Probably Not As Good As Something Like Pet Sounds
The if-not-the-best-ever-then-definitely-top-five album Pet Sounds celebrates its 40th anniversary this year, and Capitol is celebrating with a special release out tomorrow.
The deluxe, limited-edition suede-feel CD/DVD digipak features the classic album in Mono, Stereo, Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound and Hi-Res 96kHz/24-bit PCM Stereo mixes, rare and previously unreleased promotional and documentary film footage, and a photo gallery of classic band images from the era. A deluxe, double colored vinyl package, limited to 10,000 numbered copies worldwide, presents Mono and Stereo mixes of Pet Sounds in a gatefold sleeve.The main difference between this Pet Sounds reissue celebration and all the previous ones is ... awesome podcasts! The 15-episode series features all-new interviews with the Beach Boys about EVERY track on the album.
Here are the links for the first two tracks. They're not uploaded to iTunes Pet Sounds Podcasts yet, so you get first listen!
Pet Sounds Podcast - "Wouldn't It Be Nice" (MP3)
Pet Sounds Podcast - "You Still Believe In Me" (MP3)
I could go on and on about how I love this album, how groundbreaking it was, Brian Wilson's firefighter helmet (though that was SMiLE wasn't it...) -- but I'll let you do that in the comments.
Stream the album at AOL. And if you want, rate it on a 10 point scale.
Posted at 1:45 PM
Tags: Brian Wilson | The Beach Boys
I actually can't listen to Pet Sounds. It's a beautiful ablum but the crazy harmonies give me the bends. It makes me feel like my head will explode.
Score = 0
Nice Beta Band reference...
Score = 0
I too love Pet Sounds, although I would challenge any of the Stereogum readers to articulate precisely what makes it "groundbreaking." There is nothing particularly advanced about its use of song form (variations of eight-bar phrases, choruses, bridges, etc.) or tonal pallette (as if using a harp and an accordion is some kind of stroke of genius). Its use of meter and rhythmic emphasis is purely conventional and, though there are numerous pretty melodies, pretty melodies have been around since the middle ages. I suppose an argument could be made that it represents some sort of advance in recording-studio technique...
But for the most part I don't think there is an objective, musical reason why we like this record. We like Pet Sounds because we identify with it. The question, then, is what about it do we idetify with? The sense of solitude in Brian Wilson's voice? The development of a loner-character whose life is filled with a tragic sense of anxiety and hestitation? The post-adolescent who hasn't yet been able to face life as a grownup...
Score = 1
John, I think you're pretty off the mark in your assessment of Pet Sounds. The wall-of-sound techniques that Brian Wilson developed based on the influence of Phil Spector go above and beyond what Spector did in the first place. The way that all of the different instruments recorded blend together is masterful and unlike anything else I've heard (at least in terms of rock music). Though Spector and Wilson were probably at the same level as record producers, I think that Wilson was light years beyond Spector as a composer and an arranger.
And no other group used vocal harmonies as thick as the Beach Boys. Sure, it's absolutely true that the Byrds, the Beatles, the Zombies, and other groups also wrote wonderful harmonies, but none of these groups captured the density of the Beach Boys vocal harmony sound.
Furthermore, the compositional techniques used by Brian Wilson in the Pet Sounds record go far beyond what any other rock musician did in that time period. For instance, the bridge of "Don't Talk, Put Your Head On My Shoulder" has a gorgeous key change that no other rock act was approaching at that time. He does a similar trick in "Caroline, No." Nearly every track has a tonality change, which is still unheard of in rock music.
For God's sake, the way Wilson uses the timpani in "I'm Waiting for the Day" is fantastic. I've never heard another group use the timpani like that.
Maybe you could write pitchfork's review of the OK Computer remaster in 25 years.
Score = -1
Hopefully, I didn't sound too dickish there. I just really feel the need to defend the musical achievements Pet Sounds.
Score = 0
Pet Sounds is just updated white Doo Wop. Doo Wop on acid, if you'd prefer a cliche'd catchphrase. It's not a *bad* record, but...
Most. Over. Rated. Record. Ever.
Score = 0
So, if I already have the last mono/stereo remaster and the dvd-a, is this just a straight repackaging of that? nothing new on this but new packaging?
Score = 0
I've never heard white Doo Wop in Hi-Res 96kHz/24-bit PCM Stereo. On acid. That doesn't mean I have to buy it again. Does it?
Score = 0
If I could find my History of Rock Notebook from college I could throw in some more things that were ground breaking but I'm too lazy to find it.
Score = 0
If the Beatles were the heart of the popmusic,
the Beach Boys were certain the soul.
Pet(Sounds)more full grown.
Score = 0
Dane: You don't sound like a dick, you just sound like someone who is passionate about Pet Sounds -- which is well and good. What I'm interested in, however, has less to do with passion than legitimate musical innovation. And the so-called Wall of Sound process has less to do with musical innovation than with the technical development of the recording studio. In this regard, at least, I would allow that Brian Wilson is something of an innovator (although no more so than George Martin, Frank Zappa, Phil Spector, or any of the producers at Motown -- to say nothing of Edgard Varese). Your claims for Wilson as a composer are significantly more dubious. Certainly "Don't Talk, Put Your Head On My Shoulder" has some odd chords, at least by the standards of rock and roll. But this doesn't constitute innovation. Wilson's harmonic spectrum doesn't contain any elements that were not already well established during the nineteenth century or, in terms of popular music, by any number of jazz musicians -- long before the 1960s. And to suggest that a "key change" represents some kind landmark is preposterous.
I'm not trying to sound snide, either. I just think that if we are going to talk about rock records as serious achievements, we have to hold them accountable to the standards that have been in place for the last thousand years. Which isn't to say that I'm not wrong or that there isn't another way to define Pet Sounds as innovative ... certainly I too have felt like this is an excellent record, worthy of high praise. But to say that no other band's vocal harmonies were as "thick" as the Beach Boys' is meaningless (what does "thick" mean?). More to the point, it's arbitrary. If you were to argue that the chord voicings were more sophisticated, that would potentially be a measureable standard. We could determine what chords were used by each band, in what order and arrangement, and then form an argument that the Beach Boys used better chords, in distinctive progressions, with more challenging intervals than those used by the Beatles or the Zombies. But as far as I know, no one has sufficiently developed such an argument (or if it's even possible to make it -- given that we may not have reliable sheet music of Wilson's or Lennon/McCartney's vocal arrangements). Nor do I believe many listeners would want to *hear* such an argument. It's easier to simply state that, to me, the Beach Boys' vocal arrangements are the best. Which is completely subjective and in no way provable.
In fact, I would argue that what makes rock and roll (and popular music of the twentieth century in general) distinctive is its almost total reliance on subjectivity. The music functions as a form of self-identification. When I hear myself in Brian Wilson's song, I like it. When someone like Janine or Billy K doesn't hear him or herself in Brian Wilson's songs, they don't like it. Simple as that. So the question, as I suggested earlier, remains: why do we indentify more readily with Pet Sounds than another record?
Score = 1
John, you should know that all of this is subjective. Even a discussion of Bach versus Mozart is subjective, even if you are discussing their uses of particluar patterns. One's decision of success is ultimately what is subjective.
In answer to your ultimate question, why do we identify with it? Combine your answer with Dane's and you have it. Brian's recording techniques and writing skills combined with the often pained and outsider lyrics of Tony Asher create a mournful, yet wistful album. It just works. The pieces make a greater whole.
Though, still, I disagree with your overall assessment. Perhaps Wilson did not create something that was earth-shatteringly innovative. However, innovation and music do not always create great music. Mr. Wilson himself can attest to that with SMiLE. But you strip those songs on Pet Sounds of the vocals and listen to them just as instrumentals and every single song is still a winner. They still work, and deeper layers are revealed. The same can be said for the vocals only tracks. Pick up the Pet Sounds boxed set and listen to Wouldn't It Be Nice sans instrumentation. It will give you goose bumps.
When the parts and the whole are both so high in quality, you get a great product regardless of any other criteria.
Score = 0
Wait a minute ... What the hell is this? Polite exchanges, deference to taste, correctly-spelled polysyllabic words, dependent clauses, the correct use of "you're," and nuanced development of an argument?
Am I still reading Stereogum?
Score = 2
Jake:
Suck it.
Score = -1
Gary: You make some excellent points, but I still feel there should be a way to make our discussions of popular music less reliant on our subjective responses to the songs. My response to Bach or Mozart may be subjective, but I can still formulate a rational argument about Bach's or Mozart's music based on objective determinations derived from their use of this or that aspect of musical form and technique. One would think I could do the same for the Beach Boys -- yet few (if any) critics do. Whether or not a record is "groundbreaking" often comes down to how many people think it will give you goose bumps, to borrow your phrase.
That said, your argument about Pet Sounds as a highly-evolved integration of "the parts and the whole" is intriguing indeed. I'm not sure if I see myself listening to the "Wouldn't It be Nice" vocal tracks on a regular basis, but my older version of Pet Sounds has an "Unreleased Backgrounds" cut of Brian and the boys singing a capella that has a certain haunting quality to it (although I'm not certain it really stands on its own as an autonomous musical creation). It will be interesting to see if, once these barebones tracks are released, the individual vocal lines become integrated into remixes and mash-ups and so on, i.e. take on a life of their own.
Score = 0
haha..this exchange might be the geekiest clash of the titans argument I've ever read here.
Score = 0
An album can be musically "groundbreaking" or culturally "groundbreaking"... John, why do you only focus on the musical side? As someone with a classical context, Wilson's unique chord shapes and progressions probably aren't new to you. Maybe people are responding to the fact that while Pet Sounds is one of the most musically intellectual "Rock" records made in the time period, it's also one of the most emotionally honest. He's using complex (for rock) arrangements and progressions to communicate basic human feelings. When you're dealing with Top 40 stuff, that's a pretty unique thing.
What I don't understand is why, when Stereogum calls Pet Sounds groundbreaking, your first assumption is that he's talking about it pushing the boundaries of 19th century music forms.
Score = -1
John:
See this for how some have used those raw tracks:
http://petsounds.a.la/
Sometimes successful, sometimes painful aural explosions.
There's a statement someone could run with.
Score = 0
Robin: This is really just another way of rephrasing my initial question -- why do we identify with Pet Sounds so strongly? What gives it its cultural or social value? I agree that Pet Sounds has attained a certain, perhaps even groundbreaking, social significance. But on what basis? The subject matter of the songs? Brian Wilson's reputation as a shattered genius? The mythical appeal of Pet Sounds as an American answer to Revolver?
And what makes this particular social significance more valuable than the one represented by, say, Britney Spears? Every pop song attempts to "communicate basic human feelings." Even if certain songs appear to have a less contrived sense of emotional honesty, that doesn't make them any less a matter of artiface. Is Pet Sounds only great because, forty years later, young people continue to listen to it? What will it mean if, in forty years, people are still humming "Hit Me Baby One More Time"?
Also, I never suggested that Pet Sounds should push the boundaries of 19th century musical forms (certainly Wilson wasn't overly concerned with the relative merits of the sonata), I only meant to suggest that our favorite late-20th century recordings are often less successful on musical terms than the arguments that surround them would have us believe. That said, I'm skeptical as to whether any of the songs on Pet Sounds represent a true advancement of the standard 32-bar pop song structure. If anyone has an argument to the contrary, I'm all ears...
Score = 0
Gary: I can't seem to get that link to work, although I'm curious to see what's there.
Score = 0
Try this one John:
http://www.autistici.com/petsounds.htm
Score = 0
John: If we say that we identify with Pet Sounds subjectively, that doesn’t mean we don’t identify with it socially. Granted, we aren’t consistently agreeing upon its significance through an objective understanding of its formal attributes, but I don’t think you can limit identification to a unique personal experience. All of the bases for its cultural significance that you posit above are important, and we listen to Pet Sounds, enjoy it, and attribute value to it through these frameworks of understanding the album. Yes, it is mythic—as an example of rock music becoming more serious and ambitious, as a significant moment in the narrative of Brian Wilson’s life, as an intriguing example of one-upmanship between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, as a culmination of one person trying to realize his personal ideals through song. These myths accumulated over forty years through listening to and talking about Pet Sounds, and they affect how we respond to the music so enthusiastically over time. I am sure there are some people out there who can still hear Pet Sounds in some sort of social vacuum and appreciate it and identify with it on some immediate individual level, but the question you are asking can be put to a majority of rock and pop records considered to be “groundbreaking.” Instead of saying, “It’s not in the form, so where is it?” maybe we could say, “How has the form been a significant part in creating these myths that reflect how strongly we feel about this music?”
Score = 0
Ye Jake, your are n idot! Fock u! STROKES RULZ!!
OMG, this crap is like porn for the rock 'n roll nerd. I'm hard right now.
Remind me again, Billy K, did the Coasters ever record barking dogs on their records? Brian acknowledges constantly that what he did was drawn largely from Spector and vocal groups like the Teenagers and, at least in their earlier music, Chuck Berry (Surfin' USA is a straight ripoff of a Chuck Berry song). That doesn't make the innovations he made any less brilliant. Derivativeness is overrated.
Wanna have some fun? Try identifying every single section of one of those songs by ear. Your head will feel like exploding...
Score = 0
It's cool that y'all are being cool with each other but don't put words in my mouth. I never said that I dislike Pet Sounds. I do like it. It just makes me feel crazy. The harmonies on God Only Knows make me feel like I've done nitrous. Put another way: I don't like emo, but you could put me in a room and play an entire Fall Out Boy record, I'd merely dislike it. This visceral reaction leads me to think Brian Wilson was up to something musically interesting, but I'm never going to listen to the Beach Boys long enough to find out (because of the crazy-making). My older sis is depressed by the smell of raspberries, perhaps the Beach Boys are my rasperries.
Score = 0
can anyone tell me what month in 1966 "god only knows" was released in u.k ?
Score = 0
can anyone tell me what month in 1966 "god only knows" was released in u.k ?
Score = 0
Chad: I certainly don't mean to suggest that subjective and social identification are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'm fairly certain they're intertwined. This is how mass media works: we each have our own subjective response to a certain television show or pop song. Then certain television shows and pop songs gain social merit once a number of people have begun responding to them positively (as expressed through TV ratings, record and concert ticket sales, critical reviews, fan mail, etc). All of which is to say, yes, pop music must be considered within the context of its relevant social structures. I didn't mean to discount that in any of my prior comments, I simply thought it would be interesting to consider one of these "groundbreaking" albums from a more objectively musical standpoint.
You're probably right, that a better way to state my question would be to ask which aspects of musical form have led us to enjoy this record. Is it something in the bridge? Does Brian Wilson do something with the choruses that functions to make him sound more lonely? (I'm still not convinced that it has anything to do with form -- I think it's the catchy melodies, pretty harmonies, lush orchestration, and novel use of recording-studio technique; to say nothing of the fact that his songs all deal with readily identifiable subject matter: love and loss.) Anyone have any ideas?
Score = 0
Janine: Many apologies. I certainly didn't mean to take your comments so drastically out of context.
Score = 0
No problemo. But seriously, can anyone listen to that album and be surprised that Brian Wilson has pshycological issues? Imagine your head was filled with crazy, crazy harmonies... It'd be cool, but it would also suck.
Score = 0
Sometimes great music is quantifiable - you can measure its innovation and skill. And sometimes it's just haunted and beautiful. I couldn't explain why I love Pet Sounds, just like I can't explain why I love Jeff Buckley's Hallelujah. Or why I find Ella Fitzgerald such an incredible jazz singer. At best, I could sit down and figure out the relationship between the form and the result - maybe that particular chorus creates that shiver in my spine. But until I can answer why I find music moving to begin with, I can't answer why I find this particular music moving.
Score = 0
Hey all! I identify with the music on the album because it is consciously made to be dense. The more it is analyzed, the more care can be seen in the making. This is not to say that Wilson was inventing the wheel all over again. Hey, this is a pop album, right? Let's get down to some nuts and bolts. As far as I see it, the big advancement is not in the structure of the song. At the very least, the album is very sound and well-crafted pop. To simply view the album in this way is a crime against what Wilson accomplished musically. Take "That's Not Me" for example. Musically, the song keeps modulating higher and higher. Most pop writers are happy with a final verse and/or chorus modulating up a half-step for impact. Wilson keeps the intensity building as he steps up keys. When is the last time anyone attempted that in pop? What about the backing vocals for "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times"? Sure, it sounds great, but start listening around 50 seconds in. This lyrical and melodic/harmonic layering has more in common with Medieval motets than anything in pop music up to that point. Listen to the sessions for the album. Sure, Wilson is mimicking Spector's techniques, but one gets the sense that this is what Spector would be without the ego and self-importance. Wilson is channeling the natural talent without letting his ego get in the way. This strangely innocent approach is at odds with the lyrical content of the album, but it lays a remarkable sonic foundation for the lyrics to sit on top of. This all serves as a distraction from the actual chords/phrasing of the music. To know that Wilson was a bass player makes perfect sense with the way he was writing. Listen to "God Only Knows" and sit down at a piano to play along. Notice how most of the chords in your right hand are being supported by a contrapuntal bass moving in the left hand. If you have the musical ability, try it! D/A Bm F#m B7/A E/B... Most (if not all) pop writers up to that point did not think in those terms. The complexity of Wilson's writing is evident in the fact that he chose to have a studio full of professionals instead of the actual band. Now, I am not saying that Wilson scored the entire project, but he thought about the placement of each note from each instrument in a way that was not utilized without having a producer such as Spector at the helm. One of the greatest innovations of Pet Sounds was that it was allowed to be whatever Brian wanted it to be. Yes, he was not the Executive Producer, but he was given a hands-off opportunity to develop what he heard in his head without someone like Spector changing everything to his ego-fueled will. As I said before, he is not re-inventing the wheel, he was just pushing the ball forward. He took pop to a very complex place by utilizing the history of Western music (whether intentional or not). In some ways, pop has not totally caught up yet. In other ways, there are musicians and writers who have surpassed the originator. Listening to a single like "My World Fell Down" makes the guys in Sagittarius (at times) seem like uber-geniuses compared to Wilson. Where are they now? Wilson made a whole project that feels very complete and not just a flash in the pan. This fan is sure glad that everyone just stayed the heck out of his way! Anyway, I am rambling, so, these are just a few of the reasons why I love the album, and why rises to the top whenever "best of" lists pop up.
Score = 0
I don't really have much to say about Pet Sounds. I've heard probably half the album throughout my life just in pieces here and there. I would like to own this because I think the vinyl is beautiful.
Score = 0
To paraphrase "A Christmas Story"...
Teacher: "Brian, A plus, plus, plus, plus, plus...."
Score = 0
pet sounds?
more like not as good as panic! sounds.
Score = 0
Yeah, but how many of those albums have . . . SHEEP?
Think about it, yo.
Score = 0
John, you're missing the point. The innovation in Pet Sounds is not the chord structure, song structure, or instrumentation. The innovation is their use in a popular music context. That is why this remains one of the most lauded records of our time. Brian Wilson had the inspiration at the young age of 24 to use the studio and an orchestra in a way in which they had not yet been combined. He went further than anyone had or in my opinion has since. This is far more than a pop album and will always rise to the top.
Score = -1
I've loved this album FOREVER. It's proof that my parents had some taste once upon a time!
Score = 0
Well...strangely enough it took me several years of intense listening to all kinds of music before I purchaced "Pet Sounds". But upon my first listening I just fell madly in love with the harmonies, the lush melodies and the soothing feelings that the entire album gives to my body. It's just an album that glows with good feelings...
Score = 0
I kissed your lips
And when your face looked sad
It made me think about him
And that you still loved him so...
THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS ALBUM THE MOST AMAZINGLY BEAUTIFUL COLLECTION OF ART.IF you've heard this in song, you know the angst that it is delivered from. You know the pain~ you feel it in every lyric delivered on this album. IF YOU HAVEN'T MADE TIME TO LISTEN, PLEASE DO! Real emotions, real feeling...This album will NEVER be duplicated.
Score = 0
You're high
Score = 0
Pet Sounds is a great album, for many reasons one of which is the depth of the music, which at the time and to an extent even today, is groundbreaking. I could go on forever but I will not.
Score = 0
Pet Sounds is beautiful pop music, so sad and happy at the same time. Listen.
Score = 0
This may sound a little morbid, but it remains important. I just wrote down my last wishes in case I expire that clearly state that "Wouldn't It Be Nice" be played at my funeral. Perhaps "pretty melodies" are a dime a dozen, yet somehow, this album and song in particular manages to evoke a strange, bittersweet emotion. Genius may be pure luck for all we know, but Wilson and co. found it with Pet Sounds.
Score = 0
Music can't objectively be good or bad. The only reason that anybody needs to like a record is that it pleases them (subjective). Pet Sounds pleases me when I listen to it. Prove me wrong.
Score = 0
I,ve listened to some interresting facts about "Pet Sounds" on Sunday Morning Radio. The Beatles were inspired by it through their "Rubber Soul" Album.
Score = 0