Pet sounds vs. Pepper
Elfving Jonas
Pepper, I usually scratch my head intensly. What is it with Pet Sounds
that´s so great? I bought the album, I´ve listened to it many times, and
sure ít´s got a few great songs, (wouldn´t it be nice, I know there´s an
answer etc.) but Pepper´s songs are all great, more or less! And the songs
on Pepper are not even remotely like each other, whereas P.S tunes sort of
melt in to each other sometimes. Some magazine voted Pet Sounds to be the
best album ever made, and Revolver came in second. That is confusing
things... Clearly I´ve missed something; I consider my judgement in music is
rather good, but I can never understand pet sounds reputation.
--
"There are no libraries; they are secret"
/Jonas
lennon fan
Lord Tim Brent
wrote:
Jonas,
Pet Sounds is a great album,but you have to get into it emotionally.It and
revolver have aged better than Sgt. Pepper.
Tim
----------------------
Duchy of Grand Fenwick
Mister Charlie
than Pet Sounds.
PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
(horrors!) Caroline, No. I agree with the original poster. I
don't get what the whole hullabaloo has been about this music.,
The songs meander tunelessly, which is really annoying. You
expect something to go up, instead it goes down or sideways.
Structure. Old brian was losing it. No matter. He has been
universally acclaimed for the LP, so good on him. But I think 3
songs alone do not make an LP. And Pepper is a classic for a
reason.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
oa...@alphaink.com
wrote:
>,the concept works better,as does The Who Sell Out,or Tommy.
>Tim
>----------------------
>Duchy of Grand Fenwick
Ah, Tommy there's another album with three good songs
and precious little else.
Surly09
>Pepper, I usually scratch my head intensly. What is it with Pet Sounds
>that´s so great? I bought the album, I´ve listened to it many times, and
>sure ít´s got a few great songs, (wouldn´t it be nice, I know there´s an
>answer etc.) but Pepper´s songs are all great, more or less! And the songs
>on Pepper are not even remotely like each other, whereas P.S tunes sort of
>melt in to each other sometimes. Some magazine voted Pet Sounds to be the
>best album ever made, and Revolver came in second. That is confusing
>things... Clearly I´ve missed something; I consider my judgement in music is
>rather good, but I can never understand pet sounds reputation.
>
>--
>"There are no libraries; they are secret"
>
>/Jonas
i'm a HUGE fan of both albums, and my opinion is that sgt pepper hits you the
moment you first listen to it, while pet sounds must be given time to "grow" on
you. i bought pet sounds when i was 16 years old after watching the sgt. pepper
special where mccartney praises it. it was another 3 years before it finally
"clicked" with me and i realized how incredible it was. my advice to you: don't
give up. give it time.
num...@hotmail.com
Mister Charlie <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> To me there is no comparison. Pepper is so far and away better
> than Pet Sounds.
>
> PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
> Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
> (horrors!) Caroline, No. I agree with the original poster. I
> don't get what the whole hullabaloo has been about this music.,
> The songs meander tunelessly, which is really annoying. You
> expect something to go up, instead it goes down or sideways.
> Structure. Old brian was losing it. No matter. He has been
> universally acclaimed for the LP, so good on him. But I think 3
> songs alone do not make an LP. And Pepper is a classic for a
> reason.
>
well said...and i think it has but two good songs as i can't stand
Sloop John B...i think because Pepper has been on the top of the heap
for so long now,it's now cool to dislike it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lord Tim Brent
<ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>To me there is no comparison. Pepper is so far and away better
>than Pet Sounds.
>
>PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
>Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
>(horrors!) Caroline, No. I agree with the original poster. I
>don't get what the whole hullabaloo has been about this music.,
>The songs meander tunelessly, which is really annoying. You
>expect something to go up, instead it goes down or sideways.
>Structure. Old brian was losing it. No matter. He has been
>universally acclaimed for the LP, so good on him. But I think 3
>songs alone do not make an LP. And Pepper is a classic for a
>reason.
Charlie,
As I noted,part of the thing about Pet Spounds is the fact that you have to
spend a bit of emotional capital in listening to it.I see it as a lot of others
do,as a whole,Brian's search for love and acceptance despite his faults.Listened
to as a whole,the concept works better,as does The Who Sell Out,or Tommy.
Token Boy
> stuff from the Beach Boys' 1967-1975 era.
Yeah, and about 10 times that amount from Beatles and solo Beatles efforts
since Sgt. Pepper. Pet Sounds might actually BE a great album (ok, it IS)
but the Beatles catalog is so much more. It's called 'synergy.' Brian was
the only really creative BB, and the Beatles had three creative geniuses and
a very talented drummer who were always looking for more influence and
inspiration. Three to the third plus one is greater than one to the
infinite.
paramucho
>than Pet Sounds.
>
>PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
>Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
>(horrors!) Caroline, No. I agree with the original poster. I
>don't get what the whole hullabaloo has been about this music.,
>The songs meander tunelessly, which is really annoying. You
>expect something to go up, instead it goes down or sideways.
>Structure. Old brian was losing it. No matter. He has been
>universally acclaimed for the LP, so good on him. But I think 3
>songs alone do not make an LP. And Pepper is a classic for a
>reason.
Hey, someone agrees with me.
I spent months trying to see what others saw in this album.
I found that it had aged badly, the arrangement were often tinny
and poorly performed and the voices strained.
A number of the songs *do* have great, original construction and
adventurous arrangements.
I will never understand what people see in "God Only Knows". It's
okay, but hardly mind-boggling. And just a little preachy.
Ian
Token Boy
> Pet OSunds was a sacred cow, it wouldn't still be voted #1 while
> SPLHCB goes down and down and Revolver and Abbey Road come back
> up.
What??? I didn't understand any of this.
> With the exception of A Day in the Life, there really aren't any
> songs on Pepper's that are TRUELY great beatles songs. Has to be
> said. Ok, ok. SLH, LSD, SPLHCB, WLHMF are good, but the others
> are not nearly up to their previous (and future) standards.
Hmmm....I disagree. LSD, Day, and BFTBOMK are all great songs. Plus, the
album was so much more experimentally produced and written than "Pet
Sounds."
> PS is a great emotional journey and the songs are *supposed* to
> bleed together as someone so accidently perfectly put it! It's
> more subtle than Pepper's, but so what? Pepper's is a pop album
> in the sense that it is very entertaining rather than emotive.
> Which is not to say that both albums don't share those qualities,
> it's just that they are clearly on opoosite sides of the
> spectrum. Actually, they are like mirror images of each other in
> a lot of ways.
Pepper perks me up, Pet Sounds almost bores me. That factor alone is
indicative (to me) of an albums staying power. Additionally, the Beach Boys
ability to harmonize seems extremely limited compared to the Beatles.
> PS was prasied like crazy even before McCartney said it was
> brilliant. Andrew Loog Oldham took out a full page ad glorifying
> in his own words. Then, the rest of the music scene/business in
> the UK really took notice, and to this day, it is more well known
> in the UK than in its native US.
Maybe it seems more exotic to the UK as Pepper is to the US.
Apples and oranges for the most part, but as I said in an earlier post, it's
the synergy of three to the third plus one versus Brian to the Nth.
K. Warner
All I'm going to say is that this discussion led me to slip Pet Sounds
into the CD player as opposed to Sgt. Pepper.
KW
paramucho
>
>All I'm going to say is that this discussion led me to slip Pet Sounds
>into the CD player as opposed to Sgt. Pepper.
Well, that beats talking about it.
Ian
Spin33
it is the nature of people to like games.
games sometimes come from bored people.
there shouldnt even be a comparison of pet sounds to pepper. there is no
correlation.
if correlations were to be made, then make justified comparisons between "her
satanic majesties request" by the stones and peppers. something similar to
something similar...get it? even if its just a concept thats similar. If youre
going to use the beach boys then use "surfs up" tho it is still remote however
surfs up represents the beach boys pepper lp: a diversion in direction.
i am always concerned as to where peoples minds are headig these days. this
intiial comparison of pet sounds to peppers keeps my concern alive for the
human race: just where was this supposed to be going man: is someone daft here?
K. Warner
I've finished listening to that though and now I'm on to the White
Album!
KW
Token Boy
> places I could attack these shallow potshots, I'd hardly know where to
> even start.
So, we're just supposed to take your word as the authority.
How about you defending your position with opnions based on something other
than your condescending, imperious attitude?
Token Boy
> Sounds was on the par of Beatle albums again! WAAAH!!" My point WAS
> that the post-Pet Sounds Beach Boys material is underrated. I made no
> comparison of the material with Beatlemusic, and your above indignancy
> is totally irrelevant.
Check it out. This IS RMB, not RMBB. Besides, I SAID that PS was a great
album, and didn't disagree with your statement regarding 2 CD's.
> As for the illogic of proclaiming that there's more good Beatlemusic
> from 1967-2000 than in the Beach Boys 1967-1975....
How is that illogical, considering the tone of this thread?
> Yadda yadda. More garbage arguments. So there's no solo artist in your
> mind which can touch a great band?
Teamwork will out, my friend. I learned this in the Air Force. (Now, at 42,
I am in college with a bunch of kids who all want to be individuals, and the
few of us who can work together get a LOT more work accomplished, and of a
relatively consistent higher quality.)
Unfortunately, look what happened when the Beatles stopped working as a
team.
Maybe I should have made my point more clearly. IF Brian had had similar
resources in his bandmates, clearly the BB catalog would have been more
timeless. Can you imagine what the BB would have been like if there had been
three members of Brian's caliber? (I have had the same problem in my band as
the only songwriter. I'd gladly share the position of 'leader' for more
flexibility, creativity, material, and sheer raw energy. There's still
hope...my singer (a Lit and American Studies major) has just written his
first tune.)
I'd say that Clapton has done right well for himself in his genre with his
following, as has Michael Jackson, and many others. Doesn't mean that I
listen to them, but I don't deny their success.
Apples and oranges, as far as I am concerned.
But please note at no time did I accuse you of sniveling, irrelevancy,
illogic, or garbage arguments, despite your emotional attack. Jeez, Bob,
lighten up.
paramucho
It's just a daft chat group gossing about a couple of albums
at the trivia level...
No real danger to the human species here that I can see.
Ian
paramucho
Well, don't skip "Revolution 9", turn up the volume, relax
your mind and float downstream instead...
Ian
Mister Charlie
Mister Charlie
Can we frame that and hang it somewhere here in the RMB???
Everyone should be required to recite it daily...LOL!
Mister Charlie
right.
and I LIKE Satanic Majesties, but there is NO comparison there
either.
That will probably also give GB an apoplectic fit.
paramucho
>
>Can we frame that and hang it somewhere here in the RMB???
>Everyone should be required to recite it daily...LOL!
"Gossing Mr Charlie"
Ian
Dan Stanley
> indicative (to me) of an albums staying power. Additionally, the Beach
Boys
> ability to harmonize seems extremely limited compared to the Beatles.
Eesh. By this measure, Tommy Roe's "Dizzy" and The Archies "Sugar, Sugar"
are better than a whole host of songs!
I know, I'm reading more into it than you intended, but you must admit that
there has to be something more to "good" music than, "it perks me up"!
Dan
Dan Stanley
"Mister Charlie" <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:38380d00...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
> To me there is no comparison. Pepper is so far and away better
> than Pet Sounds.
Tough to make those kinds of comparisons, from where I sit.
> PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
> Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
> (horrors!) Caroline, No. I agree with the original poster. I
> don't get what the whole hullabaloo has been about this music.,
You have to consider the time in which it was released, and what it was...a
Pop album, from a well known and succesful Pop group, but it was SO
different from anything that came before, or was on the radio at the time.
To many, it was one of those technicolor moments.
> The songs meander tunelessly, which is really annoying. You
> expect something to go up, instead it goes down or sideways.
Ah! Exactly the point. Breaking the expectations of the fans ( no songs
about cars? surfing? teenage simple love?), asking them to LISTEN
sideways..pretty cool. But the noted BB touchstones are still well in
place...can you imagine what it may have been like if Brian had been working
with George Martin?
> Structure. Old brian was losing it. No matter. He has been
> universally acclaimed for the LP, so good on him. But I think 3
> songs alone do not make an LP. And Pepper is a classic for a
> reason.
It is true, I think, that Pet sounds hasn't aged well. But I always try
and I don't always succeed) to look at things in context. Sgt. Pepper
(IMHO! IMHO!) hasn't aged as well as Revolver, but it's still a pretty good
record... ;-}
Dan
lennon fan
nearly as whiny. The worst aspect of the PS album (besides being often
boring) is the morose self-pity that permeates the album. Now, I like
many of the tracks (Here Today, Let's...Awhile, I Know..) detest many of
the others (Sloop John B, Pet Sounds, the end of Caroline No (somebody
shoot those annoying dogs and put them out of their misery
PLEASE)....but having been around when it was new and next to nobody in
the U.S. cared about it (for good reason) most of my friends today beg
me to yank it off the turntable whenever I get nostalgic for
verge-of-insanity Brian (I actually prefer Smiley Smile...that album is
REALLY nuts) but ultimately PS is good for naval gazing, following your
muse, no matter how potentially unpopular (and make no mistake, when
that album came out in the U.S., it nearly killed the BBs career) and
tho there was an upshot with Good Vibrations, it was all downhill from
there. The best thing that can be said about it is that it's miles
better than all that surfin' crap. They were almost as whiny as the 4
Seasons (but I'll take Rag Doll, Let's Hang On, Silence Is Golden over
ANYTHING by the BBs)
You will never catch me worshiping at the temple of Brian, but I do
think he had some inate musical talent, but then again so did many 60's
artists....big Whoop! Hendrix, Janis w/Big Brother, Morrison, Mick and
Keef, Pink Floyd, Yardbirds, Love, all had more consistent, better
material IMO anyway.
Token Boy
> are better than a whole host of songs!
>
> I know, I'm reading more into it than you intended, but you must admit
that
> there has to be something more to "good" music than, "it perks me up"!
You said it yourself. You're reading so much into what I said that you're
distorting the meaning to support an argument that doesn't exist.
As far as Pepper goes, yeah, it DOES perk me up (because it IS so much
more), but I am NOT going to sit here and provide an in-depth analysis of
the albums just to satisfy and/or entertain a whole bunch of people that I
don't know over USENET.
At no time did I ever presume that anyone here was wrong in their point of
view, until it became clear to me that they were wrong about attacking what
I posted.
Go figure. In my emailbox today, I was attacked for liking "Keeping The
Faith," by someone who said that it was degrading to Jewish women. What a
load of garbage. It's just a movie, and the subject of the above was just
music.
I can't believe the number of presumptuous, and often downright rude people
who can't acknowledge other's right to like whatever they want to like for
whatever reason. I mean, feel free to disagree, but don't try to bend me to
your will through ridicule and illogic.
Dee
> PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
> Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
> Old brian was losing it.
So was Van Gough
Token Boy
> you can evenly rate songwriting, arrangements, production, singing,
> etc. on their own terms, without fretting over whether the acts are
> collectively or individually led.
You're right. I am leading a band, and have absolutely none of the above
skills which I can apply to the evaluation of others. Never mind that I
would GLADLY share the authority in exchange for some talent and hard work
from another creative individual.
Hey , this is fun now that you stopped the insults...well, except for that
"garbage" part.
Maxwell Edison
Brian alone. I mean, the other BB's weren't really behind him on this album
at all. Pepper, on the other hand, is probably the last time all four
Beatles were really of one mind on a project, and I'm sorry, but four
Beatles can beat one Brian any day of the week. And they did.
Elfving Jonas wrote in message ...
DALE WIESE
pepper, but I fall into the camp that values Revolver a little more. I also
regard Rubber Soul as an equal to Pepper in terms of a whole album
experience.The point is they're all great. As to Pet Sounds; it's flawless,
Mike Love and all. Beyond the stunning melodies, arrangements and production
of Brian Wilson, there are those amazing Tony Asher lyrics that expanded the
limits of pop writing. Even though Pet sounds wasn't much of a commercial
success, it deserves tremendous credit for preparing the public [and more
importantly the critics], for albums like Pepper. Have you heard the stereo
mix? Genuine ear candy.
--
DW
Elfving Jonas <jonase...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:d3IL4.643$wYl.18...@newsb.telia.net...
Mister Charlie
And while I consider us friends, of a sort.......
--
"...and the flowers bloom like madness in the spring..."
Mister Charlie
"Dan Stanley" <stan...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
> "Mister Charlie" <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:38380d00...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
>
> > To me there is no comparison. Pepper is so far and away better
> > than Pet Sounds.
>
> Tough to make those kinds of comparisons, from where I sit.
Well, get up and walk around :)
>
> > PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
> > Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
> > (horrors!) Caroline, No. I agree with the original poster. I
> > don't get what the whole hullabaloo has been about this music.,
>
> You have to consider the time in which it was released, and what it
was...a
> Pop album, from a well known and succesful Pop group, but it was SO
> different from anything that came before, or was on the radio at the
time.
So was Frank Zappa, but...?
> To many, it was one of those technicolor moments.
Like a technicolor yawn?
>
> > The songs meander tunelessly, which is really annoying. You
> > expect something to go up, instead it goes down or sideways.
>
> Ah! Exactly the point. Breaking the expectations of the fans ( no
songs
> about cars? surfing? teenage simple love?), asking them to LISTEN
> ***sideways***..pretty cool.
Sideways is the problem. The Beatles were doing the same expectation
breaking at the same time period, but the produces pleasureable songs,
not meandering noodlings. I like jazz, BTW. Improvosation done by
people who know what they are doing is an art.
>
> > Structure. Old brian was losing it. No matter. He has been
> > universally acclaimed for the LP, so good on him. But I think 3
> > songs alone do not make an LP. And Pepper is a classic for a
> > reason.
>
> It is true, I think, that Pet sounds hasn't aged well. But I always
try
> and I don't always succeed) to look at things in context. Sgt. Pepper
> (IMHO! IMHO!) hasn't aged as well as Revolver, but it's still a
pretty good
> record... ;-}
Well, to be sure, GB apparently missed the fact that my post was indeed
also I M H O!!! I certainly do not want to rain on anyone's
parade...too many people (most) think Pet Sounds is a masterpiece, so
I'm sure I just don't get it. And I never did, then or now, and I own
the CD! I like the train bells and dog barking, though. He didn't
totally lose me....:))
>
> Dan
Mister Charlie
> > Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
>
>
>
>
touche. :) then again, so am I. un-touche.
sartanglor
time they are posted by trolls and spammers trying to get you to visit their
'best of' sites.
Of course most of the posters never stick around to see the ruins of what they
started.
For what its worth- I purchased Pet Sounds recently and quite like it BUT it is
the record that spurred Macca to create Pepper (or so he claims). I don't know
what spurred on John, George and Ringo- have never read their thoughts on the
matter. I always like the nod to Pet Sounds at the end of Good Morning, Good
MOrning.
Token Boy wrote:
> > Totally! I think Pepper's plaes in comparison, to be honest. If
> > Pet OSunds was a sacred cow, it wouldn't still be voted #1 while
> > SPLHCB goes down and down and Revolver and Abbey Road come back
> > up.
>
> What??? I didn't understand any of this.
>
> > With the exception of A Day in the Life, there really aren't any
> > songs on Pepper's that are TRUELY great beatles songs. Has to be
> > said. Ok, ok. SLH, LSD, SPLHCB, WLHMF are good, but the others
> > are not nearly up to their previous (and future) standards.
>
> Hmmm....I disagree. LSD, Day, and BFTBOMK are all great songs. Plus, the
> album was so much more experimentally produced and written than "Pet
> Sounds."
>
> > PS is a great emotional journey and the songs are *supposed* to
> > bleed together as someone so accidently perfectly put it! It's
> > more subtle than Pepper's, but so what? Pepper's is a pop album
> > in the sense that it is very entertaining rather than emotive.
> > Which is not to say that both albums don't share those qualities,
> > it's just that they are clearly on opoosite sides of the
> > spectrum. Actually, they are like mirror images of each other in
> > a lot of ways.
>
> Pepper perks me up, Pet Sounds almost bores me. That factor alone is
> indicative (to me) of an albums staying power. Additionally, the Beach Boys
> ability to harmonize seems extremely limited compared to the Beatles.
>
paramucho
> paramucho <i...@hammo.com> wrote:
>> >LMAO Ian!
>> >
>> >Can we frame that and hang it somewhere here in the RMB???
>> >Everyone should be required to recite it daily...LOL!
>>
>> "Gossing Mr Charlie"
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>whew! When I first read that I thought it said 'GOOSING Mr Charlie'!
>And while I consider us friends, of a sort.......
I was thinking of "Driving Miss Daisy" Monsieur Charlemagne...
(Anyway, this Orstrarleeyan has no idea what the term "goosing" means)
Ian
Doug Campbell
marcu...@webtv.net wrote:
> If you want to compare Beatles and Beach Boys, try a comparison between
> "Paperback Writer" and "Good Vibrations", the best singles each group had
> in 1966.
Again?
DC
marcu...@webtv.net
1967. I bought "Pet Sounds" when it first came out(late Spring 1966),
and with the exception of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" (an "our" song with a
girl I was going out with at the time), "God Only Knows", and "Caroline
No" (the harmony in the middle of the song is still wonderful) the rest
of the stuff was boring. As Mister Charlie said, it was aimless. I
seldom placed "Pet Sounds" on my stereo turntable. Once "Revolver" came
out a few months later, I don't think I ever listened to the album in
its entirety again.
I can never understand why people insist on comparing "Pet Sounds" to
"Pepper". The only similarity between the two of them is that each were
a departure for the bands. If you want to compare Beatles and Beach
Boys, try a comparison between "Paperback Writer" and "Good Vibrations",
the best singles each group had in 1966.
marcus1950
--------------------------------------
True happiness relates more to the mind and heart. Happiness that
depends mainly on physical pleasure is unstable; one day it's there, the
next day it may not be.
the Dalai Lama
Token Boy
> opinion of it certainly carries a lot of weight.
Just slightly more than your own.
afr
big way. I grew up in the 60s, but was so blindsighted by the Beatles, I
couldn't hear the uniqueness of the beach Boys at the time. (Ironically,
I've experienced their music as requiring a more mature mind, at least in
my case. ;))
I find myself feeling sorrow for all the BBs have endured personally, in
particular, Brian Wilson. How do people get past that and just enjoy the
music?
ava
On 22 Apr 2000, gondola bob wrote:
> More garbage....
>
> GB
>
>
afr
thought Pepper was as good as the other Beatles albums. It pushed the
recording studio as an instrument in a way that it had never been used
before. But I prefer most of the other albums musically.
Anybody else feel this way?
ava
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Mister Charlie wrote:
> In article <8dpk21$g...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> "Dan Stanley" <stan...@tiac.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Mister Charlie" <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:38380d00...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
> >
> > > To me there is no comparison. Pepper is so far and away better
> > > than Pet Sounds.
> >
> > Tough to make those kinds of comparisons, from where I sit.
>
> Well, get up and walk around :)
>
> >
> > > PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
> > > Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
Mister Charlie
afr <a...@efn.org> wrote:
> Y'know, this may be heresy on this board <gulp>, but I'll be bold. I
never
> thought Pepper was as good as the other Beatles albums. It pushed the
> recording studio as an instrument in a way that it had never been used
> before. But I prefer most of the other albums musically.
>
> Anybody else feel this way?
>
> ava
>
Absolutely, ava, many here do(I'm not one of them). I like FAR too many
Beatle tunes stretched over far too many albums to call any one LP
the 'best'. But remember, at the time, there was simply nothing else
like it being aired. It WAS groundbreaking in many ways, so does that
somehow diminish the music? Not for me.
I suspect the rabble rousers in here putting Pepper down are the same
type of pinko commie hippie bastards that actually claim to LIKE the
White album. :)
Mister Charlie
a
> big way. I grew up in the 60s, but was so blindsighted by the
Beatles, I
> couldn't hear the uniqueness of the beach Boys at the time.
(Ironically,
> I've experienced their music as requiring a more mature mind, at
least in
> my case. ;))
>
> I find myself feeling sorrow for all the BBs have endured personally,
in
> particular, Brian Wilson. How do people get past that and just enjoy
the
> music?
>
> ava
>
> On 22 Apr 2000, gondola bob wrote:
>
Listen. Don't think. :)
Mister Charlie
--
mozfan
>>while SPLHCB goes down and down and Revolver and Abbey Road
>>come back up.
>
>What??? I didn't understand any of this.
>
OK, let's see if I can help. :) Basically, if it was such shit,
why do people still fall in love wih it 34 years later? It's rep
increases while Pepper's' rep decreases. YOUR opinion may never
change, but that's not the point. I'm just saying it's not a
matter of people just being caught in the moment of 66 ('cause PS
was not commercially popular anyway), or being fooled into
thinking it was great. That kind of thing would've adjusted
itself a long time ago.
>Additionally, the Beach Boys ability to harmonize seems
>extremely limited compared to the Beatles.
>
Are you deaf or just crazy? You've got to be kidding. The beatles
didn't have harmonies even APPROACHING the Beach Boys (in terms
of sophistication and, in my mind, quality) until "Because."
The Beach Boys were the best harmony group ever. That's what made
Brian so scary talanted. He could compose more adventurous music
and arrange it better, and STILL arranged harmonies over the top.
Pretty much from day one.
If you ever get the chance you should check out the doc. "I Just
Wasn't Made for These Times" where David Crosby (can we all agree
the man is an acceptable authority on harmony singing?) praises
their singing and harmony.
I can't believe, of all things, you said they had limited ability
to harmonize. Now I've seen everything!
As far as being "experimental" give the Beatles credit for being
"pyschedelic" in the sense that it was keeerrr-aaaazeeee
production, OK, cool. It was brilliant too. But give Brian credit
for expressing his emotional turmoil with music. The production
is brilliant, it just may not hit you in the face like SP. It's
more subtle. Just listen to where the songs GO. It's different
than anything else in its enviroment at the time. The chords, the
arrangements. He had all thos musicians in, the best in the
world, the "Wrecking Crew" of Phil Specter, and someone said they
didn't play well? I don't believe whoever said that has ever
listened to the album, quite frankly. Unless they simply don't
know the difference. If you don't like the album, fine. But don't
criticize every element of it just because you're arguing.
mozfan
>bold. I never thought Pepper was as good as the other Beatles
>albums. It pushed the recording studio as an instrument in a way
>that it had never been used before. But I prefer most of the
>other albums musically.
>
>Anybody else feel this way?
>
>ava
>
Yes, I feel this way. And from what I know most people feel that
way. A Day in teh Life is fucking amazing, I don't know anyone
who would deny that. But the rest of it is not up to standard.
But there are good songs. It's not like there are really BAD
songs on Pepper's. It's just that I like every album they did
better than Pepper's except maybe PPM, BFS, and LIB. 5 of the
thirteen are really good. And some of the ones in the middle are
good, but not great. It's too bad, but the Beatles raised their
own standard with RS and R. I like the world they created with
Pepper's, it's just that I can't really get into all those songs
in the middle. BFBMK and WYWI in particular don't get me. And
some of the twee-ness of the mccartney stuff (LR, WI64) gets
annoying when you're not in the mood.
The white album totally exceeds it for me. But I think I'm one of
those rare people who think the White Album is probably their
best album, otherwise Revolver. But it's hard to choose, as you
know.
Incidentally, I also think 1967's Forever Changes (Love) and
(especially) 1968's Astral Weeks (Van Morrison) are way better
albums than SP. Both use orchestration to enhance the
"pyschedelic" (not in a technicolor way) nature of the songs.
Strabbo
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Mister Charlie:
>
>> Sideways is the problem. The Beatles were doing the same
expectation
>> breaking at the same time period, but the produces
pleasureable songs,
>> not meandering noodlings.
>
>meandering noodlings" might reflect shortcomings in your own
powers of
>musical perception?
I'd say it reflects personal taste, Bob. I've heard the same
description tagged to Phish's live shows, but I love that kind
of stuff.
When you read folks who know more about music than
>you (like McCartney, for instance) raving about the album's
>compositional innovations, do you ever pause to
think "Hmmm...well, I
>still don't like the album, but there's obviously something
about it
>which is going over my head"?
I think what Charles was going for was along the lines of "I
still don't like the album, but there's obviously something
about it that appeals to a good deal of people's tastes". What
you praise as 'superior knowledge of music' still doesn't
necessarily account for taste. Look at Rush. Exceptional
musicians, a lot of classically trained musicians I know enjoy
them, but I can hardly ever get through one of their songs on
the radio.
>
>> Well, to be sure, GB apparently missed the fact that my post
was indeed
>> also I M H O!!!
>
>It wasn't presented that way. "Most of the songs just don't
grab me" is
>an "I M H O" opinion. "Since all but three of the songs are
shite, how
>can Pet Sounds be a classic album?" is something
different. "Ol' Brian
>was losing it, and his songs deteriorated into meandering
noodlings" is
>something different.
Everything up here is In Someone's Humble Opinion, except things
that are stated as facts. I don't need to see IMHO in every
opinionated post, especially in a thread like this. When I read
Mr. C's post, I added the four letters in my mind because this
is a thread about opinions, not about facts.
>
>Everything you say against the album only makes you sound
shallow,
>musically ignorant and unwilling to dig past a superficial first
>impression. Look at the guy who earlier criticized the album
for being
>"whiny" -- at least his contrary views had a little meat behind
them.
>As yet, you still haven't risen above the level of a teenage
Backstreet
>Boys fan grumbling that the Beatles are old and boring.
>
Totally disagree. While at the same time I totally disagree with
Mr. C's perception of Pet Sounds (I love it), he is completely
entitled to his opinion. Just because it differs from mine in no
way makes me value his musical opinion any less. Musical taste
is just that: personal taste. Now if he'd just let me recommend
some post-1975 tunes....
Besides Bob, it's not like he's into country music or
anything! ;-D
MS
mar...@compusmart.com
"....like a chainsaw running through a dictionary..."
Dee
> Y'know, this may be heresy on this board <gulp>, but I'll be bold. I never
> thought Pepper was as good as the other Beatles albums. It pushed the
> recording studio as an instrument in a way that it had never been used
> before. But I prefer most of the other albums musically.
>
> Anybody else feel this way?
>
It's not my favorite, but neither is it my least favorite (though if asked
to name a "least favorite" I doubt it I could do it ...it *is* The
BeaTles) I tend to enjoy Help! and A Hard Day's Night quite a bit, but
the people that work for me know that if I'm in a bad mood all they have
to do is throw any Beatles CD on and they're safe for the rest of the day.
Dee
Dee
> <clark...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, since you haven't heard Pet Sounds in almost 35 years, your
> > > opinion of it certainly carries a lot of weight.
> >
> > Just slightly more than your own.
>
> More garbage....
Now Bobby...
Lord Tim Brent
>Absolutely, ava, many here do(I'm not one of them). I like FAR too many
>Beatle tunes stretched over far too many albums to call any one LP
>the 'best'. But remember, at the time, there was simply nothing else
>like it being aired. It WAS groundbreaking in many ways, so does that
>somehow diminish the music? Not for me.
>
>I suspect the rabble rousers in here putting Pepper down are the same
>type of pinko commie hippie bastards that actually claim to LIKE the
>White album. :)
>
Actually,my favorite CDs are the "Mop-Top" era ones(ie thru Help).Though I also
love Yellow Submarine ;)
Tim
----------------------
Duchy of Grand Fenwick
Mister Charlie
with me. Don't care for baiting. Thanks for sticking up for me.
Truth is it IS just a matter of taste. But then, what exactly does GB
know about MY musical credentials? (not a joke) I'm not going to
enumerate them, and I stand by my opinions. Just because Paul goes
veggie doesn't mean I am required to as well.
Mister Charlie
"Dan Stanley" <stan...@tiac.net> wrote:
> > Pepper perks me up, Pet Sounds almost bores me. That factor alone is
Beach
> Boys
> > ability to harmonize seems extremely limited compared to the
Beatles.
>
Sugar"
> are better than a whole host of songs!
>
> I know, I'm reading more into it than you intended, but you must
admit that
> there has to be something more to "good" music than, "it perks me up"!
>
> Dan
>
>
Yeah..."It gets me laid"
Strabbo
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>There are feasible gripes which one could have about Pet Sounds
(the
>earlier complaint that its tone is too "whiny," for instance).
You
>could say that the vocals lack charisma and spark, compared
with the
>Beatles. You could say that the lyrics aren't anything special.
You
>could complain that it doesn't "rock," or is too "symphonic"
for your
>own tastes. But when you're flippantly charging that the songs
are
>weakly structured "noodlings" or that they're simply "shite" as
if this
>should be obvious, your opinion doesn't earn any legitimacy.
...in your opinion. ....with you. You see, people listen to
music differently; they look for different things to draw them
in. Charlie knows our musical tastes differ. I think it's great
that two people with diverse tastes in so many ways can agree on
our favorite band in the world. If I don't like something, I
spend a lot less effort describing its faults than I would in
praising the attributes of music I enjoy. I'm sure Charlie could
go track by track pointing out what he doesn't like, but he
doesn't feel we need to know, and he's right IMO. I don't need
to know any more details.
When you
>complain that the melodies go in directions you didn't expect
and that
>this upsets your need for facile, instantly digestible pop
hooks,
>that's *your* problem.
That's *his* taste. Some people really like simple pop songs,
nothing wrong with it. I'll admit, when Harvey
Danger's "Flagpole Sitta" comes on the radio I'll crank it. It's
a fun song.
If you attack Brian Wilson on the basis of
>*melody*, you're only tipping off your own ignorance and lack of
>musical education. Charlie already gave his credo: "Listen.
Don't
>think." Go on, ask him how much he knows about scales and
chords. Go
>on....
Why does one need to have extensive knowledge of musical theory
to have their tastes be justified? I'm nothing more than an
amateur musician as far as playing goes, but I'd like to think
my opinion and taste is just as important as anyone else.
>
>He said all but three songs are "shite."
>
And I assumed the "IMHO" because I know the intent with which
Charlie posts. He doesn't claim his opinion is fact, gospel, or
any more significant than anyone else's.
Onn Jian Lim
> The thing about Pet Sounds is that really, in the end, it was Brian and
> Brian alone. I mean, the other BB's weren't really behind him on this album
> at all. Pepper, on the other hand, is probably the last time all four
> Beatles were really of one mind on a project, and I'm sorry, but four
> Beatles can beat one Brian any day of the week. And they did.
well, duh. 4 vs 1 (and if you want to be really pedantic, you could add george
martin as well, since brian produced the records too) is hardly the most fair
matchup in the world.
i'm sorry, brian is a genius, and pet sounds is hardly overrated (seriously,
outside the circle of musicians and musos, NOBODY knows what the hell Pet
Sounds is). i hope i can catch brian live when he tours the album this summer.
-OJ
Onn Jian Lim
> Pepper perks me up, Pet Sounds almost bores me. That factor alone is
> indicative (to me) of an albums staying power. Additionally, the Beach Boys
> ability to harmonize seems extremely limited compared to the Beatles.
methinks you should listen to 'heroes and villians' and take that back...
-OJ
The Polymath
"Elfving Jonas" <jonase...@telia.com> wrote:
> When people start debating which one was the best of Pet Sounds and
Sgt.
> Pepper, I usually scratch my head intensly. What is it with Pet Sounds
> that´s so great? I bought the album, I´ve listened to it many times,
and
> sure ít´s got a few great songs, (wouldn´t it be nice, I know there´s
an
> answer etc.) but Pepper´s songs are all great, more or less! And the
songs
> on Pepper are not even remotely like each other, whereas P.S tunes
sort of
> melt in to each other sometimes. Some magazine voted Pet Sounds to be
the
> best album ever made, and Revolver came in second. That is confusing
> things... Clearly I´ve missed something; I consider my judgement in
music is
> rather good, but I can never understand pet sounds reputation.
>
I'm new to Pet Sounds.. my first impression of it was that the songs
were half baked, developed nicely but ended abruptly before the next
started.. but as a whole, the album blended beautifully. Then there is
a common self-pity theme that permeates each song. The songs in Pepper
blend well too.. but each song is distinct and complete.
Paul has really praised PS, I think it's the bass line which really
struck him. Now that's one thing that may have had it's influence on
Pepper.
The Polymath
Mister Charlie
Mister Charlie
long enough to pick up on what I'm saying...
Number one...you don't know fuck about me or my musical
education. I am not going to enumerate it here, but I assure
you I do know chords and scales. I play 4 instruments (good?
well, that's another story). I am conversant with music and
recording techniques. So you're pissing into the wind on THAT
argument.
Number two...you are right. I was overbroad and dismissive in
my original review. That was indeed wrong and apparently
insulting to all the PS fans, of which there are many. It is a
universally acclaimed classic album, so obviously my opinions
(IMO) are in the minority.
Number three...'shite' and 'noodlings' were inflammatory.
Again, I should have been more specific. I WAS when I mentioned
the melodies went nowhere, or sideways, etc. It is a valid
complaint. Also I believe (short term memory thingie)I
mentioned that WHEN THE ALBUM CAME OUT I felt this way. I was
FIFTEEN. Of course my musical tastes were not highly developed
at the time. BUT as an adult, going back to listn to the CD
(which I own)I still find the music I M H O unsatisfying. For
the same basic reason. Meandering melodies and little point IMO
to the songs. God Only Knows is a masterpiece. I LOVE the
lushness of the backing track (which CD I also own) even without
the great lyrics and harmonies. Wouldn't it Be Nice is good,
and Sloop John B less so. I M H O
Number 4...I LOVE the Beach Boys, I do not critique out of a
dislike. I own all their CD's up to Smile (ran out of cash)
including a few Greatest Hits Compilations. I did not have an
allegiance to surf or car songs, I liked most of what they did
(even post 1975). Cool Water...(California Suite?),, It's OK,
the Light Album, I have all this stuff. Just to make sure you
understand I do not dismiss them out of hand.
Number 5...Nor do I agree that they were not as good at
harmonies as the Beatles. The Beach Boys were built on complex
Four Freshman harmonies and always excelled at them. They did
more harmonizing than the Beatles ever did. Not an issue.
Number final: The thread was making a comparison between the two
albums. You clearly indicated your preference for PS. I Y O.
Fine. I believe I also had the right to disagree without your
usual pitbull dog attack. I did prompt it to a degree, so I
take the blame for that. Otherwise...another typical day in
Gondola land, huh?
Now, you want to talk musical resumes? I'm game. Let's hear
yours.
BTW: Brian Wilson IS still a genius. I love him. I understand
intellectually what he was doing with PS. Musically it just
doesn't move me. Is that alright with you? Let's call Brian
and see if he gives a shit.
BTW Deux: I don't care if Paul liked it or not. Good on him.
Inspired Pepper? Cool. Still irrelevant. I'm not a veggie
because Mr McCartney is. I tend to think for myself.
In article <220420001336330292%gon...@deltanet.com>, gondola bob
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Strabbo wrote:
>
>> >Did it ever occur to you that dismissing the songs
as "sideways,
>> >meandering noodlings" might reflect shortcomings in your own
>> >powers of musical perception?
>>
>> I'd say it reflects personal taste, Bob.
>
>Not when all his complaints reek so heavily of superficiality
and
>ignorance.
>
>There are feasible gripes which one could have about Pet Sounds
(the
>earlier complaint that its tone is too "whiny," for instance).
You
>could say that the vocals lack charisma and spark, compared
with the
>Beatles. You could say that the lyrics aren't anything special.
You
>could complain that it doesn't "rock," or is too "symphonic"
for your
>own tastes. But when you're flippantly charging that the songs
are
>weakly structured "noodlings" or that they're simply "shite" as
if this
>should be obvious, your opinion doesn't earn any legitimacy.
When you
>complain that the melodies go in directions you didn't expect
and that
>this upsets your need for facile, instantly digestible pop
hooks,
>that's *your* problem. If you attack Brian Wilson on the basis
of
>*melody*, you're only tipping off your own ignorance and lack of
>musical education. Charlie already gave his credo: "Listen.
Don't
>think." Go on, ask him how much he knows about scales and
chords. Go
>on....
>
>> I think what Charles was going for was along the lines of "I
>> still don't like the album, but there's obviously something
>> about it that appeals to a good deal of people's tastes".
>
>He said all but three songs are "shite."
>
>GB
Mister Charlie
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Mister Charlie:
>
>> Sideways is the problem. The Beatles were doing the same
expectation
>> breaking at the same time period, but the produces
pleasureable songs,
>> not meandering noodlings.
>
>meandering noodlings" might reflect shortcomings in your own
powers of
music than
>you (like McCartney, for instance) raving about the album's
>compositional innovations, do you ever pause to
>still don't like the album, but there's obviously something
about it
I did, dimbulb. I said it was an acknowledged masterpiece, so
obviously I wasn't getting something. You CAN read, can't you?
>
>> Well, to be sure, GB apparently missed the fact that my post
was indeed
>> also I M H O!!!
>
>It wasn't presented that way. "Most of the songs just don't
grab me" is
>an "I M H O" opinion. "Since all but three of the songs are
shite, how
>can Pet Sounds be a classic album?" is something
different. "Ol' Brian
>was losing it, and his songs deteriorated into meandering
noodlings" is
>something different.
You are correct here. I didn't realize the tone conveyed
disrespect for BW or his music, but it did. Apologies to all
(including YOU, GB).
>
>Everything you say against the album only makes you sound
shallow,
>musically ignorant and unwilling to dig past a superficial first
>impression.
Only to your very twisted ears.
Look at the guy who earlier criticized the album for being
>"whiny" -- at least his contrary views had a little meat behind
them.
>As yet, you still haven't risen above the level of a teenage
Backstreet
>Boys fan grumbling that the Beatles are old and boring.
Backstreet Boys? Ok, now THEM's fighting words! Let's go, Bob!
:)
oa...@alphaink.com
<ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Pet sounds is very clever, but it had to be entertaining to sell well.
Capitol marketed the group as they always had, as another fun beach
group, not as avangard musicians creating groundbreaking music.
The album does not have many beach type songs on it with uptempo
beats....wouldn't it be nice, and sloop john b, being the only real
uptempo beach type songs on the album. I'm waiting for the day has
too many slow bits with string quartets etc. and the rest of the album
is very dark, (with the exception of God only knows, but because it
mentions God, you've got a ballad of john and yoko problem with
censorship so the song stiffs) .
Capitol really wanted an album full of stuff like Barbra Ann or
California Girls, but got an early attempt at a completely new
direction in music and like most things new suffered until people
caught on.
In this case it's taken years for the album to catch on.
Being in mono didn't help, but the new stereo mix is very good.
All in all it's probably the longest sleeper in rock history.
Do I think it's better than Sgt Pepper??? No, but it wasn't trying to
be, it came out first. It inspired Sgt Pepper.It showed the beatles
what could be done with different instument mixes.It was the blueprint
for Sgt Pepper.That fact alone makes it a milestone. An important
(essential) foundation and cornerstone in the building of rock and
roll history.
Mister Charlie
soley about PS. I agree that Brian was going off in directions yet
uncharted, which unnerved the other BB's and the fans as well. But
there has always been a large contigent who 'got it' right off the bat
and loved the album since it came out. And that's great. I just don't
happen to be one of them. Does not diminish the work in any way.
Brian was a troubled genius just about to go into a major lifelong
decline, sadly. But another point I wanted to make was sinply that
while BB fans suffered (some anyway) because of his artistic
stretching, the Beatles were always able to stretch themselves and
raise the bar for others *without* alienating whole chunks of fans.
(OK, George's Indian music sounds ok to me now, but back then it was so
alien there was a bit of a backlash).
It's all good. It's all music. the BB's and Beatles were label
mates. What the hell, why argue about 30 year old albums? I have
conceded that the mass love of PS precludes my own puny thoughts.
Obviously, what Brian was going after wasn't what I wanted to hear, but
millions of others did. SO he wins. :)
--
"...and the flowers bloom like madness in the spring..."
Token Boy
because it was the first full-out effort to depart from the traditional
Beatles love song format. The concept was strong, but the execution not as
much.
Like anything else, practice makes perfect, and the culmination of their new
style was, of course, Abbet Road.
Token Boy
new
> style was, of course, Abbet Road.
That's just WRONG! Of course, I MEANT "Costello Road."
Token Boy
> even less inclined to take any of your long-hardened musical views
> seriously.
I don't think that any comment anyone could make would do this one justice,
GB.
sartanglor
they were released roughly the same time. Pepper was a RESPONSE to Pet Sounds-
hardly seems fair to BBoys.
DALE WIESE wrote:
> As in all things, it's a matter of opinion. Yes, I'm a great admire of
> pepper, but I fall into the camp that values Revolver a little more. I also
> regard Rubber Soul as an equal to Pepper in terms of a whole album
> experience.The point is they're all great. As to Pet Sounds; it's flawless,
> Mike Love and all. Beyond the stunning melodies, arrangements and production
> of Brian Wilson, there are those amazing Tony Asher lyrics that expanded the
> limits of pop writing. Even though Pet sounds wasn't much of a commercial
> success, it deserves tremendous credit for preparing the public [and more
> importantly the critics], for albums like Pepper. Have you heard the stereo
> mix? Genuine ear candy.
>
> --
> DW
> Elfving Jonas <jonase...@telia.com> wrote in message
> news:d3IL4.643$wYl.18...@newsb.telia.net...
> > When people start debating which one was the best of Pet Sounds and Sgt.
> > Pepper, I usually scratch my head intensly. What is it with Pet Sounds
> > that´s so great? I bought the album, I´ve listened to it many times, and
> > sure ít´s got a few great songs, (wouldn´t it be nice, I know there´s an
> > answer etc.) but Pepper´s songs are all great, more or less! And the songs
> > on Pepper are not even remotely like each other, whereas P.S tunes sort of
> > melt in to each other sometimes. Some magazine voted Pet Sounds to be the
> > best album ever made, and Revolver came in second. That is confusing
> > things... Clearly I´ve missed something; I consider my judgement in music
> is
> > rather good, but I can never understand pet sounds reputation.
> >
> > --
> > "There are no libraries; they are secret"
> >
> > /Jonas
> >
> >
sartanglor
afr wrote:
> Y'know, this may be heresy on this board <gulp>, but I'll be bold. I never
> thought Pepper was as good as the other Beatles albums. It pushed the
> recording studio as an instrument in a way that it had never been used
> before. But I prefer most of the other albums musically.
>
> Anybody else feel this way?
>
> ava
>
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Mister Charlie wrote:
>
> > In article <8dpk21$g...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> > "Dan Stanley" <stan...@tiac.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mister Charlie" <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:38380d00...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com...
> > >
> > > > To me there is no comparison. Pepper is so far and away better
> > > > than Pet Sounds.
> > >
> > > Tough to make those kinds of comparisons, from where I sit.
> >
> > Well, get up and walk around :)
> >
> > >
> > > > PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
> > > > Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
> > > > (horrors!) Caroline, No. I agree with the original poster. I
> > > > don't get what the whole hullabaloo has been about this music.,
> > >
> > > You have to consider the time in which it was released, and what it
> > was...a
> > > Pop album, from a well known and succesful Pop group, but it was SO
> > > different from anything that came before, or was on the radio at the
> > time.
> >
> > So was Frank Zappa, but...?
> >
> > > To many, it was one of those technicolor moments.
> >
> > Like a technicolor yawn?
> >
> > >
> > > > The songs meander tunelessly, which is really annoying. You
> > > > expect something to go up, instead it goes down or sideways.
> > >
> > > Ah! Exactly the point. Breaking the expectations of the fans ( no
> > songs
> > > about cars? surfing? teenage simple love?), asking them to LISTEN
> > > ***sideways***..pretty cool.
> >
> > Sideways is the problem. The Beatles were doing the same expectation
> > breaking at the same time period, but the produces pleasureable songs,
> > not meandering noodlings. I like jazz, BTW. Improvosation done by
> > people who know what they are doing is an art.
> >
> > >
> > > > Structure. Old brian was losing it. No matter. He has been
> > > > universally acclaimed for the LP, so good on him. But I think 3
> > > > songs alone do not make an LP. And Pepper is a classic for a
> > > > reason.
> > >
> > > It is true, I think, that Pet sounds hasn't aged well. But I always
> > try
> > > and I don't always succeed) to look at things in context. Sgt. Pepper
> > > (IMHO! IMHO!) hasn't aged as well as Revolver, but it's still a
> > pretty good
> > > record... ;-}
> >
> > Well, to be sure, GB apparently missed the fact that my post was indeed
> > also I M H O!!! I certainly do not want to rain on anyone's
> > parade...too many people (most) think Pet Sounds is a masterpiece, so
> > I'm sure I just don't get it. And I never did, then or now, and I own
> > the CD! I like the train bells and dog barking, though. He didn't
> > totally lose me....:))
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dan
sartanglor
For instance, you can't listen to Apple Venus, Part 1 (XTC) without
hearing the enormous Brian Wilson (Pet Sounds era) debt. In fact, Andy
Partridge has alluded to this many times. Wilson's use of piccolos,
trumpets, bicycle bells, theremins(?) is absolutely extraordinary. Hey, I
love Pepper too, but you gotta put it in context. This was 1966 fer
chrissakes!!
num...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <38380d00...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>,
> Mister Charlie <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > To me there is no comparison. Pepper is so far and away better
> > than Pet Sounds.
> >
> > PS has 3 good songs, all hits: Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only
> > Knows (scrumptious), and Sloop John B. The rest are shite, even
> > (horrors!) Caroline, No. I agree with the original poster. I
> > don't get what the whole hullabaloo has been about this music.,
> > The songs meander tunelessly, which is really annoying. You
> > expect something to go up, instead it goes down or sideways.
> > Structure. Old brian was losing it. No matter. He has been
> > universally acclaimed for the LP, so good on him. But I think 3
> > songs alone do not make an LP. And Pepper is a classic for a
> > reason.
> >
>
> well said...and i think it has but two good songs as i can't stand
> Sloop John B...i think because Pepper has been on the top of the heap
> for so long now,it's now cool to dislike it.
paramucho
>YEs, absolutely. The comparison should be between Revolver and Pet Sounds as
>they were released roughly the same time. Pepper was a RESPONSE to Pet Sounds-
>hardly seems fair to BBoys.
McCartney has said that PEPPER was influenced by PET SOUNDS. I have yet to see
Harrison or Lennon echo that sentiment at all (although Martin has said
something similar).
Ian
Mike D'Aversa
Pet Sounds is both the most underated(by the general music public) and
overated(by obssesive music fans-like me) album of all time.
That is all.
Mike D'Aversa
mjd...@enter.net
"The Polymath" <acep...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8du3bt$s5g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <d3IL4.643$wYl.18...@newsb.telia.net>,
> "Elfving Jonas" <jonase...@telia.com> wrote:
> > When people start debating which one was the best of Pet Sounds and
> Sgt.
> > Pepper, I usually scratch my head intensly. What is it with Pet Sounds
> > that´s so great? I bought the album, I´ve listened to it many times,
> and
> > sure ít´s got a few great songs, (wouldn´t it be nice, I know there´s
> an
> > answer etc.) but Pepper´s songs are all great, more or less! And the
> songs
> > on Pepper are not even remotely like each other, whereas P.S tunes
> sort of
> > melt in to each other sometimes. Some magazine voted Pet Sounds to be
> the
> > best album ever made, and Revolver came in second. That is confusing
> > things... Clearly I´ve missed something; I consider my judgement in
> music is
> > rather good, but I can never understand pet sounds reputation.
> >
>
> I'm new to Pet Sounds.. my first impression of it was that the songs
> were half baked, developed nicely but ended abruptly before the next
> started.. but as a whole, the album blended beautifully. Then there is
> a common self-pity theme that permeates each song. The songs in Pepper
> blend well too.. but each song is distinct and complete.
>
> Paul has really praised PS, I think it's the bass line which really
> struck him. Now that's one thing that may have had it's influence on
> Pepper.
>
>
> The Polymath
>
>
Otis Elevator
DATT HIZ TINKIN BE BURNIN DOWN DEMM
BUILDINGS....HEEEE-HEEE-HEEEA-HEAAA----WHOOOP!!!!!
DID YOU CHILLEN EVVA BEE DUNN HEARD OV SUMPTIN SO KRAZY AZ DATT----????
HEEE-HEEE-HEEE---OOOOOOEEEEE!!!!!
Mister Charlie
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Mister Charlie rasped:
>
>> Ok, Gotcha Bob, let's see if you can stop frothing at the
mouth
>> long enough to pick up on what I'm saying...
>
Ow.
>
>> Number one...you don't know fuck about me or my musical
>> education. I am not going to enumerate it here, but I assure
>> you I do know chords and scales. I play 4 instruments (good?
>> well, that's another story).
>
>Ever played a Pet Sounds song (besides "Sloop John B.," which
is a
>cover tune and hence much simpler) on an instrument, including
chords
>in all their proper inversions?
No. Is that a requirement? Where in the rulebook is that
nugget?
Have you? I assume from your snotty tone that you have. BFD.
Have you studied at Berklee? Played at Julliard??? (Well, no, I
haven't either, just wondering).
You're being a pompous ass. I have no more desire to continue
trying to have any discourse with a troll.
>
>> I WAS when I mentioned
>> the melodies went nowhere, or sideways, etc. It is a valid
>> complaint.
>
>It's a very shallow comment, and reflects badly on you.
No, arguing with an obvious idiot is reflecting badly on me.
It makes me
>even less inclined to take any of your long-hardened musical
views
>seriously.
Oh. Ow! You don't take me seriously? What ever shall I do???
>
>> Number final: The thread was making a comparison between the
two
>> albums. You clearly indicated your preference for PS. I Y O.
>
>I don't think I've even *mentioned* Sgt. Pepper in this thread.
Exactly. Go back to the Kiss Brian Wilson Ass forum, they're
looking for you.
>Instead, my comments centered around some crotchety,
ar ar ar ar
Beatle-blinded
>dolt
nothing to do with Beatles (or dolt for that matter dickhead).
Technically perfect music is usually BORING! And there you go.
I said it.
tossing out a line that most of the Pet Sounds songs are "shite,"
>and expecting that comment to be respected as a substantial,
thoughtful
>opinion.
To which I apologized. Twice. I agreed my initial review was
wrong. I MEANT to say that YOU are shite. Funny how you
snipped my agreeing with you. Didn't mollify the meast any I
see.
>
>> BTW Deux: I don't care if Paul liked it or not. Good on him.
>> Inspired Pepper? Cool. Still irrelevant. I'm not a veggie
>> because Mr McCartney is. I tend to think for myself.
>
>Yes, you already used that glib quip, in an earlier post.
Didn't score
>any points that time, either.
Yeah. Damned funny herbal jazz cigarettes. I also agreed I was
wrong to dismiss a universally held classic album as shite. So
why aren't you tearing apart that statement too? (Twice)
>
>And I don't care much if McCartney liked Pet Sounds, either.
Now, as
>for the millions of *other* Pet Sounds fans who don't whimper
and sulk
>if a melodic phrase resolves in an atypical way....
>
You, sir, are a useless waste of skin. Fuck you. That is my
final brilliant argument. You only want to spew your bile
across the board. Frankly, I don't care. Pet Sounds is an
album I don't care for and you love. OK. Established. So shut
yer gob already.
Mister Charlie
Maxwell Edison
record company, the people in his personal life, he might have very well
topped the Beatles, if not with Pet Sounds, then maybe with Smile. But since
he was all alone, with the other BB's, Capitol records, a huge drug intake
and impending insanity all chipping away at him, he hardly stood a chance.
That's why it steams me when I see Mike Love taking undeserved credit and
dismissing Brian's great work.
oa...@alphaink.com
<jar...@wba-law.com> wrote:
>That's what I'm saying - if Brian had the support from his band mates, his
>record company, the people in his personal life, he might have very well
>topped the Beatles, if not with Pet Sounds, then maybe with Smile. But since
>he was all alone, with the other BB's, Capitol records, a huge drug intake
>and impending insanity all chipping away at him, he hardly stood a chance.
>That's why it steams me when I see Mike Love taking undeserved credit and
>dismissing Brian's great work.
The beach boys were forced to make albums with little input from
Brian.(after Pet Sounds)
They also had to perform the music (with all of it's complexities)
live on stage without Brian.
Just imagine all the time Brian spent with top L.A. session men
to do Good Vibrations and then you have to perform it live about a
week after it's released (Hawaii Concert)
without any of the L.A. session musicians to help you.
And not only that ,but you do a good job of it (Mike Love played the
synth part on the live version of Good Vibrations).
And you go on the Ed Sullivan Show and perform it well too!!!
Brian certainly created incredible new sounds, but the rest of the
Beach Boys had to face the public and perform it, they didn't have
hours of endless takes, they had to create it live in one take.
Elfving Jonas
Mike D'Aversa <mjd...@enter.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:YcUM4.1663$LM4.1...@monger.newsread.com...
> THE FINAL VERDICT:
>
> Pet Sounds is both the most underated(by the general music public) and
> overated(by obssesive music fans-like me) album of all time.
>
> That is all.
>
> Mike D'Aversa
> mjd...@enter.net
Since I haven´t posted anything since my original message, I feel like I´ve
got to say something now. I kinda agree on this "final verdict" , probably
because it´s a diplomatic statement, and I am diplomatic by nature... It´s a
pity that these interesting discussions which I ejnoy reading (no irony)
sometimes makes people asking other people to go to hell and fuck off et
cetera. I´m not blaiming anyone in particular; if someone says a thing like
this, he could have a good reason for it or a bad day or whatever... I´m a
newbie, so maybe this is part of the deal, I don´t know... Well. Er...
Goodbye.
Maxwell Edison
providing any meaningful input after Smile collapsed. Sure, they were a
competent live band, but without Brian churning out the hits anymore, they
became the Flying Dutchmen of rock - another oldies act.
oa...@alphaink.com
<jar...@wba-law.com> wrote:
>They weren't forced to make records without Brian. The guy was incapable of
>providing any meaningful input after Smile collapsed. Sure, they were a
>competent live band, but without Brian churning out the hits anymore, they
>became the Flying Dutchmen of rock - another oldies act.
They still progressed after Pet Sounds(although many times it was
sideways or backwards before they moved forward)
but later on they produced Sunflower, Holland and Surf's Up(which is
my favourite Beach Boys album, containing their heaviest ever rock'n
roll song...Student Demonstration Time .... and a little bit of
reworked smile material...namely the title track sung beautifully by
Carl Wilson).
Of course there were some dud lp's (like the next three releases after
pet sounds)followed by a typical (tailor made for Capitol records
promo department) Beach Boy type fun album 20/20 (although it did
include Our Prayer from the smile project and some smile sound effects
found at the end of Do it Again)
Mister Charlie
I am sorry, Elf, for offending your sensibilities. Certain
people offend mine and I have no problem telling them. But
these personal attack threads, which I have been very vocally
against, tear away at everyone who reads them and they don't
belong. Usually I don't respond to obvious trolls but sometimes
I just can't help myself...it's fun to give them a mental tit-
twister.
Nevertheless, I won't go any further with it, and I apologize
for being the one to fling onscenities (I don't think GB did),
so it's kinda all on me.
So how 'bout them Beatles, huh? So how 'bout them Beach
boys, huh?
Mister Charlie
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Oh my, Charlie...that was a truly sad display. And you call ME
the
>troll?
>
>GB
>
>
Yup. Happily.
Mister Charlie
approach Pepper the way he did. I don't know that the other's
really knew or cared since they all got inspiration from diverse
sources...
afr
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Mister Charlie wrote:
> I think, ian, that Paul was personally inspired by Pet Sounds to
> approach Pepper the way he did. I don't know that the other's
> really knew or cared since they all got inspiration from diverse
> sources...
I just finished The Beach Boys and the California Myth by David Leaf.
(Great book, but depressing as hell.) There's a reference to John & Paul
writing Here There & Everywhere right after hearing Pet Sounds.
a.
afr
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, sartanglor wrote:
> Well, influenced vs response...? Probably not a response in hindsight.
I recall Harrison referencing Pet Sounds in the anthology.
Anyone remember the context?
a.
sartanglor
paramucho wrote:
> >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >YEs, absolutely. The comparison should be between Revolver and Pet Sounds as
> >they were released roughly the same time. Pepper was a RESPONSE to Pet Sounds-
> >hardly seems fair to BBoys.
>
> McCartney has said that PEPPER was influenced by PET SOUNDS. I have yet to see
> Harrison or Lennon echo that sentiment at all (although Martin has said
> something similar).
>
> Ian
paramucho
I think that was Paul, inspired by "God Only Knows"... but perhaps
I err.
Ian
Mister Charlie
ha ha ha ha ha
Michael Davis
> I recall Harrison referencing Pet Sounds in the anthology.
> Anyone remember the context?
> a.
The "Threetles" were sitting around a table discussing the rigors of touring
in 1966. Paul and George were talking about how hard it was to reproduce
the "Nowhere Man" and "Paperback Writer" harmonies live. George mentioned
that they were competing with the Beach Boys and "Pet Sounds." Tape 5 out
of 8, perhaps?
Mike Davis
******************************************************************************
"I like kids, I used to be one."
--Ringo Starr, 1998
davi...@pilot.msu.edu, michae...@usa.net, dav...@pa.msu.edu
http://www.pa.msu.edu/~davism -- NEWLY MODIFIED!
******************************************************************************
JLW44
>the "Nowhere Man" and "Paperback Writer" harmonies live. George mentioned
>that they were competing with the Beach Boys and "Pet Sounds." Tape 5 out
>of 8, perhaps?
Would you believe I was just watching this about 2 minutes ago and you are
right!
paramucho
May I ask if George's comments directed at the live performances or at the songs
themselves?
Ian
Michael Davis
May I ask if George's comments directed at the live performances or at the songs
themselves?
I think George means the use of close harmony was inspired by the Beach
Boys. I'm not sure he means a song was written with Pet Sounds in mind. I
think he just meant that the Beatles were in a friendly competition. His
point was that they were producing these songs in the studio, then had to
work really hard to pull them off live.
JLW44
>May I ask if George's comments directed at the live performances or at the
>songs
>themselves?
Both. They were talking about the newer recording techniques they were using in
the studio and how hard it was to recreate on stage. George thought they pulled
them off okay and Paul said it was hard to do something like Paperback Writer
at which point they showed them playing it in Japan and having a hard time
pulling it off.
Strabbo
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Mister Charlie <ccmj5N...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >Oh my, Charlie...that was a truly sad display. And you call
ME
>> the
>> >troll?
>> >
>
>Your Ignorance Quotient continues to rise.
And for some reason your Hostility Quotient rises also.
MS
mar...@compusmart.com
"....like a chainsaw running through a dictionary..."
Strabbo
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Mister Charlie rasped:
>
>> Ok, Gotcha Bob, let's see if you can stop frothing at the
mouth
>> long enough to pick up on what I'm saying...
>
>Zzzzzz.
Kids! Avert your eyes! GB is whipping it out!
>
>> Number one...you don't know fuck about me or my musical
>> education. I am not going to enumerate it here, but I assure
>> you I do know chords and scales. I play 4 instruments (good?
>> well, that's another story).
>
>Ever played a Pet Sounds song (besides "Sloop John B.," which
is a
>cover tune and hence much simpler) on an instrument, including
chords
>in all their proper inversions?
I haven't. I like Pet Sounds. Does that mean I like it less than
you? Are you actually serious in stating that this is a
requirement for appreciating music?
>
>> I WAS when I mentioned
>> the melodies went nowhere, or sideways, etc. It is a valid
>> complaint.
>
>It's a very shallow comment, and reflects badly on you. It
makes me
>even less inclined to take any of your long-hardened musical
views
>seriously.
It's an opinion. Call it shallow, I call it an opinion.
>
>> Number final: The thread was making a comparison between the
two
>> albums. You clearly indicated your preference for PS. I Y O.
>
>I don't think I've even *mentioned* Sgt. Pepper in this thread.
>Instead, my comments centered around some crotchety, Beatle-
blinded
>dolt tossing out a line that most of the Pet Sounds songs
are "shite,"
>and expecting that comment to be respected as a substantial,
thoughtful
>opinion.
Crochety? Charlie? LOL! All Charlie did was have the nerve to
post an opinion in an abbrasive and off-handed way (something
I'm sure you've done at some point). He has since retracted
his 'shite' comment, something I notice you have no desire to
acknowledge. From where I'm sitting (and for that matter when I
stand up and look at my monitor from 11.2 feet away) it looks
like you are determined to be pissed off at him, whether he
clarifies his position or not. Damn, I actually agree with you
about a lot of this and I still feel like I'm on the other side
of the fence!
>
>> BTW Deux: I don't care if Paul liked it or not. Good on him.
>> Inspired Pepper? Cool. Still irrelevant. I'm not a veggie
>> because Mr McCartney is. I tend to think for myself.
>
>Yes, you already used that glib quip, in an earlier post.
Didn't score
>any points that time, either.
Makes perfect sense to me. He's just saying he doesn't like
stuff because an idol of his says that he likes it. He also
doesn't like something because theoretically-speaking it's
brilliant. GB, I mentioned before how I see the band Rush. Are
you a fan of theirs? If technical merit is all you look for I'd
think you might be.
>
>And I don't care much if McCartney liked Pet Sounds, either.
Now, as
>for the millions of *other* Pet Sounds fans who don't whimper
and sulk
>if a melodic phrase resolves in an atypical way....
>
You just aren't listening to him, Bob. He spurted off some one-
liners that he has since retracted. Pause for a moment and just
try to see it from his perspective. According to my wife I'm a
musical snob, and I pretty much agree. But I see no reason to
tear Mr. C. apart for what he said.
Strabbo
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
><martins...@compusmart.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I haven't. I like Pet Sounds. Does that mean I like it less
than
>> you? Are you actually serious in stating that this is a
>> requirement for appreciating music?
>
-
>moreso than with just about any other album. The melodies sound
>deceptively simple, until you actually try to *play* them --
then you
>realize just how uniquely ingenious they are. I don't believe
anyone
>can fully appreciate what a distinctive melodicist Wilson is,
without
>actually digging into the music on your own (chord-based)
instrument
>(while also having a working knowledge of more conventional
melodies,
>for comparison). When I first started fiddling with Wilson's
catalog, I
>felt like I was learning a whole new language.
My friend (who has much more playing experience than I, and who
worships Pet Sounds and Brian) claims that Syd Barrett was one
of his awakenings to a new level of songwriting. Most people
listen to Syd's solo stuff and stare at him, saying "huh?". I
may not play a lot of music, but I enjoy Syd as well.
>
>> GB, I mentioned before how I see the band Rush. Are
>> you a fan of theirs? If technical merit is all you look for
I'd
>> think you might be.
>
>No, I'm not. And who said that technical merit is all there is
to Pet
>Sounds?
No one. And I never said technical merit is all you look for in
music, I said IF it was, then I think Rush might be something
you'd enjoy. Remember, I enjoy Pet Sounds, and while I do
appreciate something challenging me in terms of song/chord/lyric
structure, it needs more to get me to buy it.
Who said technical merit is all there is to Rush, for that
>matter?
>
No, there's also Getty Lee's screeching voice, matched only by
the glorious sounds of seven cats being shoved through a
printing press.
I M H O of course!
andy749
heard, he talks about how Rubber Soul inspired him to do Pet Sounds and
then he says the Beatles came out with Pepper and it totally blew my
mind, or something like that...never have heard him mention Revolver.
Also...wonder what John thought of Pet Sounds?
Mister Charlie
Gak!
In article <0083cd90...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>,
Strabbo <martins...@compusmart.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Zzzzzz.
>
>Kids! Avert your eyes! GB is whipping it out!
>
>>
Thanks, MStrabbomeister...I don't feel particularly torn
apart. I DO feel like tearing apart my computer, as I have been
prevented from getting anywhere on the Web for 2 days...EXCEPT
AOL. Yes, Virgina, there IS a Satan. (Sanity Clause ar ar ar
ar)
I know. lame. but hey...I've been gone for 2 dyas! I'm outta
practice!
Mister Charlie
<gon...@deltanet.com> wrote:
><martins...@compusmart.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I haven't. I like Pet Sounds. Does that mean I like it less
than
>> you? Are you actually serious in stating that this is a
>> requirement for appreciating music?
>
>Not in general. But in Pet Sounds' case, I truly believe it is -
-
>moreso than with just about any other album. The melodies sound
>deceptively simple, until you actually try to *play* them --
then you
>realize just how uniquely ingenious they are. I don't believe
anyone
>can fully appreciate what a distinctive melodicist Wilson is,
without
>actually digging into the music on your own (chord-based)
instrument
>(while also having a working knowledge of more conventional
melodies,
>for comparison). When I first started fiddling with Wilson's
catalog, I
>felt like I was learning a whole new language.
>
B (may I call you B?)...
That is excellently written. I actually understand what you're
saying here, and I must agree. There is a purity of thought
that goes into some music, even the stuff that sounds simple. I
know Brian had that and perhaps, perhaps it's just eluding me
after all. But as a musician I see what you're saying and it
makes sense.
Well done, sir.
Mister Charlie
Strabbo <martins...@compusmart.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>Who said technical merit is all there is to Rush, for that
>>matter?
>>
>
>No, there's also Getty Lee's screeching voice, matched only by
>the glorious sounds of seven cats being shoved through a
>printing press.
>
>I M H O of course!
>
>
>MS
>
>mar...@compusmart.com
Goddamn it Martin, if you make me squirt milk through my nose
AGAIN I meant it, I'm coming over there! :)
Mister Charlie
next to Good Vibrations, especially from a craft standpoint.
Here Brian has an LP in the can, no single forthcoming (their
LP/45 per year's terms were pretty close to the Beatles as they
all worked for EMI/Capitol, pressed into service he goes to the
new LP, takes Rhonda and shortens the fade considerably (and
gets rid of the hokey volume fluctuations), adds another set of
doowop voices and a HOT lead guitar lick that is a twin brother
to George Harrison's sparse lead lick in Got To Get You Into My
Life (and may have even been a precursor but was probably a
contemporary inspiration at roughly the same time)...
This is an example of the genius of a man who could take an ok
LP track and transform it into a perfect single.