Pet Sounds - classic or dud

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (188 of them)

View Previous Page...

I parked cars at Brian Wilson's house once. One of the dudes I worked with crashed a BMW RIGHT INTO A RANGE ROVER.

SNAP! Fucking Aussies.

― giboyeux (skowly), Sunday, 8 May 2005 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

context

― PappaWheelie (PappaWheelie), Sunday, 8 May 2005 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Mercenary valet parking. Andrew (aussie) got into someone's car and, in bring it round, totally rammed a parked car. My boss fired him on the spot and made him walk the 5 miles back into town.

I thought it was a gunshot when I heard the sound ("Brian Wilson's finally lost it!")

― giboyeux (skowly), Sunday, 8 May 2005 21:50 (twenty-one years ago)

classic

― Amon (eman), Sunday, 8 May 2005 23:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, maybe those Mojo and Q guys have kind of ruined it, effusing all over the place about this album, but it's pretty great, if only for "Caroline No" and "Just Wasn't Made for These Times." A lot of it is loopy and stupid, but it's my loopy and stupid, and darn it, it makes me proud to be an American!

― edd s hurt (ddduncan), Sunday, 8 May 2005 23:33 (twenty-one years ago)

If you leave out "Sloop", it'd be the best rock and roll album.

As is, very near the top.

-- Zed Szetlian (Finn.MacCoo...), May 8th, 2005.

I don't think it's a rock-and-roll album at all. I realize you may just be using the term as a catch-all, but I do think (in light of the recently resuscitated Rockism discussion) that there's a tendency for people who primarily like rock and roll to find this one "ok to like" because it gets grouped with rock. But to me it bears more similarity to elaborately arranged pop music, like maybe Roy Orbison.

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 9 May 2005 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

"Pet Sounds" is certainly not rock'n'roll. I'd call it very much a pop album (unlike most of today's chart pop, which is mainly either R&B or hip-hop, and thus, not pop)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Monday, 9 May 2005 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

I think, above all, the reason why I love Pet Sounds so much is that there's no album I enjoy singing along to more. It's like the benefit one gets from reading a poem aloud.

I've been listening to it on repeat for the last few days and one thing that's struck me is that 'I'm Waiting For The Day' is the album's unheralded masterpiece. Does anyone else agree?

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 8 July 2005 11:46 (twenty years ago)

perhaps, Alba. when the strings wind up and die and then the drums kick in....goddammit!!!! the sounds of the horns in the start.

and i agree on the strange demand the record makes for singing along...with lots of people...all mangling the various harmonies..especially after a few drinks. such a wonderful place.

i love Brians fluttertone rhythms used throughout and taken even further on smile

― b b, Friday, 8 July 2005 13:09 (twenty years ago)

While listening to Let Him Run Wild this morning, I challenged myself with the thought of "this is Pet Sounds encapsulated, and slightly better."

I'm not sure if I will believe that tomorrow though...

― PappaWheelie (PappaWheelie), Friday, 8 July 2005 15:32 (twenty years ago)

This album is a classic and should be placed in the Rock Canon!

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 8 July 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

Is it not, already?

I was hoping you said Rock Cannon.. as in an AC/DC prop or something.

"FOR THOSE ABOUT TO PET...."

"SOUNDS!" *BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST*

"BRIIIIIIIAN WIIIIIIIIIIIILSON!"

― donut e- (donut), Friday, 8 July 2005 16:08 (twenty years ago)

I was joking around.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 8 July 2005 16:14 (twenty years ago)

Ah. Well, I'm still proud of my lame joke, though -- for what it's worth.. which isn't much, so thanks for the set-up.

― donut e- (donut), Friday, 8 July 2005 16:17 (twenty years ago)

*rimshot* for donut

― lyra (lyra), Friday, 8 July 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

By the time I got around to the Beach Boys, they were already uncool icons whose songs I were used to hearing in commercials. When I thought of the Beach Boys I thought of fake songs about cars and surfing. At some point I finally decided to give Pet Sounds a chance and it instantly reached me. No dumb songs about cars or surfing, just smart songs about young dumb love. I don't care about it's relation to the Beatles (although I would destroy the Beatles entire catalogue in exchange for PS if it came to that), I don't care what the critics say (although I'm glad they prompted me to give it a chance). Fred Solinger is right, this is an album that is meant to be felt, and to do that you have to forget about who the Beach Boys are, forget about what the historical merit of the album is, and give yourself over to that first love that was so perfect but somehow didn't work out. The sheer emotion that comes out of the speakers is TERRIFYING. It is the pause between your declaration of love and her response.

― Joseph Cowart (Joseph Cowart), Saturday, 9 July 2005 08:56 (twenty years ago)

While listening to Let Him Run Wild this morning, I challenged myself with the thought of "this is Pet Sounds encapsulated, and slightly better."

Yes, that's basically true. But then, I'll take as much LHRW as you got.

― Zed Szetlian (Finn MacCool), Sunday, 10 July 2005 03:19 (twenty years ago)

listening to 'pet sounds' (have the mono tape onto CD, no stereo mix for me) again last night and thinking how awesome those harmonies are sans the vocals but I d/l some of 'grow fins' and the disc of trout mask out-takes kinda underwhelmed me BUT 'pet sounds' is miles away from 'trout mask' (well kind of - they're both working those musicians away trying to get to what's acceptable but a comparison only goes so far - there'll always be a mysterious layer to 'trout mask') so onto the 'pet sounds' boxset then - this is sorta intriguing - there must be some gold among those alternate versions.

what do the ppl who heard it think of it?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 19 July 2005 10:31 (twenty years ago)

one year passes...

This is such a terrible record cover.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Thursday, 17 May 2007 00:31 (nineteen years ago)

can you explain why you think that, mark? i find it rather touching and very fitting with the overall mood of the album. here it is, i hope:

http://homepage.mac.com/john_kruper/artwork/beach_boys/pet_sounds.jpg

― alex in mainhattan, Thursday, 17 May 2007 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, fuck that. the reissue should've used this instead

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/May/11/FPI605110308AR_b.jpg

― QuantumNoise, Thursday, 17 May 2007 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

It is a terrible record cover, and I think most critics also agree on that.

Still a brilliant album though. Best album of the entire 60s. Even better than any Beatles album (although The Beatles' overall output puts them way above)

― Geir Hongro, Thursday, 17 May 2007 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I don't get why it's terrible either.

― Tim Ellison, Thursday, 17 May 2007 18:58 (nineteen years ago)

What Joseph Cowart said.

― 2for25, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:00 (nineteen years ago)

I like it

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:02 (nineteen years ago)

I know purists may disagree, but for me, this album didn't quite become the classic it is until 1997, when the stereo version was released. The album sounds a lot better in stereo. Pity about the lost double tracks vocals on "You Still Believe In Me", but still....

― Geir Hongro, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:04 (nineteen years ago)

Have you heard the 5.1 Surround Sound version? It's like the dogs are behind you to the left and the bicyle bell is somewhere floating in space. Amazing.

― dan selzer, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

Haven't gotten round to hearing any 5:1 surround version of anything yet. But I do believe you.

― Geir Hongro, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:11 (nineteen years ago)

Didn't Brian like the mono best?

― Tim Ellison, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:28 (nineteen years ago)

How could he tell otherwise?

― dan selzer, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:35 (nineteen years ago)

I wonder... has anyone released a mono record in the post-stereo era?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:41 (nineteen years ago)

Can you still parse stereo separation somewhat even if you're only hearing in one ear?

― Tim Ellison, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:51 (nineteen years ago)

I would think it depends on where you place your good ear in relation to the speakers.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 May 2007 19:57 (nineteen years ago)

I think it would sound different, but not in the way it's intended to. Maybe some of the music would take longer to get to the good ear, that would be weird.

― dan selzer, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:02 (nineteen years ago)

Well, we've come to associate it with the album, so there are strong feelings for the cover for sure. But to me it doesn't capture anything of the music (for one thing, it's less a "Beach Boys record" than what came before, so it's almost weird to have the whole gang there). Plus the photograph seems so random. Not sure how many they took at the zoo, but was this really the most interesting one? It's almost like a Jandek cover in that respect. And certainly the design is none too interesting. I dunno, it just struck me that of all the major records out there this one has a very dull cover.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:09 (nineteen years ago)

The cover photo is perfectly chosen for one reason and one reason only:

PET SOUNDS IS TEH G.O.A.T.

― Jon Lewis, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

I wonder... has anyone released a mono record in the post-stereo era?

Depends how you define the post stereo area. The hit version of "Shame Shame Shame" by Shirley & Company, released in 1975, was in mono.

― Geir Hongro, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:15 (nineteen years ago)

According to Mike M's book much of Loveless is virtually mono, but that doesn't count for the purpose of this question.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:26 (nineteen years ago)

why not?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:27 (nineteen years ago)

that's easily one of my favorite album covers ever. it's so charming and cobbled-together and offhand. not trying to make a big statement. it also strangely chimes with the mood of the album.

― J.D., Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:29 (nineteen years ago)

Mark R. hilariously off the mark (once again).

"Pet Sounds" (the song) is an epic, epic classic.

― Steve Shasta, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:32 (nineteen years ago)

All those goats are dead now.

― Pleasant Plains, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:42 (nineteen years ago)

http://cache.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/b860e00d80a24619f698a75ef69ed455.jpg

― PappaWheelie V, Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:38 (nineteen years ago)

wtf? its a great cover!

― 696, Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:42 (nineteen years ago)

I wonder... has anyone released a mono record in the post-stereo era?

Many people. Here is a cool making-of article about a recent one.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:54 (nineteen years ago)

OK, everyone likes this cover. I learned something here today.

What records have parodied this design? I know I remember seeing a couple.

― Mark Rich@rdson, Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:12 (nineteen years ago)

that's a whole other Cover Connections thread methinks

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

http://tisue.net/orourke/covers/smilingpets.jpg

― PappaWheelie V, Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:15 (nineteen years ago)

Indie bands use that Cooper font to death these days.

― darin, Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:29 (nineteen years ago)

I wonder... has anyone released a mono record in the post-stereo era?
http://www.themummies.com/images/releases/albums/tr005cd_front.jpg

― abanana, Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:36 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 88 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.