I’m no fan of the Beach Boys, so it surprises me to hear so much critical fawning over this album. I haven’t been able to pin down a satisfactory explanation; wherever I have read it mentioned, it is taken as a given to be one of rock’s finest moments. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
*And yes, I do appreciate the creative use of the theremin, who wouldn’t? 
I’ll take a stab.
Let’s start with the fact that virtually every note of music on this album fell directly out of 23-year-old Brian Wilson’s head. Not just the melodies and basic chord and rhythm patterns, but the intricate and often unconventional ways in which the orchestrated parts interact.
Except for maybe one guitar part played by Carl Wilson, Brian is the only Beach Boy who plays on “Pet Sounds.” All other music is made by seasoned session musicians, who were directed totally by Brian and were either told exactly what to play by Brian, or encouraged to experiment until the desired effect was arrived at. These musicians were in total awe of Brian’s gift and clamored to work with him, despite him having no formal musical training at all.
There’s a story of Brian telling one musician to play a certain note at one point, and the musician arguing that there was simply no way that note was going to work in the context of all the other notes being played at the moment. Brian prevailed, and when the complete sequence was put together and played back, the musician found to his complete astonishment that it did work. Brian had heard it all in his head before the note was ever played.
But musical precociousness does not a great piece of music make. Complex and musically daring arrangements will work only if they’re in the service of great melodies and well-written songs. I believe “Pet Sounds” has these in abundance, but I acknowledge that others’ mileage may vary.
I’ve found that people either get The Beach Boys or they don’t. Those who find their earlier surf and car songs to be silly or inconsequential (which they really aren’t, certainly not musically anyway) don’t seem to be able to get beyond them to listen to anything else. Also, many can’t get past Brian’s high falsetto vocals or the complex harmonies behind them. I find both to be things of incomparable beauty, but not everyone feels the same way.
The thing to remember is that NO ONE – including The Beatles – was doing anything remotely on this level in rock ‘n’ roll in early 1966. I love The Beatles, but it took four of them plus the considerable contributions of George Martin as a producer and arranger to accomplish something approaching what Brian did completely by himself. The Beatles were the first to acknowledge what an impact “Pet Sounds” had on the direction they took once they heard it.
One more thing – most of the songs on “Pet Sounds” were open, personal and introspective in a way that few other rock songs of the day were. Though Brian wasn’t responsible for the lyrics themselves, he did work closely with his collaborator to make sure they reflected his state of mind at the time and fit with the music he heard in his head.
In at least once case, “God Only Knows,” they created a song of timeless and almost unspeakable beauty that moves me as much the 500th time I hear it as it did the first.
If your idea of rock ‘n’ roll tends to lean mostly in the direction of harder, blues and R&B-influenced stuff, you probably won’t care for “Pet Sounds.” But if you’re willing to make the umbrella a bit wider and put away all pre-conceived notions, you’ll find it to be a monumental achievement.
Thank you for your well written reply!
I agree that technical brillance does not make a listenable album, and yet it is nonetheless admireable. As well, I can also appreciate Wilson’s artistry, and the fact that he was able to produce his personal vision in the studio. The fact that no one was doing this kind of work, not even the Beatles at the time, that is also noteable.
But for some strange reason, the music on this album holds zero emotional impact, regardless of how I approach it. When I hear a powerful piece of music of any genre (even a well crafted pop song, sheesh :P) it takes no effort for me to respond to it.
I think you are right about “you either get it or you don’t”, but now, I’m wondering why that gap would exist. And most critical picks of any genre, I can can easily agree, “yeah, that was an amazing, groundbreaking album and I enjoyed it”, but why am I so indifferent about this one? Odd.
Perhaps there is a nostalgic factor? I was born a year after this album was released, but in a mostly Beatles/Neil Young household
No nostalgia here. I was born just before “Pet Sounds” and until recently, considered the Beach Boys to be mostly “fluffy-headed surfer”-music types. About oooohhh…6 months?..a year? ago something “clicked” with me and I suddenly appreciated Pet Sounds, etc.
Part of it had to do with hearing a friend’s bootleg of someone’s attempt at “Smile” (Brian Wilson’s legendary lost album … no real track list exists so any version of “Smile” you hear is someone else’s reconstruction of what was intended), part of it was listening to the music as opposed to just “hearing” it. (I’m using “quotes” too much, but it’s 4:30 in the morning and I have a cold. Anyway…)
Some of the musical complexities on Good Vibrations blew me away. I can’t explain verbally what I mean by that, but if we were listening to the song, I’d be able to point and say “There! I like that bit!”. Anyway, there also seems to be a resergance of interest in the Beach Boys stuff in the last few years what with Mike Love making an ass of himself and many other musicians pubilicly attacking him back. It seems to me that there’s a new level of adulation for Wilson’s work in the last 2-3 years. And I’m just now getting it.
Fenris
Wow! It’s so weird for me to hear that, because I love the album so much. (And I’m primarily a Beatles fan.) “Here Today,” “I’m Waiting For The Day” and “That’s Not Me” are such terrific songs, with wonderful lyrics, note-perfect arrangements and great feeling, I can’t help but get something from them. I guess it really is one of those take-it-or-leave-it things.
I don’t know that it’s nostalgia, but there’s no question that an idea can take hold in any art form that something is great, and people may be swayed into believing in its greatness independent of its true merit.
I’m not saying this is the case with “Pet Sounds,” but in terms of emotional engagement I will say this…
Now that I’ve lavished so much praise on “Pet Sounds,” I have to admit that no song on it (with perhaps “God Only Knows” excepted) gets to me half as much as the songs on Side 2 of “Beach Boys Today!,” which was released two albums before “Pet Sounds.”
“Please Let Me Wonder,” “Kiss Me, Baby,” their cover version of The Students’ “I’m So Young” and especially “She Knows Me Too Well” are all just incredible. The last song in particular has been known to move me to tears, and I’m not at all ashamed to admit it.
None of these Beach Boy originals approaches anything on “Pet Sounds” in terms of musical adventuresomeness (though they do have the requisite unexpected chord changes Brian was so good at making work). As you and I agree, musical complexity on its own doesn’t necessarily equate to greatness. But they all have Brian’s devastating high vocals combined with melodies and harmonies that somehow convey a combination of innocence, sadness and loss in a way that’s really beyond words.
So I don’t know if your experience to this point would put you off giving “Beach Boys Today!” a chance, but I’d be interested to know if these songs would affect you in a way that “Pet Sounds” has not.
I’m well aware that most rock critics consider “Pet Sounds” one of the greatest albums ever made.
I also know that, when Mike Love heard tapes of the “Pet SOunds” sessions, he yelled at Brian Wilson, called him a self-indulgent idiot, and proclaimed, “This is boring! Where are the SONGS, man?”
I happen to think that both the critics AND Mike Love had a point.
The good stuff on “Pet Sounds” is very good indeed. “God Only Knows” is a beautiful song. “Caroline, No” is very touching. “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” is a classic. And “Sloop John B” was just plain fun. But a LOT of it meanders. A lot of it is just plain silly. And underneath the elaborate arrangements, some of the music is mighty slight.
Frankly, it’s both a very good AND a highly overrated album, much like the record it inspired: “Sgt. Pepper”. Hey, I loved the Beatles, but I happen to think “Sgt. Pepper” is their second worst album (“Let It Be” was the worst). There’s more weak material on “Sgt. Pepper” than on any other Beatles’ album. The good stuff (“A Day in the Life”) was magnificent, but the lame stuff (“Within You, Without You”) is VERY lame indeed.
Incidentally, one thing has always amazed me. “Pet Sounds” and “Sgt. Pepper” were the main inspiration for the “art rock” movement. The Moody Blues, Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer, King Crimson, Genesis… ALL these art rock bands were directly influence by “Pet Sounds” and “Sgt. Pepper.” Now, rock critics invariably LOATHE art rock! They HATED E.L.P. with a passion, and loved the punk bands that they hoped would bury art rock forever.
Well, critics… if art rock was such an atrocity, why do you praise to the heavens the very albums that made it happen?
I agree that some of Pet Sounds’s songs are stronger than others. To your list, I would add “You Still Believe in Me” and “I Just Wasn’t Made for These Times.”
I think Sgt. Pepper is a very diverting album that’s fun to listen to, but also agree that it’s been incredibly overrated. It was so different at the time that you can understand the hoopla, but with perspective I think we’ve come to see that it was more a matter of style than substance.
As we’ve agreed all along, the SONG is ultimately the thing. And with few exceptions, Sgt. Pepper’s songs aren’t really about much and are not emotionally engaging. I don’t think it’s their second-worst album (I’d probably name Beatles for Sale, although that has some individual songs that are great), but it’s not deserving of the attention it’s gotten over the years.
Actually, the tide has swung in more recent times toward Revolver as being The Beatles’ greatest accomplishment, and I fully support this trend. There are 14 real SONGS, each (yes, including “Love You To” and “Yellow Submarine”) great in its own way. This album represents the pinnacle of experimentation and taking things to the outer limits of creativity without sacrificing the song at the center of it.
I hate E.L.P. with a passion also, and am not a fan of any of the other bands you mention (though Yes’s first three albums weren’t bad).
I think the difference is that, while many of them may be slight, there are still SONGS at the heart of Sgt. Pepper, whereas the other artists mentioned viewed their albums as primarily a forum for wanking – whether instrumental as in the case of ELP, or mental in the case of most of the others.
Sgt. Pepper was sort of the watershed for showing that you could incorporate influences from almost any type of music into what is ostensibly a rock album. The others you name got so caught up in the idea that they put all their marbles on the music, the production, the self-indulgant wanking, etc., and forgot about writing songs with any kind of emotional resonance. (Though they’re not big favorites of mine, I might give The Moodies a pass on this, but not the others.)
I continue to be amazed that so many people seem to find this kind of stuff wonderful, but I’m obviously way out of step.