The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2010/07/california-gurls-katy-perry.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2010/07/california-gurls-katy-perry.html)


Been hoping for this. Katy Perry's a big beach boys fan so I'm glad he didn't go hard on her.  ;D

Does Miss Perry own 10 copies of every single SOT volume? :lol :lol :lol Or more realistically, has she even heard anything from Love You? There's a big difference between just liking the hits and being a diehard.

Expect her new song 'Roller Sk8ting Chyld' to be out anytime soon!

I believe she has a demo of Johnny Carson floating around   ;D

I like that Katy Petty song. Not really my type of music, but it really has a great summer vibe. It does kinda suck though that 'California Gurls' will go down in history as a bigger hit than 'California Girls'.

"California Gurls" will be forgotten in a year, "California Girls" will remain in history as one of the greatest songs of all time.

lolwut

* There's a big difference between being a big fan and being an obsessive. :)

Are you high?

Time magazine set it straight today

Worst summer songs ever



Katy Perry, "California Gurls"

So. Many. Questions. Why is Snoop wearing a pink cupcake-print suit? What happened to his gummy-bear army? Why does he even have a gummy-bear army? Did Katy Perry force him to do these ridiculous things? (My, how the mighty fall.) Why is a song about California set in Candy Land? Why does she shoot whipped topping out of her bra? The music video for "California Gurls," the so-called 2010 song of the summer, is just the icing on the cake of this terrible tune. Word of advice for Ms. Perry: if you're going to follow up a classic song like the Beach Boys' "California Girls" with a version of your own, make sure it doesn't suck.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/19/top-10-worst-songs-of-the-summer/picture-6-10/#ixzz0uHZCntiS

As much as I hate to admit it, Katy's song is quite catchy.  I generally don't care for a lot of today's pop music, but if I'm flipping through the stations and it's playing, I'll usually leave it.  It did bother me at first that she would so blatantly rip off Brian and Mike's idea, but she did a good job modernizing it without disrespecting the original. 

I never actually thought we'd get to hear Brian's opinion on the matter...actually, just the image of Brian Wilson listening to a Katy Perry song makes me chuckle.

It's  pop music, but it's good pop music. I'm glad Brian can look past the bubblegum production and hear the melody for what it is. The fact that he can do that speaks volumes about the way he is right now. *This* is a reason why he's turning out such good material lately...he's feelin' music again.

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.

Prefer Kayla's cover myself.

"Bigger hit" is quite relative. I would guess that a number 3 song in 1965 sold more per capita than a number 1 song in 2010. I know it's that way on the album charts -- a "number 1" album can have quite low sales these days, historically speaking.

'California Gurls' sold over 2 million legal downloads already. Quite a nice sales figure if you'd ask me.

And for the record: I posted earlier that 'California Girls' wasn't a top 10 hit anywhere outside the US, that wasn't true: it made the top 10 in Sweden, Rhodesia, Australia, Canada and South Africa.

Personally, I don't think Brian's ever heard the song.  I think the interview went like this, before it was edited.

Reporter: What do you think of this variation on your theme, and are you flattered or infuriated by it?

"I love her vocal, She sounds very clear and energetic."  (he's never heard it)

Reporter: What do you think about her new melody?  Do you like that better than Snoop's part in the tag where he uses your lyric?

"The melody is infectious, and I'm flattered that Snoop Dogg used our lyric on the tag, I wish them well with this cut."  (he's never heard it)





Update: Mike Love gave his thoughts in the same link now.  It's actually pretty good.

Brian has a 13-year-old daughter and a 12-year-old daughter - you still think he's never heard it, at least in passing ?  ;D

Hmmm...that may be part of the reason why his opinion is softening towards newer music...

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.


Has to be one of Mike's better jokes.  ;D

I'm with Ron! He probably hasn't heard it.


"I love her vocal," the Beach Boys' creative mastermind said Monday through his manager. "She sounds very clear and energetic."

I would tend to agree with AGD and shelter on this one...although I doubt Brian keeps up on what's new in pop music these days, it's hard to believe he wouldn't hear a song that bears the same title as one of his biggest hits and is a huge hit in its own right at the moment.  You'd have to think that somebody at some point thought it might be fun to play it for him and see what he thought.  Not too farfetched I don't think.  Of course, Brian may have also come across the music video one day and been so entranced staring at Katy that he came to like the song that way...certainly wouldn't surprise me!

Mike, on the other hand, is quite clearly familiar with Katy's work  :hat

I'm still not sold.  I don't think you can trust a thing Brian says in an interview, that's one of my favorite things about him... his complete and utter lack of respect for journalism, lol.  I mean you can't even get him to take ANY question seriously.  I also feel he lives in Wilsonland and even if the song was playing in the car, he was driving, with his two daughters singing along Brian probably wouldn't be hearing it. 

I think it would be possible in Wilsonland for the song to be playing in the car, he was driving, and all THREE of them were singing along and he still wouldn't be hearing it :)

I know tons of senior citizens who hear new music all the time and couldn't tell you a thing about it, they zone out.

I'm being a bit faceitious but really I don't thik he's heard it, he's just being polite.

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 like "gurls" inspite of myself. My only small criticism is Snoop's one-for-the-ages flow is off or something...like he is reciting someone else's words...?...

Srsly, are you high?

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.

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.

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.

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





And that he hates each and every one of us.

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

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?

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?  :)

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. 

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 (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...

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...

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

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...

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...

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 :)

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.

Very good point.

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.

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?

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. :lol

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. 

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.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I would have stabbed them to death. Twice.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like DonZabu's quote here:


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, young padwan. You have much to learn.

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

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


The fucking Beach Boys!  You lose again!

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

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

... wait for it...


....










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

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

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

There are MASSIVE flaws with that premise!

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

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

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

Get it?

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

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

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

In general, the Beach Boys (including royalties, etc.) have made much more money than Britney Spears has.  So that comparison doesn't work.

So the four very worst albums that the Beach Boys ever released were 'Summer In Paradise', 'MIU Album', 'Sunflower' and 'Friends'?

I can exhibit, through record sales, songplay data, etc. that Big Star, Nilsson, Spacemen 3 and all the other talentless folks you mentioned ARE talentless because they didn't sell.

Can you exhibit to me that they WERE talented?  Not really.  Because money is about the only way you can show, objectively, who's better.  You're talking about the subjective again.

"Like a Rolling Stone" is Bob Dylans greatest song, yes.  I'm glad you got that one, you should apply that logic to the rest of the people you are trying to prove are great when you can't prove it, because it's subjective.  I can prove Like A Rolling Stone is Bob's greatest songs.  You know why?  Because it outsold the rest of them.

Paul was definately the greatest beatle, and yes, that is because of Yesterday.  Also he's sold many more albums than John.  Unfortunately John's dead... so it's not really a fair comparison... but yet I can still exhibit that he outshold him.  

Motown is infintely better than Stax. I can prove that with money.  If you have a different opinion... lets see your objective proof.

On the last bit, you've just made a pretty convincing argument, with objective proof... that Motley Crue is better than the Beach Boys.  My only possible retort would be that if you take all of the money the Beach Boys have made in tours, and in song royalties, they've probably outearnedMotley Crue, making THEM a greater band.  If I can't show that though, i'll have no proof that the Beach Boys are better..... because it's subjective.  

Nick Drake was a horrible musician.  I can prove that by pointing you to the fact that his first albums sold 3 thousand copies. That's god awful.  If you have another opinion, point me to some objective proof of that subjective opinion.  "All time best" lists are rubbish, I have no respect for music critics.  Hell, i'm a music critic, you're a music critic, everyone's a music critic.  You know how we best critique?  With our wallets.

Van Gogh's work has made much more money than Kinkade's, because Van Gogh is the far superior painter.  Now if you want to discuss technique or anything, I can't really comment on that because it's subjective.  I can show you though that Van Gogh outsells Kinkade... because he's a better painter.

Yes! Now you get it.  I can prove that by objectively looking at the album sales data.  Those 4 didn't sell worth a damn.  Can you show me any evidence that shows otherwise?

Guys, it's not hard to get the point I'm trying to stab you with.  Music is subjective.  Face it.  There's no proof that your favorite industry darling is worth a damn, unless you want to start talking album sales, and then they're going to lose to N*Sync Eminem and Britney nevery time.  Enjoy what you enjoy, don't worry about what other people enjoy.  It doesn't make anybody more intelligent to like "The Beach Boys" instead of "Katy Perry" it's all subjective.  That 11 year old girl who loves Katy Perry has just as valid of an opinion as you do, and the truth is she's got more potential and will probably live a longer life than you will.  Stop being music elitists.

Totally correct, Ron, but you seem to miss my point (or you just love to continue this discussion).

Nowadays, Van Gogh's work makes A LOT of money. No disagreement here. His art obviously gets the credit it deserves.
But when when Van Gogh still lived he didn't earn a single Guilder with it (figuratively speaking). Heck, even Rembrandt didn't exactly die being a rich man.

I just wanted to say that your Van Gogh-example shows similarities with shelter's Nick Drake example. (not that they can be compared, totally different league, but still...)
But yet you say Drake stinks and Van Gogh is fantastic.

Jus saying...

I'd say "art" as a whole is subjective. You like it or you don't (or you don't care). The more people like it and want it, the better it sells.

Still it depends on what you take as you starting point when it comes to calling it "successfull": number of sold copies / the profit one has made... or the artistic recognicition. Both can make you famous obviously.

So there are no real winners (or we all are) here in this discussion. It depends on which starting point you take.

Again, I agree with nearly everything you say.   But you can not use album sales or revenue from touring or any argument that compares 'money made' with 'what's better'.  You like what you like.  Your favorite song is the best song in the world.  If it made a lot of money, it made a lot of money.  If it didn't, it's still the best song in the world, right?  Leave money out of your argument and we'd be on the same page.

You've never heard "Weird Al" Yankovic's Bohemian Polka then I take it?   8)

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

Smile-Holland,

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

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

(http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-qq.gif) b-b-but money is the only way to gauge a performer's artistic merit (http://sae.tweek.us/static/images/emoticons/emot-qq.gif)

You're still not quite there.  I'm not telling you to base your opinion on a fucking thing.  I'm telling you the only objective way to illustrate your opinion is correct, is through money.

Still waiting for somebody to show me another way to judge music.  Anybody? 

EXACTLY! O gets it.  Lets give a big hand for O. 

But as I've already mentioned, the market is just a vessel for public opinion. There are public opinion polls that show who is better (yet another vessel to see who is best) - Take the NME poll that showed The Beach Boys on top of the Beatles even though the Beatles FAR outsold the Beach Boys.

Yes, the market is a great tool to see who is best, but sometimes it is far off.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say or indeed prove, Ron with this whole money = greatness talk.

How hard is it to understand?

Here. 

My favorite song is Brandy by the Looking Glass.  (seriously).  It's the greatest song in the world! It's perfect!  I love it.  Best ever, nobody ever wrote a better song. 

I seriously doubt your favorite song is Brandy. What am I to do to prove it to you?  Nothing.  I have no objective proof that Brandy was a very good song at all; it probably wasn't even a #1 hit. 

If a little 11 year old girl wanted to show me that "Califorornia gyrls" or whatever the hell was a great song, she could objectively (looking at the whole from an outside perspective) show me that California gurls is a #1 hit; it's sold all these millions on ITunes.  It has made more money than Brandy.  From that MEASURE, California Gyrls is obviously a much better song than Brandy.

Since I don't give a sh*t who sold more, the whole argument would be moot to me, because I like the song, and subjectively think it's great.


My point is, people like what they want.  All the snobs who say Nilsson is better than Katy Perry are just as ass-backwards as the little 11 year old girl who says Katy Perry is better than Nilsson.  The only difference in their subjective snobbery, is the 11 year old girl can point to album sales and make a case that Katy Perry is better; the Nilsson fans have NOTHING to show that Nilsson is better.


How is this hard to understand?  I'm not saying anything incredibly insightful, lol.  There's nothing to learn here, I'm just making the point that anybody who claims that any music is trash is just stating an opinion, the opposing opinion is just as important and just as valid.  On top of that, there's soemthing to be said for popularity, unless you're the type that fancies yourself smarter than everybody else because you like songs in Bflat instead of Aminor. 

Nope.  it shows that it made more money.  Nothing else.  Not better in a musical sense.  Better in a money making sense.  But...


Now you're getting it.

I think that we just have to look at the types of food and drinks that we consume in the Western world to realize that something that sells really well isn't necessarily good.

Ron you seem to have opened up a big can of worms on this one!! Let me start by saying I totally agree with what you are saying in regards to music elitism and snobbery. The 11 year old girl who loves Katy Perry's latest  (ahem) song's opinion is of no less importance or valid than that of the 60 year old waffling on about  Pet Sounds being the greatest record of all time. That may kill me to say that because it is so far removed from my own personal musical preferences but then then I am not The Emperor of musical tastes (if I was I'd order K Perry to never set foot within 100 yards of a microphone again).  No one person is more trained or qualified to like a piece of music more than someone else and to think so is pretentious beyond belief.

However I find your theory of whatever sells the most automatically = the best is flawed somewhat. I think a greater judge of something's artistic worth, be it music, a movie, a painting, whatever is in it's longevity. Pet Sounds is appreciated and valued more today than it was over 40 years ago when it came out. Does that mean it's now a better piece of music than it was then? On the other side of the coin, take all those millions who bought the Backscurdle Boys music a decade ago -  if they were to reform tomorrow how many of these people would be seen dead buying anything new by them? Does that mean their music used to be great but now it doesn't sell it isn't? A big part of if something takes off and sells MUST be attributed to 'right time, right place'. Some of my most favourite albums sold very poorly when released but are now viewed as classics. Their subsequent CD reissues have sold much more than the original release did. One example that springs to mind is a certain "Pacific Ocean Blue".

So what you're saying is, they didn't use to make money, but now they do?  Must be a great band :)

You're right about the Backstreet Boys; they don't sell worth a DAMN anymore... and that is because they're a pretty shitty band.  

Next :)



Honestly though, your point about longevity once again circles back to money.  You say Pet Sounds is appreciated more today than it was 40 years ago, how do you know that?  You know that because more people buy it, or listen to it on the radio (which pays the owners of the copyright) than they used to.  The Backstreet Boys made a ton of money but were a flash in the pan, the Beach Boys have consistently earned a small fortune and continue to earn a small fortune.  The longevity argument is judged, again, by money!  Aren't the Beach Boys like the #3 most played act on radio stations, behind the Beatles and Elvis?  I'm pretty sure I heard Melinda Wilson mention that somewhere.  That's pretty impressive, and shows that people still want to hear their music, and are willing to spend money to hear it even though they've sold countless tickets and countless greatest hits albums and had their songs played billions and billions of times on radio stations all over the world.  Looking at the money that they earn, shows that even though a radio play only earns them what, 1/10th of a penny, they're still earning millions a year.  That's talent, that's quality, and it has longevity like you said. 

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying i'm happy about it, I'm just saying that it's a truth.  Just beause something's ugly doesn't mean we have to act like it isn't true :)  Nilsson may have been the greatest music of all time... but you can't illustrate that in any way at all. 

What about people who get to #20 in the charts? Are they average?

I'm not saying that, I was using it as an example to point out the flaws in your logic.  :p

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

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


But


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

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

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

To close with the Nick Drake Van Gogh example.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BJ5D%2BtycL._SS500_.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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