Why is this so popular? I legitimately don't understand, it's pretty ok, but just needlessly repetitive; there are 7 tracks, and like what, maybe at most 12 different very BASIC song sections in the whole thing? Just seems like a few undeveloped ideas arbitrarily tossed together and called songs. The sound of it isn't bad, but also not really anything to write home about, and I personally can't even listen to it just anywhere or anytime because it sounds pretty specifically like the beach.
That last part is just my opinion but really, it's like a couple of basic ideas stretched out through repetition without variation to album length. I don't get why this is so universally beloved. If you like it, hey, more power to you, but I don't understand how this appealed SO highly to SO many people. What's the secret?
>it's not meant to do anything except sound good (see: Pet Sounds)
No, it's a play on the words. "Perfect Pitch"
Well it's sort of the same idea as CS in that It's more about building a mood and atmosphere as opposed to having traditional song structures that are progressive. Interesting that you criticize the repetition and basic song sections, while De Soto de Son is the only track that goes against this on CS (in that it has various "movements") - the rest of the tracks often expand and open up (like PP) as opposed to moving in a more linear fashion.
Panda Bear's Person Pitch (Paw Tracks, 2007) performs a spectacular deconstruction of pop and folk music. The vocal harmonies recall the Beach Boys, the melodies evoke cheesy bubblegum acts such as 10 CC. Comfy In Nautica a-cappella children's hymn with loud rhythmic clapping amid assorted electronic effects. The spaced-out vocals, the multi-part harmonies, the cascading melody of Take Pills sound positively like harkening from the psychedelic Sixties, but the song is typical of how the rhythms, whose effect is often enhanced by loops, transport Panda Bear's ditties into another orbit and another planet. Panda Bear weaves singalongs that ride layers of humble arrangements according to an ancestral logic of tribal repetition and jovial self-parody.
Sometimes his music sounds like folk-rock in the hands of a primitive tribe, as in the hypnotic, epic 12-minute Bros, sung with an attitude that sits halfway between Brazialian saudade and a stoned hippy's nonchalance (the vocals are distorted and reverbed) while the jingling percussion gets more and more intense. (The next song, I'm Not, sounds like an appendix focusing mostly on loops of dreamy vocals without the rhythm).
Moments of percussive trance and ecstatic singing also surface from the melodic crevices of the 13-minute Good Girl/Carrots, that replaces the collective hammering of Bros with dissonant industrial loops and beeps and hisses.
The singing here is a mere corollary to the grotesque soundscape. (And, again, the orgy is followed by a piece of floating free-form vocals).
Panda Bear has installed a giant mirror in the sky to project Earth's life onto another galaxy.
Fuck, I'm an idiot, thought you were saying that Person Pitch was a play on Pets Sounds, but obviously you were referring to Wall of Sound. Soz, mate - can't read sometimes.
I agree with everything you said OP. the thing is that its been overhyped by youknowwhichsite.the sounds are good but the song writing isn't.
people like it because its very ethereal and creates a nice ambiance.
>thought you were saying that Person Pitch was a play on Pets Sounds
"I mean the name is even a play on words for Pet Sounds"
>its been overhyped by youknowwhichsite
All of them?
>the sounds are good but the song writing isn't.
Panda Bear is a tremendous melodist and the song structures of Bros and Good Girl are fantastically arranged and paced.
The "sounds" directly relate to the songwriting though. I mean, the melodies are fantastic and the way he built them around these samples so seamlessly is impressive. The songs definitely build, at each loop or go around he's often adding and subtracting sounds and samples and small details - this is how he creates momentum. The songs get progressively more detailed and intricate as they go on. If you're speaking more about the lyrics, then i'm inclined to agree a little but those are so often obscured and pushed to the background that it's hardly noticeable.
Bringing P4k into this (the Godwin's law of /mu/, really) is silly.
Also, I'd just like to say that I don't really see the issue with repetition. It's a tool/method to you in music and isn't inherently bad. One thing that's become increasingly more clear to me is that Panda is incredibly dance-minded in the way that he writes his songs and their structures. It's almost easier to listen to his songs in the same way you'd listen to a techno track in that his music is built upon mesmerizing, evolving, and subtly changing repetitions.
I really like this album but I completely get what you're saying. Its lacking in the songwriting department, its pretty sparse. However the sound of the sound of the album is so dreamy that it makes up for the songwriting in my mind. Basically, if you weren't charmed by the aesthetic, you probably won't care for it and I (as a fan of the album) think thats completely justified.
Yeah, I find this perplexing as well. The way that the vocal melodies, the samples, and the ambiance interact and relate to each other and form a cohesive work is the definition of good songwriting imo.
>its stylistically prohibitive.
That's the best part though; it isn't. In spite of the repetition of lyrics and melodies, Panda Bear had zero difficulty creating an album that was more stylistically independent and exuberant than any other album sounded at the time. Just like with Pet Sounds and the 60s, the only albums that sound like Person Pitch in the 00s or later are ones that came after Person Pitch.
Hell, what makes the songwriting so fantastic is that Panda Bear doesn't *need* to rely on 10+ songs that adhere to a traditional pop song structure to show off his ability. He recycles and repeats melodies and lyrics over and over but keeps the songs fresh by fleshing out the soundscapes, and in the case of Bros and Good Girl / Carrots, by evolving the songs slowly, bending the genre and introducing a new melody while doing so.
You say the songwriting isn't on par with the "ambience of the music", but that's all a part of the songwriting. It's not like the vocals and melodies and lyrics are the only parts of the song that would fall under the term "songwriting".
I never got into Tomboy honestly. Maybe I didn't listen to it enough but it didn't really stick with me all that well, although the sonics of it were on point with Person Pitch which meant it was plenty pleasant to listen to. PBVSGR had a lot more memorable material but some of the intermission tracks seemed silly and I wasn't super into the production compared to Person Pitch or Tomboy. Regardless I really enjoyed it, I like more than Tomboy overall.
either way I think we are splitting hairs, I liked the album, say an 8-9/10 or so, but if someone else doesn't like it, I'll understand, cause I don't think the songwriting was that great. If you weren't charmed by the sound of the music, then you'll have trouble listening to it purely on its melodic qualities. Also, I had forgotten it was so long ago when this album came out. Since it came before MPP, I respect it slightly more maybe...
Oh, misread. My b.
I dunno, I can also see why someone wouldn't love it, and that's because of the repetition. That's not for everybody and I get that. But I couldn't fuck with someone who can't get into the melodies that Panda Bear pens on this thing. In other words, if someone likes the melodies but not the fact that they're repeated for like 4 minutes, then I can understand where they're coming from.
ambience relates to the word ambient, which would be a specific description of something while ambiance is a generic term by which I was refering to the sound of the album. Ambient in this context is an adjective (if i had used it) ambiance is a noun as I used it.
yeah, the production on pbvsgr was pretty muddy. it's interesting that people say panda didn't try anything different on that album, but to me he places a much larger emphasis on rhythm and "groove" so the fact that the progression (or lack thereof) of the tracks were far more circular didn't bug me like it did other people. there's something about the way that hardly any of the songs have a real payoff or cathartic moment that i really like, thoght o some that's frustrating. also, the modular synth work was really nice.
i like tomboy a lot actually, but it's an album i can only listen to in certain moods. i crank it out about twice a year.
not the anon you're replying to, i still don't understand what part of the songwriting "isn't great." the fact that someone doesn't like the sound, doesn't make the songwriting not great, it means it's just not their taste. i don't see how that relates to the songwriting - it fulfills it's specific purpose by building momentum through repetition of subtly evolving melodies. the sounds and atmospheric qualities of the album are directly linked to the songwriting.
"Ambience" can be used as a noun but "ambiance" is usually used to avoid confusion. This is evident by the fact that 4chans word processor doesn't think "ambience" is a word. I only brought it up because I wanted to clarify I was talking about "the feeling of the album" and not that "the album was trying to be somewhat ambient."
i did. they can be used interchangeably because they're the exact same word. it has nothing to do with nouns, or the difference between "the feeling of the album" and "the album was trying to be somewhat ambient." because there is no difference. it all depends if you're using the american spelling or not.
i'm aware, that's not what i was trying to point out to that poster. they still mean the same thing (unlike what >>61537533
was saying in their ambience=/=ambiance comment - that's untrue) it's just that that spelling is used more often. it still wouldn't be incorrect to use "ambience" in that context (see: "this is by no means a rule, and exceptions abound")
I used to feel that way about despite liking most AnCo/AnCo-esque stuff. After around 5 times trying to listen to it suddenly "clicked" and it became one of my favorite albums even though I don't really listen to it anymore.
Not saying that'll happen to you but I get what you mean. I can't say that I like it in a very explainable way.
what you think are two different words are two different pronunciations of the same word, which you've taken to mean different things (which, to be fair, makes sense in the way people sometimes use the two). "-ence" in FRENCH sounds like "-ahnce" to us. sometimes people go with that pronunciation because idk it seems pretentious though
This was an album that "clicked" for me probably more so than any other. It sounds kind of cheesy, but the mellow vibe and the lyrics always inspire me to be a better person when I listen to it.
some good discussion here, it's nice. can't wait for painting with to come out so every anco thread isn't derailed by "leak it deak" sentiments. until then, maybe i should just stick to solo panda threads.