Bad album

I disagree

File: 1499436860570.gif (1002KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 250x251px

Bad thread. How to other /mu/ llatos feel this compares with Surf's Up? I have listened to both a lot and I'm starting to feel...

Surf's Up > Pet Sounds.

File: 1479980734990.jpg (80KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 533x800px

>>74128470
Bad post

>>74128470
Bad taste

File: TheBeatles68LP.jpg (30KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 720x720px

>>74128470

Agreed. And let me tell you why:

>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.

File: Pete Sounds.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

Pete Sounds

>>74128922
Jesus christ, just reading through this entire post is embarrassing. you clearly just have shit taste

Why does nobody talk about how shit the cover oft his album is?

>>74129015
Wow! What a well thought out refutation of my post! It's almost like you're one of the dumb hipsters I alluded to. Isn't that ironic? Yeah, I really do think.

>>74129067
I'm not even going to bother because you clearly don't get it. I'm not trying to be pretentious or anything, but it's sad seeing you try to make sense of an album you don't understand by chalking up its success and praise to some inane rambling or idea you entertain in your head, like in that second paragraph. You clearly don't know anything.

>>74129067
All of your points are generic, surface level criticisms. There's nothing to refute.

>>74129438
>generic, surface level
Wow, sort of like Pet Sounds in modern context

good post