This isn't actually that good of an album, you realize that

OP post best post

>>73721551
I'd say 8/10

I personally like Smiley Smile better

>>73721551
im a beach boys fan so I can get away with loving this.

Wow this post made me realize how mediocre The Beach Boys are - thanks so much op!!!

>>73721551
Grow up.

>>73721608
Wow, you sure sound mature.

>>73721608
I have - that's why I don't think Pet Sounds is actually that good of an album. ;^)

>6 replies already

fuck this easy baited board, i'm out

>People can have opinions of their own
>OP doesn't realize this

Make your own album OP, then we'll talk.

>>73721650
ADHD

>>73721608
E N L I G H T E N E D

>>73721551
at last I truly see

>>73721659
>implying I'm baiting
I'm not, and you should be ashamed of your "debating" skills. "Y-you're just baiting" is not a valid argument. It just shows to the world that I have a good point and you've got nothing so you're grasping at straws.

>>73721634
>>73721650
>>73721706
You avant teens have always been the worst part of this board.

>>73721551
fuck this half-assed bait tbqhwy

but for anyone on the fence who's lurking rn, this is an extremely strong example of a record that sounds COMPLETELY different once you get inside it. it becomes a bottomless and incredibly charismatic love letter to the core principles of pop music. but you do sort of need to give it time.

>>73721551
Whether you agree with what something is about is subjective; musical quality is objective. Sloop John B is the only lackluster song on PS and it was a cover.

File: 1382236553289.jpg (65KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 380x380px

>>73721782
Wew, I think someone ITT takes music a BIT too seriously

SMiLE is better, but pet sounds is still fantastic, the arrangements/composition on songs like god only knows and I just wasn't made for these times are nothing short of fantastic. Caroline, No is a personal fave of mine

>>73721551
OK, why isn't it good then?

File: queen of -mu-.png (586KB, 447x447px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 447x447px

>>73721898
>not taking music seriously
Why are you even here?

>>73721551
Shitting in a hole was an important step for humanity--show some respect, idiot

Great you think a popular album isn't very good. Other people like it more than you, just accept that. Making this thread won't change the opinion of people who already like it

>>73722325
I never said it's not good, I said it's not that good. "That" good meaning the 9.5/10 or 10/10 so many critics/people give it, or how it's talked about alllll the time on /mu/ like it's an amazing album, or fawned over all the time in other hipster circles besides /mu/, seen all the time in record stores / Urban Outfitters, on greatest albums of all time lists, talked about like it was the second coming of Christ, etc.

It's not that good and is a 7.5/10 tops because

>it's simplistic
>it's relatively boring
>there's only two memorable, great-tier songs
>it all sounds very samey
>there are no mind-blowing concepts or sounds
>it sounds very dated

Yes, I understand that at the time it was supposedly very mind-blowing (for 60s people, who were less intelligent and aware) and influential, but again: who cares? Shitting in a hole, etc. There is plenty of music from similar eras that was simultaneously extremely influential, while also still holding up today. Pet Sounds is a pleasant, mostly forgettable album with nice harmonies and a couple great songs, and a "hey hipsters! check this out!" album cover, but not much more.

I believe the primary appeal is that it perfectly encapsulates the 50s/60s in a romantic manner, both in and of itself and also due to the massive hype over the decades ingraining that into peoples' minds. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but it's the equivalent of fawning over things from your childhood (shows, music, toys, stores, etc.) and saying how great they were. They may have been good but you're highly overrating it due to other factors besides the music itself.

I mean if you want to see how ridiculous the hype is just look up the Wikipedia articles for Pet Sounds and for the individual songs. The pages are a mile long. Are you kidding me? Ridiculous. Get over yourselves.

>>73722750
>simplistic
>very samey
>boring
>no mind-blowing sounds
how to spot a poseur

>>73722750
>it's simplistic
That's objectively wrong though. Pet Sounds contains some of the most complex composition in all of pop music.

>>73721659
Welcome to neo/mu/, majority of these faggots come from "le reddit xD"

>>73722750
I can already tell you don't know shit about musical composition.

>>73722750
This is by the worst and most obvious shit posting I've ever read. The fact that you took time to write all this shit proves that you're gigantic faggot.

>>73723022
>>73723041
>>73723161
>muh musical composition
Fuck off. We get it, you wasted a shit-ton of money on a worthless music theory/composition degree and are now trying to justify it by shouting "MUH MUSICAL COMPOSITION" on an Icelandic bellydancing enthusiast forum, as if that's some sort of argument. Pathetic.

The only thing that matters is the way it sounds. So you can take your damn music theory and music composition and shove it. Real music comes from the heart. I'm not saying Pet Sounds doesn't have heart either, so screw you.

>>73723268
>resorting to ad hominem
Really makes me daydream romantically

>>73723268
For you >>73723277

>>73722750
Seems like a very well thought out and reasonable argument. I'm convinced.

Watching vids like this made me appreciate it a lot more https://youtu.be/ofByti7A4uM

>>73723277
>The only thing that matters is the way it sounds. So you can take your damn music theory and music composition and shove it.

The most plebbit thing I've ever read. You need to go back.

>>73721551

OP, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you never had a girlfriend when you were a teenager....

File: 1381298628903.png (131KB, 366x321px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 366x321px

>>73723443
Nice reddit spacing. Can you BE any more of a "I'm a college freshman" pseud? I bet you're even posting from your brand new rose colored iPhone 7.

File: 1419488880901.jpg (68KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 750x750px

>>73723504
What makes you say that....

>>73721608
Says the person listening to and over-romanticizing sunshine pop.

>>73721551

I don't think this thread is going to change anyone's mind about Pet Sounds. Its reputation is secure regardless of what NEETS on a weeb message board think.

>>73723618
>being this concerned about the reputation of an album that came out decades before your mom was even born amongst hipsters, wrong generationers, and the dittohead elite music "journalist" media who want those link clicks and that ad money

>>73723529
>Nice reddit spacing

Unironically using Reddit memes. Really activates the almonds.

>>73723277
>Music theory is the fundamental piece of music
>Hurr Durr no music cums from my heart

You really expect people to take you seriously?

Epic contrarian post, my dude!

>>73721551
>b-but it was influential!
>Who cares?
its literally the only objective measure if an album was good or not

>>73723614
wouldnt it be nice is the least romantic depiction of a relationship possible. it stinks of cynicism

>>73723277
>The only thing that matters is the way it sounds. So you can take your damn music theory and music composition and shove it
Except music theory dictates how it sounds

>>73724016
No, it's literally the only objective measure if an album was influential or not

>>73722750
>it's simplistic
Just compare the songs on Pet Sounds with everyday pop songs and you'll instantly find yourself proven wrong.

>it's relatively boring
Subjective.

>there's only two memorable, great-tier songs
In terms of memorable, that's subjective. The majority of the songs on Pet Sounds are objectively "great" though.

>it all sounds very samey
It's one album. Expect consistency. Who cares?

>There are no mind-blowing concepts or sounds.
It's fucking pop music, not literature! Wtf do "mind-blowing concepts" matter? Also in 1966 those sounds were "mind-blowing."

>It sounds very dated.
So will all music eventually. It doesn't matter.

>>73724051
Then what makes an album good, objectively?

>>73724039
And is the only method by which to objectively judge a song's quality.

>>73724113
[citation needed]

>>73724133
It doesn't depend on opinion but fact

>>73724181
Which facts?

>>73724200
Those pertaining to music

>>73724273
Which tenants of music theory specifically?

I feel like you don't know and you are talking out of your ass

>>73721898
actually fucking leave

>>73724298
Voice leading, harmony, instrumentation/arrangement, rhythm etc.

>>73721551
The context of the album, the time it came out, the subject matter of the album, the innovative use of instruments barely ever used before which was basically a predecessor for psychedelic music and the fact that this was basically a one in a lifetime album is what makes the album so good

>>73723277
>Fuck off. We get it, you wasted a shit-ton of money on a worthless music theory/composition degree and are now trying to justify it by shouting "MUH MUSICAL COMPOSITION" on an Icelandic bellydancing enthusiast forum, as if that's some sort of argument. Pathetic.
you can teach yourself the basics of music theory using online resources lmao. Nice straw man though.

>>73724370
>the subject matter of the album
I know right? Love. You don't find many albums out there in this world about that!

>>73724431
>Being about love makes something bad
Learn music theory please

>>73724431
This is a statement that adds nothing to the discussion

>>73724462
>>73724504
Learn how to comprehend what you read. I was responding to >>73724370's implication that the album's subject matter somehow made it stand out among the trillion other albums about the exact same subject.

>>73724350
Yes these are elements of music.

What about them says if something is good or bad?

>>73724462
No thanks. I'd rather not retard my ability to make the best music of all: that which comes from the heart, not from books, theories, and scientific/mathematical formulas. You want that, fine. But I don't and neither does most of the world.

>>73723614
ow the edge is really sharp here, guys
please handle with care

>>73724550
I don't think you understand what music theory is

>>73724550
learning music theory only helps you make music "from the heart"

File: 9.jpg (176KB, 785x1125px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 785x1125px

>>73722341
REMINDER, you fucking motherfucker!

>>73724547
>>73724550
I want music that comes from the heart too (e.g. the like we hear on Pet Sounds.) It's just you need knowledge of music theory to be able to effectively write affecting music. Listen to how Brian uses a wide variety of chords/chord changes to represent the emotions he wants to express.

The way you respond emotionally to a song is not an objective measure to how good a song is. A song's level of complexity by music theory is though.

>>73724685
>complex = better
kek

>>73724716
Objectively, it does. Prove me wrong.

>>73723277
>>73723277
>The only thing that matters is the way it sounds. So you can take your damn music theory and music composition and shove it.

Music theory is the reason why the songs you like are good, Anon. So instead of learning music theory and helping yourself out by knowing how to make the music that's "in muh heart" easier you'll rather go through the trial and error method where you just play random notes in hopes of finding something that sounds good and continue doing that until you finally realize that all that time wouldn't have been wasted if you actually knew what the hell you were doing? Just in case this isn't a bait, you're a fucking retard.

>>73724734
Punk, folk

>>73724583
Yeah, some people like listening to music with substance, shocking I know.

>>73724770
>Punk
What about it?

>>73724833
It's simple and good

File: 19601247_285653621905939_275237227408204464_n.jpg (20KB, 480x478px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x478px

>rock fan's minds are blown by "well-composed" 3-minute pop songs
>meanwhile in the same year classical composers are literally revolutionizing how music itself works

really makes you think

>>73724908
>>meanwhile in the same year classical composers are literally revolutionizing how music itself works
explain

File: 1497902564015.jpg (27KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x750px

>The first person to shit in a hole and cover it up instead of shitting on the surface was influential too.

After this,i'm gonna say nothin.

>>73724908
You can't revolutionize music itself, you dumbass. The rules have been the same for centuries.

>>73724970
>>73724928

you don't know what serialism is?

>>73724999
You mean something that's over 100 years old now?

Try again

>>73724869
Both simple and complex music can be good but the music with more complexity is objectively better. e.g. on a subjective level I prefer The Beach Boys to Anton Webern, but on an objective level I know Webern is musically far superior to them. That's the way it works.

>>73724908
Liking Pet Sounds doesn't negate that at all.

>>73721551
>Beating the dead horse harder
The album was god tier for its time, it's only natural that it becomes an "essential" listen just like every other influential album, and the songs and the way they were made is something that stuck with them even if they weren't born then. That's it.

>>73722750
cant believe you took the time to type out something this embarrassing

>>73725133
>Liking Pet Sounds doesn't negate that at all

This.

>>73725133
>the music with more complexity is objectively better.
[citation needed]
>I know Webern is musically far superior to them.
How so, specifically?

File: Please check them anon.gif (1MB, 540x582px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x582px

>>73721551
Relatively speaking the album is brilliant, certainly not the "greatest of all time" or "most significant" release even in the realm of the Beach Boys (one can argue that SMiLE, Sunflower and Surf's Up are equally good if not superior). That being said the fusion of the groups characteristic harmonies with maximalist composition and experimental production techniques make it a record that undoubtedly pushed the boundaries of rock as a whole even if it sounds dated today, it may not be as unique or forward-thinking as say White Light/ White Heat or Trout Mask Replica though it remains unarguably more enjoyable than the two whilst still being one of the most important releases of its time, keeping in mind that until its release there was little in the realm of rock music that was anything more than low-brow commercialism.

Pet Sounds is like Sgt. Pepper's in that it's been """decided""" that it's the pinnacle of each respective group's career and also most influential album evar.
I like Pet Sounds for sure, but I don't like the whole thing, and I also only find half of Good Vibrations interesting.
Half is some nice, chill harmony, and the other half goes back to stereotypical droning surfer rock.

>>73725204
I've already answered your first question. Judging works on discernible musical quality is objective and not subjective.

>How so, specifically?
You're actually wondering why Anton Webern is musically superior to The Beach Boys.............

>>73721551
>It's teenybopper's first "le wrong generashun" album when they hit the hipster/"I love vinyls"/"older stuff was so much better!" phase.

daily reminder that criticizing the fanbase of an album does not constitute a valid criticism

File: 1476663696755.jpg (167KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 960x1280px

>taking the bait this fucking hard

>>73725292
>I've already answered your first question.
Where did you? I have yet to see an answer.
>You're actually wondering why Anton Webern is musically superior to The Beach Boys..
Answer the question.

File: 5247ec55f6fddfab3d993a5a2400ce35.jpg (201KB, 1024x929px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1024x929px

>>73725560
He he smelt it dealt it.

>>73725560
People tend to get angry when the truth is shoved in their face and there's nothing they can do to prove it wrong.

>>73725668
>I have yet to see an answer.
>Judging works on discernible musical quality is objective and not subjective.

>Answer the question
Try writing a verse-chorus pop song! Now try writing serial music in extended forms!

>>73725974
>discernible musical quality
Such as what?

You are having trouble answering this, because you don't have a real answer, do you?
>Try writing a verse-chorus pop song! Now try writing serial music in extended forms!
Why is one objectively better than the other?

Whatever your answer is, cite your sources.

>>73726009

>>73724350

>Why is the other objectively better than the other.
Because it is more complex. One took far more intellectual effort than the other. (This is the point where you ask me what this intellectual effort is again even though I've answered countless times.)

>>73726078
See >>73724547
You never answered.

>complex is better!
Still waiting on a citation for that. Do you have one?
>One took far more intellectual effort than the other
How do you know how much intellectual effort was used? Why is intellectual effort better when the end result is measured in emotion?

>>73726162
>the end result is measured in emotion
It is measured in emotion subjectively; objectively it is measured in the music itself. The only way to reach definitive truth on the matter is through objectivity. Clearly you don't understand this, as well as music theory.

>>73726242
>objectively it is measured in the music itself
But the music itself is measured in emotion subjectively. Do you see now?
>Clearly you don't understand this, as well as music theory.
Do *you* know music theory?

Show us the tenant of music theory that says complex = better. Cit your source. I asked you this before but you dodged the question. This is your last chance.

>>73726308
The music itself is all theory and our response to it is the emotion/subjectivity.

I don't have to cite anything but music theory itself. Comparing elements of theory from one song to another and finding out which one has more complex element seems to me to be the only way of objectively judging music. What's your way of objectively judging music then?

>>73726448
>The music itself is all theory
Correct. But it Music Theory state if something is better than the other, because music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Nice try though

>more complex
Oh that again? It's irrelevant since you are unable to prove that
>complex = better
I have given you two genres in which the the opposite is true, the simple is better.

>What's your way of objectively judging music then?
I already stated it. Didn't you read the thread?

>>73726512
>But it Music Theory
*But Music Theory doesn't state if something is better than the other, because music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.

>>73726512
>music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive
Because it can't be both.

>more complex
You can't look at one song and say it has more complex chords/voice leading/arrangement than another?

>I have given you two genres in which the the opposite is true, the simple is better.
Punk is better to YOU. Not objectively.

>I already stated it.
Remind me?

>>73726735
>You can't look at one song and say it has more complex chords/voice leading/arrangement than another?
You can, but you can't say it's BETTER than a simpler one.
>Punk is better to YOU
What? When did I say I thought pu8nk was better than other music?
>Not objectively
Prove it.
>Remind me?
See >>73724016