Brian charts at #25 in UK

[Paul J B]

I checked itunes this morning and as I suspected the songs featuring the guest vocalists are MORE popular than most of the cuts without them. By popular that means more people are buying those tracks as single downloads. They show both the regular and deluxe versions so its a little confusing but the results are clear. What does this mean....

Well IMO....1) It was a smart move bringing the young and fresh (as in something outside the box) singers into the album and 2) they are making a mistake by not pushing Runaway Dancer, Guess You Had To Be There, Saturday Night and On The Island as singles.

[Mike's Beard]

I get what you are saying but I find it kind of lame that a living legend, such as Brian Wilson would have to rely on someone such as the ex singer from Fun to help sell his music.

[guitarfool2002]

How does it become having to "rely" on anyone to sell the music except in the opinion of those who want to think that way? Is it any more or any less valid to suggest exactly what really happened in these cases, which is Brian's own family suggesting he work with some of the current artists they had been listening to, like Nate and Capital Cities, and Brian got the ball rolling to get them in the studio to work on songs?

Are all artists at this point who say "we should work on some music together" to another noted artist then relying on some name recognition to promote something, or is it only in some cases?

Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett had a collaboration this past year which put a straightforward jazz album of standards into sales figures that most jazz hasn't touched for years...would you accuse Tony Bennett of "relying" on Lady Gaga to sell his music, or was it a case of wanting to collaborate and make music together?

Or is it only a case of Brian Wilson where the term "rely" gets applied?

Again I come back to my favorite quote of the year so far. "This is the guy who wrote Pet Sounds, he can do whatever the f*ck he wants." 

[Mike's Beard]

With all due respect Craig, you seemed to have completely missed the point my post was making.

[guitarfool2002]

I see the point, and it wasn't specific to what you were suggesting - It would be great if artists like Brian, Tony Bennett, Neil Diamond, Paul McCartney and a number of other "legendary" artists could get the sales numbers from different generations of fans simply on name alone, or on the quality of the music alone. But it also gets them and their motivations sometimes challenged by suggestions they were going for "star power" in order to boost sales. No doubt selling massive quantities of product is a concern since it is a business, but in the case of Brian's collaborations there were suggestions that leaned negative going back to when the list of collaborators was first released last year which made it seem like it was something more contrived (in a negative connotation) than having musicians working together on music.

The audience will respond however they choose to respond. If some Lady Gaga fans bought her jazz album with Bennett simply because Lady Gaga is involved, so be it. They're hearing the music either way, who knows they may get more into some of the jazz standards or even pick up some Tony Bennett songs on iTunes. Not a bad thing. But it's not necessarily a case of Tony relying on Gaga to sell to her audience, or Gaga relying on Tony to show a jazz vocal audience that she has the chops to sing these types of songs far removed from her brand of pop music. It can be as simple as two artists coming together to make music, and however the fans want to react is up to them. It doesn't always have to be a case of contrivance or forcing together two artists for reasons other than the two wanting to work together. Although those forced instances have indeed happened often in the past. But it's not a template.

[Nicko1234]

I see the point, and it wasn't specific to what you were suggesting - It would be great if artists like Brian, Tony Bennett, Neil Diamond, Paul McCartney and a number of other "legendary" artists could get the sales numbers from different generations of fans simply on name alone, or on the quality of the music alone. But it also gets them and their motivations sometimes challenged by suggestions they were going for "star power" in order to boost sales. No doubt selling massive quantities of product is a concern since it is a business, but in the case of Brian's collaborations there were suggestions that leaned negative going back to when the list of collaborators was first released last year which made it seem like it was something more contrived (in a negative connotation) than having musicians working together on music.

The audience will respond however they choose to respond. If some Lady Gaga fans bought her jazz album with Bennett simply because Lady Gaga is involved, so be it. They're hearing the music either way, who knows they may get more into some of the jazz standards or even pick up some Tony Bennett songs on iTunes. Not a bad thing. But it's not necessarily a case of Tony relying on Gaga to sell to her audience, or Gaga relying on Tony to show a jazz vocal audience that she has the chops to sing these types of songs far removed from her brand of pop music. It can be as simple as two artists coming together to make music, and however the fans want to react is up to them. It doesn't always have to be a case of contrivance or forcing together two artists for reasons other than the two wanting to work together. Although those forced instances have indeed happened often in the past. But it's not a template.

I think that`s a given isn`t it.

When older musicians work with younger people it is generally to try to shift units. That doesn`t have to be a negative thing and if it`s done right (Tom Jones`s Reload album for example) then it can work spectacularly.