Pet Sounds - classic or dud

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (181 of them)

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 (eighteen years ago) link

*rimshot* for donut

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

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

one year passes...

This is such a terrible record cover.

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

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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

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

What Joseph Cowart said.

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

I like it

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

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

Didn't Brian like the mono best?

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

How could he tell otherwise?

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

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

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

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

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

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

why not?

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

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

All those goats are dead now.

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

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

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

wtf? its a great cover!

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

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 (sixteen years ago) link

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 (sixteen years ago) link

that's a whole other Cover Connections thread methinks

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

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

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

Indie bands use that Cooper font to death these days.

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

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 (sixteen years ago) link

Cover is great. Isn't there a kind of comical T. Moore bit in the Brian Wilson documentary about how Avant and Out it is? If there was, I remember laughing.

― bear, bear, bear, Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:57 (sixteen years ago) link

Cover is awful. Looks/feels like a press photoshoot.

Classic album font, though. That shouldn't be overlooked.

― Jamesy, Friday, 18 May 2007 00:19 (sixteen years ago) link

It's better than Capitol's cover for The Beatles' Second Album

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_albums/1/8/1/g18111ly719.jpg

― Tim Ellison, Friday, 18 May 2007 01:09 (sixteen years ago) link

Re the recent mono subject, there are a few mono songs on the "Sons Of Nuggets" box set. The tracks in that box set were all released from the late 70s through the mid 80s.

― Geir Hongro, Friday, 18 May 2007 01:11 (sixteen years ago) link

two years pass...

oh god reading this shit made me so depressed. does anyone around here likes this album? its so beautiful. all this hate seems so reactionary

― lukevalentine, Saturday, 24 October 2009 21:44 (fourteen years ago) link

It is absolutely glorious and fantastic througout. Beautiful melodies, beautiful vocal harmonies.

The Beatles were better than Beach Boys generally, but they never made an album as fantastic as this one.

― Tied Up In Geir (Geir Hongro), Saturday, 24 October 2009 22:20 (fourteen years ago) link

yes i agree with this, i've always felt that the beatles are superior but never made a record as consistent as Pet Sounds which is way more consistent than say sgt. pepper's both sonically and songwise. it has that same solid gold feel throughout... presumably this is due to the fact that Beatles albums are compilations of the songs of three different songwriters and this album is Brian's vision alone. although it's not like any of the solo Beatle albums are as good as this either...

― lukevalentine, Saturday, 24 October 2009 22:44 (fourteen years ago) link

someone mentioned odessey and oracle upthread.... I think that record has the same consistent feel. I have never really compared that record with Pet Sounds though. I have no idea which is better

― lukevalentine, Saturday, 24 October 2009 22:47 (fourteen years ago) link

second thought - "god only knows" probably gives this album an edge over other contenders in this category. it's just perfect

― lukevalentine, Saturday, 24 October 2009 23:02 (fourteen years ago) link

it is somewhat overrated, but its a great pop album and god only knows is perfect

― FACK, Sunday, 25 October 2009 00:04 (fourteen years ago) link

"Odessey & Oracle" is another album that I consider better than anything by The Beatles.

Their only other album, "Begin Here" is considerably weaker though.

― Tied Up In Geir (Geir Hongro), Sunday, 25 October 2009 00:14 (fourteen years ago) link

wait are we talking about the zombies?

― FACK, Sunday, 25 October 2009 00:15 (fourteen years ago) link

it's always a good time to talk about the zombies IMO

― lukevalentine, Sunday, 25 October 2009 01:28 (fourteen years ago) link

Skipping 81 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.