The Smiley Smile Message Board

Pet Sounds is obviously universally (yes, even in other galaxies) considered one of the greatest albums ever. A year ago, Uncut magazine voted it the single greatest album ever. I remember some guy responding to this by writing a long essay type thing on why Pet Sounds was the most overrated album ever. From what I remember most of his reasons were silly (mushy, half-decent songs, only reason anyone cared was cause it influenced Sgt. Peppers which he also said was overrated), but he is not alone in his feelings:
http://adeepershadeofsoul.blogspot.com/2006/10/most-overrated-album-ever.html
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343792
http://exclaim.ca/music/article/pet_sounds_sucks-story_vs_songs
https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/3apnc5/pet_sounds_by_far_and_away_the_most_overrated/
http://www.somethingawful.com/your-band-sucks/greatest-albums-ever/

As for me, in the words of Carl Wilson: Personally, I love(d) it.
I know this might be a worthless question, but I was curious to see if anyone on a Beach Boys message board felt Pet Sounds was overrated. And if so, why?

Not sure that the title song necessarily fits.  I was written and recorded, after all, for an entirely different and unrelated purpose and then tossed onto the pile pretty much because it was there.  At this point we're used to it.  At THAT point we were pretty much used to there being instrumental music on Beach Boys lps so no one really paid it no nevermind.

Outside of that...Pet Sounds is ALL THAT.

^ a million percent agreed!

-Billy

Uh...

I guess to be fair a person has to ask: who is rating, and how do they rate it? (If someone is out there rating Pet Sounds as somehow curing cancer or something, maybe...

But seriously, that's really, really dumb. Pet Sounds is as good an album as there has ever been. First, second, fourth, seventh, whatever. But it's as good an album as there can be. It's absolutely a flat-out classic. Someone who wants to call it overrated is trolling or ignorant.

I don't think it's overrated. The complexity of Pet Sounds merits the praise it receives. There are plenty of albums out there that get a lot praise or are regarded as "essential," only sustained by popularity and not by its musical content. Quite frankly, I don't hear enough about PS :P.

Agreed - it changed the course of music and many people's lives, but other than that...no big deal ;-)

As far as people who want to argue about it, who cares really?

It's not my favorite BB album, but PS's importance as an major musical influence is undeniable. And, for the record, I love GOK!

Wouldn't It Be Nice is one of the greatest pop songs ever written and produced, perhaps the greatest.  So, no it's not overrated.

Pet Sounds was my best friend at a time in my life when I felt like I had no friends. Anybody who calls is "overrated" is spoiling for a fight in my eyes.

The music that made me a huge Beach Boys fan was the Smile sessions that I heard on the Endless Harmony documentary on vh1 in 1998. With Pet Sounds, the production is perfect, but I have to be in the mood. Albums like Smile, Wild Honey, Friends and Love You I am more often in the mood for. But if Pet Sounds is over rated, I would say slightly. But it is still great!

Anytime something is as revered as Pet Sounds, you'll always have a few who'll say its overrated.

If you want to read something that will make your IQ drop several points, read  this

http://adeepershadeofsoul.blogspot.com/2006/10/most-overrated-album-ever.html

It's overrated in relation to the rest of the BB's catalog. In other words, if you read the hip music publications, you'd think all you need for a BB's collection is Pet Sounds and a collection of their early single hits...and maybe Smile Sessions. To me, that does such an injustice to Sunflower, Wild Honey, Beach Boys Today, Summer Days and Summer Nights, Holland, All Summer Long......and yes, i'll say it....Smiley Smile. I am so thankful that I did not stop with Pet Sounds and Endless Summer way back in 1981, so glad I investigated the rest of the catalog, especially those much maligned post-PS albums (gee, reading David Leaf's book, I  was lead to believe the only worthwhile moments on those albums were the Brian Wilson songs...but I kept my ears and my mind open, and found out "wow, the other guys wrote some good stuff too! And Carl Wilson can make even the most average song sound won-won-wonderful!").

That's how I feel. Pet Sounds is the band and Brian's best work, but it's not my #1 favorite even though it's flawless in every way. I actually prefer to listen to the work Brian did  in the latter part of the decade and early part of the next.

This comment will probably be misunderstood and I might get some flak for it, but I'll say it anyway. Pet Sounds is overrated, in that it makes albums like Friends, Sunflower, and Wild Honey underrated.

No.

I agree, and a few people have said this now. It is over rated when compared to the rest of the Beach Boys catalogue. I truly think Brian really reached his zenith as a songwriter around the Smile to Friends period, and stayed on top of his game through the early 70s.

I'm still sticking with 'no' because the question wasn't 'Did Brian (or the Beach Boys) do anything as good or better?' but 'Is Pet Sounds over-rated?'. I love lots of Brian's work, early stuff too but particularly music written from 1966 onwards. Friends was beautiful and I love the Sunflower album (though this really was more of a group effort). After this, the quality of the tracks on the albums were more variable so whilst they contained some great music there were less strong tracks too.

The whole of the Pet Sounds album is strong IMO and it marked a real shift for Brian. There had been hints of what was to come but with Pet Sounds Brian took a giant step into the future and others followed in those footprints.

The article / blog does get it right in places I think. There are some people (hate the term hipsters) who rave about Pet Sounds whilst dismissing the rest of the catalogue. I've met a few in my time.  So in that respect Pet Sounds is over rated. Musically, culturally, in terms of influence though, absolutely not over rated.

I'm fine with the fact tgat some people, such as the blog author, feel that way, and some of the comments made me smile. Especially those who bigged up the Beatles whilst saying Pet Sounds was an album with a few good songs and the rest was nothing more than filler. That's  EXACTLY how I feel about every Beatles album. Each to their own.   :)

Overrated? I don't think so. It's probably the best pop album of the 20th century and many people have acknowledged that. It's also Brian Wilson's big statement as both writer and producer. I like albums like Friends and Love You just as much but I can see why it is singled out. It's a once-in-a-lifetime type of record, irrespective of how good their other stuff is.

I answered with this understanding as well.  Pet Sounds isn't overrated.  Other works by Brian are underrated.  To me, these are two separate issues...

While I personally don't think PS is overrated, I can understand why some people don't like the album and therefor can't understand why the album tops many critics best lists.  The reasons are all detailed in the links from the first post - too many downbeat slow sentimental (one person said syrupy) depressing songs (Mike Love's critical appraisal as well?), only a few good songs (essentially because of the first point), overblown production that essentially copied Spector and so wasn't innovative, high voices/falsetto on some songs that are emasculating or embarrassing to even listen to (a criticism that Brian could relate to, feeling the same way about some of his vocal performances like on Let Him Run Wild). 

That's what I get out of the linked articles, and that these people who don't like the album believe the reasons the album is revered is because of the mythic back story that critics love - crazy mentally unstable rock star fights with record company to release his masterpiece before breaking down completely during the Smile sessions.

The albums songs ARE sentimental at times but also sensitive, reflecting the sensitive, emotional and emotionally troubled artist himself, and those sentiments are given a remarkable musical backdrop and melodies and harmonies that are nothing short of genius for those who can appreciate them.  And what the macho let's rock and roll upbeat only critics of PS perhaps don't realize is that the emotions and feelings explored in Pet Sounds are universal and very common in adolescence, even though at the time, 1966, few men or high school boys would ever admit to it.  It's a different age now, but it was very brave of Brian, with Tony's help, to bare his feelings and expose himself like that, when to do that in high school in 1966 would likely invite ridicule and taunts to "man up."

Sorry, I can't risk it.

lol

Point taken. But was "man up" a popular phrase in 1966?

Don't remember the term back then and never heard it while in the service from 67-70 as most of their lingo was gutter oriented.

Youngarmydude!

I mean, Love You and 15 Big Ones are just as good :)

I agree with Love You, as it's  a stunning, original work.

Interested in your hearing your thoughts behind putting 15 Big Ones up there with Pet Sounds,  Donny.

If I may, DonnyL was quoting Brian Wilson. And I gotta say... I love how much Brian loves his own work.

As far as Pet Sounds being overrated? I don't think so. I'm willing to consider it, but I just can't get there. It deserves the praise it receives and its status as one of the greatest records ever made.


Great post. Pet Sounds isn't going to be everyone's favorite album, but that doesn't mean it's overrated. I don't care for most 'classic' albums, but that doesn't take away from their greatness.

Ah, I must have missd that one. Very pleased he loves Love You. So he should.

Ha yes, I recently saw that video someone posted with that BW quote ...

I have to agree in some ways with his assessment. To me, Love You is one of the most immediate Beach Boys records. When I first heard both albums at age 13, Pet Sounds took awhile to sink in ... but Love You (and MIU actually) I loved right away.

As for 15 Big Ones, I must admit I play it a lot more than albums that I should like better (Surf's Up, So Tough, etc) ...

Where did Brian say that? I'm not denying it, I'm just fascinated. Love You I get. But 15 Big Ones? Was this said in hindsight?
For some reason I'm always surprised at how much I'm surprised by Brian's opinions on things, despite the fact they should make sense coming from him (that wasn't meant as a put down just in case anybody read it as such).

15BO is definitely underrated. Flawed as it is, there's some gold in them backing tracks..

as to the original question... overall, no of course not. any criticism of PS just boils down to personal taste. the songs are mostly sentimental (that's the point) but not mostly slow. in terms of pop composition, arrangement, production, vocal harmonies, and influence Pet Sounds can't be topped.

and you might be surprised how many people have NO IDEA that an album called Pet Sounds even exists. I have a Pet Sounds t-shirt and am still shocked how many people ask me what it means!

lots of people know WIBN, SJB, GOK but the rest of the album, not so much.


I do feel it gets way more attention than other BB albums, for some obvious reasons... but there are so many great ones in the catalog.
Today!, Wild Honey, Friends, Sunflower, Love You being my personal favorites. and SMiLE

 

Start at 1:47...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IVPSR2GLk4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IVPSR2GLk4)

Had To Phone Ya is stunning (You Know You stopped short of calling me an idiot when I suggested that once) and Just once In My Life is a great 70's take on Spector's sound.

This is true.  I've said before that the perception of The Beach Boys seems to be a singles band with one great album (Pet Sounds).

There are several fine albums besides Pet Sounds. Iwould say Surfin' USA, Surfer Girl, All Summer Long, Today, Summer Days, Party, Smiley Smile, Wild Honey,Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surfs Up,Holland, and Love You. All of them are very good to excellent.

Anybody who thinks Pet Sounds is overrated should do the following:

1. Get a good sound system or a good set of headphones;
2. Listen to the entire album from start to finish;
3. Listen to the instrumental-only versions of the songs from start to finish. Notice that things that are not instruments are used to become an integral part of the music;
4. Revel in each note of every instrument and non-instrument;
5. Listen to the vocals-only version of the album from start to finish;
6. Openly weep at the beauty of the intertwining harmonies and the vocal gymnastics. You will never hear anything like this again, other than other Beach Boys albums.
7. Now re-listen to the album and see how the instruments and vocals combine in a perfectly blended wall of emotion, intense feeling and longing.
8. Repeat steps 3-7 until you 'get it'.

Excellent list and further suggest the stereo version and a glass of your favorite vintage.

Pet Sounds is my 2nd favourite album of all time and, in general, I find that terms like "overrated" and "underrated" are lousy ways of evaluating something (evaluate it on its own terms not in relation to what you assume others think about it). But why should I care if someone else doesn't like it?

When we ask if something is 'over-rated' we are really judging the opinions of others as much as the thing itself. We are suggesting that the people who have such an opinion are wrong. So I agree that there are better ways of evaluating Pet Sounds and ones that are less subjective. Has it stood the test of time? The answer to that appears to be 'yes'. Even now, over 50 years since the time of its release, it can sell out concerts all over the world and it is still on sale as an album as well.

Yes, but even that is somewhat subjective because others feel that it is more important for a work of art to be of its time and speak to what is happening now than it is to aim for timelessness. Personally, I am more than a little surprised about what music from my youth (the 90s) has stood the test of time (two decades at least) and I can't say that I think much of it is any good.

I mostly agree with CSM here. Peruse old threads about overrated or underrated or listing in general and you can find me blathering on and on about things like this: (over- and under-)rated by whom, and on what criteria? Most of the time, it's a vague presumed consensus and on no criteria. It's just a way to fill pages of a magazine, or to generate clicks, the musical equivalent of 10 ways to get that bikini body by summer, or top 3 tricks to have better sex. It's just irrelevant crap.

Above all I agree with Mr. Desper's assessment of all this, verbatim.

Usually the talking heads and pundits try to state a case that something is "overrated" with the goal of knocking something down in order to boost another something up. And it usually if not always exposes more about the person making that attempt than it does add in some way to the dialogue.

But in terms of art being of its time, if that is applied to other prominent examples of albums from the period 1966-67-68, that notion would shatter attempts to diminish the legacy and impact of the Sgt. Pepper album. In the past decade or so there have been attempts to declare Pepper "overrated" if not diminish it entirely, yet if the standard involves a work of art being "of its time", Pepper really was that big of a release in its time and it really was that much of a groundbreaker in terms of kicking down the doors and brick walls in terms of what could be possible on a rock album and how that related to the other facets of pop groups making albums and how those albums were delivered to the public.

So essentially, the "of its time" point would make attempts to lift great albums like "Forever Changes" or "Piper At The Gates..." over and above an album like Pepper basically moot since no matter how much "better" opinions might put either one or others comparative to Pepper artistically or musically, nothing in 1967 really resonated with both the public and the musician/artist/pop culture community as much as Pepper.

And in terms of legacy coming from years of reassessment, rediscovery, and discovery in general, Pet Sounds is in very exclusive company in terms of the album continuing to grow in stature as each successive generation of listeners finds it on their own.

Perhaps it truly was ahead of its time, yet it was always there waiting for people to discover when they were ready and open enough to do so.

I think Pet Sounds was both of its time and ahead of its time, which is why it made a difference THEN (at least in Europe at first) and is still appreciated today. I'm not sure if that makes it timeless - part of its charm is that it is so of its time. It's impossible to be completely objective - for me, Pet Sounds has some things in common with 'coming of age'. Brian's work became more daring and the very album starts with a look to the future but ends with a glance back at the past.

I agree with this. I think to some degree we look at what the characteristics are of our favourite works of art (ie., it's timeless, it's a reflection of its time) and then privilege those characteristics. In other words, they decide first that they like the album and in looking for ways to explain what is good about it, they use these characteristics. I don't know if what I'm saying makes any sense though...

Well Craig, whether or not Sgt Peppers is overrated is an argument we've had before. What I got from your position then, and now, is that Sgt Peppers cannot be called overrated because of its cultural significance.

Genuine question here then...

What term can be applied to something that is elevated to a lofty position, which you just don't get?

Overrated seems to be the best term to use, but it is a wholly subjective one. I think Sgt Peppers is overrated precisely because the cultural significance is, to me at complete odds with the musical content. I just dont think its a good album. Personal opinion. So what other term can I use than overrated? By that argument I have no problem with anyone finding Pet Sounds overrated. I can understand and sympathise with that position.

I look forward to your reply Craig, as long as you are aware of the irony in trying to convince me Sgt Peppers isn't overrated by telling me how important it is  :)

The difference between Pepper and PS is that Pepper is considered to be one of the highlights in a great body of work, while PS is considered to be THE great work in a lifetime of music making. Look at the greatest albums list; they almost always include Abbey Road, Revolver and Rubber Soul. Some include A Hard Days Night and The Beatles. Rarely do any BB's albums besides PS get listed, other than Smile (mostly in the bootleg days when it was the greatest album that never was). I wonder how many of these critics even listened to the other BB's albums?

This brings us to the question 'what if?' What if SMiLE had been completed and finished back in the day? What effect would this have had on Brian's future creativity? What effect would this have had on the opinion of Sgt Pepper? Unfortunately, we can only speculate.

Brian created some beautiful music after Pet Sounds but IMO the non release of SMiLE and a few years later the release of American Graffiti and subsequent release of Endless Summer dragged Brian back like a rip tide into a past he had already outgrown.

I agree with this (except Smiley Smile and Love You), but outside of BB fans, I don't think the albums get very highly rated. 

YES!!!... ... ...What KDS said.

Obviously this wasn't directed toward me and guitarfool will have his own response to this but I wanted to share my thoughts as well.

To me, this would be like saying that the moon landing was overrated or World War 2 was overrated. Now today you will find lots of people who quite simply are not interested in stories about the moon landing or WW2, don't understand the significance of these events, and don't want to. And while they don't tend to use the term "overrated" to describe them, I suppose that they could. But to me, this would be missing the point. Sure, people have their own personal interests and it understandable that space travel and war might not fit into those interests. But to call them overrated is to dismiss the overall cultural significance of these events.

To me, I don't see what is wrong with just saying, "I don't particularly like that album because the music does nothing for me."

I'm not downplaying or disregarding the cultural significance, far from it.  I'm saying that, to me, there is a disparity between its significance and the music itself. I find it musically overrated, and that's fine because it's a subjective view.

I don't understand the moon landing or world war II analogy. They weren't creative works. And  only a fool would say those weren't important events.

And surely cultural signicance shifts. Sorry to bring up Wagner again, but from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th century he was widely considered to be one of the worlds greatest composers. Then he fell out of favour after the war.  Mozart on the other hand didn't achieve the huge cultural significance he now has until the 1950s. A bit like Brian, he was considered quite lightweight and frothy before that, although there was always  a constant small group since his death who knew how great he was, and carried the flame. So was Mozart now underrated and is now overrated? Or Wagner vice versa? Meaningless. Its personal taste. I just judge stuff on the music, I find cultural significance a distraction.

Happy for you if you love Sgt Pepper though, and I hope it brings you great pleasure, because that's what music is for. Who cares what anyone else thinks. :)

It is fine and it is a subjective view (though, to be honest, saying something is overrated is to suggest there is an objective quality to the music) but I am entirely uninterested as a method of evaluation. For example, when I watch Orson Welles's Citizen Kane, it doesn't occur to me to say, "What I want to talk about when it comes to this film is how accurate the critical evaluation is of it." To me, that's not a particularly interesting argument. I'd like to talk about the photography, the dialogue, the performances, its relation to other films of its time, not how I think about it in relation to what others think about it.

Now, suppose when you say something is overrated you are not presuming an objective quality to the music. That, in fact, you are simply saying, "In my opinion this work of art does not deserve the respect it gets." Well, to me, what that really amounts to is, in my view, a more interesting position which is that you don't particularly like the work of art. And at that point the conversation can be "Why?" and hopefully the answer to that is not "Because other people like it so much" but, rather, because you can evaluate the work on it's own terms.


Well, this is really an aside but quite honestly I do think that there was a lot of creative thinking that went into both of those examples. But, yes, they aren't works of art. Nevertheless, they are both things that had the capacity to be culturally significant and people can either be interested in them or not. In that respect, they are the same.


That's not really the point. As you say, you accept the cultural significance of an album like Sgt. Pepper, you're just not as interested in that album as other people are. And I'm saying that people can hold (and do hold) the same attitude towards monumental historical events but it wouldn't make sense to say that they are overrated.


Well, this is kind of what I'm arguing except to say that it is important to think of the historical circumstances that surround a cultural artifact.

Beautifully put, and that is exactly my position, but not with the answer you hope its not :lol. I find the respect it gets difficult though, although I accept it.

And you're right that the term overrated does suggest a certain amount of objectivity. I was wrestling with that.

The problem is one person not liking a particular album does not diminish either its' significance/importance OR its' quality. It's one person's opinion.  So it is presumptuous for one person to think their opinion is so important that it somehow nullifies multiple critics and the public's opinion and somehow their belief that the album is overrated trumps all the critics and the general public's.

So I guess I'm saying that someone can say they don't like an album, and explain why, and see if others agree or disagree.  More interesting would be to analyze WHY the critics feel an album is great, and then refute those reasons, which is something the linked articles attempt to do but they set up paper elephants only to shoot them down.  Another approach would be to poll knowledgeable music fans such as the participants in this board and ask them what the top BB album is - if Pet Sounds were to fall in the middle somewhere rather than at the top, that could be significant.

Revisionism is easy. Actually revising the past in a way that illuminates the present or points to the future, however, is exceedingly difficult. It is easy to reflect the present via such an effort, but it will almost always be a distorted, inaccurate reflection--more like a funhouse mirror. That's what we're getting from most of these clowns.

The other aspect of this that gets tricky is that in the old delivery model--still intact somewhat, but not as monolithic as it was--the LP was a unit of commerce that some folks decided to burden with the status of art. This has caused all kinds of hocus-pocus over the years. We could literally spend the rest of our lives debating what track sequences, "concept album" definitions, etc., etc. And all of it would lead nowhere--often interestingly, but inconclusively.

Of course Pet Sounds is overrated. All of the LPs in the "Rock Critics" Top 100 are. It's the nature of the beast for this type of stuff. What seems to differentiate it in the minds of most is a shared sense of stylistic unity which seems mostly lacking in the commerce-art receptacles called LPs released by the band. Many will argue for this being present in certain favored LPs: Today, Wild Honey, Friends, Sunflower, Holland, Love You--but there is no universal agreement to be had for these...only for Pet Sounds. It's an LP that is SO perfect that it might seem too self-contained for those who've become familiar with the waywardness of the BBs oeuvre--and how that waywardness radiates through the creative exploits of the other band members--Dennis' songwriting, Carl's production "bubble" in the late 60s-early 70s, Brian's post-SMiLE desire to write contrapuntal tracks from very minimalist musical materials instead of the original "lusher" composition style, which I think he generally thinks led him down a rabbit hole.

All of that makes this waywardness interesting to us, but it won't help folks who are dead-set on fetishizing the commerce-art receptacle. They will be revising away forever, and to little useful effect. Meanwhile, here we can appreciate the unity of inspiration that is represented by Pet Sounds and forage elsewhere for the diversity of inspiration that is also abundantly at our fingertips...

Don M...like your thoughts.  The tyranny of the art-LP item (thanks to Bob Dylan?) has always grated.
Considering the great works...all have their blemishes.  Even with Dante, one can say, geez, did it have
to be this long?  Perhaps the problem lies in the language of description and the urge to chauvinism.
Human failings...how they grate/are frustrating.  So, not the art itself.

With Pet Sounds...having heard Caroline No at the proper speed...I hope never to hear the sped-up
version again.

Still, a pretty good album...

I'll go back to one of my original comments, although my thoughts overall have already been expressed in the posts of "Chocolate Shake Man", Bicyclerider, and others.

The statements about something being overrated, in this case a particular album, usually say as much if not more about the person stating them as it does about the actual issue being discussed. So much of it comes down to basic opinion, whether there is or isn't that immediate feeling of connecting with or not connecting with an album, song, or any work of art.

I do think there has been even more of a trend toward self-elevation of one's own importance in the areas of music journalism and criticism especially in the past 15 years or so, give or take. Not that the sometimes overt narcissism of some of the writers and pundits wasn't always there, and it is far from exclusive to rock or pop or 'alternative' music writers and critics, but there seems to be an increase in critics writing from an Ivory Tower where their perspective is presented with an underlying implication that they know better and are dispensing information to the great unwashed masses.

I like to read opinions, I like to read and debate them pro and con, but arguing opinions is another matter entirely. If someone tags Sgt Pepper or Pet Sounds or any of my personal favorites with the descriptive "overrated", it's different than saying "I just don't get it, I can't connect with it, I don't like it...etc." I can offer any number of factors from musical to technical and even veer into the emotional to present my own case, and if necessary defend or support the reasons why Pepper or Pet Sounds are so highly regarded. However, the term overrated is loaded before the discussion even begins.

If "Album X" is declared overrated, then the natural response should be "in relation to what other albums?". Something can't be declared overrated unless there is a perspective given and a counter to the example offered...in this case there would be an album or albums that the person commenting would need to cite and which would by nature be "underrated" relative to "Album X" according to that person's perspective.

And because of that, the term "overrated" again exposes more about the commentator than it does about the work being commented on, and right there for me is the pitfall.

There are literally so many variables involved in these issues that it becomes an endless loop that usually comes back to semantics and basic aesthetics, as in what someone things is good versus not good. And it's pure opinion.

I do believe there is a dividing line between "overrated" and "underrated". Overrated has a negative connotation, as in the person using that word to describe a work is attempting to diminish it in some way, even if very slight. Underrated projects a more positive perspective, where a work is going to be boosted or praised to show that perhaps something that person likes should be getting more attention if not a reevaluation from a wider audience. I would much rather hear a case made for the latter, as in "it's underrated" but without the necessity to find negatives about it in order to back up the case.

Whether the word 'overrated' or 'underrated' is used it suggests that there is a correct place for an album (or anything else!) to be in the scale of things, and those who haven't discovered that placing are in the wrong. Perhaps rating isn't 100% subjective but it depends on personal taste, fashion, and indeed, where you came in, because someone who was alive before Pet Sounds and others were released will have a different perception from someone whose experience of music has dated from the time when it was influenced by those albums. Some of today's music would undoubtedly be different had Pet Sounds not been released - how different, we cannot tell.

It is surely arrogant though to suggest that because any of us is personally unable to appreciate a particular album, that means it is over-rated. I would reserve 'over-rated' to works where you can hear things that are undeniably wrong - for example plagiarism, singing off-key, badly scanned or cliched lyrics and overly predictable melodies.

There is an element of arrogance and inflated self-opinion involved, yes - But even that might be my own perspective and interpretation shading that opinion. However there are writers and critics (amplified ten-fold by the 'blogosphere' and the ability of anyone to buy a web domain and start writing criticism and opinion pieces free of any publishing concerns) who are clearly coming from their own perspectives to make definitive opinions turn into preaching or dispensing wisdom versus expressing opinion as purely visceral reactions to a work and declaring whether or not they like it personally and listing reasons why. It's when *that* element where pure opinion becomes written into the history starts actually becoming considered part of the history that we should at least raise an eyebrow and say...hold the phone, this is one person saying "Album X" is overrated and is not part of the history.

There are definite, concrete reasons why a certain work of art reaches a high status in the critical and public sphere, and with everything from Pet Sounds to Sgt Pepper to "Citizen Kane" to Andy Warhol, these reasons can be presented factually and backed up with evidence both of the time and in subsequent generations' worth of rediscovery and reevaluation. Why are certain artists and works of art elevated to that high level? Those cases can be made. However, someone looking back and saying that work is or has been "overrated" takes on that negative connotation where that person is about to give a list of negatives to try knocking the work down a few pegs in order to back up what is basically their own visceral reaction of not liking as much something that others have elevated to the "greatness" or legendary status.

It's mainly a case of personal taste, but I am more willing to hear someone tell me why they think something is underrated because it will open up their emotions in stating the positives which shaped their opinion versus trying to list negatives to degrade a work that I may love or even one which has reached that rare position of being universally praised as a legend.

It's also a case by case basis, as is much of life in general. Is it acceptable to write an article or state a case that the following artists are overrated? Pearl Jam, The Pixies, Nirvana, Beyonce, Tarantino, JD Salinger, Kanye West, The Velvet Underground, etc etc etc? Consider the reactions if instead of Pet Sounds being the subject of an article about being overrated, it were instead Beyonce or Bowie or Pearl Jam or any number of other hugely popular artists. Then consider the reasoning behind those reactions and factor in how much more there is than making a blanket case that something or someone is "overrated".

I said earlier that PS is overrated in relation to the rest of the BB's catalog, but it's not the most overrated BB album. That honor belongs to Love You.  Most underrated album is Smiley Smile.

Presumptious? Arrogant? Ha, I've been called worse.....

I agree that overrated/underrated are loaded terms. What I genuinely have though is a knee jerk reaction when I hear Sgt Pepper being referred to as 'the greatest album ever'   Same as when anyone tells me Oasis were the best band of the 90s

So, to me, using the term 'overrated' is only ever a reaction to terms like  'best' or ' greatest'

Would you not agree that those could equally be construed as loaded terms?

No offence intended - i've undoubtedly used the word 'overrated' about albums I don't like or don't 'get'. And I do agree that many of these words are loaded and very subjective. The difference though is the implicit criticism of those who have overrated a particular piece of work, whereas 'best' or 'greatest' may be a subjective and even an arguably incorrect statement but there is no such implication.

It's possible for something to be the greatest ever for all time and still be "overrated", based on some folks' interpretation of the word "overrated."

To some, unfortunately, "overrated" is just code for "I don't like it." That's not a good use of the word in my opinion.

To some, "overrated" is probably more akin to "overhyped" or "oversaturated"; you know, like the movie your buddy keeps telling you is awesome that you now *hate* even though you haven't seen it, just because you're sick of hearing about it.  :lol

Then there's the more objective, put-on-your-critic-hat judgment. To say "Pet Sounds" is "overrated" in this sense, you need to be prepared to know your s**t about not just the BBs, but all of the popular and important music of that era and subsequent eras. You need to be able to explain at least some amount of music theory, or somehow engage in the specific musical nuances of the thing. Not just "this song sounds cheesy", etc.

I don't think PS is overrated, but I have no problem saying it's constant citations of the "greatest ever" may throw some people off. I've never understood the *constant* need to say the thing you like is the "GREATEST EVER!" I hear this all the time these days about *everything.* My thing is, why can't something just be really good, and leave it at that?

So yeah, if I was trying to turn someone on to PS, I probably wouldn't tell them it's the "GREATEST ALBUM OF ALL TIME" and start pulling out old Mojo magazines to show them the all-time lists and stuff. I would just tell them I think it's a great album, and maybe I'd mention how it might subvert their perception of the band (in cases where they only have passing familiarity).

I've played the BBs and specifically PS to people who *love* music who haven't just fallen head-over-heels in love with it (same with the Beatles, etc.). I can live with that. They usually tend to have a more focused idea of what kind of music they like. Sometimes they can even articulate what doesn't speak to their core about the BBs (or Beatles). One person I know really likes unique, solo voices like Nick Cave. While I can help them see things they will like about the Beach Boys, there's always going to be a limit when they literally *don't* like massive multi-part group harmonies. But the cool thing is, the people I know who aren't uber fans of PS or the BBs or Beatles are cool and don't try to then assume they know more than someone else and contend PS is "overrated."

Does anyone else notice how these "overrated" albums/artists/songs seem to run in cycles as far as which classic artist or album gets the "overrated" treatment in some circles of music criticism and journalism (not to mention online discussion) ?

I remember very well there was a specific time when I started to notice an influx of articles and commentaries going on the "Sgt Pepper is overrated" trip, and the only reason why I noticed it was because it seemed to be boiling up all at once among some writers and fans. Along with that declaration that Pepper is overrated came the listings of albums released around the same time as Pepper which ostensibly were "better", and I guess trying to imply were more deserving of the ratings that Pepper had been receiving. Floyd, Love, Zombies, go down the usual list.

Now Pet Sounds is in that same grinder.

I'm already repeating earlier points I posted here, but can someone list some albums that would/could/should be rated higher from Pet Sounds' peer group which would make a case that it is overrated? And on what other standards and parameters would that rating be judged? Is it exclusive to each album, or relative to its surrounding and era, etc etc etc?

I won't hold my breath waiting for that list. Ultimately it means little to nothing because it's yet again more of a statement of opinion and musical preferences than it is a true attempt to have a discussion without getting into arguing opinions, semantics, and personal biases.

Or if it isn't possible to craft such a list relative to Pet Sounds or even Pepper, how about the earlier point: Are there artists who are off-limits when it comes to applying the "overrated" label to their work or to them in general, and if so, why are they off-limits while some fall into the critical grinder of negative reevaluation every time the trend recycles itself?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Several years back, I saw "Sgt. Pepper" at #1 on a list of "Worst Albums of All Time." No ridiculous extreme is off limits.

There's a point at which, especially *these* days, a lot of these essays and articles are kind of just click-bait.

"Why Sgt. Pepper is Awful" is probably going to get more "shocked and stunned!" reactions these days than another "Sgt. Pepper is Still a Classic!" headline.

 

Course I'm not offended Ang! By you or anyone else. I'm enjoying the discussion. :)

Yes, it does run in cycles. Personally I've  had a problem with Sgt Pepper since about 1984, and its been constant.

As I've already stated. I call it overrated in relation to it being called 'the greatest album ever'. That is the language I take exception against, and overrated is the term I choose to retaliate with. You take exception to me using the word overrated.

As also stated, 'best' and 'greatest' are just a loaded as 'overrated', and can irritate just as much.

Either we choose to accept we are both having a valid reaction to a term we don't like and agree to disagree, or we take the route that one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

Personally I choose the former.

Just to be clear, I don't take exception to anything *you* said and never did take exception, nor am I replying to anything specific from your specific posts. It's the trend overall and the behaviors/patterns overall that I've seen regarding all this stuff that I addressed.

It's been going on for awhile, but it seems to have intensified in the past 15 years or so (coinciding with the rise of the internet as a communication tool? ) where there are more efforts to knock down what some consider "sacred cows" among albums and artists. Keep in mind, it's that specific notion when applied to art/music and the like which is the issue I'm addressing. If someone says "grilled cheese sandwiches are overrated", I could care less.

I've already listed a lot of factors and parameters that can be involved in this - But there are also some societal, interpersonal, and even psychological factors in some of it. It could be the notion of "click bait", which amounts to wanting attention and fishing for it by baiting people with those kinds of comments expected to get a strong reaction, positive or negative. It could be the notion of championing the underdog and the downtrodden, sometimes for the sake of championing the underdog as a personal thing rather than based on the quality of that underdog's artistic output or quality. Sometimes it's the caricature of the guys at the record shows and swap meets who have to play the game of one-upmanship with those around them using music as the weapon of choice. When someone shares something they like, those types have to do it one better as much to boost themselves and the self-esteem versus the desire to share with a fellow fan. And some of it is whatever formerly underground sub-cultures now brought to the fore by the internet and anonymity bring to the table in the way of enjoying kocking down the popular stuff in favor of some obscure stuff that never went beyond a regional pressing of 1,000 LP's back in 1966 but is truly spectacular and "better" than the popular stuff. Often what happens then is if and when that 1,000 copy great lost unknown obscure underrated album gets attention from a wide audience or even gets mass attention and heaps of praise, some in that sub-group do the equivalent of shouting "sell out!" and may even start to call their once-beloved and championed "lil ol album that only we knew about before anyone" overrated.

Just throwing out some thoughts and ideas, but consider they can be applied to many of the cycles and trends that have been hitting articles and commentaries regarding what is overrated.

It's not that PS is overrated. It's that too many (ab)use the excellency of PS as a hammer to beat down whatever else the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson have done. I have read far too many variations on "nice, but it's not Pet Sounds". Saying such a thing is boring, is trite, is lazy, and most importantly is unfair.

Just try to figure how you'd like it people treated that way everything you do in life. Nice, but... ::)

I also think that the cycles that you describe have a bit to do with whatever sound happens to be popular now. For instance in the 90s when Britpop emerged, a good deal of the sound of that time was derived specifically from Revolver-era Beatles. Consequently, when lists came out, no longer was Sgt. Pepper considered to be the greatest album but Revolver replaced it. In the first decade of the 21st century, there was a gravitation towards Brian Wilson-like sounds and suddenly Pet Sounds was considered to be the greatest ever being a perennial #2 or #3.

That's cool. I thought some of the comments you made were sideways swipes. Not that it bothered me :'(


I quite agree, which is why I ultimately think such terminology is meaningless beyond an expression of opinion.

Thanks! Me too.

No.  There are few albums  that I can turn to for the last 26 years and still be emotionally moved by it.  I am still riveted every second when listening to it.
And for me, as a musician, it(along with their other material) was a gateway drug to exploring music theory in a more in-depth way.

It's my favourite album but I cannot give an objective assessment of whether it is "better than", say, Songs In The Key Of Life or Forever Changes. It speaks to me more deeply, that's all.

Pet Sounds v other BB albums: there are sequences on Today and Sunflower that rival the greatness of Pet Sounds. I don't quite feel that Smile, for all its brilliance, communicates that much emotional depth; it's a little too abstract. I love the Dennis tracks on 20/20 then of course there is POB, which is IMHO the most emotionally engaging album associated with the Beach Boys that came out after 1966.

Polls, even by critics, a horse manure. It's nice when Pet Sounds gets No. 1 but is no more "valid" a judgment than when it appears outside the Top 20. I know it will always be my "go to" album in times of darkness (such a November 8-9, 2016).

Sunflower is my favorite Beach Boys album. I don't know if it's their best album, but it's the one I keep going back to these days.  I especially love the sequence of songs on side 2 - Tears in the Morning (yes, i'm a sap), All I Want to Do (Michael E. Love's best song ever), Forever, and Our Sweet Love. I can listen to those endlessly. I used to listen to PS endlessly; now on the rare occasions I put it on, I go for the stereo - brings so many more details to light.
Second favorite is Wild Honey. Always puts me in a good mood. Sometimes I play Carl's 2 solo albums the most.