Investigating musical genius by listening to the Beach Boys a lot(cold-takes.com)
cold-takes.com
Investigating musical genius by listening to the Beach Boys a lot
https://www.cold-takes.com/investigating-musical-genius-by-listening-to-the-beach-boys-a-lot/
70 comments
I think if critics said things like “Pet Sounds was a huge technical and cultural innovation in the production of music but was only an incremental improvement in the aesthetics and complexity of music” we wouldn’t have this article. The point of the investigation is to understand why critics are literally calling it God-like. At least, that’s my reading.
I was excited to dive into the investigation with the author but was completely underwhelmed by where things went. The author barely pays respect to the idea that you can’t just listen to something today and understand it’s acclaim and influence at the time. There was not nearly enough depth here explored. Like what did other bands sound like? What was at the top of the charts at the time? Paint a picture of before and after. Disappointed this is floating so high here on HN
You don’t need to listen to all The Beach Boys albums that went before. All you need to do is listen to the top 40 at the time Pet Sounds came out. Other than the Beatles, it was pretty shlocky.
This sounds like the Seinfeld effect.
The things that were revolutionary at the time have been so copied and are now so commonplace that they seem utterly mundane.
You can’t understand Pet Sounds as a person in 2022 who has lived their whole life in the world that Pet Sounds created. You have to be the person in 1966 who never heard anything like it before.
The things that were revolutionary at the time have been so copied and are now so commonplace that they seem utterly mundane.
You can’t understand Pet Sounds as a person in 2022 who has lived their whole life in the world that Pet Sounds created. You have to be the person in 1966 who never heard anything like it before.
I get that, but still not sure Pet Sounds is as revolutionary as that.
I too went through the entire Beach Boys catalog a few years back and indeed you hear the progress of pop music from "California Girls" ditties (Paul teased with the Beatles "Back in the U.S.S.R.") to the more dare-I-say drug addled "Good Vibrations" (and more experimental "Heroes and Villains").
But as I sort of hint at, marijuana, psychedelic drugs could be just as responsible for the trajectory of pop music.
Go through the Beatles catalog and I would argue there is an even more dramatic shift in trajectory with the influences of Dylan, pot, later LSD. It's well known that the Beatles were the biggest influence on Brain Wilson's song writing — it could just as likely be then that The Beach Boys arc was simply following (anticipating?) the Beatles'.
The orchestration in Pet Sounds though follows the McCartney/Martin "Yesterday" by the Beatles as well as Phil Spector's production at the time.
I'm also on the fence regarding Pet Sounds. I'm more impressed by overlooked gems like the Zombies "Odessey and Oracle" than what may be the over-hyped albums like "Sgt. Pepper's" and "Pet Sounds".
I too went through the entire Beach Boys catalog a few years back and indeed you hear the progress of pop music from "California Girls" ditties (Paul teased with the Beatles "Back in the U.S.S.R.") to the more dare-I-say drug addled "Good Vibrations" (and more experimental "Heroes and Villains").
But as I sort of hint at, marijuana, psychedelic drugs could be just as responsible for the trajectory of pop music.
Go through the Beatles catalog and I would argue there is an even more dramatic shift in trajectory with the influences of Dylan, pot, later LSD. It's well known that the Beatles were the biggest influence on Brain Wilson's song writing — it could just as likely be then that The Beach Boys arc was simply following (anticipating?) the Beatles'.
The orchestration in Pet Sounds though follows the McCartney/Martin "Yesterday" by the Beatles as well as Phil Spector's production at the time.
I'm also on the fence regarding Pet Sounds. I'm more impressed by overlooked gems like the Zombies "Odessey and Oracle" than what may be the over-hyped albums like "Sgt. Pepper's" and "Pet Sounds".
Pet Sounds is revolutionary because it spawned The Studio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-jp6nbsM
> I get that, but still not sure Pet Sounds is as revolutionary as that.
It seems the Beatles sure thought it was revolutionary. They were scared of him. Didn't competition with Pet Sounds result in Revolver? And didn't subsequently that experience, plus rumors of Smile and the release of Good Vibrations, result in the pull-out-all-the-stops effort that created Sgt. Pepper's?
I understand you're underwhelmed by that album, but it seems the Beatles were driven to make what's often considered to be their best work because they were spooked by a single boy genius in LA.
It seems the Beatles sure thought it was revolutionary. They were scared of him. Didn't competition with Pet Sounds result in Revolver? And didn't subsequently that experience, plus rumors of Smile and the release of Good Vibrations, result in the pull-out-all-the-stops effort that created Sgt. Pepper's?
I understand you're underwhelmed by that album, but it seems the Beatles were driven to make what's often considered to be their best work because they were spooked by a single boy genius in LA.
The Beatles did not arrange their own scores, and they weren't even acting goofy when the beach boys hot streak began with "Beach Boys Today," which predates rubber soul.
You can come at the music of Brian Wilson from many angles, I enjoy the harmonic view. The music still holds up on that account because music today is regressive, we have deconstructed the same tired plagerized african-american grooves over and over to the point where there are no strong or weak beats, nor even tones to map tension and resolution around, all just to crank out cheep schlock crap to pollute the airwaves with. It would be avant-garde if it wasn't so shallow and exploitative. The future sucks.
You can come at the music of Brian Wilson from many angles, I enjoy the harmonic view. The music still holds up on that account because music today is regressive, we have deconstructed the same tired plagerized african-american grooves over and over to the point where there are no strong or weak beats, nor even tones to map tension and resolution around, all just to crank out cheep schlock crap to pollute the airwaves with. It would be avant-garde if it wasn't so shallow and exploitative. The future sucks.
>The orchestration in Pet Sounds though follows the McCartney/Martin "Yesterday" by the Beatles
Yesterday's orchestration is just acoustic guitar + string quartet
Yesterday's orchestration is just acoustic guitar + string quartet
Hey, no need to lump Sgt. Pepper’s into this conversation!
The Beatles were obsessed with Pet Sounds. Sgt. Pepper was their response to it.
Whilst Pet Sounds was the response to Beatles Rubber Soul. Brian was obsessed with Rubber Soul, that's why he went into this crazy project at all. He hired the very best studio musicians, the Wrecking Crew and worked on it for a year. His band was not able to play it live.
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/how-the-beatles-rubber-soul-ins...
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/how-the-beatles-rubber-soul-ins...
Although it's true that the value of most great works of art is partly historical, I think the majority of innovative masterpieces also have great aesthetic value. I think Seinfeld is one of the funniest comedies of all time and Pet Sounds is an extremely well-written, interesting, and pleasurable album, regardless of both being made before my time.
You're not that person either. This conversation is impossible, it's really about forensics and empathy.
> God Only Knows is by far my favorite track on the album, but “often praised as one of the greatest songs ever written”? Hmm.
* what key is it in, and how can you tell?
* did you hear the grand reunion of themes at the end, or the counterpoint in the interlude (fucking counterpoint in pop music!)?
* how can you even tell that you've arrived at the chorus the first time? Isn't the music supposed to change for the chorus?
* just noticed this one: when the melody starts the 3rd verse, the strings are still busy playing through an accompanimental phrase that started in the previous chorus. So accompaniment, main melody and sectional divisions are tapered
* just sing the goddamned melody out loud. Listen how it outlines and suggests it own chordal accompaniment, while at the same time it has a clear, catchy melodic shape and goal. Also take note of the range-- it's actually difficult to sing because of some of the melodic leaps required
In short, this is a melody and setting on par with the theme from Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet, or an aria by Bellini.
Edit: since author mentioned Coltrane-- it's worth noting that the first 10 minutes of Love Supreme is Coltrane doing Beethovenian motivic variations over a groove. Beethovenian motivic variations are so prominent even today because they are a surefire way to create musical coherence. E.g., even if Coltrane had a bad night you've still got a hundred chances to hear transpositions, elongations, juxtapositions, and forward development of that little motive over the groove. There's built-in redudancy there.
On the other hand, if you're going to write a pithy melody with a clear rhyming scheme like "God Only Knows," you'd better have every rhythmic and melodic proportion mapped out exactly as you want it. Melodic prowess is more like solving some kind of musical sudoko-- if you don't get it right then the entire audience will hear how it doesn't add up properly.
* what key is it in, and how can you tell?
* did you hear the grand reunion of themes at the end, or the counterpoint in the interlude (fucking counterpoint in pop music!)?
* how can you even tell that you've arrived at the chorus the first time? Isn't the music supposed to change for the chorus?
* just noticed this one: when the melody starts the 3rd verse, the strings are still busy playing through an accompanimental phrase that started in the previous chorus. So accompaniment, main melody and sectional divisions are tapered
* just sing the goddamned melody out loud. Listen how it outlines and suggests it own chordal accompaniment, while at the same time it has a clear, catchy melodic shape and goal. Also take note of the range-- it's actually difficult to sing because of some of the melodic leaps required
In short, this is a melody and setting on par with the theme from Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet, or an aria by Bellini.
Edit: since author mentioned Coltrane-- it's worth noting that the first 10 minutes of Love Supreme is Coltrane doing Beethovenian motivic variations over a groove. Beethovenian motivic variations are so prominent even today because they are a surefire way to create musical coherence. E.g., even if Coltrane had a bad night you've still got a hundred chances to hear transpositions, elongations, juxtapositions, and forward development of that little motive over the groove. There's built-in redudancy there.
On the other hand, if you're going to write a pithy melody with a clear rhyming scheme like "God Only Knows," you'd better have every rhythmic and melodic proportion mapped out exactly as you want it. Melodic prowess is more like solving some kind of musical sudoko-- if you don't get it right then the entire audience will hear how it doesn't add up properly.
My early pandemic project was to record live covers & re-arrangements of the entire Pet Sounds album on instagram, and when I got to God Only Knows I was stunned. I’d learned the verse & chorus chord progressions and things were going great, but at the bridge it fell apart. I knew it was the verse progression repeated, but it wasn’t resolving into the final verse like I knew it should.
That’s when I checked the chords more closely and realized there was a key change at the bridge that felt so natural I missed it completely. Without that piece there’s no way to connect the two sections. “Musical sudoku” is right on.
That’s when I checked the chords more closely and realized there was a key change at the bridge that felt so natural I missed it completely. Without that piece there’s no way to connect the two sections. “Musical sudoku” is right on.
Thanks! I learned a lot.
It's Paul's favorite song:
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/paul-mccartney-beach-boys-brian...
It's Paul's favorite song:
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/paul-mccartney-beach-boys-brian...
I think the mistake listening to Pet Sounds is to expect audio pyrotechnics, some sort of forcefulness or "wow" factor that separates it from the rest of the albums of its time. It's almost the exact opposite.
Instead of musical forcefulness or bombast, Brian Wilson doubled down on an almost shocking emotional honesty and tenderness. Nobody can deny the majesty of the 1812 Orchestra or Flight of the Valkyries, but Pet Sounds is the gentle sound of a summer romance blowing away in the breeze as the leaves change color. The instrumentation and production draws more on the soundtracks of the '60s than straight-ahead rock; it's filmic but quiet and understated. In the right state of mind, it puts you in touch with yearning and loss at the same time it's as light and lush as a sunny weekend drive down the coast.
This, of course, was a terrible mistake commercially - few in 1966 who were fans of "Surfin' Safari" or "California Girls" wanted an album of sweet romantic yearning with a light but heavily orchestrated sound. In fact, many today still don't want that. But that's what's there; an emotional and orchestral complexity missing from other works of the time made at the expense of AM-radio stomp.
Instead of musical forcefulness or bombast, Brian Wilson doubled down on an almost shocking emotional honesty and tenderness. Nobody can deny the majesty of the 1812 Orchestra or Flight of the Valkyries, but Pet Sounds is the gentle sound of a summer romance blowing away in the breeze as the leaves change color. The instrumentation and production draws more on the soundtracks of the '60s than straight-ahead rock; it's filmic but quiet and understated. In the right state of mind, it puts you in touch with yearning and loss at the same time it's as light and lush as a sunny weekend drive down the coast.
This, of course, was a terrible mistake commercially - few in 1966 who were fans of "Surfin' Safari" or "California Girls" wanted an album of sweet romantic yearning with a light but heavily orchestrated sound. In fact, many today still don't want that. But that's what's there; an emotional and orchestral complexity missing from other works of the time made at the expense of AM-radio stomp.
Nailed it.
So many hopeful critics completely missing what made Brian Wilson Brian Wilson. And it nearly broke the poor guy. I’m glad he’s been making it through his struggles alright.
For all of the talk people make about “living your truth” and all that, the level of emotional honesty is complicated, not easy, and often not welcome. What’s even harder is making it sound easy. He became a master communicator at pretty immense personal expense.
So many hopeful critics completely missing what made Brian Wilson Brian Wilson. And it nearly broke the poor guy. I’m glad he’s been making it through his struggles alright.
For all of the talk people make about “living your truth” and all that, the level of emotional honesty is complicated, not easy, and often not welcome. What’s even harder is making it sound easy. He became a master communicator at pretty immense personal expense.
This is not a serious attempt to understand or appreciate this music in any way. Four hours is not “a lot” of listening by any stretch of the imagination, and the author does not delve into any of the aspects of this music that make it unique.
I’m disappointed that this has ended up on HN.
I’m disappointed that this has ended up on HN.
The discussion here is worth the badness of the article.
There are facts and then there are options, but somewhere in the middle is taste. To me taste is like a fact that you can’t prove, and is also difficult to discuss because it’s hard to communicate about. Basically, I believe taste exists, but only to other people who have taste.
Obviously there’s plenty of room for subjectivity, but what I’m trying to describe is a certain feeling, a certain wavelength, that I think is hard for people to get who aren’t already there. Coincidentally software engineering is another realm where there’s definitely this mystical taste, but again any time you try to shed light on what you mean it’s like people almost intentionally try to torpedo your attempt at making a point.
In the end though the music and the code speak for themselves, and Pet Sounds to me really is the ultimate. It’s uncomplicated yet emotional lyrics. Each song’s melody is just so catchy. The whole thing has this romantic early 60s American feeling. The album makes me think of George Lucas’ American Grafiti but as music. It’s simultaneously nostalgic but to me still feels fresh.
I think very few bands today could make something so masterful. I just absolutely love that album.
I don’t know though, when I was reading the review I felt sorry for the person. It seemed like they were far away from this sense of taste. Comparing love supreme with pet sounds is like comparing a sandwich to some really complicated culinary masterpiece. Both are good, but they’re very different.
Sometimes it’s more pedestrian things that are done really well that are what is most impressive to me. If it’s critically good but also has mass appeal then you’ve done something very impressive.
Or I guess it’s also like comparing Hemingway to Joyce. Clearly Joyce is on another level as a writer and I enjoy him very much. That being said, if I had to pick whose head I’d rather be in for an hour or two I would pick Hemingway.
So any way, love supreme is good and so is Joyce, but so is pet sounds and Hemingway. To me though, ultimately pet sounds takes the cake for best album of the century, but it’s really difficult to explain why because it comes down to taste. If you try to make music and you try to balance all these different elements: ambition, mass appeal, melody and harmony, etc… it’s just basically perfect.
Also I don’t think this just because it’s old and important. I really just like the album.
Obviously there’s plenty of room for subjectivity, but what I’m trying to describe is a certain feeling, a certain wavelength, that I think is hard for people to get who aren’t already there. Coincidentally software engineering is another realm where there’s definitely this mystical taste, but again any time you try to shed light on what you mean it’s like people almost intentionally try to torpedo your attempt at making a point.
In the end though the music and the code speak for themselves, and Pet Sounds to me really is the ultimate. It’s uncomplicated yet emotional lyrics. Each song’s melody is just so catchy. The whole thing has this romantic early 60s American feeling. The album makes me think of George Lucas’ American Grafiti but as music. It’s simultaneously nostalgic but to me still feels fresh.
I think very few bands today could make something so masterful. I just absolutely love that album.
I don’t know though, when I was reading the review I felt sorry for the person. It seemed like they were far away from this sense of taste. Comparing love supreme with pet sounds is like comparing a sandwich to some really complicated culinary masterpiece. Both are good, but they’re very different.
Sometimes it’s more pedestrian things that are done really well that are what is most impressive to me. If it’s critically good but also has mass appeal then you’ve done something very impressive.
Or I guess it’s also like comparing Hemingway to Joyce. Clearly Joyce is on another level as a writer and I enjoy him very much. That being said, if I had to pick whose head I’d rather be in for an hour or two I would pick Hemingway.
So any way, love supreme is good and so is Joyce, but so is pet sounds and Hemingway. To me though, ultimately pet sounds takes the cake for best album of the century, but it’s really difficult to explain why because it comes down to taste. If you try to make music and you try to balance all these different elements: ambition, mass appeal, melody and harmony, etc… it’s just basically perfect.
Also I don’t think this just because it’s old and important. I really just like the album.
> Or I guess it’s also like comparing Hemingway to Joyce. Clearly Joyce is on another level as a writer and I enjoy him very much.
Who’s better: the engineer who writes a great program in 10,000 lines of code. Or an engineer that writes a different great program in 1000 lines?
Brevity doesn’t imply less skill. One might argue that Hemingway is “on another level” because he did more with less. Joyce left little to the imagination whilst Hemingway left almost everything to the imagination. Hemingway used white space as a feature.
But then again, here we are, discussing taste — which makes your point. I love a good Hemingway vs Joyce debate. Great fun, thanks for your thoughts.
Who’s better: the engineer who writes a great program in 10,000 lines of code. Or an engineer that writes a different great program in 1000 lines?
Brevity doesn’t imply less skill. One might argue that Hemingway is “on another level” because he did more with less. Joyce left little to the imagination whilst Hemingway left almost everything to the imagination. Hemingway used white space as a feature.
But then again, here we are, discussing taste — which makes your point. I love a good Hemingway vs Joyce debate. Great fun, thanks for your thoughts.
Some seriously good commentary here, even if the original article isn't up to HN's usual level.
Even though I dislike the Beach Boys, this all put a smile on my face this morning. As a former budding and aspiring music critic, I appreciate all these perspectives. ;) Thank you all.
I'll just suggest that music is a remarkable thing, miraculous even. Something so hopelessly scrutinized, yet so hopefully refined by criticism, created (or maybe captured) by the artists because the best seem to just have to do it. Competition, even in music for better or worse, produces emotionally profound results.
I am so grateful for the many people and many technologies and techniques that enable me to reach that emotional-mystical place some have mentioned in the comments. Thanks again for the reminder this morning!
Off to listen to Pet Sounds now. Then maybe Pet Shop Boys.
Even though I dislike the Beach Boys, this all put a smile on my face this morning. As a former budding and aspiring music critic, I appreciate all these perspectives. ;) Thank you all.
I'll just suggest that music is a remarkable thing, miraculous even. Something so hopelessly scrutinized, yet so hopefully refined by criticism, created (or maybe captured) by the artists because the best seem to just have to do it. Competition, even in music for better or worse, produces emotionally profound results.
I am so grateful for the many people and many technologies and techniques that enable me to reach that emotional-mystical place some have mentioned in the comments. Thanks again for the reminder this morning!
Off to listen to Pet Sounds now. Then maybe Pet Shop Boys.
Maybe Cunningham's Law also applies to posting wrong articles to HN:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
>"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." -Ward Cunningham
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
>"The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." -Ward Cunningham
Some of the acclaimed genius is something you can't hear in the finished album, you'd need to know what the single track studio takes sounded like. Some of those proclaiming how revolutionary "Pet Sounds" was had working familiarity with such things, but their audience didn't.
I think the biggest break was the realization that they were aiming at a low fidelity channel and working to that, rather than holding themselves to a "it would sound good live" standard which was irrelevant because it was never going to be a live arrangement.
I think the biggest break was the realization that they were aiming at a low fidelity channel and working to that, rather than holding themselves to a "it would sound good live" standard which was irrelevant because it was never going to be a live arrangement.
Caroline, No
You can't do much better than this in 2 minutes.
1966 (a capella):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Jvblwzwjo
2016 (with assistant vocalist):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpR2b71puCM
And stand the test of time for over 50 years.
You can't do much better than this in 2 minutes.
1966 (a capella):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Jvblwzwjo
2016 (with assistant vocalist):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpR2b71puCM
And stand the test of time for over 50 years.
The author quoting critical appreciation of Pet Sounds:
> Pet Sounds revolutionized the field of music production and the role of producers within the music industry [...] the use of recording studios as an instrument.
When comparing A Love Supreme favorably to Pet Sounds:
> I’d guess you’ll think it’s a great deal more complex, cohesive, impressive, and interesting in just about every way (other than the lack of prominent "studio effects") than Pet Sounds.
The author simply isn't interested studio production, which is the primary axis Pet Sounds is so highly regarded on.
> Pet Sounds revolutionized the field of music production and the role of producers within the music industry [...] the use of recording studios as an instrument.
When comparing A Love Supreme favorably to Pet Sounds:
> I’d guess you’ll think it’s a great deal more complex, cohesive, impressive, and interesting in just about every way (other than the lack of prominent "studio effects") than Pet Sounds.
The author simply isn't interested studio production, which is the primary axis Pet Sounds is so highly regarded on.
My only exposure to Pet Sounds as a cultural touchstone was the Doonesbury storyline in 1990 when Andy Lippincott, dying from AIDS, lived long enough to hear the album on CD.
* https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1990/05/21
* https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1990/05/21
People say Pet Sounds is good because it invented modern studio recording. That's interesting but Birth of a Nation invented feature films and it's unwatchable.
I really like Pet Sounds. It's The Beach Boys, who sing songs about beaches and girls and surfing, but the whole album is suffused with melancholy. Every song is sad. It's an interesting juxtaposition.
The article references A Love Supreme, which is also great. But in some sense what The Beach Boys are doing is harder than what Coltrane is doing. They're taking a subject matter and art form that are broad, trashy, often associated with kitsch, taking them really seriously, and producing something that avoids all the usual pitfalls when someone writes pop songs about their feelings.
I really like Pet Sounds. It's The Beach Boys, who sing songs about beaches and girls and surfing, but the whole album is suffused with melancholy. Every song is sad. It's an interesting juxtaposition.
The article references A Love Supreme, which is also great. But in some sense what The Beach Boys are doing is harder than what Coltrane is doing. They're taking a subject matter and art form that are broad, trashy, often associated with kitsch, taking them really seriously, and producing something that avoids all the usual pitfalls when someone writes pop songs about their feelings.
I think it has more to do with the “sea change” it represented at the time. One can easily point to that album as a point in music history from which whole new varieties of pop/rock bloomed. Of course it is never that simple, but history has to be condensed into simple terms to make it comprehensible and consumable.
Regardless of how any single individual might feel about it (my audiophile uncle very much dislikes The Beach Boys), their music can’t be overlooked in the history and a great many people enjoy it to this day — thus standing the test of time to a degree that most music does not.
Regardless of how any single individual might feel about it (my audiophile uncle very much dislikes The Beach Boys), their music can’t be overlooked in the history and a great many people enjoy it to this day — thus standing the test of time to a degree that most music does not.
Yes - genius is a differential, not a scalar. It's not about absolute popularity, it's about cultural leverage.
Beyond his music, Beethoven changed the idea of what a composer did. It was as much a social and cultural shift as a musical change.
The Beach Boys - and especially The Beatles - changed the idea of what pop music could be. There's been an endless stream of imitators copying the tropes that defined the music of The Beatles, but copying a trope makes you an imitator, not an innovator. No one since has had the same cultural impact.
Genius is not a technical exercise. It doesn't even matter if you're unusually competent. (Art and music schools turn out hundreds of unusually competent people every year.)
The real medium is culture itself - concentrating and distilling existing tropes, and inventing completely new tropes that have lasting cultural impact.
Being a novelty isn't enough. Being clever isn't enough. Technical mastery of the medium isn't enough. You only clear the bar by transforming the techniques and systems that other creatives use in a way that matters to audiences for generations afterwards.
Not many people get there.
Beyond his music, Beethoven changed the idea of what a composer did. It was as much a social and cultural shift as a musical change.
The Beach Boys - and especially The Beatles - changed the idea of what pop music could be. There's been an endless stream of imitators copying the tropes that defined the music of The Beatles, but copying a trope makes you an imitator, not an innovator. No one since has had the same cultural impact.
Genius is not a technical exercise. It doesn't even matter if you're unusually competent. (Art and music schools turn out hundreds of unusually competent people every year.)
The real medium is culture itself - concentrating and distilling existing tropes, and inventing completely new tropes that have lasting cultural impact.
Being a novelty isn't enough. Being clever isn't enough. Technical mastery of the medium isn't enough. You only clear the bar by transforming the techniques and systems that other creatives use in a way that matters to audiences for generations afterwards.
Not many people get there.
It was designed to be listened to on an AM radio, so yeah an audiophile might not like it, its very much not for modern equipment in that sense.
Huh? I have the stereo mix (and the mono mix) of the album and it's recorded nearly perfectly from an audiophile's perspective.
I think there are professionals who care about recording quality, and then there is an esoteric pop culture holding subjective opinions on sound. Both are labeled audiophiles at times.
The original mix was mono, the stereo stuff is the equivalent of colorizing black and white movies, adding 3-D to a 2-D film or remixing a stereo album into surround sound.
Brian Wilson is apparently deaf in one ear, which would have been less of an issue with mono.
Phil Spector (who was an influence on Pet Sounds) and other producers of the era were aiming to get something that sounded good when played on a car stereo of the time over AM radio and that affected their approach. The Phil Spector boxset was called "Back to Mono".
Brian Wilson is apparently deaf in one ear, which would have been less of an issue with mono.
Phil Spector (who was an influence on Pet Sounds) and other producers of the era were aiming to get something that sounded good when played on a car stereo of the time over AM radio and that affected their approach. The Phil Spector boxset was called "Back to Mono".
Just an aside: Audiophiles are not a homogeneous group because different people value different sonic phenomena. As you likely know, language largely fails to describe such things, and thus there is much debate over the whole endeavor to begin with. Odd that such controversy doesn't arise with sibling human senses such as taste, but humans gonna be human. So it goes.
This reminds me of Lady Gaga. When I first heard her music, I thought she was just another pop performer. But when I saw her play a live performance, I realized that she was playing up the silly pop performer trope while being a serious musician underneath it.
Similarly, I think the Beach Boys probably get discounted by many, including myself, because the genre they have chosen, and their style and aesthetic, scream not to be taken seriously. But, if you do anyway, there is some incredible musicianship in there. God Only Knows, cited by another commenter, is a great example.
I question what credentials this author has. The premise of their Beethoven series (Why has no musician in the modern era achieved the stature of Beethoven, despite a much higher population of potential artists today?) seems ludicrous on its face. I shouldn't say credentials, when I mean credibility. I haven't heard a single credible thought from the author yet, besides the suggestion to check out the Beach Boys, which was a good one.
Similarly, I think the Beach Boys probably get discounted by many, including myself, because the genre they have chosen, and their style and aesthetic, scream not to be taken seriously. But, if you do anyway, there is some incredible musicianship in there. God Only Knows, cited by another commenter, is a great example.
I question what credentials this author has. The premise of their Beethoven series (Why has no musician in the modern era achieved the stature of Beethoven, despite a much higher population of potential artists today?) seems ludicrous on its face. I shouldn't say credentials, when I mean credibility. I haven't heard a single credible thought from the author yet, besides the suggestion to check out the Beach Boys, which was a good one.
I’m a huge Pet Sounds and Smile fan but, it’s easy to dismiss or overlook The Beach Boys because 90% of their discography is frankly complete crap.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been linked to yet: Brian Wilson/The Beach boys’ supposed genius was the product of an intentional marketing campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wilson_is_a_genius
I'm always dubious when PR men try to make their contribution the key factor. They are after all PR men, and this guy was apparently one of the best in the business.
No it was not. This guy was serious. Really obsessive. And he had the skills and talent.
Half of genius is the willingness to obsess. To dive into your beautiful subject, plumb its ecstatic occult depths, and leave everything else in your world to rot.
The other half is this amazing phenomenon. When you focus upon a thing, a sight, sound, thought or whatever, for a time, when you concentrate, that thing becomes transparent. The original form dissolves, revealing deeper, realer, form. And then it keeps happening. Deeper and deeper. Funny you don't see much talk of this outside occult circles.
The other half is this amazing phenomenon. When you focus upon a thing, a sight, sound, thought or whatever, for a time, when you concentrate, that thing becomes transparent. The original form dissolves, revealing deeper, realer, form. And then it keeps happening. Deeper and deeper. Funny you don't see much talk of this outside occult circles.
"willingness" laughs in ocd
An excellent point. Maybe call it inclination instead.
A whole article about The Beach Boys’ genius and not a single mention of Kokomo.
Lot of great comments here, pointing that to really understand something, you need to invest in understanding the context. A moment that drove this home for me was hearing “I’m Waiting For The Day” for the first time, nodding along to some cliched lyrics with sentimental swelling strings, and then BAM you get hit with the change up. Suddenly there’s a maudlin, jangling arrangement over syncopated rhythm that staggers into Brian Wilson baring his teeth, all gloating and possessive, with direct physical imagery replacing the dewy euphemisms the song starts with. It’s physical, but there’s nothing romantic about it. Then you’re back in the gentle strings, with Brian Wilson whispering sweet reassurances and you can never hear this song, or perhaps any of the top 40 songs of the time it imitates in the same way again. It’s the kind of song that could change your world if you were a teenager in the 60s, or now.
Highly recommend Smile by Brian Wilson too. It’s caught out of time but a masterwork of what was coming. As we lose musical prodigies to their genius, for decades and forever, their impact moves me and my family by the grace of bringing emotions of life to the listening experience. This author seems to forget that important history, when pop became deeply personal.
Agree with this analysis. Cheesy pop songs. The genius of that era is pretty well established, at most I see The Beach Boys tangentially inspiring others both with their music and behind the Laurel Canyon music scene.
Back to the original argument of this article: it does feel sometimes that there are as many stars in that patch as stupidity in our human friends in the current world we live in. Sigh.
When I was young I listened through The Rolling Stones 100 best Rock Albums. The fact that Pet Sounds even made the top 10 was always baffling to me.
I kind of agree. I've never been a fan of Brian Wilson. I always say my favorite one of his songs is the one where they sing really high and there are a billion overdubs of the voices.
I can see that the techniques used might have been new and influential but I don't enjoy listening to his music very much.
I can see that the techniques used might have been new and influential but I don't enjoy listening to his music very much.
I cannot imagine having this opinion
>Or maybe I’m the one hearing (or failing to hear) things? I would love to hear from any readers who could give me any idea of what kind of headspace I’d have to inhabit to find Pet Sounds more impressive, enjoyable, or [any positive adjective]4 than A Love Supreme!
We're very deep in the subjectivity foxhole here, but nevertheless, from one person who never had any clue as to why people enjoy Jazz (other than it's "cool" to claim that you like it), I find Pet Sounds a million times better than anything Coltrane ever did.
We're very deep in the subjectivity foxhole here, but nevertheless, from one person who never had any clue as to why people enjoy Jazz (other than it's "cool" to claim that you like it), I find Pet Sounds a million times better than anything Coltrane ever did.
I don't like all jazz (or even most jazz) but the few pieces I do know well enough to like I really like. And several of those are by John Coltrane's classic quartet: Afro Blue, Favourite Things spring to mind. I like them for similar reason I like other music. It makes the hairs on the back of neck stand up and I feel stronger emotions than I'm normally capable of. It feels like the smartest, most interesting people I've ever met are talking directly to me.
(Interestingly - I can't get on with Love Supreme. I've tried but I lost the thread a few minutes in.)
(Interestingly - I can't get on with Love Supreme. I've tried but I lost the thread a few minutes in.)
My opinion is that it is difficult to enjoy music we don't understand. I realise one does not have to love everything about a whole style of music, but not having a clue why this whole style may be enjoyable sounds like maybe you haven't been much exposed to it.
So here is one (genuinely interested) question: how much do you know about jazz?
So here is one (genuinely interested) question: how much do you know about jazz?
> how much do you know about jazz?
I live with someone who loves it and listens to a lot of it, and I am exposed (subjected) to a wide variety of the stuff at very regular intervals, much to my dislike.
Also, I don't "know" about music, the very notion is weird to me. I listen to it and know how it makes me feel.
What I do know is how I feel when I listen to Jazz: I don't find the experience pleasant at all: it's (to my ears) unstructured and lacks melody, and the only feeling I'm experiencing when listening to it is mild irritation.
Some smooth jazz is palatable but doesn't make me feel much more than elevator muzak does.
I live with someone who loves it and listens to a lot of it, and I am exposed (subjected) to a wide variety of the stuff at very regular intervals, much to my dislike.
Also, I don't "know" about music, the very notion is weird to me. I listen to it and know how it makes me feel.
What I do know is how I feel when I listen to Jazz: I don't find the experience pleasant at all: it's (to my ears) unstructured and lacks melody, and the only feeling I'm experiencing when listening to it is mild irritation.
Some smooth jazz is palatable but doesn't make me feel much more than elevator muzak does.
You can optimize this using the Unix shell and some utilities:
echo "Beach Boys" | sed s/e// | sed s/Boys//
echo "Beach Boys" | sed s/e// | sed s/Boys//
I get that sounding like a big greasy blob is great for AM radio as you cruise PCH, but these days it feels like kinda gimmicky.
this is cute. i dont know if this is correct or not. but in this day and age this is the type of silly curiosity i need more of in my life. you absolute dork. thanks
> Musical Genius
> The Beach Boys
These two things simply don't belong together. Chord voicing and structural harmonies? That's stuff that dates back to the early 17th century at the latest. It's quite literally 400 years old, and you can trace its gradual development in the previous century which gets you to stuff that's 500 years old(!). Now, orchestration I might of course give you: a modern pop song is just as complex in instrumentation as anything written for voice + orchestra, and possibly more so. But you can't separate that from purely technical developments, there's very little specifically musical about those. Orchestral cantatas and operas still date back to the early 18th c. or so, so we're talking 300 years old as the age of actual "musical genius" in these domains.
> The Beach Boys
These two things simply don't belong together. Chord voicing and structural harmonies? That's stuff that dates back to the early 17th century at the latest. It's quite literally 400 years old, and you can trace its gradual development in the previous century which gets you to stuff that's 500 years old(!). Now, orchestration I might of course give you: a modern pop song is just as complex in instrumentation as anything written for voice + orchestra, and possibly more so. But you can't separate that from purely technical developments, there's very little specifically musical about those. Orchestral cantatas and operas still date back to the early 18th c. or so, so we're talking 300 years old as the age of actual "musical genius" in these domains.
Chord voicing and structural harmonies are inputs, not the end products. "Musical genius" generally references the demonstrated ability to create the best end products, for whatever historically significant period of end products you want to talk about.
Whether you don't personally resonate with the end products of some historically significant period is up to you, but it doesn't really change its cultural significance.
Whether you don't personally resonate with the end products of some historically significant period is up to you, but it doesn't really change its cultural significance.
It's time to read up a little bit on Bryan Wilson.
> Pet Sounds revolutionized the field of music production and the role of producers within the music industry, introduced novel approaches to orchestration, chord voicings, and structural harmonies, and furthered the cultural legitimization of popular music, a greater public appreciation for albums, the use of recording studios as an instrument, and the development of psychedelic music and progressive/art rock ...
Then why not study those aspects of the album? It seems like those are historical and technical innovations, not esthetic or preferential. They are saying "look at all the ways this album changed the world." The author's strategy instead was to listen to other Beach Boys albums, then listen to Pet Sounds again, and expect to have an epiphany. I think that's a hopeless strategy, and probably misses the point anyway.