 1965?  The Stones, perhaps?  Dylan?  The Byrds?  Nope, it was Wooly Bully by Sam the Sham and the Pharaos.  Folks sure are still listening to that one!!  Surely that was an abberation!!  Surely the top of the charts in 1966 was dominated by the Beatles, the Stones, music we all remember...how about The Ballad of the Green Berrets by Sgt. Barry Sadler.  The Beatles highest charting single in 1966 was at We Can Work It Out at 17, well behind those famously manufactured pop groups The Monkees, The Supremes, The Righteous Brothers.  We still listen to the Monkees and the Supremes and the Righteous brothers because it was GOOD manufactured pop music.  And in 50 years they'll still be listening to Madonna, and they'll still be listening to Lady GaGa too!  It won't be to your tastes, i'm sure, but the people who liked it now will still like it later...of course, the bad stuff will be forgotten.  Your chart from 2000 has a number of songs and groups which I'm sure people (not you, again, but people) will still be listening to in 50 years.  Destiny's Child is a perfect example. 

Will people still be listening to California Gurls in 50 years...probably not.  But there are still people putting a hell of a lot of effort into pop music, Amy Winehouse comes to mind...  And there was a hell of a lot of shitty music in the 60s.  It's wierd to think that To Sir with Love by Lulu was a bigger hit in 1967 than All You Need Is Love...but in the long run, it's not the billboard chart position that counts...its the musical legacy.  So in a way we agree.  It's just good to remember that every generation has been responsibly for atrocious music.  And every generation has made incredible music as well.  And of course, the Beach Boys broke out of that cycle and made the greatest music that will ever be made!  but that goes without saying...

[shelter]

I agree with BJL's post.

I do think that pop music was generally better, more exciting, more creative, more original, more interesting and more what not in the 60s than it is now. Partially because there was still a whole lot of room for growth and change in the 60s while pretty much everything has been done by now.

But like BJL posted, it's certainly not like there wasn't a whole lof of crap in the 60s too that got way too much credit. 'Winchester Cathedral' by The New Vaudeville Band got the 1966 Grammy for best song, not 'Good Vibrations'... 'Release Me' by Engelbert Humperdinck kept the 'Strawberry Fields Forever' b/w 'Penny Lane' 45 off the UK #1 spot... The number one single of the year in 1969 was 'Sugar Sugar' by The Archies...

[Mike's Beard]

California Gurls can outsell California Girls 100 times over but in a decades time it will be forgotten. It's just the latest garbage pop song for all those annoying prostitots to blare out of their ipods on public transport.

Whats the deal with Snoop Dog these days? Does he have a recording contract of his own as all he does is 'guest' on other peoples songs? Either way he SUCKS.

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

[shelter]

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...

[shelter]

but in a decades time it will be forgotten. It's just the latest garbage pop song

Imagine it's the year 2050 and you turn on a nostalgic golden oldies station... I suppose there's a bigger chance you'll be hearing Lady GaGa or Coldplay than The Beach Boys or Elvis. Today's hits are the nostalgic golden oldies of the future. Times are changing, like it or not...

[Ron]

I just remembered something: this isn't the first time that a song with a title "stolen" from The Beach Boys became a US #1 hit. In 1991, Marky Mark & The Funky Bunch had a big hit wit a song called 'Good Vibrations' that was unrelated to the Beach Boys song.

But who still remembers that one, huh?  

Nor the second time, Tupac Shakur had a big hit called "I Get Around" which was basically (with different lyrics, beat, and everything else) the same idea as the original song

[Ron]

Also why has nobody mentioned the other version of California Girls, was that Van Halen?  I can't remember.

[Matt H]

Also why has nobody mentioned the other version of California Girls, was that Van Halen?  I can't remember.

It was a David Lee Roth solo song with Carl doing background vocals.

[rab2591]

Exactly. It took Brian Wilson MONTHS and countless hours of studio sessions to create one song (GV)....whereas nowadays record companies are happy with a drum machine and some synths and in 30 minutes you have a #1 tune. I can't stand anything on the radio anymore. It's either really bad rap or meaningless pop songs. Good art (which usually takes a long time to create) becomes timeless (Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper, Blonde on Blonde)...whereas bad art (which little thought goes into) will be forgotten (take a look at the top 100 in 2000: http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/2000.php - are there honestly any that are worth listening to?)

California Gurls is just another crap teenage sensation pop song created for the mere purpose of making money.

I think you guys are taking a "rose colored glasses" view of the 1960s.  Let's take a closer look at that website: California Girls has become a classic overtime, but it was the 49th biggest song of 1965.  So what was the biggest hit of 1965?  The Stones, perhaps?  Dylan?  The Byrds?  Nope, it was Wooly Bully by Sam the Sham and the Pharaos.  Folks sure are still listening to that one!!  Surely that was an abberation!!  Surely the top of the charts in 1966 was dominated by the Beatles, the Stones, music we all remember...how about The Ballad of the Green Berrets by Sgt. Barry Sadler.  The Beatles highest charting single in 1966 was at We Can Work It Out at 17, well behind those famously manufactured pop groups The Monkees, The Supremes, The Righteous Brothers.  We still listen to the Monkees and the Supremes and the Righteous brothers because it was GOOD manufactured pop music.  And in 50 years they'll still be listening to Madonna, and they'll still be listening to Lady GaGa too!  It won't be to your tastes, i'm sure, but the people who liked it now will still like it later...of course, the bad stuff will be forgotten.  Your chart from 2000 has a number of songs and groups which I'm sure people (not you, again, but people) will still be listening to in 50 years.  Destiny's Child is a perfect example. 

Will people still be listening to California Gurls in 50 years...probably not.  But there are still people putting a hell of a lot of effort into pop music, Amy Winehouse comes to mind...  And there was a hell of a lot of shitty music in the 60s.  It's wierd to think that To Sir with Love by Lulu was a bigger hit in 1967 than All You Need Is Love...but in the long run, it's not the billboard chart position that counts...its the musical legacy.  So in a way we agree.  It's just good to remember that every generation has been responsibly for atrocious music.  And every generation has made incredible music as well.  And of course, the Beach Boys broke out of that cycle and made the greatest music that will ever be made!  but that goes without saying...

Very good point.

[sockittome]

Lots of great points brought up here, especially from BJL, but I've got to bring the "apples and oranges" idea into the discussion, because that's exactly what's going on here.  The '60s were very different from today.  The top groups were putting out 2 or 3 albums a year, and almost always had a single somewhere on the charts.  Today, they try to milk as many singles off of an album as possible (even if there's a lot of filler), and then that group might put out their next album in 2 or 3 years.  Maybe even later.  "California Girls" was one of a series of well-written, well-produced tunes that marked a particular moment in time, and because of that, has had tremendous staying power to this day.  But at the time there was another single waiting in the wings.  "California Gurls" was most likely slapped together with the idea that they will play it to death for as long as possible until everyone is sick of hearing it and then hopefully, by then Perry will have something else to throw out there.  That's pretty much how it works these days.

[Myk Luhv]

As a helpful reminder, here are some of The Beach Boys' own singles [A- and B-sides] that "Be True To Your School" (A-side, #6, 1963) surpassed, charts-wise, in the USA during their popular early-to-mid 1960s peak [courtesy of bellagio, 'natch]:

• its own B-side, "In My Room", which peaked at #23; plus
• "Surfer Girl" (#7)/"Little Deuce Coupe" (#23), released 1963;
• "Don't Worry Baby" [B-side to "I Get Around"] (#24), released 1964;
• "When I Grow Up"/"She Knows Me Too Well" (#9), released 1964;
• "Dance, Dance, Dance"/"The Warmth of the Sun" (#8), released 1964;
• "Do You Wanna Dance" (#13)/"Please Let Me Wonder" (#52), released 1965;
• "Wouldn't It Be Nice" (#8)/"God Only Knows" (#39), released 1966;
• and "Heroes And Villains"/"You're Welcome" (#12), released 1967.

Is "Be True To Your School" really that good?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

California Gurls can outsell California Girls 100 times over but in a decades time it will be forgotten. It's just the latest garbage pop song for all those annoying prostitots to blare out of their ipods on public transport.

Whats the deal with Snoop Dog these days? Does he have a recording contract of his own as all he does is 'guest' on other peoples songs? Either way he SUCKS.

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

Prostitots? Wow.

Also, I know it is your opinion, but it's kinda funny for you to be railing against mindless disposable pop songs and then champion "Sugar Sugar" in the same post.

[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. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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.

[Don_Zabu]

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.