Picasso and Joyce will be quickly forgotten as trash.

Orson Welles will likely have some renown.

But if we could time travel 300 years into the future they’d be like, “Did you ever see Brian Wilson?” And if we responded, “the beach boys guy?” they’d lol like we would at someone saying, “Mozart? People still like him?”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069318)

I think in the future the 20th C list will be 1) Wilson........ 2) Welles.. I dont really know the rest. Clint Eastwood may be top 20, idk. Gibson is good, but he only really shown in the 21st C.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069354)

This thread is beyond retarded on many different levels. Thanks for the severely-mentally-ill 95 IQ hot take, dumb faggot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069362)

Thank goodness for that, at least.

Look I like "Good Vibrations" as much as the next dumb goy, but suggesting that Brian Wilson is the greatest creative musician of the 20th Century (let alone the greatest creative figure in any medium) is peak retardation. Go back to Margaritaville, Boomer.

Igor Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" is exponentially more complex, more beautiful, more musically groundbreaking, more enduringly weird and powerful, and just overall more badass than everything Brian Wilson ever wrote put together, and that's just one of Stravinsky's numerous great masterpieces (and I'm not sure I would even attempt to make an argument that Stravinsky was definitively the greatest creative musician of the 20th Century, although he would certainly be included as a candidate in any intelligent discussion).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069390)

I'm gay

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069406)

I think we have to separate the types of musical geniuses we're talking about here. In music, among serious musician, there's always this push toward technical virtuosity and unconventional rhythms and melodies. I respect some jazz guy who by all accounts is technically amazing, but his strange rhythms and chords only appeal to a relatively small group of musical aristocracy.

Whether you scoff at pop music or not, there's a certain genius you need to make music like Wilson or Michael Jackson or other music that transcends normal pop appeal and captivates people all over the world

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069442)

I don't fundamentally disagree with this, but that is part of the incredible genius of something like "Rite Of Spring" -- it rocks. Simple as. You don't have to be a "classical music afficionado" or even know how to read music or what the difference between an oboe and a clarinet is to blast "Rite of Spring" on a good sound system and be like "oh fuck yeah." Don't take my word for it, try it out yourself on some friends and family. The only reason it doesn't get treated like a rock opera or something is because it's long and orchestral and people naturally associate it with the concert hall and stuffy pretentious classical music culture. But that's not what it is, at all. It was written as the background music for what was basically a punk ballet, and it caused a violent riot at it's premiere that led to fist fights.

At the same time, the "Rite of Spring" *is* also an incredibly well written and extremely sophisticated masterpiece of formal composition that hardcore PhD music nerds still gawk over for a million reasons that would go way over the head of your average Beatles fan.

I'm not denigrating Brian Wilson as a pop song writer, but he doesn't have nearly that breadth and depth to his music.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069454)

A ton.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47070272)

Oh yeah? Why don't you challenge me to a technical debate about the relative musical merits of "Good Vibrations" vs. "Rite of Spring" then, faggot? I'm sure you'd fuck my ass since I "don't know shit" about this topic... right?

OK, go ahead. Lets see your opening statement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47070229)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9iu65sot1E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVUBpzlELOg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069548)

Even this is still just a "maybe" at best.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069393)

"One of the best"? Absolutely.

"The best"? Highly debatable, even within the much more limited parameters I was responding to here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47070230)

You could certainly make an argument for Brian Wilson, yes. Again, we're just limiting this to "white American popular songwriters" in this subthread -- and even within that limitation, I can think of at least 10+ other people for whom I could "make an argument" that they should hold that title. Do I think Brian Wilson is at the top of that list? No, I don't.

Just off the top of my head, here are all of the indisputably great "white" (we're including Jews in this context just like we include Mendelssohn, Mahler, etc. in discussions of "European classical composers" simply because that's how they have been historically treated) American popular songwriters of the 20th Century that chronologically predate Brian Wilson (i.e., we're not even really touching the 2nd half of the 20th Century here):

- The Gershwin Bros

- Cole Porter [goy]

- Irving Berlin

- Richard Rodgers

- Jerome Kern

- Harold Arlen

- Johnny Mercer [goy]

- Hoagy Carmichael [goy]

- Jimmy Van Heusen [goy]

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, but within the realm of popular music, at a bare minimum the Gershwins, Berlin, Rodgers, Porter, Kern, and Arlen all individually produced MORE hit songs that have ENDURED LONGER and had an OBJECTIVELY BIGGER IMPACT on the development of American popular music (those guys literally created the Broadway musical as a genre and also laid down the entire basis for the development of "Jazz" as we know it by writing all of the "standards") than Brian Wilson. Brian Wilson wrote maaaaaaybe a dozen truly classic songs and he had some limited impact on the development of one genre of music (rock). In terms of the scope and historical importance of his achievements, they're much more circumscribed than the record put up by any of those other guys. And those are all objective facts, none of that is seriously up for debate.

Now if you want to argue that Brian Wilson's hits are simply musically "better" than what those other guys produced, that's a far more subjective argument and you're free to make it. But I think there's a very strong case to be made that at least on the factual metrics that we can clearly define and assess, Wilson definitely isn't the clear frontrunner for the title of "the best" in this realm. He's a dark horse candidate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47070264)

When everyone was getting more transcendental in the 60's, he wanted to go in the same direction, but Mike Love (who is a paragon of boomerdom) said something like "you don't fuck with what works!" Despite having almost no musical abilities himself.

Crazy to think what Wilson could've produced if his band mates and record companies weren't fighting him and if he didn't basically have a chemical lobotomy from some fraud psych doctor

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069419)

Also the Kinks are ALSO not better than the Beatles and Stones in case you were thinking of going down that similar route

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5446069&forum_id=2).#47069569)