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

[Ron]

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.

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

[shelter]

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.

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'?

[Ron]

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 friggin' Collins and Barbra friggin' 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 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.  

[Ron]

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.

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.

[Ron]

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).

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.

[Ron]

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.

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'?

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?

[Ron]

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.

[smile-holland]

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).

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.

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...

[smile-holland]

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.

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.

[LostArt]

Probably the MOST objective way to judge 'who's better' is to see who's richer.

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.

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.

[GoofyJeff]

Since I don't think that would go for, say, 'Bohemian Rhapsody',

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

[Ron]

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).

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.

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...

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. 

[rab2591]

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).

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.

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...

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?)

[Myk Luhv]

b-b-but money is the only way to gauge a performer's artistic merit

[Ron]

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?)

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? 

[Ron]

b-b-but money is the only way to gauge a performer's artistic merit

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

[rab2591]

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?)

You're still not quite there.  I'm not telling you to base your opinion on a friggin' 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? 

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.

[Paulos]

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

[Ron]

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. 

[LostArt]

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.

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

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

Now you're getting it.

[shelter]

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.

[Mike's Beard]

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".

[Ron]

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. 

[hypehat]

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

[Mike's Beard]

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

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