|
Title: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure "Wilson's most forward-looking solo LP" Post by: Fro on March 28, 2015, 08:36:59 AM Got my print edition of RS a couple days ago and it has a No Pier Pressure review. Don't really care for the music reviews in the mag but I figured you would be interested.
*** (good) The review says Wilson has had a "late-game rally" betwen Smile, TWGMTR, and now this new LP, which shows "the sound of a famously cloistered artist finally leaving his room". Says the highlights are "Guess You Had to Be There" and "Saturday Night" "There are a few too many retreads (the 'Sloop John B'-ish 'Sail Away'), but it adds up to Wilson's most forward-looking solo LP, Smile notwithstanding." Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Rocket on March 28, 2015, 08:41:57 AM I'm a tad disapponted in that score. I thought of all the major music publications, Rolling Stone would give the album a super high score.
Oh well. I know I'm still going to love the album, so whatever. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Debbie Keil-Leavitt on March 28, 2015, 08:55:08 AM Just read the whole review. While it was overall "good", the reviewer just doesn't seem to have the same musical taste as Brian's primary audience. Ah well, it's all opinion and at least it was the 2nd review with a good photo, so it will get some attention. They certainly weren't especially kind to Emile Haynie.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: ArchStanton on March 28, 2015, 10:15:48 AM One trend with Rolling Stone is that the content of the reviews rarely matches the score given. Drives me nuts.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: chrs_mrgn on March 28, 2015, 10:16:04 AM What did Rolling Stone give KTSA?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: joshferrell on March 28, 2015, 10:20:56 AM What did Rolling Stone give KTSA? higher than 5... ;D SIP got a trillion stars Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Summertime Blooz on March 28, 2015, 11:34:15 AM "Forward-looking" seems like an odd way of describing this album since so much of what I've heard sounds like 70s soft-rock. Maybe just a reference to the guest vocalists? We'll see on April 7th.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Lowbacca on March 28, 2015, 12:03:07 PM "Forward-looking" seems like an odd way of describing this album since so much of what I've heard sounds like 70s soft-rock. Maybe just a reference to the guest vocalists? We'll see on April 7th. How could "forward-looking" refer to the guest vocalists? ???Brian's trying new stuff, as always (to a certain degree). That's what made him an icon in the first place and it is what makes his solo career more than worthwhile. Brian has put tremendous effort and experimentation into No Pier Pressure, that's what the RS author is praising as "forward-looking". Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: rab2591 on March 28, 2015, 12:08:37 PM "Forward-looking" seems like an odd way of describing this album since so much of what I've heard sounds like 70s soft-rock. Maybe just a reference to the guest vocalists? We'll see on April 7th. Brian's trying new stuff, as always (to a certain degree). That's what made him an icon in the first place and it is what makes his solo career more than worthwhile. Brian has put tremendous effort and experimentation into No Pier Pressure, that's what the RS author is praising as "forward-looking". Exactly. Given how modern 'Runaway Dancer' sounds, how vintage yet modern 'GYHTBT' sounds, also how Brian is harkening back to bossa nova while at the same time making it sound perfectly fit for the year 2015 (mostly due to the lead vocalist), yes I would indeed agree that this is Brian's most forward looking solo album to date. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: bgas on March 28, 2015, 12:12:40 PM Thought I'd add the actual review for all to see, along with David Crosby's twitter column, since it has BBs content).
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2ynikaa.jpg) (http://i61.tinypic.com/2jcd27n.jpg) Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Niko on March 28, 2015, 12:27:14 PM Didn't RS give Pet Sounds three stars for over 20 years?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: rab2591 on March 28, 2015, 12:30:50 PM Didn't RS give Pet Sounds three stars for over 20 years? That wasn't forward looking either - bunch of Martin Denny and Spector rip offs. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: puni puni on March 28, 2015, 01:11:42 PM Brian has put tremendous effort and experimentation into No Pier Pressure Hyperbolizing makes the album look worse, not better.Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: rab2591 on March 28, 2015, 01:38:44 PM Brian has put tremendous effort and experimentation into No Pier Pressure Hyperbolizing makes the album look worse, not better.According to someone who would know, Brian did put a tremendous amount of effort into this album. As for experimenting - he has been trying new things: working with a slew of younger/popular collaborators, Frank Ocean for instance (failed collaboration, but experimenting nonetheless), getting Mark Isham to perform over instrumental tracks, Brian trying a hand at electronica music, working with Jeff Beck for a while in the studio. I'd say much of what Brian has been doing is trying, failing, succeeding (i.e. experimenting) in order to create a beautiful album. So it's not at all hyperbolizing, it's just stating a fact based on what we've heard about the making of the album. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: puni puni on March 28, 2015, 01:51:18 PM An issue with phrasing, I guess. 'Brian is making an experimental album' sounds a lot different than 'Brian is outsourcing vocalists and dance music genres'. The former is going to do nothing except trick people into thinking he's gone Zappa.
And what? Electronica??!?!?!?! Brian Wilson? Haha. I'll believe it when I hear it. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Lowbacca on March 28, 2015, 01:57:05 PM The former is going to do nothing except trick people into thinking he's gone Zappa. What? :lolAlso, I never said "Brian is making an experimental album". ::) I said with NPP there was a great deal of experimentation involved. Which there was, as rab2591 - more extensively than I - elaborated on. Thanks, rab. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: rab2591 on March 28, 2015, 02:02:50 PM And what? Electronica??!?!?!?! Brian Wilson? Haha. I'll believe it when I hear it. Suggest you listen to 'Runaway Dancer' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgQQKnT0hv4) and then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica) Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Mendota Heights on March 28, 2015, 02:03:01 PM Brian has put tremendous effort and experimentation into No Pier Pressure Hyperbolizing makes the album look worse, not better.Do you know how many hours BW's has spent on the album? Please share that information with us. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: puni puni on March 28, 2015, 02:08:35 PM I don't know. I save descriptions like "a great deal of experimentation" for when artists compose experimental music (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_music). Frippertronics and megaflops, as it were.
Suggest you listen to 'Runaway Dancer' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgQQKnT0hv4) and then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica) Oh yeah this sounds just like Four Tet and Aphex Twin. My mistake. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Mendota Heights on March 28, 2015, 02:19:13 PM Edit: Since I am not an electronica fan I will leave that debate to people who are better informed.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: rab2591 on March 28, 2015, 02:33:13 PM After actually reading my link, I concede that it's not electronica music. I guess the definition has changed over the last two decades. So I guess it would be considered dance music or something, regardless, still a huge leap for Brian to delve into such genres.
Also, still not seeing how the term 'experimentation' at all leads one to deduce automatically that the genre would be "experimental music". Brian experimented plenty in his heyday....did a lot of experimentation to achieve those sounds on his records. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Lowbacca on March 28, 2015, 02:35:08 PM I don't know. I save descriptions like "a great deal of experimentation" for when artists compose experimental music (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_music). Frippertronics and megaflops, as it were. 'Electronica' as an umbrella term used to have a much more loose definition than nowadays. That's probably how rab2591 used it. I could be wrong, of course.Suggest you listen to 'Runaway Dancer' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgQQKnT0hv4) and then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica) Oh yeah this sounds just like Four Tet and Aphex Twin. My mistake. EDIT: Confirmed. ;D Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: puni puni on March 28, 2015, 02:55:38 PM Also, still not seeing how the term 'experimentation' at all leads one to deduce automatically that the genre would be "experimental music". Brian experimented plenty in his heyday....did a lot of experimentation to achieve those sounds on his records. It's like saying Brian is being 'progressive' with his 'rock' record. "Oh, so we're in for some progressive rock?" "Errrr, not quite...." Referencing straightforward pop music as 'experimental', a term for an established idiom of music, is only in the same vein as saying 'irregardless' or 'for all intensive purposes'. Nitpicking, maybe, but from what I've heard of the album versus what I've read, I feel like there's been a lot of false advertising going around. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Lowbacca on March 28, 2015, 03:00:20 PM Also, still not seeing how the term 'experimentation' at all leads one to deduce automatically that the genre would be "experimental music". Brian experimented plenty in his heyday....did a lot of experimentation to achieve those sounds on his records. It's like saying Brian is being 'progressive' with his 'rock' record. "Oh, so we're in for some progressive rock?" "Errrr, not quite...." Referencing straightforward pop music as 'experimental', a term for an established idiom of music, is only in the same vein as saying 'irregardless' or 'for all intensive purposes'. Nitpicking, maybe, but from what I've heard of the album versus what I've read, I feel like there's been a lot of false advertising going around. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: rab2591 on March 28, 2015, 03:03:27 PM The only thing Lowbacca said was that Brian did a tremendous amount of experimentation for this album...I gave actual examples of this fact as well. No one is claiming this is experimental music. Saying Brian experimented for NPP doesn't at all mean that Brian is making progressive/experimental music...I really don't see how you're coming to this conclusion.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Summertime Blooz on March 28, 2015, 03:12:25 PM I like how they dismiss Sail Away as a Sloop John B retread.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: guitarfool2002 on March 28, 2015, 03:40:25 PM False advertising...ok then.
What is being falsely advertised, who is doing it, and who is potentially affected by this false advertising and to what extent? If each of those questions cannot be answered and backed up, the claim is as bogus as it sounds. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Debbie Keil-Leavitt on March 28, 2015, 03:52:57 PM I like how they dismiss Sail Away as a Sloop John B retread. Yep, the first 3 notes are a nod to SJB. Then it's clearly an entirely different song with a nautical theme shared, period, and a great one to nearly all of Brian's fans. The "advertising" thing threw me, too. Say, whaaaa? Not to mention the fact that we haven't heard a large part of the album, so it's a little early to be getting all dramatic about what's supposedly NOT on it. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Terry on March 28, 2015, 04:33:52 PM Umm...did anyone notice the David Crosby quote on the sidebar?
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Debbie Keil-Leavitt on March 28, 2015, 04:48:12 PM Umm...did anyone notice the David Crosby quote on the sidebar? Yeah - Crosby also said some really great things about Brian recentl, but I guess those weren't controversial enough to be published. Figures. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: rab2591 on March 28, 2015, 04:49:19 PM Umm...did anyone notice the David Crosby quote on the sidebar? http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19993.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19993.0.html) Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Debbie Keil-Leavitt on March 28, 2015, 04:56:29 PM Umm...did anyone notice the David Crosby quote on the sidebar? http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19993.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19993.0.html) Thanks - it was on that page in a Shady post and the Crosby comments were taken from a part of a Q&A I believe someone said - Brian per Crosby, "innocent, brilliant, inspiring." Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Terry on March 28, 2015, 05:01:51 PM Ha....I'd seen the quote before, but had to laugh at them sticking it next to the review.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Summertime Blooz on March 28, 2015, 05:23:06 PM This review is ridiculous. In the title the writer says Brian "looks back with friends" "on a joyfully nostalgic trip". Later the album is declared Brian's "most forward-looking album" in direct contradiction to the title and summary. To further confuse the matter the writer also makes reference to "too many re-treads". I don't know what my take-away from this review is supposed to be. Just bad writing. It makes you wonder if an editor even looked at this before it went to press.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Debbie Keil-Leavitt on March 28, 2015, 05:28:34 PM This review is ridiculous. In the title the writer says Brian "looks back with friends" "on a joyfully nostalgic trip". Later the album is declared Brian's "most forward-looking album" in direct contradiction to the title and summary. To further confuse the matter the writer also makes reference to "too many re-treads". I don't know what my take-away from this review is supposed to be. Just bad writing. It makes you wonder if an editor even looked at this before it went to press. I was trying not to be bi*chy, but it really did seem like he just skipped through the record and made disjointed comments. I guess he spent too much time writing the review of the rap artist he's so taken with. Whatever. It was kind of a waste to read. There will be better reviews and Right Time #1 on BBC 2 is downright cool. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Peter Reum on March 29, 2015, 01:48:25 AM I am a little taken aback that Allmusic and RS reviews were only 3 stars, but there are a number of reviews pending, like Mojo, Uncut, NME, Record Collector. etc. I t will be interesting to hear what they think.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Lee Marshall on March 29, 2015, 05:02:54 AM I really don't see how you're coming to this conclusion. Well...Brian has changed his middle name to Dweezil hasn't he? [and, as you well know, the whole 50th Anniversary tour fell apart when BDW asked Mike to change his name to Moon Unit.] Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure Post by: The Shift on March 29, 2015, 05:18:27 AM I am a little taken aback that Allmusic and RS reviews were only 3 stars, but there are a number of reviews pending, like Mojo, Uncut, NME, Record Collector. etc. I t will be interesting to hear what they think. Uncut is seven stars, Mojo three stars Peter, if memory serves. Reviews are favourable, in a nice kinda way… Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: SenorPotatoHead on March 29, 2015, 07:45:12 AM I once, as a wee lad, believed in the hype about Rolling Stone. I do thank them for steering me to MURMUR by REM back in '83, but other than that I have come to view the "rag" with much distaste. I remember having their record guide, and back then they rated the Beach Boys overall very poorly (Pet Sounds only had three stars back then, even though they now wet themselves over it) and some of the glaring errors in reviews pissed my young righteous self off to no end - for example, Dave "I can't be bothered to actually listen to the records I am reviewing" Marsh claiming that Girl From NYC was a cover of the Ad Libs song (as opposed to what it really is - an answer song, and a great one at that). Then there's Yawn Whiner and his elitist R&RHOF..... :whatever
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure Post by: rab2591 on March 29, 2015, 07:57:29 AM I am a little taken aback that Allmusic and RS reviews were only 3 stars, but there are a number of reviews pending, like Mojo, Uncut, NME, Record Collector. etc. I t will be interesting to hear what they think. Uncut is seven stars, Mojo three stars Peter, if memory serves. Reviews are favourable, in a nice kinda way… Uncut is 8/10 according to this (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20158.0.html). Also, could you expand more on the Mojo review? - I don't think I've heard any details from that one yet. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: phirnis on March 29, 2015, 09:24:17 AM I think his "most forward-looking solo LP" clearly was BW88. It seems like an album that I imagine must've sounded like a contemporary 80s version of the wall-of-sound approach at the time. Today the production may sound somewhat dated but it clearly was a serious attempt to not live off past glories and try something new (just like BB albums Love You and Adult/Child 10 years before).
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Pretty Funky on March 30, 2015, 11:47:08 PM Rolling Stone Australia 2 Stars. Jeeeez, tough crowd!
Apparently Lana Del Rey and Frank Ocean ended up on the cutting room floor, suggesting this was possibly intended as an LP full of guest vocalists, but it didn't pan out, so Wilson pops in and out of the mix. Subsequently, it's all over the place, from the aping of Pet Sounds' lush choral reverie on "This Beautiful Day" to the Eighties sax 'n' synths cheese of "Runaway Dancer". On "Sail Away", even the title seems recycled, and Wilson thinks mashing up "Sloop John B" and "Sail On Sailor" will get results. Sadly, he's wrong. http://rollingstoneaus.com/reviews/post/brian-wilson-no-pier-pressure/1394 Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: The Shift on March 31, 2015, 12:10:10 AM I am a little taken aback that Allmusic and RS reviews were only 3 stars, but there are a number of reviews pending, like Mojo, Uncut, NME, Record Collector. etc. I t will be interesting to hear what they think. Uncut is seven stars, Mojo three stars Peter, if memory serves. Reviews are favourable, in a nice kinda way… Uncut is 8/10 according to this (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20158.0.html). Also, could you expand more on the Mojo review? - I don't think I've heard any details from that one yet. Ha - that was my own post … I was going by memory for the second as I'm away for a few days and my magazines are at home - afraid for that reason I can't ref the Mojo review. Home again tonight so will try to find time to post more. Apologies for the faulty brain cells :) Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Smilin Ed H on March 31, 2015, 09:57:48 AM UNcut gives it 8; Mojo gives it 3 yet manages to give 4 to Van Morrison's awful Duets album - then again, they poured a lot of manure on the last Dylan album in the hope something beautiful would grow.
Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: rab2591 on March 31, 2015, 10:00:31 AM I am a little taken aback that Allmusic and RS reviews were only 3 stars, but there are a number of reviews pending, like Mojo, Uncut, NME, Record Collector. etc. I t will be interesting to hear what they think. Uncut is seven stars, Mojo three stars Peter, if memory serves. Reviews are favourable, in a nice kinda way… Uncut is 8/10 according to this (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20158.0.html). Also, could you expand more on the Mojo review? - I don't think I've heard any details from that one yet. Ha - that was my own post … I was going by memory for the second as I'm away for a few days and my magazines are at home - afraid for that reason I can't ref the Mojo review. Home again tonight so will try to find time to post more. Apologies for the faulty brain cells :) No problem! ;D Thanks for the update, looking forward to reading what Mojo has to say about it. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Joel Goldenberg on March 31, 2015, 10:47:28 AM I once, as a wee lad, believed in the hype about Rolling Stone. I do thank them for steering me to MURMUR by REM back in '83, but other than that I have come to view the "rag" with much distaste. I remember having their record guide, and back then they rated the Beach Boys overall very poorly (Pet Sounds only had three stars back then, even though they now wet themselves over it) and some of the glaring errors in reviews pissed my young righteous self off to no end - for example, Dave "I can't be bothered to actually listen to the records I am reviewing" Marsh claiming that Girl From NYC was a cover of the Ad Libs song (as opposed to what it really is - an answer song, and a great one at that). Then there's Yawn Whiner and his elitist R&RHOF..... :whatever The Rolling Stone Record Guide also gave Sunflower two stars, while the magazine loved it in 1970, IIRC. Carl and the Passions-So Tough got one star in the guide, although they seemed to have singled out Marcella as the one good song between 1970 and 1973. :-DI lost faith in the magazine in '82 when the reviewer gave the Who's mediocre It's Hard album five stars. Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Joel Goldenberg on March 31, 2015, 11:08:19 AM What did Rolling Stone give KTSA? http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/keepin-the-summer-alive-19800515 Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: SenorPotatoHead on March 31, 2015, 12:19:39 PM I lost faith in the magazine in '82 when the reviewer gave the Who's mediocre It's Hard album five stars. OMG I remember that - I think the reviewer even made comparisons between it's Hard and Who's Next or some such crap. Even as a huge Who fan (or maybe because of it), I was like "whaaa???" :lol Title: Re: Rolling Stone review of No Pier Pressure \ Post by: Slow In Brain on April 03, 2015, 02:40:24 AM Thought I'd add the actual review for all to see, along with David Crosby's twitter column, since it has BBs content). (http://i60.tinypic.com/2ynikaa.jpg) (http://i61.tinypic.com/2jcd27n.jpg) What is the deal with Brians' hair in this image ??? |