Pet Sounds is strange, iconic now yes, and a nice pic of the band - particularly for goat lovers, but jeez.
They make this great album, but then feel shy about being "pretentious" and so throw the jokey cover on there?
Self effacement can be great, but Pet Sounds deserves a cover worthy of its contents.   I imagine a cover with studio shots of the band working on the album, that would have been cool and not pretentious at all.
Anyone here ever design an alternate cover for Pet Sounds - one that is totally different from the actual cover?
I like there first several albums covers, Smiley, W. Honey, even Friends (though that could have been better). 20/20 is alright, Surf's Up is cool....

Friends was the one weak BBs album in the 60s and their last official lp of the decade, Little bird was THE song on it in my opinion.

How was it their last official album of the decade?   
20/20 came out in '69, and that's an "official" album isn't it?

Either way though, Friends was/is really good, and so is 20/20 in it's own way.
I'd rather listen to those albums than, say, most anything after Holland.

This is a great speech (IMO) and in no way comparable to ML's hectoring rant at the RRHOF.    As Olmec Donald just said - Inspirational.   So he expresses some disregard for a few people, what of it?  Sounds like they expressed disregard for him first, and either way, it's his right to speak his mind and I am glad he did to such an in depth degree.   Go Bob! 

That's cool how it says "New. Exciting. Different." on the top, so you're right it may be some sort of gospel rock album...

Yes, and the liner notes, which unfortunately are not clear in the pic, are written like a conversation - something like, "Hey, wanna hear something cool, man?" While also making it clear that these are "clean cut, good boys praising the Lord"   

Thanks Ron.  The church financed idea makes sense and is likely a good bet.   

I am hoping to gather some info on an album (see images below) I recently found, and thus far I have only managed to glean little.  So am hoping there might be some Gospel aficionado's on here who could either help answer this or direct me in the right direction.

I picked up an album at a local thrift store the other day.   I bought it because it amused me and seemed something of a curio.  It is an album by a group called the Torchbearers entitled "The Torchbearers Sing!"   The cover shot is three dorky, clean cut kids holding guitars (semi-electric variety), the rear cover has funny, hipster liner notes.  Both jacket and vinyl are in fantastic shape.  There is no record company info anywhere, nor any printing info (other than a catalog number/matrix number).  However it appears to be at least early sixties.   The performer credits on the back are "Larry, James and Ronnie Goss" along with some guy name Vic Clay on vocals.   The jacket states they are out of Harrisburg PA.
I found that there was a very successful Gospel group, the Goss brothers, who in the article I read were named "Lari, James and Roni Goss" - pretty close to the names on my album, so are they the same?   The article I read stated nothing about any group called the Torchbearers.   Though the guys in some of the old videos of the Goss Brothers do look like the three on the front cover of this album.
Since there is no record co. info or anything (there is some sort of catalog/matrix #, but that's it), I am making an assumption that this was an independent, band financed pressing.   I have not been able to listen to the album as I currently have no turntable, but by the looks of it I am thinking it could be some weird early version of "Christian Rock" - though who knows?  

Thanks in advance for any help, etc.   (Oh, and I am not assuming the album is worth anything $ wise, though it is in incredible condition, but I am just really curious to find out more about its origins)

Absolutely, there's always two sides to every story. But, to me, this is about public context. It's understandable that there may be long standing issues to resolve. But, those should be privately held and privately resolved without resorting to sly put downs in the media. Mike and Van Dyke constantly take public cheap shots at Brian. Meanwhile, Brian takes the high road and compliments them in every interview. Brian may have behaved like a spoiled child in the past, but the ones making catty comments in interviews and on Twitter are the ones who are now looking like 13 year old drama queens.

Yes, very good point.  True, true, true.   

I must say, I often tire of the Brian coddling that goes on.  He went through a tremendous amount, yes, and I feel for him just as much as anyone, but I also feel that because of his tremendous gifts (which really are/were super tremendous, obviously) he is almost universally given a pass and his his own repugnant behavior at times in his life is excused and/or skirted.  
Derek Taylor made comments about some of the ways in which Brian behaved during his tenure with the band, and it gives the impression of an overgrown, spoiled child.   Mozart may have been amazingly talented, but he was also probably a childish pain in the a** much of the time to those who knew him.  This could be true of Brian (and quite frankly, may be true for many of us, me included - everyone has their foibles at times).   I'm not trying to bait anyone's ire here, but the reality is that Van Dyke, and others (even Ol' Mr. Love) probably have quite legitimate beefs, and were/are genuinely hurt by many of the ways Brian behaved/behaves.   I don't know any of these people at all, so I really can't say, but all I am saying is that everyone is human and no matter how amazingly talented one is, perhaps they too have some amends to make?  

(ducks head and runs like hell)

I first got into them as a self directed fan (as opposed to simply hearing their music and liking what I was hearing, which I had from early childhood) circa 1978-1980.  It was a rough time because I knew no one who thought much of them.  They were (it seemed to me) generally disparaged and dismissed at this time (though maybe they'd kind of earned that) and it was lonely, I was a pariah within my peer group - but I never stopped loving the music and knew that all the naysayers were idiots.   
Some people just didn't get it and many still don't.

[Hodgepodge]

I hereby officially unofficially nominate 20/20 to be re-titled Hodgepodge: A nifty collection of random tracks that hang together in a most un-together way, yet which are together a much better overall album/listening experience than anything released post 1973.   

My understanding is that, yes they wanted pictures of a horse in the studio at a mic (like it's singing) - it was an early idea for the album cover (Pet Sounds, get it?  )

I can't recall where I heard, read, saw this, but I swear I did.   Ask one of the Big Kahuna's here, they oughta know.

To me, Murry is a tragic figure.  What he lost out on by being such an a$$hole to his kids and with the band and their legacy (selling the song catalog) - it's just really sad.  Without him though, there would be no Beach Boys.

Landy, I suspect, was always probably a bit of a sleaze, but he may have had some good intentions to begin with when he came to work with Brian.   It could maybe be said that without him Brian would have died, so without him we may not have Brian.   His second go around with Brian though nearly destroyed Brian too, so ultimately he has no defense really - he was a sick guy who abused his position and power. 

There is a dimension where the similarity between Mike Love and Reg Presley's vocals is acknowledged (and yes, celebrated!) 

wow, caught that interview the Kinks did with Clay Cole (in 1965, I am guessing).  [link: https://youtu.be/BdSRThrJplA ]

Very funny and extremely camp - no wonder they got banned!    
Cole asks them about the "award from the Queen" the Kinks are due to receive and then this is discussed a bit - was this just Cole confusing the Kinks with the Beatles and the band just playing along with it?  
They should have got the MBE's or whatever, even if they didn't actually.  

You can listen to the remix here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX7FDNC2NP4. If you listen to just the opening guitars, you'll notice a lot more, uh, depth to the sound than you'll find on the actual album version. Here's how the booklet describes it: "a fresh remix of the song showing superior fidelity to the previously issued versions, the result of re-synching various stages of the multitrack tapes. Unfortunately, this is the only the song that could be given this complete treatment".

Wow, that sounded amazing!  It like hearing that song for the first time all over again, only better. 

[sound]

The Kinks' records could definitely sound better.

As an example, compare "Johnny Thunder" on the 3-disc VGPS (disc 3, track 8 ) to the album version.

Can you describe the difference in these JT versions/mixes?   I don't have the 3 disc release.

On one hand I sort of enjoy the low-fi demo quality of VGPS, but on the other I think about how the album would have sounded (and maybe even been received) if it had better production.    Some Kinks tracks back then sounded great, others sounded dismal, they seemed to lack a consistency in that area.  Oh well, they're still the Kinks and I'm not, so....   
 I have had a bit of a hard on (ummm, yeah) for the idea of Moon and Entwistle as the Experience w/Jimi.  It would be a band of (basically) three Hendrix's!   Too much perhaps, but even if they had recorded one song and gone back to their respective gigs (sort of like how Moon did with Beck on Bolero) it would be interesting to hear (for me anyway).

Anyway, just diversions from reality....hey, why not? 

All wonderful suggestions - hell, ANY suggestion is fine as we are talking "altered history".   

I posted off the top of my head, on a whim, so my suggestions were really just fanciful ideas which popped into my (potato) head.

I am a very lonely spud. 

Certainly...there's a dimension where they left it after Revolver too.

so many dimensions....

...where John Entwistle and Keith Moon left the Who in '66 to form Led Zeppelin with...Jimi Hendrix.

Where the Beach Boys Smile was released in Dec. '66.

Where Manson and his "Family singers" got a record released and had a middling career in the hippie folk years of the
late sixties and early seventies.   

Where Dennis Wilson became a solo star.

Where the Beatles left it after the release of All You Need Is Love.

Where Pete Townshend joined Traffic and Blind Faith.

Where Jethro Tull had many hit singles.

Where the Kinks got better production.

Where the "Sinatra Meets Daltrey" album exists.

Where Murry was not a damaged soul.

Where....where.........

[so tough]

Somebody thought enough of Smiley Smile to name this site after it.     
Whoever did that, I love you.

I feel for the Smiley dissenters and the Passionless ones....it must be so tough on them   

I don't think of Smiley Smile as a step down.  I appreciate that some have that opinion and at the time of its release I can understand that this was the perception as well, but IMO it ain't.   It certainly was a step, not down, but perhaps sideways or in some direction askew from the previous album.  

Carl & The Passions also IMO was in no way a step down, and in fact, in some ways, was a step up from previous albums.   It was the first album since Brian's slow down and retreat that didn't have a piece of Smile on it.   For all it's "lack of flow", it contains all good stuff (even the Ricky/Blondie stuff is okay).   It has kind of a stupid title and the initial (in America) packaging with PS was unwise, but that's about all I can find wrong with it.  

I do vaguely remember these dogs, but can't say much regarding the exact nature of the lyrics (whether they were dog related or not). 
on a side note:  i began, but never completed, a book (i was like 12 at the time) called The Beach Cats, about 5 different homeless cats from across the country that meet up in California and start a band....um, yeah, and yes, the songs were all changed to reflect the "catness" of it all....Friskies Safari, In My Catbox, Catch A Mouse, etc.   
I still have the drawings and would share an image or two, but have never figured out uploading images here (guess i'm dumb)....but anyway, back to Chuck E. Cheese.....

Recently read both volumes and enjoyed them very much.  There isn't a wealth of new info perhaps, but I enjoyed his sense of humor and just generally found them an enjoyable read.  I'm happy enough to have purchased them and feel they'll be a nice reference for times when I wish to delve into the discography without much muss or fuss. 

[Grim Reaper of Love]

Don't forget Grim Reaper of Love 

Battle of The Bands is (IMO) a classic "concept" album.

And as has been stated, they were a good musical band - curious if they utilized the session people on their albums or not? 
Off hand I don't know, but I tend to think of them as one of the few of that era who did not, but I could be mistaken.

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???"