Many Negative Reviews of No Pier Pressure...

[ForHerCryingSoul]

I have noticed that over the past few days, reviews have trickled in mostly saying No Pier Pressure is not that great a record.  I read that a vocal minority don't like the record much, citing the collabs and the glossy production as reasons to blame.  Heck, even Wikipedia lists the album as only average according to reviews.  I am personally perplexed because an album of the e sort of style, Imagination, received positive reviews.  What gives?  Is this a case of defamation?  Are people worried Wilson is being controlled?  Is there something wrong with the album?  I personally think it is lovely, but the negative press on it worries me that the album will not sell well due to word of mouth.  What are your thoughts on this unusual publicity?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I personally don't get it. Brian's been more hands on involved than in many many years.  Best singing in over 40 years,  easily.

[Mike's Beard]

I personally think Imagination is a better record than NPP so I can understand why it recieved better reviews. Most of the reviews I've read for NPP seem to give it an average rating - only one or two outright trash it.

[Jim Rockford]

Their loss.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I have noticed that over the past few days, reviews have trickled in mostly saying No Pier Pressure is not that great a record.  I read that a vocal minority don't like the recora much, citing the collabs and the glossy production as reasons to blame.  Heck, even Wikipedia lists the album as only average according to reviews.  I am personally perplexed because an album of the e sort of style, Imagination, received positive reviews.  What gives?  Is this a case of defamation?  Are people worried Wilson is being controlled?  Is there something wrong with the album?  I personally think it is lovely, but the negative press on it worries me that the album will not sell well due to word of mouth.  What are your thoughts on this unusual publicity?

My thoughts are that this is a forum for The Beach Boys, individually & collectively, and that what we think (or think we think) necessarily isn't what Joe Q. Public does. What gives ? What gives is, some people don't like the album as much as most here do. BTW, saying something "isn't that great a record" or "average" isn't negative: negative would be "this is a very poor album, don't waste your money on it". I've not seen one of those yet.

[Mike's Beard]

Seeing as by now everyone and their mother has reviewed this album, when are you going to give your thoughts on it Andrew?

[Andrew G. Doe]

When I'm comfortable with them.  I don't do immediate gut reactions these days.

But here's a teaser - is it an across the board five-star masterpiece ? No. Is it a steaming pile of manure, the result of Brian being manipulated by, oh, pretty much everyone around him ? No. Do I like it ? Yes, rather a lot. Does Deschanel's vocal still pass me by ? Yes.  Film at eleven.

[Ron]

Their loss.

Exactly.  Reviews are all bullshit anyways.  It literally has 0 bearing on whether or not you like the album yourself, how could it possibly?  If my neighbor likes the new album by "Tool" I couldn't give a damn because I'm not listening to that crap.  If my other neighbor doesn't like the Beach Boys that's because he's an idiot.  Neither neighbor's opinion has anything to do with my enjoyment of music and my opinion doesn't have anything to do with their enjoyment. 

Reviews are just because we all like to hear ourselves talk. 

[phirnis]

Here's a quick thought about albums like Imagination and NPP: BW's known to be a bit eccentric and many people like that; just think about our own beloved 'Brianisms' thread; or think about how Love You - like it or not - has become such a big cult favorite among fans. NPP may sound competent and very professional but like some of his solo albums before, it lacks that eccentric or humorous quality the man is pretty much known for as a public figure and as a songwriter, record producer or even as a singer - just an observation, personally I don't expect the man to do another Love You and it seems he's comfortable with the current direction of his music.

[puni puni]

I personally think Imagination is a better record than NPP so I can understand why it recieved better reviews.

Imagination had just about the same critical reception from what I can see, and its reviews contain almost all the same criticisms.

The fan reaction back then was also less hostile to people who believed that BW was not on his A-game. Nobody believed there was a defamation conspiracy.

[Ron]

They would have said this exact same crap about "Sunflower".  or "Friends".  This album is as consistent as either of those.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Exactly.  Reviews are all bullshit anyways.  It literally has 0 bearing on whether or not you like the album yourself, how could it possibly?  If my neighbor likes the new album by "Tool" I couldn't give a damn because I'm not listening to that crap.  If my other neighbor doesn't like the Beach Boys that's because he's an idiot.  

Yup. Nice, reasoned basis for a review: if you don't like it, it's crap and if someone doesn't like what you like, he's an idiot.  

They would have said this exact same crap about "Sunflower".  or "Friends".  This album is as consistent as either of those.

Have to disagree here - Friends was recorded over the course of maybe two months and Sunflower over maybe, both in essentially the same environment by the same six principals: that's why they have a definite consistency of sound, and composition. Parts of NPP date back to the late 90s (I know, or 1975, or 2005...). Not saying it's a bad thing...

[puni puni]

Comparing No Pier Pressure to those albums is    but OK. I want to see what the contemporary reviews of Friends and Sunflower were like.

I have to take back what I said about the fan reaction to Imagination. Upon closer look: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.artists.beach-boys/8yNlvw5ddjE

[Ron]

Exactly.  Reviews are all bullshit anyways.  It literally has 0 bearing on whether or not you like the album yourself, how could it possibly?  If my neighbor likes the new album by "Tool" I couldn't give a damn because I'm not listening to that crap.  If my other neighbor doesn't like the Beach Boys that's because he's an idiot.  

Yup. Nice, reasoned basis for a review: if you don't like it, it's crap and if someone doesn't like what you like, he's an idiot.  

They would have said this exact same crap about "Sunflower".  or "Friends".  This album is as consistent as either of those.

Have to disagree here - Friends was recorded over the course of maybe two months and Sunflower over maybe, both in essentially the same environment by the same six principals: that's why they have a definite consistency of sound, and composition. Parts of NPP date back to the late 90s (I know, or 1975, or 2005...). Not saying it's a bad thing...

I meant consistent as in, consistently good, not necessarily that it has a consistent sound. 

My point still stands, all reviews are just public masturbation !

[Andrew G. Doe]

As I recall the Rolling Stone review for Sunflower was on the whole complimentary.

Ah, yes... http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/sunflower-19701001

Friends was, apparently, none too shabby either...

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/friends-19680824

[Nicko1234]

I have noticed that over the past few days, reviews have trickled in mostly saying No Pier Pressure is not that great a record.  I read that a vocal minority don't like the recora much, citing the collabs and the glossy production as reasons to blame.  Heck, even Wikipedia lists the album as only average according to reviews.  I am personally perplexed because an album of the e sort of style, Imagination, received positive reviews.  What gives?  Is this a case of defamation?  Are people worried Wilson is being controlled?  Is there something wrong with the album?  I personally think it is lovely, but the negative press on it worries me that the album will not sell well due to word of mouth.  What are your thoughts on this unusual publicity?

Well firstly, as AGD has said, the reviews haven`t been bad. 3/5 is very solid and pretty similar to TWGMTR.

Secondly, yes there are things wrong with the album. It`s not perfect (and certainly isn`t in the same stratosphere as something like Sunflower).

Some general opinions from the reviews seem to be:

The opening and closing tracks are both mighty fine.

Runaway Dancer is abysmal.

Al sounds great and makes a very good contribution.

The other guests` performances are more mixed and unbalance the album.

There is some strong songwriting.

There are also some songs (eg. Tell me Why) that are not considered noteworthy enough to be given many mentions.

And Joe Thomas`s production is cheesy and dated…

[SMiLE Brian]

The agenda continues...

[The Cincinnati Kid]

The agenda continues...

So every site that gave it a bad review has an agenda?  Right...

[HeyJude]

Ten years into this board, and 53 or 54 years into this band, and we're still trying to sort out what basically amounts to "everybody has an opinion"?

I've read glowing reviews of stuff I find totally vapid (cough*Avatar*cough), and I've read unequivocally negative reviews of stuff I think is brilliant, and yeah, sure, occasionally there is that momentary gut reaction where you want to tell the reviewer where they can shove their review. And yes, I do think some mainstream reviewers/critics have a bias/agenda/taste that is predictable.

But it's mostly down to opinion, which may or may not be informed. You gotta just live with it. And you can usually tell when a mainstream media review or fan review is a hack job by someone who isn't giving it enough thought or consideration or context. You can also tell when a reviewer doesn't seem to have any internal consistency or logic, either from review to review or even within one review. 

[the captain]

If I'm feeling charitable, I'll say the negative (or more accurately, mixed) reviews can be explained by--drum roll!--those writers not loving the album. Conspiracy, indeed!

If I'm feeling more cynical, I'd say it's not an easy album to put into a predetermined category. It's a bit weird, even while generally soaked in AC normalcy. It's all over the place. It isn't a single, coherent story that has written itself. Reviewers, like most everyone else, are usually pretty lazy and not especially insightful or creative. But again, conspiracy? Eh...

[puni puni]

Most, if not all of the negative reviews I've read contain a minimal three paragraph exposition for the merit and legacy of Brian Wilson before it actually discusses the album, almost like they're saying, 'Look, this album is not great, but trust us when we say he isn't always like this'. It's stupid to accuse these writers of not appreciating the music. They know who and what they're writing about.

[Ang Jones]

I haven't attempted a review of the album yet but what seems obvious is that some people are judging based on their own hang ups. The hostility shown in some quarters towards Runaway Dancer for example reminds me of the disapproval and mockery of anyone who doesn't follow the latest fashion.

Quite a lot of No Pier Pressure reminds me of Today, Pet Sounds, Friends.  Hard to compare with something like Sunflower because this involved the creative input of several different people. Dennis' style is quite different from Brian's, so is Bruce's. But take individual tracks:  Our Special Love/Our Sweet Love, It's About Time/ The Right Time.  Is Our Special Love better than Our Sweet Love? It's at least as good IMO. It's About Time and The Right Time are so different but It's About Time (much as I like it) is very dated, for those to whom this matters. It doesn't matter to me one bit.

Most of the reviews I have read on Amazon are 3 stars and up.

We must also remember that albums we have known for years come to us complete with associations, memories, some of them good ones. The music is hard wired into our brains. Do we like it because it is better or because our lives were better then?

[Cyncie]

3/5 is not bad, But I think it will always be hard for Brian to get rave reviews. Even the best of the best has its detractors. The problem is, he peaked early and he peaked with Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations and the SMiLE mystique. Anything he does now will have to live with that comparison. Unfortunate, but true.

The only things that are important to me are: 1) Did Brian enjoy creating this and 2) Do I enjoy listening to it. So far, the answers seem to be yes, so the rest is background noise.

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

The agenda continues...

So every site that gave it a bad review has an agenda?  Right...

Well, yes they ALL have an agenda.  Selling magazines, newspapers, getting hits, re-tweets, etc.  Editors' jobs are focused on those factors more than actually editing a piece for good content at this point - or at least the manager above them has that job.  An attention grabbing headline and in the case of the internet, enough words in the body of the piece that will bring it up in Google and other searches is the focus.  And everyone is on the internet now, so...

Often, if not always, there is a "style-guide" for writers, as well. Interestingly, Aaron Sorkin's the "Newsroom" portrayed this in a segment of one of the last season's episodes (I think the one just before the final episode).  The "10 Worst" whatever gets more hits than the "10 Best" with most media - films, music, celebrities.  Anyone who thinks that there isn't an agenda behind most reviews is mistaken, I'm afraid.  

And this isn't an easy album to review.  Brian is again challenging the listener, so take that into account.  Good reviewers will at least give it a thoughtful listen and have some foundation for their opinions.  Those are few and far between.  I don't agree with the idea that someone reciting Brian's history and then giving a brief review is giving Brian "a break" of some sort.  It's just easy to go to Wikipedia, then Google Brian and quotes about the record for other opinions.  A lazy reviewer, or someone who doesn't know what to make of what he's heard will do that.  It's about selling their own product and re-tweets, folks.

I also agree that most of the reviews aren't negative.  I see a lot of confused reviewers who don't quite know what to make of it, though.  Should that really surprise us?  Part of me wishes that the film could have been released first.  It would have given people a better perspective of Brian in a more personal way.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

The agenda continues...

So every site that gave it a bad review has an agenda?  Right...

Well, yes they ALL have an agenda.  Selling magazines, newspapers, getting hits, re-tweets, etc.  Editors' jobs are focused on those factors more than actually editing a piece for good content at this point - or at least the manager above them has that job.  An attention grabbing headline and in the case of the internet, enough words in the body of the piece that will bring it up in Google and other searches is the focus.  And everyone is on the internet now, so...

Often, if not always, there is a "style-guide" for writers, as well. Interestingly, Aaron Sorkin's the "Newsroom" portrayed this in a segment of one of the last season's episodes (I think the one just before the final episode).  The "10 Worst" whatever gets more hits than the "10 Best" with most media - films, music, celebrities.  Anyone who thinks that there isn't an agenda behind most reviews is mistaken, I'm afraid.  

And this isn't an easy album to review.  Brian is again challenging the listener, so take that into account.  Good reviewers will at least give it a thoughtful listen and have some foundation for their opinions.  Those are few and far between.  I don't agree with the idea that someone reciting Brian's history and then giving a brief review is giving Brian "a break" of some sort.  It's just easy to go to Wikipedia, then Google Brian and quotes about the record for other opinions.  A lazy reviewer, or someone who doesn't know what to make of what he's heard will do that.  It's about selling their own product and re-tweets, folks.

I also agree that most of the reviews aren't negative.  I see a lot of confused reviewers who don't quite know what to make of it, though.  Should that really surprise us?

I don't disagree, but I think we all know that's not the agenda he is talking about.