I've tried giving this album a fair chance, but what about it separates it from the rest of 60s pop/rock?
What makes it better and more innovative than the Beatles' Revolver or Sgt Pepper or The Doors' The Doors?
Is its beautiful melodies and harmonies enough to make it better? It doesn't stand on its own without them, and in general it's just a good album; not great.
You cant be serious
>>72385179
Indeed I am
>>72385135
it IS mediocre pop.
The only reason its spammed is jelly Amerifats.
>>72385202
>HES ACTUALLY SERIOUS
>>72385210
Go ahead and explain for me why it's so good and better than all the other albums from the time.
>>72385239
>Every song has a message that people can relate to.
>The production is 10/10
>The vocals are 10/10
>the backing tracks are 10/10
>>72385261
all subjective
>>72385271
Isn't music subjective too?
>>72385261
Saying songs like Wouldn't It Be Nice and God Only Knows have a message people can relate is like saying She Loves You or I Want To Hold Your Hand are relatable.
The thing about feelings is that you really only have to "suggest" it and people fill in the rest. That's basic.
The music probably has a personal meaning to people more because of what they have filled in. So of course they're relatable.
>>72385283
So why should I care more about this album than pic related?
>>72385207
What exactly are we jealous of, anon?
>comparing art
i hate stupid people
>>72385135
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Sounds
read. learn.
>>72385135
Pet Sounds is flat boring crap on first listen. Smile is where the genius of BB starts coming together, and once you "get" Smile then PS starts making sense.