The Smiley Smile Message Board

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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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!

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.

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.  :)

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

The Professor

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.

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/

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

And both verses, if memory serves…

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.

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

earlier days---I know theres an answer

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

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...

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 ?!?   

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.  :lol

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?

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.   :3d

Note that copies are now out there. Not for distribution, but eBay sellers are offering signed vinyl and cD copies on the site, with their own photographs. One signed LP appears to be accompanied by artwork form the gatefold sleeve's center - looks like a still of BW in concert from C50.

So a full listen might have been possible…



… tHough I agree with those who suspect this particular review is based on the samples.

I have a friend who had a review copy before the samples were out. I was off that day, too -- I should have gone to her house and had a sneak-preview!!

Just to clarify, the Ebay seller offering the signed vinyl copy states that it would not be available to ship until July, and the listing mentions it's part of a special limited edition run of 500 signed copies that look like a special promotion which he/she most likely pre-ordered and is now taking pre-orders. It seems that vendor doesn't actually have that signed copy yet to sell/ship. And it looks like the other sellers are advance orders too for when it is released, rather than having it ready to ship now.

I specifically clarified that point in my reply, so the answer to your challenge/question is what I wrote originally: It's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion of the record overall

Shade it or nuance it any way you want, but I spelled out exactly my reasons for addressing this review and they weren't too far off from what others seem to feel as well. If it got 1/2 star or 5 stars, I'd feel the same - The review wasn't much of a review, and it got some key points wrong while not addressing others. I *thought* it could have been better considering it's one of the only reviews to have appeared so far.

There is still some responsibility to readership and fan bases, right?

Maybe I'm old fashioned in terms of what is probably a long-lost concept called journalistic responsibility, but someone getting an advance copy to review and basically contribute to shaping opinions before-the-fact should convey the feeling that he or she is knowledgeable enough about the reviewed product on their desk or computer to be up for the task...or that they'd get the details right before publishing.

Too much of a request from anyone supposedly reviewing from an advance copy rather than Google clips?

Think you read the date wrong ( 7/4/15) as it's referencing April, not July. 

The Japanese CD with a promo button/badge, appears to be available on March 18th: 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Brian-Wilson-2015-JAPAN-No-Pier-Pressure-SHM-CD-SS-PROMO-Pin-Badge-SET-/371263007705   

Very fair points bough the shipping date -  7/4/2015 - is April 7, in English :D

I took the amateur artwork shown to be the vendor's own handiwork. May well be my bad!

Honest question:

Do people really buy music based on reviews?  I thought people bought music because they either liked a song they heard on the album, or it was an album by someone they're a fan of.

Who buys music based on reviews? 

Who's the poster that said the reviews are going to be terrible...you're off to a bad start  ;D

I do.

I don't.  Never have.  I buy music with my ears.  I'm the only critic who matters...to me.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.   :afro  I find it hard to believe anyone here would critique his review if he had spoke more highly of the product.  If he thought the album was fantastic, why would anyone here complain?  "Man, he gave the album a good review but it doesn't sound like he really listened to it!"


Sure, and it sounds like this reviewer's responsibility was to write an overview of what he heard rather than an in-depth analysis.  While I certainly wouldn't complain if he went the latter route, unlike others on this board I couldn't say I was expecting him to.


Do we have concrete, irrefutable proof that all he did was listen to the Google sample clips?  Maybe those samples really are what he primarily based his review on, or maybe he simply didn't give the full album a fair listen.  And maybe he doesn't obsess over BW/The Beach Boys like we do.  The bottom line is that we don't really know.  I even agree with the consensus that his review of the album was nothing special; pretty much a cliff-notes overview.  But I honestly don't see anything in his review that was so glaringly unfair that I need to question his integrity.  

Time to fess up and admit you're the reviewer....

You'll never know!  Mwa-haha! 

(I'm not.)

Here's a link to a new ca-razy chuckler of a review for "No Pier Energy" (being released by Capitol Knowledge). I think this must be what it's like inside the brain of someone who is bilingual.

http://worldnewss.net/brian-wilsons-the-fitting-time-from-no-pier-pressure/

ha ha, scraper software replacing synonyms in a poor attempt to fool search engines into thinking that the article is unique.

Now we'll have forum members searching for where they can buy the "deluxe mannequin" of Brian.

Allmusic has posted their review of NPP, written by Stephen Thomas Erlewine. Not sure if anyone else has seen it, but I haven't seen it posted here yet.

3/5 stars.

http://www.allmusic.com/album/no-pier-pressure-mw0002760473


That's Why God Made the Radio provided a bittersweet coda to the Beach Boys' career but the soothing sounds of the 2012 reunion didn't linger long before they were soured by the internal fighting endemic to the band. Mere weeks afterward, Mike Love announced Brian Wilson wouldn't join the Beach Boys for any dates after the summer 2012 tour, leaving Brian free to capitalize on the good press of That's Why God Made the Radio. He headed into the studio with guitarist Jeff Beck and producer Don Was in 2013 with the intention of cutting a full album but that collaboration quickly fell apart, leaving Wilson to re-team with his longtime collaborator Joe Thomas to turn these abandoned sessions into what turned out to be No Pier Pressure. Caught halfway between a back-to-basics move along the lines of TWGMTR and a star-studded extravaganza, No Pier Pressure certainly doesn't have much to do with the high art that's marked Wilson's new millennium; there's nary an echo of the SMiLE revival or the Van Dyke Parks collaboration That Lucky Old Sun. This is all sand, sun, and Saturday night nostalgia, a sensibility goosed by the addition of Al Jardine, David Marks, and Blondie Chaplin -- the part of the Beach Boys camp that threw in their lot with Brian -- who help give their numbers ("What Ever Happened," "The Right Time," "Sail Away") a bit of the classicist AM pop sheen that made That's Why God Made the Radio so soothing. It's a nice anchor for the record and, frankly, No Pier Pressure needs such a grounding force because it often threatens to drift far away on the surging tides of showbiz schmaltz. When She & Him breeze in to deliver some Caribbean camp on "On the Island," the results are agreeably camp but "Runaway Dancer," a collaboration with Sebu Simonian of Capital Cities that seems determined to revive the arch camp peak of Stock, Aitken & Waterman, feels like a half-imagined Ibizaian hangover. By any measure, "Runaway Dancer" is bizarre but by arriving second on No Pier Pressure, it throws the whole feel of the album out of whack, turning such otherwise nice moments as Kacey Musgraves' "Guess You Had to Be There" cloying. By the time Nate Ruess of Fun. shows up for "Saturday Night," a throwback that seems to belong the early-'80s soft rock glory days of Carole Bayer Sager and not American Graffiti (and is the better for it), No Pier Pressure seems genuinely weird, as it's perilously perched between the best and worst of Wilson's pop talent and Thomas' showbiz instincts.

bad writing on the sentence level and too many cramped references to artists I do not know make the point of this review elusive. However I see that RD is a big loser in all this. I have to say that its likeness to McCartney's Christmas song frightens me. . . .

Stephen Thomas Erlewine is a dumbass. He once started ranting on Brian in the middle of  a McCartney review.he is a biased bitch.

Yet they rank NPP higher than TLOS, which gets two-and-a-half stars. GIOMH also has a higher ratiing.

Allmusic's reviews of the BW solo output are muddled, to say the least.

1) he didn't necessarily say that not being high art was a bad thing for a pop record
2) Unless all the reviews on a given site are by the same reviewer, I don't think its fair to expect the ratings to make sense relative to each other. Imagine being given a record to review that you think is great but not as great as a record the site had previously given 4/10. You're not going to give it 3/10 are you? (apologies if all the reviews in question are by the same reviewer; I didn't check).

By the way, I know you're a journalist and you know your stuff, so I mean this argument respectfully!

I had a hard time with portions of that review as well--there were well-written passages and passages where I had no clue as to what he was talking about. Using the word "camp" three times in one sentence was impressive as well.

But I think it read as a fair review overall. I don't think this album will necessarily be for everyone.

I can't stand allmusic, nearly as much as I can't stand Rolling Stone. Won't even bother reading that review.

Hopefully Robert Christgau reviews NPP, When it comes to other peoples opinions on music his is all I really care about.