No Pier Pressure Review Online

[kwebb]

I was looking for more news about Brian's new album, and I found this review here:

http://www.contactmusic.com/brian-wilson/music/brian-wilson-no-pier-pressure

I'm a bit surprised that there are already people who've heard the album two months before it's release.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Review copies (or streams, these days) tend to go out some time in advance of the actual release date.

[The Shift]

New issue of Uncut hints at a review in the next issue.

[elnombre]

'Sloop John B' is an example of 'Brian's classic songwriting' 

[Empire Of Love]

I understand that advance copies go out, but is there anything in this review that could not have been derived from the Google Play samples?  I've only listened to the samples on my phone but it sounds like at least a faint banjo on the Musgraves song, you can hear the lead in and beginning of the Runaway Dancer chorus, and you can hear the vibe of the Zooey song, etc.  I'm not persuaded the reviewer has heard the album.

Could someone who has heard the samples clarify whether or not a banjo can be heard, or point out something in the review that indicates the reviewer has heard the album?

EoL

[JK]

Could someone who has heard the samples clarify whether or not a banjo can be heard?

Now that you mention it there is definitely a banjo (or something extremely similar) to be heard in the sample. But I doubt whether the reviewer would have identified it from the sample alone...

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

How wonderful that Brian finally discovered the banjo...Yes, I'm being sarcastic here.  Sorry.  I guess we don't have to love every review and we certainly don't all agree.  I personally LOVED what I heard of Zooey Deschanel and "On the Island" - can't wait to have my hands on it to hear it in full, probably over and over again given the chance!

[Matt Bielewicz]

Not a very well-written review in my opinion. And I say that not because it's a bit luke-warm, but because it isn't very well researched. The reviewer seems to think that Brian's career consists of writing light-hearted hymns to beach-orientated existence and nothing else. And talks as though the introduction of a banjo to his music is some kind of revelation that he's never, ever used before. (I see Debbie Keil-Leavitt has now taken exception to this point, and rightly so!)

I don't expect reviewers to have super-nurd levels of BW knowledge, but if I was tasked with reviewing an artist whose material I didn't know too well, I'd either research like mad, or, if I was really pushed for time, at least try not to make sweeping statements that can be instantly punctured by anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the artist's back catalogue. I started to part company with the reviewer at the sentence 'the feel-good sun-drenched hallmark sound of Wilson's music'. Is that a reasonable description of BW's 'hallmark sound'? No, just a part of his music, I would say - the part that tends to feature heavily on Beach Boys complilations, perhaps, but far from the whole story. It's like saying that the history of the United States in the 20th century is that they fought in two wars in Europe which they helped to win, and then fought a war in Vietnam which they lost. Or that the history of the UK in the same period is that they also fought in two wars in Europe which they helped to win, and then didn't fight a war in Vietnam. Partially true, but far from the whole story.

Similarly: "...the former called 'Guess You Had To Be There' nods to Mugraves Country roots with the inclusion of a banjo that broadens Wilson's typical Californian sound."

Leaving aside the misspelling of the female country artist's surname, and the concept of "Wilson's typical California sound" — what the reviewer thinks that is, I've no idea — the banjo mentioned has been part of Brian's music many, many times over the years already both with and without the Beach Boys. Adding it for this track is not some kind of amazing, never-before-tapped inspiration.

And then there's the description of the Zooey Deschanel track as being possessed of a "Caribbean cabaret vibe". Well, descriptions vary, I grant you, and each to their own — but surely this track's inspiration is actually to be found much further south, in the Brazilian bossanova sound of Joao and Astrid Gilberto? To my ears, it certainly has that 'Girl from Ipanema' sound. And my geography may be a bit wonky, but Brazil really, really isn't in the Caribbean. Or even particularly close to it.

To me, it reads like the work of a guy who doesn't really know his stuff, or had to crank this review out in a hurry... or both.

[guitarfool2002]

In fairness to the review's author, whom I don't know and am not immediately aware of his previous writing, it feels like a mass-production, assembly line piece. I agree with the comments above that suggest a review like this could have been written from the Google samples rather than a full listening session with this or any album. I say that being completely unaware of whether the author listened to the full album or not, but rather saying what it felt like after reading it. And I read it several times to be fair.

It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion of the record overall, but rather the way it seems music journalism and criticism can disappoint in the internet age. For those not familiar or who haven't read reviews from the late 60's and early 70's, and I point specifically to those that appeared in Rolling Stone and which have been collected in various compilations, it feels like fast food journalism versus sitting down to experience something beyond getting the product delivered fast and consistently. Sure there were some really bad reviews, but when you read many of those vintage rock reviews, it felt like the writers not only had listened intently and with a critical ear to what they were being charged with telling their readers about, but it also felt like you were getting some of those writers' personalities coming through in the words.

I had a few similar posts/rants just before That's Why God Made The Radio was released, and we started to get some advance reviews hitting the web. It actually is a responsibility being given to those reviewers when they get an advance copy and are tasked with releasing information and opinions on that album to a fanbase who is anticipating that work. That review can shape opinions as well as develop notions about the music which, subliminally or directly, can create both a preconceived notion and an expectation for what they will soon be hearing.

I think at least many fans reading the reviews should expect a feeling that the album wasn't reviewed in an assembly line fashion, or worse, the feeling that such a review could have been done by listening to 8 minutes of preview cuts posted on sites like Google or Amazon.

I get that feeling reading this one, and I *hope* that will not be the standard to follow in the next months. It's easily read and dismissed, like ordering a Big Mac, eating it in a few minutes, and disposing of the carton and bag in one fell swoop. Nothing gained, nothing lost, you simply bought and ate the exact product you knew you were buying and had bought dozens of times before.

I'd like to think the writer listened to the full album, I'd like to think the writer is aware of and has heard Brian's solo albums from the previous decade, and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that he has.

But if the review incorrectly names the title of a song, fails to mention a handful of songs apart from the more visible cuts with the guest artists, and basically puts little perspective on it beyond using a phrase like "fun in the sun" to contextualize the work, it's hard not to read it and soon dismiss it like that Big Mac we had for lunch.

I'll wait for the reviews.  

[the professor]

Our leader is right: there is nothing of merit in that review; don't waste more ink on it.

The Professor

[Mikie]

Lana Del Rey. Forgive me if I'm so naive and/or forgot. Do we have that duet with Brian somewhere or will we ever hear it?

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Lana Del Rey. Forgive me if I'm so naive and/or forgot. Do we have that duet with Brian somewhere or will we ever hear it?

Right now we're just hoping it will make an appearance on her next album.  Otherwise, all we know is that it was recorded.

[Mikie]

Thanks. So for now we'll wait for Lana's next release and add it to the Brian Wilson Unreleased Tracks list until it pops up somewhere as a bonus cut on one of the two releases.

[bgas]

Thanks. So for now we'll wait for Lana's next release and add it to the Brian Wilson Unreleased Tracks list until it pops up somewhere as a bonus cut on one of the two releases.

From this piece, it appears the song was never finished, at least to Brian's satisfaction, so it's doubtful it'll be making any appearances( unless we can find a way to boot it) 

http://pitchfork.com/news/58275-frank-ocean-and-lana-del-rey-left-off-brian-wilson-album-due-to-scheduling/

[Mr. Verlander]

There was a banjo on 'The Grand Coolee' section of CE. And to great effect!

[The Shift]

There was a banjo on 'The Grand Coolee' section of CE. And to great effect!

And both verses, if memory serves…

[Wirestone]

Thanks. So for now we'll wait for Lana's next release and add it to the Brian Wilson Unreleased Tracks list until it pops up somewhere as a bonus cut on one of the two releases.

From this piece, it appears the song was never finished, at least to Brian's satisfaction, so it's doubtful it'll be making any appearances( unless we can find a way to boot it) 

http://pitchfork.com/news/58275-frank-ocean-and-lana-del-rey-left-off-brian-wilson-album-due-to-scheduling/

That press release is nonsense. Frank's status was dubious as far back as last summer (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/brian-wilsons-girl-powered-lp-in-the-studio-with-the-beach-boy-20140718). Lana's vocal was done. The album was finished last year. If scheduling was really an issue, they could have easily recorded more with the two in December, January or this month.

[Zesterz]

Banjo........early days....Dont go near the Water.....//.

earlier days---I know theres an answer

[coco1997]

This review reads like the writer listened to the Google Play samples and derived a full album review from that. Pretty shoddy, IMO.

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

In fairness to the review's author, whom I don't know and am not immediately aware of his previous writing, it feels like a mass-production, assembly line piece. I agree with the comments above that suggest a review like this could have been written from the Google samples rather than a full listening session with this or any album. I say that being completely unaware of whether the author listened to the full album or not, but rather saying what it felt like after reading it. And I read it several times to be fair.

It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion of the record overall, but rather the way it seems music journalism and criticism can disappoint in the internet age. For those not familiar or who haven't read reviews from the late 60's and early 70's, and I point specifically to those that appeared in Rolling Stone and which have been collected in various compilations, it feels like fast food journalism versus sitting down to experience something beyond getting the product delivered fast and consistently. Sure there were some really bad reviews, but when you read many of those vintage rock reviews, it felt like the writers not only had listened intently and with a critical ear to what they were being charged with telling their readers about, but it also felt like you were getting some of those writers' personalities coming through in the words.

I had a few similar posts/rants just before That's Why God Made The Radio was released, and we started to get some advance reviews hitting the web. It actually is a responsibility being given to those reviewers when they get an advance copy and are tasked with releasing information and opinions on that album to a fanbase who is anticipating that work. That review can shape opinions as well as develop notions about the music which, subliminally or directly, can create both a preconceived notion and an expectation for what they will soon be hearing.

I think at least many fans reading the reviews should expect a feeling that the album wasn't reviewed in an assembly line fashion, or worse, the feeling that such a review could have been done by listening to 8 minutes of preview cuts posted on sites like Google or Amazon.

I get that feeling reading this one, and I *hope* that will not be the standard to follow in the next months. It's easily read and dismissed, like ordering a Big Mac, eating it in a few minutes, and disposing of the carton and bag in one fell swoop. Nothing gained, nothing lost, you simply bought and ate the exact product you knew you were buying and had bought dozens of times before.

I'd like to think the writer listened to the full album, I'd like to think the writer is aware of and has heard Brian's solo albums from the previous decade, and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that he has.

But if the review incorrectly names the title of a song, fails to mention a handful of songs apart from the more visible cuts with the guest artists, and basically puts little perspective on it beyond using a phrase like "fun in the sun" to contextualize the work, it's hard not to read it and soon dismiss it like that Big Mac we had for lunch.

I'll wait for the reviews.  

Thanks, GF!  You had far more patience than me with this author.  I don't expect a Brian Wilson expert, but at least listen to the thing and do SOME background work...

[Zesterz]

Review.......surely no coincidence that Contact Music is also the name of the people who called Elizabeth Banks "Marilyn Wilson " in the caption from Berlin ?!?   

[Lee Marshall]

I read the 'review' before reading the reviews of the 'review'.  Ol' Pusey there doesn't know his subject matter ... was my first reaction.  So if you don't know what you're talking about...why 'talk'?  Instead...go leave a cake out in the rain or something.  You'll never have the recipe to begin with.

It's like a guy without a driver's license taking a brand new 2015 Porsche for a test spin around a block he's never driven 'round before.  Of course how could he have?  He doesn't have a license.  Clutch?  Gear shift?  Find 'em- don't grind 'em buddy.  Oops.  An expensive error was potentially made here.

*WE* in the land of the beach...also occupied by the various boys who actually made 'it' famous...know about reviewers who were mere decades short of conception when the surf boards were stored and the cars were parked.

It is what it is ... A weather forecast done using a window and a dart board. 

[Awesoman]

I'm not really sure why we're jumping to conclusions that (A.) the reviewer based his opinions solely off the Google Play samples and didn't really listen to the album or (B.) that he is not "well-informed" enough of BW to provide a proper review of the album.  Based on what I read, it sounds like the guy has at least some insight to the Beach Boys.  He was aware of the cancelled Lana Del Ray appearance.  And is it that unfathomable that maybe he listened to the whole album and just thought it was okay?  I'm assuming that 99% of us on this board probably haven't heard the whole album yet; so how do we know whether or not this guy's review is unfair?  30-second samples can play tricks on you sometimes...

Sounds more to me like people are upset that he didn't give a glowing review of the album and therefore we must find a way to discredit him.  Pretty sure no one would be questioning if he based his review off the audio samples if he gave it 5 stars, now would we?

[HeyJude]

The thing with reviews, whether written for Joe’s Fanboy Blog or major print sources, is that sometimes that are written in such a way that they could have been written before hearing/seeing, etc. the item in question.

I know I’ve read reviews of DVD or Blu-ray releases where I suspect the reviewer didn’t watch the item in question. Especially when they’re reviewing something like the “sixth season” set of some show; they clearly just copied and pasted the previous season review and made some references to the newer season. It’s not difficult to BS one’s way through these reviews. For Blu-ray reviews, just throw in a bunch of references to “banding” and “compression” and “crushed blacks” and presence of lack of “dynamic sound range in the rear speakers”, etc.

I could have written a review of “No Pier Pressure” that could fill a typical size spot in a review section of a magazine without even having heard the album. It isn’t that difficult to functionally do it; it just ends up useless and boring to people who actually know something. Having actual sound samples of each song would make it even easier. There’s an easy way to prove a review is written not from old descriptions or sound samples: cite a lyric or musical passage or something that isn’t heard in the samples (or heard at the Vegas show) and hasn’t been cited in any articles.

Now, I’m not saying a review has to do this. But if someone is even asking the question of whether a reviewer wrote their review without hearing the album, then it’s probably not a particularly awesome review even if the reviewer listened to the full album ten times.

Some reviews just suck, regardless of their ultimate opinion. I don’t know how many times I’ve read even a positive review of an album where they say “such-and-such tracks is reminiscent of….” and then they cite something that, to me, sounds *nothing* like that. I’ve seen mid-tempo pop songs called “ballads”, slow pop songs called “rockers”, and so on.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this reviewer DID hear the entire album. Some people just don’t have much original or detailed to say about music. Perhaps they shouldn’t be writing reviews then, I dunno.

[Awesoman]

The thing with reviews, whether written for Joe’s Fanboy Blog or major print sources, is that sometimes that are written in such a way that they could have been written before hearing/seeing, etc. the item in question.

I know I’ve read reviews of DVD or Blu-ray releases where I suspect the reviewer didn’t watch the item in question. Especially when they’re reviewing something like the “sixth season” set of some show; they clearly just copied and pasted the previous season review and made some references to the newer season. It’s not difficult to BS one’s way through these reviews. For Blu-ray reviews, just throw in a bunch of references to “banding” and “compression” and “crushed blacks” and presence of lack of “dynamic sound range in the rear speakers”, etc.

I could have written a review of “No Pier Pressure” that could fill a typical size spot in a review section of a magazine without even having heard the album. It isn’t that difficult to functionally do it; it just ends up useless and boring to people who actually know something. Having actual sound samples of each song would make it even easier. There’s an easy way to prove a review is written not from old descriptions or sound samples: cite a lyric or musical passage or something that isn’t heard in the samples (or heard at the Vegas show) and hasn’t been cited in any articles.

Now, I’m not saying a review has to do this. But if someone is even asking the question of whether a reviewer wrote their review without hearing the album, then it’s probably not a particularly awesome review even if the reviewer listened to the full album ten times.

Some reviews just suck, regardless of their ultimate opinion. I don’t know how many times I’ve read even a positive review of an album where they say “such-and-such tracks is reminiscent of….” and then they cite something that, to me, sounds *nothing* like that. I’ve seen mid-tempo pop songs called “ballads”, slow pop songs called “rockers”, and so on.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this reviewer DID hear the entire album. Some people just don’t have much original or detailed to say about music. Perhaps they shouldn’t be writing reviews then, I dunno.

What else exactly was he supposed to say about the album?  I don't think he was looking to write an essay or a book report.  I think he included enough detail in what he wrote: describing several tracks off the album, noting the singer's history and including other tidbits such as guest vocalist information.  To expect him to unload a tedious, track-by-track analysis is unrealistic.  Again, I'm confident that no one would be questioning this review or the reviewer's integrity if he had scored it higher.  And in any case, this is one lone man's opinion; I say we not take his review too personally and wait until we can listen to the album in full ourselves.